100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Schools of Philosophy | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
So that question lends no answer without another frame to reference, and then it is a matter of weighing exposure to existing 'knowns'..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realists have their purpose.
They are the grounding faction of this reality. They draw our attention to what is 'out there' and they convince people that this is reality. And it is. It is our reality. They keep us grounded and inside of our magnificent manifestation. They are vital for preserving the integrity of a virtual world build with thoughts and vibrations, light and sound. They make us believe and it is that belief that preserves its integrity. Idealist have their purpose. They have the vision and the wings to soar above and beyond this reality and see it from a different perspective, one where they realize that all things arise from consciousness and the mind. They empower us to seek our highest potential and help us realize our own power to create a world that we desire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would they NOT see
That is an invasive question indeed. Would "they" know if they did not see? If someone tampered with your mind without leaving a trace would you know? Mr. Data answered by saying that he could not answer that question . . . of course! _________________________________________________________ Depending on the nature of the Idealism the world would be what ever the universal mind finds ideal. That would mean that malaria is ideal, that death is ideal, that suffering is ideal, that all of the facets good and bad from our perspectives is really ideal from the perspective of the universal mind of which we are like the bacteria in our stomachs to this ideal universal mind. Is it that this world is ideal based on another perspective? I myself struggle to understand a purist idealism as well. I just cannot accept in my mind that pain, illness, violence, suffering...that any of this is ideal...I think that people have been "socialized" into accepting the status quo...not the ideal. I honestly believe that we are encouraged to stay far away from the Idealism perspective... when I think of a purist of Idealism...I get a vision of a "monk" type of person who is constantly in a sub-conscious state of zen... I see the Idealist more of a very peaceful, very centered, very isolated person...who is aware of more than most... perhaps the Idealist is a goal. to achieve this philosophical "Maslow" hierarchy...and Idealism is the very "highest" level...the motivation...the light. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realists have their purpose. They are the grounding faction of this reality. They draw our attention to what is 'out there' and they convince people that this is reality. And it is. It is our reality. They keep us grounded and inside of our magnificent manifestation. They are vital for preserving the integrity of a virtual world build with thoughts and vibrations, light and sound. They make us believe and it is that belief that preserves its integrity. Idealist have their purpose. They have the vision and the wings to soar above and beyond this reality and see it from a different perspective, one where they realize that all things arise from consciousness and the mind. They empower us to seek our highest potential and help us realize our own power to create a world that we desire. I should have just let JB write it out!!! 
You said it much better than I... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 07/21/09 10:15 AM
|
|
I think this leads up quite nicely into the concept of knowledge. What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? What do people know? How do we know what we know? Why do we know what we know?
This is the core of the branch of philosophy called Epistemology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 07/21/09 10:13 AM
|
|
How do we know what is real?
Because we say it is. Because we decide it is. Because we agree it is. Knowledge is the official record (or agreement) of what the realist majority has declared is true and real. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Tue 07/21/09 10:16 AM
|
|
The following are considered to be idealists.
•Oprah Winfrey (Teacher) •Jane Fonda (Teacher) •Shirley MacLaine •Pearl S. Buck •Charlotte Bronte (Champion) •Emily Bronte (Healer) •Emily Dickenson (Counselor) •Herman Hesse •Albert Camus •James Joyce •Leo Tolstoy (Champion) •Ann Morrow Lindbergh (Healer) •Oliver Stone (Champion) •Erica Jong (Champion) •Mohandas Gandhi (Counselor) •Eleanor Roosevelt (Counselor) •Leon Trotsky (Champion) •Vladimir Lenin (Teacher) •Mikhail Gorbachev (Teacher) •Thomas Paine (Champion) •Alexander Hamilton (Champion) •Molly Brown "The Unsinkable" (Champion) •Princess Diana (Healer) •Lord Alfred Russel Wallace •Siddhartha [Buddha] •Albert Schweitzer (Healer) •Carl Rogers(Champion) •Abraham Maslow •Isabel Myers (Healer) •Carl Jung (Counselor) •Soren Kierkegaard •Plato For a listing of famous realists then go to this link - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=famous+realists |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has been my experience that realists appear or be said to have "knowledge" and idealists will appear or be said to have "wisdom."
So does anyone have a good comparison of wisdom and knowledge? To me, most of the time, knowledge seems to be loaded with facts and figures, and wisdom is more intuitive, arising from inner knowing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has been my experience that realists appear or be said to have "knowledge" and idealists will appear or be said to have "wisdom." So does anyone have a good comparison of wisdom and knowledge? To me, most of the time, knowledge seems to be loaded with facts and figures, and wisdom is more intuitive, arising from inner knowing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
lighthouselover
on
Tue 07/21/09 10:29 AM
|
|
It has been my experience that realists appear or be said to have "knowledge" and idealists will appear or be said to have "wisdom." So does anyone have a good comparison of wisdom and knowledge? To me, most of the time, knowledge seems to be loaded with facts and figures, and wisdom is more intuitive, arising from inner knowing. I have heard/read several times this definition of wisdom and knowledge.. "Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as the knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom." (C. H. Spurgeon) I have also read somewhere that "wisdom is what you have when you know that you do not know everything..." In an ethics class I took, we also talked about the wisdom to know when, even IF we have the knowledge, it is best NOT to use that knowledge.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more on wisdom from Aristotle.... Let it be assumed that the states by virtue of which the soul possesses truth by way of affirmation or denial are five in number, i.e. art, scientific knowledge, practical wisdom, philosophic wisdom, intuitive reason; we do not include judgement and opinion because in these we may be mistaken. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, 3 Now it is thought to be the mark of a man of practical wisdom to be able to deliberate well about what is good and expedient for himself, not in some particular respect, e.g. about what sorts of thing conduce to health or to strength, but about what sorts of thing conduce to the good life in general. This is shown by the fact that we credit men with practical wisdom in some particular respect when they have calculated well with a view to some good end which is one of those that are not the object of any art. It follows that in the general sense also the man who is capable of deliberating has practical wisdom. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, 5 Wisdom must plainly be the most finished of the forms of knowledge. It follows that the wise man must not only know what follows from the first principles, but must also possess truth about the first principles. Therefore wisdom must be intuitive reason combined with scientific knowledge-scientific knowledge of the highest objects which has received as it were its proper completion. Of the highest objects, we say; for it would be strange to think that the art of politics, or practical wisdom, is the best knowledge, since man is not the best thing in the world. Now if what is healthy or good is different for men and for fishes, but what is white or straight is always the same, any one would say that what is wise is the same but what is practically wise is different; for it is to that which observes well the various matters concerning itself that one ascribes practical wisdom, and it is to this that one will entrust such matters. This is why we say that some even of the lower animals have practical wisdom, viz. those which are found to have a power of foresight with regard to their own life. It is evident also that philosophic wisdom and the art of politics cannot be the same; for if the state of mind concerned with a man's own interests is to be called philosophic wisdom, there will be many philosophic wisdoms; there will not be one concerned with the good of all animals (any more than there is one art of medicine for all existing things), but a different philosophic wisdom about the good of each species. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without ideals or idealists we would never advance in any catagory as humans. Idealists are those who think outside the box, places we have never gone, endless possibilities, etc....
I see philosophy as this project in general. Extending the known into the unknown, reaching for a higher understanding without known guidelines. I know it is a human condition to want to label, catagorize and verify everything but I think of it as almost a fault we have because it applies limitations. Especially in places where there should be none like the thoughts of a philosopher who is philosophizing...lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Tue 07/21/09 10:45 AM
|
|
"Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as the knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom."
(C. H. Spurgeon) I love it and it is soooooo true. Book smart versus common sense, Common sense will win out every time. I have ran into many who have retained large quanities of knowledge from all over the world but have no common sense to use it with any efficiency in their lives. What good does it do them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 07/21/09 10:57 AM
|
|
Any real example's we could work with?
If we have real examples with real decisions being made, we could much easier discuss the distinction from knowledge and wisdom. I tend to find common sense, is not so common. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 07/21/09 11:18 AM
|
|
It has been my experience that realists appear or be said to have "knowledge" and idealists will appear or be said to have "wisdom." So does anyone have a good comparison of wisdom and knowledge? To me, most of the time, knowledge seems to be loaded with facts and figures, and wisdom is more intuitive, arising from inner knowing. Yes of course but it is not often referred to a 'knowledge' by academia or realists. They often will counter with "Where is your proof or evidence for this thing you say you know? Are we just to take your word for it? In truth, it is knowledge, but it is often very debatable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
lighthouselover
on
Tue 07/21/09 11:54 AM
|
|
Any real example's we could work with? If we have real examples with real decisions being made, we could much easier discuss the distinction from knowledge and wisdom. I tend to find common sense, is not so common. I will share a true experience with you... several years ago, I dated a man who was brilliant. He completed medical school in about half the time, he was Boarded in Internal Medicine, Adult Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Neurobiology.... He had a photographic memory. He could read morris code at about 30 words per minute...He had so much knowledge...yet, no wisdom. I always felt that he had some form of autism, really. He had no wisdom to go outside what he had learned...he was very black/white type of thinker... We would be out to dinner or somewhere and he would be talking about things without really being 'connected' to them...it was like they were words from a book he had read. He was able to put symptoms together to form a diagnosis, but the rest of the person was not part of that picture. He had so much knowledge...yet, he was not a successful physician. He really lacked the social wisdom, the empathetic wisdom, the wisdom to relate to others... He could memorize the phone book... this does not really fall under the topic at hand though... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 07/21/09 01:03 PM
|
|
this does not really fall under the topic at hand though... Great Example BTW. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JaneStar1
on
Tue 07/21/09 01:09 PM
|
|
Based upon the definitions for both, Realism & Idealism, it seems as though Realism is grounded in Knowledge (science), while Idealism is based upon Wisdom (perception).
But in real life Idealism is more important because if we perceive something as black (or white), it doesn't really matter whether it is Really white (or black)! (the difference is of paramount importance only from the scientific/realistic point of view...) At the same time, Realism teaches us the understanding of true nature of things. Yet, without the Idealistic support (i.e.funding), the former would not progress at all. * * * * Ideally, there should be a third notion -- a combination of the two -- say, REALIDEALISM LOL   
P.S. The heading of the notebook, where I keep all of my poems, idealistically states: "Reality -- the way I perceive it..." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
lighthouselover
on
Tue 07/21/09 01:19 PM
|
|
Based upon the definitions for both, Realism & Idealism, it seems as though Realism is grounded in Knowledge (science), while Idealism is based upon Wisdom (perception). But in real life Idealism is more important because if we perceive something as black (or white), it doesn't really matter whether it is Really white (or black)! (the difference is of paramount importance only from the scientific/realistic point of view...) [\quote] I am not sure that either one is more important. Idealism has to have knowledge as well, the knowledge to recognize the idealistic view and the perception. I will have to think about this for a bit... At the same time, Realism teaches us the understanding of true nature of things. Yet, without the Idealistic support (i.e.funding), the former would not progress at all. * Ideally, there should be a third notion -- a combination of the two -- say, REALIDEALISM LOL 
P.S. The heading of the notebook, where I keep all of my poems, idealistically states: "Reality -- the way I perceive it..." hmmmm... "the true nature of things"... The reality that has been crafted and labeled by people of power. The reality of what is given to us. There is a "question behind the question" and an "answer behind the answer".... the reality that has been accepted by some/most? of the society? the information that may or may not be true... Let's make the assumption that the people with the money(funding) also have the power...to me, those would be the Realists. And if that holds true, then the Realists would not want to further the Idealist agenda... and I cannot think that the Idealists would want to further progress the Realistic agenda...especially given the state of the world's people today... I could be wrong... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 07/21/09 01:33 PM
|
|
I agree with JB and that inner knowing as she called wisdom is knowing just the same fundamentally just a different kind of knowing (regardless of how you describe it), which means that knowledge is the set, and wisdom and data are subsets.
This means we cannot say that wisdom is not knowledge, which makes sense to me at least, wisdom is indeed knowing, its knowing whats right and when. Wisdom takes data adds ethics and inserts prudence and makes knowledge what it is: useful. I think Wisdom is a very BIG word, it captures quite a lot of mental phenomena. But so is knowledge . . . Knowledge
[edit] Distinguishing knowing that from knowing how Is knowledge a subset of that which is both true and believed? (See below) In this article, and in epistemology in general, the kind of knowledge usually discussed is propositional knowledge, also known as "knowledge-that" as opposed to "knowledge-how." For example: in mathematics, it is known that 2 + 2 = 4, but there is also knowing how to add two numbers. Many (but not all) philosophers therefore think there is an important distinction between "knowing that" and "knowing how", with epistemology primarily interested in the former. This distinction is recognized linguistically in many languages, though not in modern Standard English (N.B. some languages related to English still do retain these verbs, as in Scots: "wit" and "ken").[3] In Personal Knowledge, Michael Polanyi articulates a case for the epistemological relevance of both forms of knowledge; using the example of the act of balance involved in riding a bicycle, he suggests that the theoretical knowledge of the physics involved in maintaining a state of balance cannot substitute for the practical knowledge of how to ride, and that it is important to understand how both are established and grounded. In recent times, some epistemologists (Sosa, Greco, Kvanvig, Zagzebski) have argued that we should not think of knowledge this way.[citation needed] Epistemology should evaluate people's properties (i.e., intellectual virtues) instead of propositions' properties. This is, in short, because higher forms of cognitive success (i.e., understanding) involve features that can't be evaluated from a justified true belief view of knowledge. [edit] Belief Certainty series: * Agnosticism * Belief * Certainty * Determinism * Doubt * Epistemology * Justification * Estimation * Fallibilism * Fatalism * Nihilism * Probability * Solipsism * Uncertainty This box: view • talk • edit Main article: Belief Often, statements of "belief" mean that the speaker predicts something that will prove to be useful or successful in some sense—perhaps the speaker might "believe in" his or her favorite football team. This is not the kind of belief usually addressed within epistemology. The kind that is dealt with is when "to believe something" simply means any cognitive content held as true. For example, to believe that the sky is blue is to think that the proposition "The sky is blue" is true. Knowledge entails belief, so the statement, "I know the sky is blue, but I don't believe it", is self-contradictory (see Moore's paradox). On the other hand, knowledge about a belief does not entail an endorsement of its truth. For example, "I know about astrology, but I don't believe in it" is perfectly acceptable. It is also possible that someone believes in astrology but knows virtually nothing about it. Belief is a subjective personal basis for individual behavior, while truth is an objective state independent of the individual. On occasion, knowledge and belief can conflict producing "cognitive dissonance". |
|
|
|
|
