Yes, and I’d add that the wisdom Socrates did receive was the wisdom he learned from others, rather than any he came up with on his own. He does a good job of explaining this in Theatetus, where he calls himself a barren midwife. Perhaps what he meant to convey is that he had wisdom, but he had no good reason to take credit for it himself?
Would you say Socrates had less wisdom about how to avoid being arrogant than the modern man? We have a great deal of new information, today, but is there anything new about the human condition?
Yes, the goal one chooses does indeed have bearing on what method one chooses to achieve that goal. The more effective the method, the wiser the choice, in that case.
I find it fascinating that the Greek Pagan–and later the Christian–tends to look for the Divine in thought, or wisdom, while the Buddhist looks for the Divine by ceasing the think. As a Germanic Pagan, what do you think of these two ways of getting closer to God or the gods?
Then I think we should reconsider our definition of wisdom. If wisdom is obeying God, then Solomon certainly was not wise! It seems wisdom is not *both *knowing the will of God and obeying the will of God. For the wise Solomon received the former, but refused the later. But if there is still doubt, consider God’s answer to Solomon’s prayer:spock
**Do you mean to say he was wise in being able to comprehend the will of God, but foolish in being unwilling to obey the will of God? **
Yes, that is an excellent way to put it!
http://art.thewalters.org/images/art/thumbnails/pl9_44467_fnt_bw-2.jpg
http://www.bazaarinegypt.com/catalog/images/EP065.jpg
Agreed, but I’m still seeking wisdom about Wisdom. For I don’t yet know for certain whether She is cognition and volition, or just cognition. I’m still unsure what Wisdom is, so I’m unable to say whether Socrates was truly wise or not.
To go with your picture of the Egytian charioteer I would say this. Wisdom is the horses that carry the chariot to battle, but a charioteer who dose not take action once there is of little use. Wisdom without action (including sometimes the action of inaction) is useless.
Quite posibly. A man owes much to those who taught him.Yes, and I’d add that the wisdom Socrates did receive was the wisdom he learned from others, rather than any he came up with on his own. He does a good job of explaining this in Theatetus, where he calls himself a barren midwife. Perhaps what he meant to convey is that he had wisdom, but he had no good reason to take credit for it himself?
Not in the least. In fact looking at our world he probably had more. The human condition has not changed in my oppinion.
Yes, I believe this the wise choice. He was already an old man at that age and likely would not have lived many years longer. Even if he had taught a few new pupils it likely not have outweighed the impact of his flight on his and his teaching reputation, or his labeling as a hypocrite. As I said, I’m a romantic guy, and few things are as romantic as giving ones life for ones cause. Had Socrates escaped and be labeled a hypocrite the history of philosophy and even other areas may be radically different.
I think you may misunderstand the intention of the Buddhist. They see the world as an allusion of pain and suffering, and as such seek to reach enlightenment and cease to exist. Most Buddhist meditation is not centered on a diety because Buddhism has no diety. It is however totaly open to the incorporation of dietys and as such Buddhists in Tibet, China, Southeast Asia, and Japan often worship their own local dietys. But most Buddhist meditation is not centered towards divinity but achieving enlightenment, realizing nothing is real.
Indeed! Reminds me of something Saint James wrote:
Agreed, and Socrates often said he gave credit where credit was due to those who gave genuine wisdom to him, though he admitted these were few. The Oracle at Delphi was one such person. He told all in Plato’s Symposium that he learned a great deal of wisdom from her.
In my opinion as well. I find it interesting, but not surprising that in the Information Age we know so much (or, more accurately, we have easy access to vastly more knowledge) but we have learned so little, on the whole. As knowledge increases, wisdom seems to decrease. I wonder, then if complete wisdom is not knowing more, for more knowledge does not seem to be any guarantee that one become wise. What then, would you say, is that which makes one wise, if not knowledge?
Yes, wise. Reminds me of something Jesus said:
When one empties his mind, does he cease to think in words? If so, then what does he think in?
Very much, though one could argue that not using wisdom is in and of itself unwise.
Indeed. Words can hold great power, as they articulate thought, meaning, and will.
But I don’t see how we may have it both ways. To say wisdom is deedless and also not deedless is to be illogical. For it’s a logical contradiction: