Knowledge,...Not Same As Wisdom

[PretentiousGuy]

So, to rebut my post, a board member quoted a Harvard social science Ph.D…..That is a failure to realize that the longer one spends in university in the social sciences, the less wisdom one has! More knowledge, perhaps…..but less wisdom.

Define knowledge and wisdom...



And what of the all of the enlightenment philosophers that dealt with ethics? Spinoza, Kant, Hobbes et al. If you are going to piss on the Enlightenment at least get your facts to resemble reality.


You piss on the Enlightenment only to use Hume's is-ought gap?



Oh the irony.. You realise many of the enlightenment philosophers said just this.



Scientifically possible =/= ethical... Hardly a ground breaking statement. Your point.






There are several ways of doing that without invoking the supernatural.. Moral realism, ethical nihilism, ethical hedonism, ethical humanism, value ethics.


This usually is not the POV among naturalists.



The euthyphro dilemma reveals the absurdity in that view point.

a. 5.Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive
b. While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

a. I would disagree I like to keep politics and morality separate.
b. *cough* Godwin's law *cough* Lazy and inaccurate comparison.

1)No dear. Godwin's Law does not apply in that particular reference, because it was a perfectly legitimate frame of reference from which to illustrate the point being made. To wrongly characterize it thusly is not necessarily lack of wisdom, but it definitely suggests an incorrect definition of what Godwin's Law is.

2)To put it more simply, we cannot simply erase the Third Reich from the history books and never use it as an example in any form. There are times that it is appropriate to include it in discussion of political power, moral consensus, and human behavior.

Godwin's Law is the use of references to Hitler and the Nazis to demonize whatever topic is being discussed or to demonize/insult those discussing a topic. It is sometimes used intentionally to derail or freeze a thread.

That is not how it was used in the OP.

1) It is nor a legitimate comparison, it was merely asserted to be true. It is a lazy way of dismissing a concept. Even it it were shown that it was what hitler thought about ethics (which would be laughable to attempt) that would be very much separate from his crimes against humanity.

Hitler enjoyed comedies. Does that mean enjoying comedies justifies someone likening you to a fascist?
"[lazy hitler comparison] therefore it is wrong."

2) Certainly but the comparison is not legitimate, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

So, to rebut my post, a board member quoted a Harvard social science Ph.D…..That is a failure to realize that the longer one spends in university in the social sciences, the less wisdom one has! More knowledge, perhaps…..but less wisdom.

Define knowledge and wisdom...



And what of the all of the enlightenment philosophers that dealt with ethics? Spinoza, Kant, Hobbes et al. If you are going to piss on the Enlightenment at least get your facts to resemble reality.
My fact are correct.
Work on your reading comprehension.

You piss on the Enlightenment only to use Hume's is-ought gap?



Oh the irony.. You realise many of the enlightenment philosophers said just this.



Scientifically possible =/= ethical... Hardly a ground breaking statement. Your point.






There are several ways of doing that without invoking the supernatural.. Moral realism, ethical nihilism, ethical hedonism, ethical humanism, value ethics.


This usually is not the POV among naturalists.



The euthyphro dilemma reveals the absurdity in that view point.

a. 5.Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive
b. While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

a. I would disagree I like to keep politics and morality separate.
b. *cough* Godwin's law *cough* Lazy and inaccurate comparison.

You've proven you are pretentious.
Please, keep going ….I always yawn when I’m interested.



"Define knowledge and wisdom..."
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Well when you are done with the personal attacks perhaps you can address the actual content of the post; or you can continue to dodge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Define knowledge and wisdom...



And what of the all of the enlightenment philosophers that dealt with ethics? Spinoza, Kant, Hobbes et al. If you are going to piss on the Enlightenment at least get your facts to resemble reality.
My fact are correct.
Work on your reading comprehension.

You piss on the Enlightenment only to use Hume's is-ought gap?



Oh the irony.. You realise many of the enlightenment philosophers said just this.



Scientifically possible =/= ethical... Hardly a ground breaking statement. Your point.






There are several ways of doing that without invoking the supernatural.. Moral realism, ethical nihilism, ethical hedonism, ethical humanism, value ethics.


This usually is not the POV among naturalists.



The euthyphro dilemma reveals the absurdity in that view point.




a. I would disagree I like to keep politics and morality separate.
b. *cough* Godwin's law *cough* Lazy and inaccurate comparison.

You've proven you are pretentious.
Please, keep going ….I always yawn when I’m interested.



"Define knowledge and wisdom..."
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Well when you are done with the personal attacks perhaps you can address the actual content of the post; or you can continue to dodge.

Pretentious, but not perceptive.

I don't like your style.
Nor am I done with the personal attacks, dim-wit.

I have the sense that I'm not the only one put off by your attempted cleverness. The reason folks take an immediate dislike to you?
It saves time.

Now, step off.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

You've proven you are pretentious.
Please, keep going ….I always yawn when I’m interested.



"Define knowledge and wisdom..."
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Well when you are done with the personal attacks perhaps you can address the actual content of the post; or you can continue to dodge.

Pretentious, but not perceptive.

I don't like your style.
Nor am I done with the personal attacks, dim-wit.

I have the sense that I'm not the only one put off by your attempted cleverness. The reason folks take an immediate dislike to you?
It saves time.

Now, step off.

Internet tough girl here... Your posts lack content and you act like you can give out orders. Obvious troll.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well when you are done with the personal attacks perhaps you can address the actual content of the post; or you can continue to dodge.

Pretentious, but not perceptive.

I don't like your style.
Nor am I done with the personal attacks, dim-wit.

I have the sense that I'm not the only one put off by your attempted cleverness. The reason folks take an immediate dislike to you?
It saves time.

Now, step off.

Internet tough girl here... Your posts lack content and you act like you can give out orders. Obvious troll.

"Internet tough girl here..."
True.... in your face like Cagney with a grapefruit half…


"....you act like you can give out orders."
I just gave you an order: get lost.


Don't come back without an apology and a bouquet of roses.

 

[Foxfyre]

Define knowledge and wisdom...



And what of the all of the enlightenment philosophers that dealt with ethics? Spinoza, Kant, Hobbes et al. If you are going to piss on the Enlightenment at least get your facts to resemble reality.


You piss on the Enlightenment only to use Hume's is-ought gap?



Oh the irony.. You realise many of the enlightenment philosophers said just this.



Scientifically possible =/= ethical... Hardly a ground breaking statement. Your point.






There are several ways of doing that without invoking the supernatural.. Moral realism, ethical nihilism, ethical hedonism, ethical humanism, value ethics.


This usually is not the POV among naturalists.



The euthyphro dilemma reveals the absurdity in that view point.




a. I would disagree I like to keep politics and morality separate.
b. *cough* Godwin's law *cough* Lazy and inaccurate comparison.

1)No dear. Godwin's Law does not apply in that particular reference, because it was a perfectly legitimate frame of reference from which to illustrate the point being made. To wrongly characterize it thusly is not necessarily lack of wisdom, but it definitely suggests an incorrect definition of what Godwin's Law is.

2)To put it more simply, we cannot simply erase the Third Reich from the history books and never use it as an example in any form. There are times that it is appropriate to include it in discussion of political power, moral consensus, and human behavior.

Godwin's Law is the use of references to Hitler and the Nazis to demonize whatever topic is being discussed or to demonize/insult those discussing a topic. It is sometimes used intentionally to derail or freeze a thread.

That is not how it was used in the OP.

1) It is nor a legitimate comparison, it was merely asserted to be true. It is a lazy way of dismissing a concept. Even it it were shown that it was what hitler thought about ethics (which would be laughable to attempt) that would be very much separate from his crimes against humanity.

Hitler enjoyed comedies. Does that mean enjoying comedies justifies someone likening you to a fascist?
"[lazy hitler comparison] therefore it is wrong."

2) Certainly but the comparison is not legitimate, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

It IS a legitimate comparison if you wish to demonstrate that societal consensus does not always translate to virtue and that societies definition of morality may in fact be evil. In her--I would say brilliant--analysis in The Nazi Conscience by Claudia Koonz, she carefully constructs the methods used by Hitler and his henchmen to twist the unthinkable to appear as the moral choice within the staunchly Lutheran and Catholic German society. By largely avoiding the more extremist rhetoric, the German heirarchy was able convince and lull the people into believing that evil was good; that the unacceptable was necessary.

When you can utilize the media, the bully pulpit, and all other means of mass communication to implant the idea that "Jews were evil" and the doctrine of Aryan superiority is God's design, etc., it can have a strong effect. All the German people were not caught up in the mass brainwashing, however--think Oscar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom for instance--but those who were not and who got caught were severely dealt with making it a practical matter to agree with the doctrines of the Third Reich. Hitler was by no means the only totalitarian leader to utilize such tactics, but is perhaps the most studied, and therefore quite legitimate to use as an example.

Wisdom is to get beyond the knee jerk platitudes of what passes for politically correct wisdom, and to see with clear vision and uncluttered honesty what is happening within our own society.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

1)No dear. Godwin's Law does not apply in that particular reference, because it was a perfectly legitimate frame of reference from which to illustrate the point being made. To wrongly characterize it thusly is not necessarily lack of wisdom, but it definitely suggests an incorrect definition of what Godwin's Law is.

2)To put it more simply, we cannot simply erase the Third Reich from the history books and never use it as an example in any form. There are times that it is appropriate to include it in discussion of political power, moral consensus, and human behavior.

Godwin's Law is the use of references to Hitler and the Nazis to demonize whatever topic is being discussed or to demonize/insult those discussing a topic. It is sometimes used intentionally to derail or freeze a thread.

That is not how it was used in the OP.

1) It is nor a legitimate comparison, it was merely asserted to be true. It is a lazy way of dismissing a concept. Even it it were shown that it was what hitler thought about ethics (which would be laughable to attempt) that would be very much separate from his crimes against humanity.

Hitler enjoyed comedies. Does that mean enjoying comedies justifies someone likening you to a fascist?
"[lazy hitler comparison] therefore it is wrong."

2) Certainly but the comparison is not legitimate, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

It IS a legitimate comparison if you wish to demonstrate that societal consensus does not always translate to virtue and that societies definition of morality may in fact be evil. In her--I would say brilliant--analysis in The Nazi Conscience by Claudia Koonz, she carefully constructs the methods used by Hitler and his henchmen to twist the unthinkable to appear as the moral choice within the staunchly Lutheran and Catholic German society. By largely avoiding the more extremist rhetoric, the German heirarchy was able convince and lull the people into believing that evil was good; that the unacceptable was necessary.

When you can utilize the media, the bully pulpit, and all other means of mass communication to implant the idea that "Jews were evil" and the doctrine of Aryan superiority is God's design, etc., it can have a strong effect. All the German people were not caught up in the mass brainwashing, however--think Oscar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom for instance--but those who were not and who got caught were severely dealt with making it a practical matter to agree with the doctrines of the Third Reich. Hitler was by no means the only totalitarian leader to utilize such tactics, but is perhaps the most studied, and therefore quite legitimate to use as an example.

Wisdom is to get beyond the knee jerk platitudes of what passes for politically correct wisdom, and to see with clear vision and uncluttered honesty what is happening within our own society.

Funny this is the first time an attempt at explaining the comparison was made beyond just asserting it to be so.

You make some fair points; and then you try to insert nazis into it. I dont know about you but the bolded seems to be a cogent argument on it's own without trying to manufacture a Nazi comparison.

That nazi's did not rule on consensus once they got their power you criticised them under pain of death. It is a piss poor analogy.

 

[Foxfyre]

1) It is nor a legitimate comparison, it was merely asserted to be true. It is a lazy way of dismissing a concept. Even it it were shown that it was what hitler thought about ethics (which would be laughable to attempt) that would be very much separate from his crimes against humanity.

Hitler enjoyed comedies. Does that mean enjoying comedies justifies someone likening you to a fascist?
"[lazy hitler comparison] therefore it is wrong."

2) Certainly but the comparison is not legitimate, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

It IS a legitimate comparison if you wish to demonstrate that societal consensus does not always translate to virtue and that societies definition of morality may in fact be evil. In her--I would say brilliant--analysis in The Nazi Conscience by Claudia Koonz, she carefully constructs the methods used by Hitler and his henchmen to twist the unthinkable to appear as the moral choice within the staunchly Lutheran and Catholic German society. By largely avoiding the more extremist rhetoric, the German heirarchy was able convince and lull the people into believing that evil was good; that the unacceptable was necessary.

When you can utilize the media, the bully pulpit, and all other means of mass communication to implant the idea that "Jews were evil" and the doctrine of Aryan superiority is God's design, etc., it can have a strong effect. All the German people were not caught up in the mass brainwashing, however--think Oscar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom for instance--but those who were not and who got caught were severely dealt with making it a practical matter to agree with the doctrines of the Third Reich. Hitler was by no means the only totalitarian leader to utilize such tactics, but is perhaps the most studied, and therefore quite legitimate to use as an example.

Wisdom is to get beyond the knee jerk platitudes of what passes for politically correct wisdom, and to see with clear vision and uncluttered honesty what is happening within our own society.

Funny this is the first time an attempt at explaining the comparison was made beyond just asserting it to be so.

You make some fair points; and then you try to insert nazis into it. I dont know about you but the bolded seems to be a cogent argument on it's own without trying to manufacture a Nazi comparison.

That nazi's did not rule on consensus once they got their power you criticised them under pain of death. It is a piss poor analogy.

I didn't try to insert Nazis into it though. I started from the principle of the Nazi agenda to win the hearts and minds of the people to a consensual concept that allowed the Third Reich to work its evil. It was directly in response to a discussion of whether mention of the Nazis in this context in the OP was evoking Godwin's Law. And further, why it is legitimate to look at how the Nazi regime managed to come to power as an illustration of 'consensual morality' among the targeted people in order to evaluate how a definition of morality is not always virtue.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

I didn't try to insert Nazis into it though. I started from the principle of the Nazi agenda to win the hearts and minds of the people to a consensual concept that allowed the Third Reich to work its evil. It was directly in response to a discussion of whether mention of the Nazis in this context in the OP was evoking Godwin's Law.

They didn't try to win the hearts and minds of the people...

And further, why it is legitimate to look at how the Nazi regime managed to come to power as an illustration of 'consensual morality' among the targeted people in order to evaluate how a definition of morality is not always virtue.

Context foxfyre context... The nazis didn't come to power because of some moral argument. The germans were voting their stomachs the nazis promised an end to their trouble in the wake of the Great War. They were forced to pay a ridiculous sum for war appropriations under the Treaty of Versailles. As a result hyperinflation hit and you needed a wheel barrel of currency to buy a loaf of bread. The people didn't give a shit who was in power or what moral position the rulers held; they just wanted food.

The Allies actions after The Great War put the nazis in power.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't try to insert Nazis into it though. I started from the principle of the Nazi agenda to win the hearts and minds of the people to a consensual concept that allowed the Third Reich to work its evil. It was directly in response to a discussion of whether mention of the Nazis in this context in the OP was evoking Godwin's Law.

They didn't try to win the hearts and minds of the people...

And further, why it is legitimate to look at how the Nazi regime managed to come to power as an illustration of 'consensual morality' among the targeted people in order to evaluate how a definition of morality is not always virtue.

Context foxfyre context... The nazis didn't come to power because of some moral argument. The germans were voting their stomachs the nazis promised an end to their trouble in the wake of the Great War. They were forced to pay a ridiculous sum for war appropriations under the Treaty of Versailles. As a result hyperinflation hit and you needed a wheel barrel of currency to buy a loaf of bread. The people didn't give a shit who was in power or what moral position the rulers held; they just wanted food.

The Allies actions after The Great War put the nazis in power.

You're using the abridged classical comic book version. It hits the highlights and gives you the basic more memorable facts. But both the OP and I are looking deeper into the social consciousness and the dynamics of the psyche of the German people. There is something to be said for society that votes their stomachs and their personal pocketbook. In my opinion, we have a society who did just that in America in this past election.

But there are deeper dynamics at play too, both in Nazi Germany and, in a different context, here in the USA, that slowly but surely turns the social consciousness of the people to accept what they once would have deemed unacceptable.

And no, saying that is NOT comparing the USA to Nazi Germany and is not suggesting that anybody in our leadership is like Hitler. But to ignore or refuse to learn the lessons of history can exact an unacceptable price no matter what era we occupy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I didn't try to insert Nazis into it though. I started from the principle of the Nazi agenda to win the hearts and minds of the people to a consensual concept that allowed the Third Reich to work its evil. It was directly in response to a discussion of whether mention of the Nazis in this context in the OP was evoking Godwin's Law.

They didn't try to win the hearts and minds of the people...

And further, why it is legitimate to look at how the Nazi regime managed to come to power as an illustration of 'consensual morality' among the targeted people in order to evaluate how a definition of morality is not always virtue.

Context foxfyre context... The nazis didn't come to power because of some moral argument. The germans were voting their stomachs the nazis promised an end to their trouble in the wake of the Great War. They were forced to pay a ridiculous sum for war appropriations under the Treaty of Versailles. As a result hyperinflation hit and you needed a wheel barrel of currency to buy a loaf of bread. The people didn't give a shit who was in power or what moral position the rulers held; they just wanted food.

The Allies actions after The Great War put the nazis in power.

You're using the abridged classical comic book version. It hits the highlights and gives you the basic more memorable facts. But both the OP and I are looking deeper into the social consciousness and the dynamics of the psyche of the German people. There is something to be said for society that votes their stomachs and their personal pocketbook. In my opinion, we have a society who did just that in America in this past election.

But there are deeper dynamics at play too, both in Nazi Germany and, in a different context, here in the USA, that slowly but surely turns the social consciousness of the people to accept what they once would have deemed unacceptable.

And no, saying that is NOT comparing the USA to Nazi Germany and is not suggesting that anybody in our leadership is like Hitler. But to ignore or refuse to learn the lessons of history can exact an unacceptable price no matter what era we occupy.

"You're using the abridged classical comic book version."

Of course, you are correct.
It went well beyond food and money...



1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

a. In 1938, Austria had a Jewish population of about 192,000, representing almost 4 percent of the total population. The overwhelming majority of Austrian Jews lived in Vienna, Austria

2. The little town of Amstetten, halfway between Vienna and Linz, on the Ybbs River, which flows into the Danube. In May, 1938, the Amstettner Anzeiger was proud to report that “the town swimming pool and sunbath declares that Jews are banned from entering. Now we only have to get rid of the mosquitoes from our pool for it to become really ideal.” The town had become a Fuhrerstadt! By summer, all 28 of Amstetten’s Jews had been expelled.
Stefanie Marsh and Bohan Pancevski, “I’m No Monster.”

 

[Billo_Really]

On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany.

That is why ever since WWII ended, we've outlawed "wars of choice", now defined as "wars of aggression", as the highest crime a nation can commit.

But low and behold, along came 2003 and here we are, the good ole US of A, doing the very same thing the nazis did going into Poland. Making up reasons to launch unprovoked invasions of sovereign country's that did not attack us, nor were they threatening us.

Godwin's Law never addressed whether the comparison was a valid one. In this case, it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany.

That is why ever since WWII ended, we've outlawed "wars of choice", now defined as "wars of aggression", as the highest crime a nation can commit.

But low and behold, along came 2003 and here we are, the good ole US of A, doing the very same thing the nazis did going into Poland. Making up reasons to launch unprovoked invasions of sovereign country's that did not attack us, nor were they threatening us.

Godwin's Law never addressed whether the comparison was a valid one. In this case, it is.

It is an interesting comparison but in this case I disagree. In the first place Godwin's law is technically not making legitimate comparisons but rather is evoked carelessly or deliberately for the purpose of demonizing a group or person or context. In its broader definition it is that the very mention of Hitler and/or the Nazis is so toxic that once either is evoked, no further constructive discussion can take place.

This however is absurd, because there ARE constructive comparisons that can be made.

The German aggression of WWII, however, was to expand the power, holdings, and territory of the Third Reich. The intention was to forever keep those conquered countries under German control.

The USA's forays into 'wars of aggression' whether that be Korea or Vietnam or Panama or Granada or Afghanistan or Iraq have all been for the purpose of preventing aggression or the spread of evil intent and have not been for the purpose of expanding the power, holdings, and/or territory of the United States.

We can certainly debate the morality of our motives and methods in all these cases, but the comparison of our tactics with those of Hitler just doesn't hold up.

The one comparison that CAN be made however is the degree of social acceptance involved. There were questions, protests, and demonstrations opposed to all the USA's 'wars of aggression', but there also was support for our military and their government leaders. We however were allowed to speak out and protest the actions by our government while that was not tolerated so well in Germany.

But were the Germans lulled into complacency and/or fooled more than were the Americans? That is an interesting topic to explore too.