Keep the wisdom

[cleve]

Just interested in your values and perspectives on different ways of being "smart" - Is it more important to be smart and/or wise?

[gary_s]

How do you define the two, and the difference?

[Moonwood the Hare]

A person who is smart can explain how the bull came to be in the China shop
A person who is wise can tell you how to get it out.

[gary_s]

A person who is smart can explain how the bull came to be in the China shop
A person who is wise can tell you how to get it out.

A smart person could do both, I think.

I submit that a wise person would understand why the bull was there in the first place and could explain how to avoid such situations in the future.

[cleve]

How do you define the two, and the difference?

Gary,
Really, that was my question - for you and anyone else to reply to.

[Rian]

I think a good definition is that "smart" is head knowledge, and "wisdom" is the ability to apply that knowledge for good in the world.

[marcuspnw]

Knowledge is the accumulation of facts, the various explanations for these facts, our emotional attachments to these facts and explanations, and an awareness of the intensity with which we hold to these attachments.
Wisdom as Herbert Hoover said is knowing what to do next.

[Moonwood the Hare]

A person who is smart can explain how the bull came to be in the China shop
A person who is wise can tell you how to get it out.

A smart person could do both, I think.

I submit that a wise person would understand why the bull was there in the first place and could explain how to avoid such situations in the future.

Paul Erdos formulated more mathematical truths than anyone else in history; I would say that makes him smart. But he did not know how to open a tomato juice carton. Of course if you want to define smart to include wisdom you could say he was clever but not very smart. Either way I think we need a word for what he could do and a word for what he couldn't and the rest is semantic.

I think a good definition is that "smart" is head knowledge, and "wisdom" is the ability to apply that knowledge for good in the world.

I thought that was what I'd said. Perhaps I was being too indirect.

[JustJim]

Smart is knowing the answers. Wisdom is understanding the questions.

Jim

[gary_s]

I see intelligence as far more then knowing facts. Taking in a number of facts and/or observations, then coupling those with a knowledge of how something works to come up with a solution to a problem is not a linear process. It doesn't rely solely on the number of facts one possesses, but also on ones ability to connect those facts in such a way to discern a solution that isn't obvious. Was Einstein intelligent or wise when he determined that time was relative and not fixed? I believe that describes intelligence, not wisdom. I have a much more difficult time actually describing wisdom and the online definitions don't help much. I read the Wikipedia entry on wisdom and it helped, but it's still elusive. The best I can do is take a situation and determine whether that was wise or intelligent.

[mitchellmckain]

Jim's answer is very appealing, but I still cannot say that I am finding many of these distinctions between smarts and wisdom to be very convincing.

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

There is an aspect of intellegence that comes from innate, inborn (shall we even say biological) ability. This is undeniable. There are things that we can teach a Benobo to do and things we just cannot. And then there is an aspect of intellegence that comes from the time, effort and energy that one devotes to a particular area. The latter is a product of choice and the former is not. I think that real genius comes more from the latter than the former -- from a passion for something. And thus I strongly believe that everyone is smart in some things and dumb in other things. We are dumb in the things we really don't care about, and this is particularly true in the case of genius where someone has devoted themselves so completely to one particular area.

So what of the difference between smart (intellegence) and wisdom? The implication is usually that one can be smart and yet foolish -- that one can have great intellectual ability and yet use that ability in a way that fails somehow. I don't think this is a simple distinction at all here, for in some cases it suggest an incomplete arsenal of intellectual ability, such as the good memory and the collection of fact but failing to synthesize or intuit solutions. In other cases it seems to be simply involved in a lack of practical experience in which to give theoretical knowledge its real life applicability. So I think that this is all that we really should take away from this contrast between smartness and wisdom, not that these are well defined attributes but simply that for one reason or another, great intellectual ability doesn't always exempt one from blunders of great foolishness.

[cleve]

I see intelligence as far more then knowing facts. ...

Gary,
Thanks for your explanation of the matter; you show a lot of intelligence about intelligence and so do some others.
If it's OK with you, now I have some more questions to ask you:
- What methods have you found to be useful in determining the validity of a matter?
- How do you see this to apply to determining whether or not God is merely serving to be a temporary emotional personal choice for someone?
- Would you classify "the unknown realm" into the subject area of supersition/myth or not? Why or why not?
- Which do you think would be more difficult/challenging for God to design and/or build - a functioning human brain, or a place for Jonah to survive for 3 days and nights?
- Do you think an intangible "God" could be eradicated/eliminated by humans through organized religious traditions? How you see atheism responding to organized religious traditions without showing dysfunctional religious undertones itself?
- At this point in time, some atheists seem to be expressing a strong desire to rid humans of dysfunctional types of religion. What approaches would you recommend for helping reduce the quantity of "deities" that have contributed to making religions/religious traditions operate dysfunctionally?
- That being the case, could you say that atheists and christians are in agreement when it comes to wanting to see an eradication/elimination of "deities" that make religions/religious traditions dysfunctional?
- Do you think that the intangible realm contains true aspects as well as false ones?

[gary_s]

Cleve, I've honestly tried to answer your questions, but I have to admit that I don't quite comprehend the question in some cases.

- What methods have you found to be useful in determining the validity of a matter?

This is just so vague that I really don't know how to respond. What kind of matter are we talking about here? In general, I tend to look for evidence of some physical kind if we are talking about some physical thing.

- How do you see this to apply to determining whether or not God is merely serving to be a temporary emotional personal choice for someone?

I have absolutely no idea how to respond to this question.

- Would you classify "the unknown realm" into the subject area of supersition/myth or not? Why or why not?

If by "unknown realm" you mean heaven, I guess I consider that superstition/myth primarily because of a lack of evidence or any explanation that makes sense. Also because of the abundance of manufactured explanations.

- Which do you think would be more difficult/challenging for God to design and/or build - a functioning human brain, or a place for Jonah to survive for 3 days and nights?

Certainly a functioning human brain is a far more complex feat, but then, if the god of Christianity as I understand it actually exists, then for him such a feat would be simple.

- Do you think an intangible "God" could be eradicated/eliminated by humans through organized religious traditions?

Yes, it has happened in human history.

- How you see atheism responding to organized religious traditions without showing dysfunctional religious undertones itself?

Well, there is no central, coordinated "atheism" effort, so you really can't direct any specific description at "it". But the efforts of many atheists are quite justified and well supported by our national documents. I see no dysfunctional religious undertones in any atheistic actions. This isn't to say I don't see mistakes; I do. The mistakes are primarily those of anxious humans seeking to change society to their benefit, not so very different from their religious counterparts, no?

- At this point in time, some atheists seem to be expressing a strong desire to rid humans of dysfunctional types of religion. What approaches would you recommend for helping reduce the quantity of "deities" that have contributed to making religions/religious traditions operate dysfunctionally?

I don't advocate any such strategy. They are mostly a waste of time anyway. Humans have demonstrated that they will not give on fanciful ideas even when they are demonstrated to be silly. They change their religious ideas only when they feel that a different idea is more representative of their own views of reality. And it is not the deities that are the source of such dysfunction; it's the humans who populate the churches. What I do advocate is more and better education and an absolute end to institutional lying about those that are supposedly enemies of religion. Without lies that promote irrational fears and a system of indoctrination that eliminates education, people will make better decisions even if they choose to keep their religious beliefs. And I would also like to see more religions actually practice what they preach; pay more attention to helping others and less on telling others what they should do. Belief in god itself is not a bad thing; it can be a very good thing. But too often the laws and regulations and culture that goes along with the belief become more of a guide to how a person behaves. If a person's religion instructs them to be kind and generous to their enemies, but their friends, neighbors, clergy and congressmen say they should buy a bunch of guns and prepare for the day when your enemy will strike, well, you can see where I'm going with this...

- That being the case, could you say that atheists and christians are in agreement when it comes to wanting to see an eradication/elimination of "deities" that make religions/religious traditions dysfunctional?

Atheists, yes. But for theists I have to say yes and no. Any theist will see his religious culture as correct, but is likely to see someone else's as dysfunctional. That's simply basic human nature.

- Do you think that the intangible realm contains true aspects as well as false ones?

No idea.

[gary_s]

In the story of King Solomon, where two women claimed a right to a single baby, Solomon concluded that the child should be cut in half, each woman to be presented with a half. One woman agreed, but the true mother was revealed because she pleaded that the child remain whole and be given to the other woman. Solomon is said to have been very wise (this word is used in many English translations) to have devised such a plan, but I see this as an intelligent solution. This was an ingenious way of troubleshooting the problem and to force one woman to show her true colors (the fake). So I still don't understand the distinction, particularly when some literary sources use the word in a why that I don't think is correct.

What's more, it's seems peculiar to hear King Solomon lauded for his wisdom when it was his own missteps that lead to his kingdom's eventual downfall. Or perhaps he was just a wise judge and not a wise ruler.

[Keep The Reason]

I know these are not directed to me, but I thought I'd toss out my replies.

- What methods have you found to be useful in determining the validity of a matter?[

Just by asking the question concedes that matter is valid and extant. Everything required to ask the question is in place because of matter.

- How do you see this to apply to determining whether or not God is merely serving to be a temporary emotional personal choice for someone?

Matter in the form of human beings show a consistent end to an individual's life with no recurrence in place in any supported manner. In short, after people die, their bodies decompose, and there is no evidence that there is anything else after. This doesn't prove there is nothing after, but it does prove that there is no instance of anyone actually coming back and saying otherwise in any controlled and demonstrable way (yes, there are stories about resurrections, but not corroborative. NDEs are also not consistent, although there are anecdotal stories that are quite easily attributable to wholly natural causes)

- Would you classify "the unknown realm" into the subject area of supersition/myth or not? Why or why not?

If the "unknown realm" is unknown, then you can only surmise it exists, but cannot do much more than speculate. You cannot categorize that which is unknown as something that is "known".

- Which do you think would be more difficult/challenging for God to design and/or build - a functioning human brain, or a place for Jonah to survive for 3 days and nights?

For a god, if one existed, nothing would be challenging whatsoever.

- Do you think an intangible "God" could be eradicated/eliminated by humans through organized religious traditions? How you see atheism responding to organized religious traditions without showing dysfunctional religious undertones itself?

Plenty of humans have happily eradicated "god" from their lives with utterly no ill effects. Complete eradication of the god system? Probably a few good centuries off. Religious collapse? Specific religions collapse all the time. It would be well to remember that the religion of Isis lasted some 5,000 years.

- At this point in time, some atheists seem to be expressing a strong desire to rid humans of dysfunctional types of religion. What approaches would you recommend for helping reduce the quantity of "deities" that have contributed to making religions/religious traditions operate dysfunctionally?

If religions are merely the belief system of mythic beings thought real, then they are all dysfunctional by definition regardless of the tenor or tone of the "deities" that populate them.

- That being the case, could you say that atheists and christians are in agreement when it comes to wanting to see an eradication/elimination of "deities" that make religions/religious traditions dysfunctional?

Christians do not see their own religion as dysfunctional, but they likely see other religions as being so. I doubt there would be agreement on this in any moral way; besides, what do you mean by "eradication / elimination"? That sounds really odious and dangerous.

- Do you think that the intangible realm contains true aspects as well as false ones?

Define "intangible realm".