Fitz—The Lost Virtue of Wisdom and the Devaluation of Knowledge

Here are some recent thoughts that I have had regarding the lost virtue of wisdom. It’s not something we hear about anymore. Rarely do you hear someone described as being wise. Rarely do you hear someone being described as having a great deal of wisdom. It seems to be one thing we do not hear much about anymore. What is wisdom? Is it a trait that is now undervalued? What is the forgotten virtue of being wise? Of possessing wisdom?

When you think of someone that is wise, what do you conjure? An image of a Moses like character with beard and staff? Or perhaps some one out of the Eastern tradition, a Sensei? Mr. Miyagi? Either way, it seems a wise figure has to have some age or cannot be legitimately viewed as possessing wisdom. But what philosophy must they possess in order to be viewed as wise? One feature seems essential to me for wisdom: To claim the importance of the bigger picture over the claims of the present moment. Someone who is wise denies the passions or discomforts of the moment and favors the long-term. Such a person has an eye to the future and to the common good. Such a person places reason above the senses.

Some of the Eastern traditions train people to meditate in order to control their senses and this takes years of practice. This probably lends to the viewpoint of a wise person being older. They have to experience a number sensory experiences before they can learn to control them and maintain a larger perspective.

To quote Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, who was quoting Dickens, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” This is probably the essence of the bigger picture, of the common good. It’s putting your own emotional reactions or sensory perceptions of a given event aside and thinking in terms of a larger perspective.

This does indeed require a certain amount of training. Our senses and emotions are immediate; they are the here and now. They are immensely hard to ignore and hard not to react to. A wise person, however, can deny the heat of the moment.

Why would it be important to place the larger picture over our immediate senses? It forces you to live for something else, something larger than yourself. Living for a higher ideal is a path to fulfillment, to giving a human being purpose. If you can train yourself to pursue this higher ideal or common good, then the heat and passions of the moment will not throw you from that path. It teaches you to be prudent, selfless, honest, and self-aware. It teaches patience. Without giving into rash actions or emotional responses, you are better able to deal with difficult situations and are less apt to do something reactionary that hurts someone else.

Is it possible to fully achieve this? Probably not. As human beings, it is probably impossible to fully deny the impact of our emotions on us. However, training yourself to control them and help you recover quickly from those things that cause serious emotional responses from us and to go about dealing with it with a calm and cool head. By training yourself in this way, you can avoid immediate reactions to things your senses tell you and place it into a larger perspective or deny your immediate reaction and the thoughts and feelings that they may evoke from you. Instead you will note your immediate reaction while thinking in terms of the larger picture or in terms of other knowledge you have gained. Instead or reacting through emotion, you are reacting through thought.

Is knowledge important? Yes. But what kind of knowledge? Knowledge gained for yourself. Whatever your higher ideal may be, you must have knowledge about it. You also must have knowledge of other perspectives. In this way, you are better able to think, rationalize, and defend your own position and what you are working or fighting for. You must have an open-mind about other perspectives so you have the knowledge to better defend your own position or ideal.

Those who deny knowledge, ignore it, or discount it because it sounds contrary to their own belief system handicap themselves. They deny a path to wisdom. If they cannot see the other perspective and think it terms of it, they cannot hope to defend their own except through dogmatic or short-declarative arguments. These are people who are more likely to be ruled by their gut, to be swayed more by passion and passionate pleas. They are more likely to have knowledge spoon-fed to them and to fit it into a narrow world view. They may have a higher ideal in their mind, but they cannot properly articulate it, nor can they properly defend it, they lack the wisdom to do so. They are not truly living for that higher ideal.

And this is something that has come to me as I find more and more people trying to end arguments with these short-declarative statements as if to say “this is all you need to know and I am right and the argument is over.” Well, that is simply not the case and all that has been demonstrated is your lack of knowledge and wisdom regarding the ideal or position you are attempting to promote or defend. All they know is that they are right and therefore they do not need to listen to you or attempt to learn more about the world around them, they just trust their own reactionary sensory perceptions and emotions, which can be flawed or misinformed.

Reacting with emotion is the response of an animal. Can we completely deny our animalistic tendencies…no. But we have intellect which can override or moderate such reactions. A human being does not reach their full potential as an intelligent being unless they seek wisdom and knowledge; otherwise, you are just part of the herd.

Xander--- France and Germany

France has long been loathe to support her allies. During the cold war, France traded more with western unfriendlies than with western allies. In Germany, since Schröder held office, there has been a growing sentiment of anti-Americanism. In 2003), France and Germany solidified their opposition to American policies in opposing US operations in Iraq and directly co-opting any EU or potential EU member that expressed support for the US...

While France and Germany certainly can express whatever views they want, it may be time that the US reevaluate their role in the current system and whether the Hegemon should continue to support the role that they play in the EU. It seems that without the looming fear of communism to chasten the French they have grown insolute in relation to the nation that provided a shibboleth for half a century. Germany's change in support shouldn't be surprising at all, since the Germany population has proven time and time again to desire more than they are allotted, always hungry for more influence in the global system.

Although France and Germany have the right to take on the role of Brutus or Bennidect Arnold, the US has the right to nip the problem in the bud. If these two nations wish to reorder the system without a US in charge, I say the US reorders the system where France and Germany plays a much more marginal role. Moreover, the US should become more aggressive with encouraging loyalty among its allies and handing out the cold shoulder to any nation that wishes to upset the system.

Stuart-- Youth and Labor

In a recent speech Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton stated that according to America's youth, work is a four-letter word. According to the US Department of Labor the average amount of hours worked per week has been on the decline for the last 4 years. So doth the lady protest too much? Or is there something to her assessment?

Despite apologizing to her daughter, Mrs. Clinton was referring to overall trends and does not deny that there are those individuals that work hard. But for the most part, is America's youth becoming lazy? For me this is a difficult issue because I am a strong supporter of government provided healthcare and education, so I do think that America's youth is entitled to certain privileges. It may be that the kind of entitlement that is creeping into our work ethics is from a feeling of privilege that results from over indulgent parents and a wildly unrepresentative media. Or perhaps, America's youth is waking up to the fact that no matter how hard they work, they will probably only be treading water. Or finally, perhaps they realize there is more to life than work, like family and friends.

It is probably a mix of all three. I really do think that the fact that for the last half a decade the standard of living in America has seemed to have a reached plateau does supply some discouragement and combine that with the fact that 16 year olds are portrayed as being entitled to $50,000 birthday parties on MTV and there is guaranteed to be some frustration. I also believe part of the problem is that many younger adults today don't work until they graduate from college, so they are unaccustomed to working for an employer until the age of 22 to 23. Rather, I think high schools and colleges should encourage students to hold part-time jobs, and work should be incorporated into the class load to foster this reality. Habits are formed over the long-term and working should be one of those habits that we encourage as soon as young adults are old enough to assume some responsibility. Moreover, there is another necessary component.

Something that is often lacking in the work environment today is the mentor-mentee relationship. Hospitals, law firms and accounting firms all employ a mentor program to train new hires and establish the right attitudes from the beginning. But other jobs, the kind of job that younger people are likely to have, lack this relationship and so these young employees are left to fend for themselves and discover the proper work ethic on their own. High schools and colleges can assist with this deficiency by institutionalizing widespread and mandatory programs where students can try varying jobs under the instruction of various mentors.

Lastly, it may be that young adults today are finding more satisfaction with their family and friends and don't feel the need to spend as much. However, I don't think this is the trend, if anything the youth of today is more isolated than ever and personal debt is way up. So although I would understand if people wanted to live more modest lives in exchange for more personal time, I am forced to believe that Mrs. Clinton may have caught on to something.

deezelboy -- Ants and People

About three years ago now a friend of mine bought an ‘antiquarium’ – basically a perspex case filled with a blue gel NASA had designed both to feed and shelter ants for no discernable purpose. Dutifully we collected ten ants from the nearest nest and placed them in the antiquarium. I was a little concerned by the way the majority of them aligned themselves in the direction of their colony when we got them back home, but I remembered something about polarised light and thought nothing of it...

In the morning, all but two of them had gone. The ants had crawled through a tiny air hole, or found some other way to escape the perspex block. We never found any trace of them, and I like to imagine they made it back to their nest, however improbable that may seem.

The two that were left dawdled around on the surface of the blue gel for a number of days, never making the connection between ‘up’ and ‘out’. Eventually they started to seperately tunnel into the blue gel, as was its purpose, reaching a depth of about an inch before giving up the ghost and dying incrementally over the course of a month.

What I found most surprising about this was not that eight ants had outthought a lot of people, from NASA down to two average guys on the street, but the similarity of the ants’ behaviour.

Firstly, eight ants had escaped within as many hours. That showed a nifty form of communication and/or that their tiny little brains were very similar.

Secondly, the two ants left behind lacked initiative. They never made the connection that the other ants made. They weren’t slow, they just never got the concept.

Lastly, these two ants behaved as if they were duplicates of each other. They both decided to dig together, and alone in their tunnels they both descended to roughly the same depth and angle before both deciding to die. They were running the same program.

A dead ant illustrates the cover of Edward O. Wilson’s The Insect Societies (there is a view of it from another angle here). It’s meaning is clear: the ants achieved structural perfection at least 85 million years ago.

Much of what we were is now lost in the act of survival. We think of it as a fair trade, even desirable. Yet the ants faced the same pressures and did not betray their essence. Their biology proved adequate faced with any situation. Not so us.

I've always had a soft spot for Wilson after he looked at communism and concluded: right idea, wrong species. A community of ants is an anarchosocialist’s utopia in action – every ant plays its part in the functioning of society throughout its life, of its own volition, in an almost perfect synergy. Protected by their sisters, they live far longer and far better than they would individually. Everyone always has the same amount of food to eat. Those dangerous, sacrifice-for-the-greater-good tasks that the colony requires are voluntarily fulfilled by the old. Even ant ‘slaves’ are given the same rights as their slavers.

It’s almost perfect. As perfect as it could be. And its been going on for millions of years.

And here’s the thing: the ants built a utopia but are unable to conceive of it. Ant society is emergent behaviour: it arises through the interaction of many like-minded ants. This wasn’t designed by anything, there was no plan or even an objective to work towards, and yet it works better than our own, designed, political systems.

Human intelligence is breathtaking in its complexity and innovativeness. The very fact I can conceive of and communicate my appreciation for ants is testament to that. We can understand ant society, but we cannot live as they do. Likewise, we may be capable of envisioning a perfect society, but we’ve proved singularly unable to enact it.

And the worst thing is that this isn’t because our visions are flawed, but that our biology never matches up to the vision - much of our behaviour consists of maintaining a sense of self, often detrimental to a society but highly beneficial to the individual. The political systems we devise would work, if only we weren’t so goddamn human!

We arose from the same maelstrom of processes that birthed the ants. Our brains, and the programs that run in them, are vastly more complex, but they are still programs nonetheless, shaped by happenstance and accident to provide solutions to the problem of existing. Just as the two ants in the antiquarium were unable to conceive of the one thing that would free them, we might also be incapable of knowing certain concepts through no fault of our own making, by simply being what we are.

And if our imaginations are uncaged and infinite, why have we been so unable or so unwilling to shape a society around ourselves?

Is it because this would require an understanding of our own nature and motives?

Trent--Going down in the history books...

I bring up this topic because of a recent debate I had with a friend concerning this topic. History has some fond memories of presidents--good memories that cross the whole ridiculous left vs. right (black and white view) view of the world (speaking of more recent presidents here). Of course, Washington and Lincoln are remembered with reverence. More recent presidents, FDR, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Reagan are often viewed favorably...

But, what of the current Bush? The 9/11 president, who presided over the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor? Now of course, me being of the more liberal persuasion said no, history will not look favorably on the current President. My friend who is more of the conservative slant, said yes (not at all surprising) that Bush will go down with two big thumbs up.

Now of course our initial exchanges follow the ridiculous rhetoric that both sides spout at one another. All liberals are sex-crazed, radical leftists (actually can't think of many stereotypes of liberals--I leave it to my conservative friends to fill this in). All Republicans are power-grubbing crooks, homophobes, racists, fascist assmonkeys (assmonkeys being my own fun term of the day--interject your own if you like). Stereotypes are fun aren't they? Lets categorize two relatively equal halves of the American population into these broad categories. I spent some time in a yahoo chat room on politics which was filled with classic labels being spit out by those who consider themselves on one-side vs. the other. Yes 100 million or so Americans can be classified as one group vs. the other 100 million or so in the other.

Will George Bush be remembered as a good president?

Rolling Stone Article

It seems from the above article that a majority of historians are already passing judgment. Is it a fair judgment? I certainly think so. < st="on">Vietnam was as the administration continues to maintain our hold there with no clear strategy of how to proceed or exit. Lets not forget the lies told to sell the war (Nixon anyone?—see Patriot Act below).

A complete failure to assist those in need within our own borders during one of the worst ecological disasters in recent memory.

A looming energy crisis with no clear solutions in sight. The recent relaxing of environmental rules on gasoline another short-sighted and stupid move by the Bush administration that will do nothing to ease the problems.

The Patriot Act, a complete violation and rape of civil liberties that the American people have been far too complacent about.