you can get that insight just by sitting and closing your eyes… through insight meditation.. spiritual seekers have been doing that for a long time…no lab, no degrees, no resource exploitation, no cut-throat competitions, nor any other destructive potential of quantum physics. moreover, meditation isn’t the monopoly of any particular culture or religion. Meditation is innate to human nature. People of all faiths and races have been practicing meditation. – Divas
Divas: If you love logic more than wisdom, better if you called yourself a logician, but not a philosopher.
Jan 3 at 9:23pm
9 people like this.
Then call me a logician
Sheikh Inayat Ullah
indeed its TRUE as philosophy is all about love of wisdom …..
Like · Jan 3 at 10:17pm
Early Greeks comics had a lot of fun with logicians and logic ie. start out with a bad predicate you’ll end up with a bad answer
Like · Jan 3 at 10:42pm
Do you thing ‘having’ a philosophy is same as ‘doing’ philosophy?
people like Ric Nix here are against this idea… he says that a philosopher is like an engineer or mathematician..
I have mix feelings, on the one hand One does not need formal logic to have great philosophic intuitions, on the other hand, people like Frege, Russell, Pierce and Wittgenstein were great philosophers and very serious logicians (Wittgenstein were also an engineer)
if you would call yourself a logician that doesnt need wisdom, you are either a rational man, nor a wise man….
besides Logic is the son of philosophy.
You cannot disregard logic, its an integral part of philosophy.
To add some of greatest philosophers were scientists/engineers/mathematians. We are rarely taught to be all rounders. That is what is missing from society.
Louis le Hutin
Wisdom is impossible without logic.
If philosophy is intellectual transactions made amongst people/philosophers, then logic is the currency. Logic is the currency of Philosophy.
logic is the base of wisdom.nobody can seperate them.a philosopher has both things. rene descart is the best example of it.
once you start thinking, you use logic. But that’s another point. But is philosophy similar to engineering or mathematics?
first of all experience is the base of wisdom, not logic.
and secondly : we humans dont think automaticaly logical,
we are full of irrational thoughts and fears, logic is the tool to review them. Tracing the line between logic and wisdom is called philosophy
Mateo Torres Ruiz
You must understand how to create valid arguments (and you must use logic for this), if you just want to share thoughts better if you called yourself a litterateur, but not a philosopher.
Like · Saturday at 8:25am
doesn’t logic boost wisdom?
Spencer R. Milton
depends on what you mean by wisdom. if by wisdom you mean belief that makes me feel good but which is not supported by logic, then a philosopher is more like a logician.
the philosopher must be a logician plus something else.
Most of us here seem to agree that philosophy needs logic, but wisdom is going beyond logic. Am i right?
Spencer R. Milton
right. but what do you mean by wisdom? if it’s whatever you happen to believe and that not wise people happen to not believe because they aren’t wise, you’re probably doing it wrong.
Like · Saturday at 12:50pm
Spencer R. Milton
wisdom seems to be knowing the truth about matters and how that ought to influence life decisions.
if you are determining the truth about a matter because a certain kind of life is consistent with it, you’re doing it in reverse.
Like · Saturday at 12:57pm
We all know that it’s impossible to understand the universe, us, etc..
Hundreds of years ago astronomy was a philosophy. It’s much unattainable to find logical links in philosophy. Never giving up thinking will make us understand and be able to send some philosophy to logical science after hundreds of years. ‘Just a little bit more’ is important to make human being progress.
Like · Saturday at 1:14pm
it’d be better to give the pure logicians their own field n separate them from philosophy
(Philosophers from ancient to modern times have been discussing the idea of ‘enlightenment’ – both in the Eastern & Western traditions. In the pre-modern era, Immanuel Kant famously asked, “What is Enlightenment?”. Michel Foucault too asked “What is Enlightenment?” in the pre-postmodern era. Divas asks the same question, “What is Enlightenment?” in the post-postmodern era of 21st century.)
What is Enlightenment?
Humans seem to desire self-transformation in their cognitive and affective faculties. Both in the Eastern and Western traditions, there have been attempts of finding a peculiar state of mind which surpasses normal instinctual feelings. Being social animals of the highest order, humans have developed very complex societies. Creation of social systems has endowed the species superiority over other species. However, human individuals undergo intense anxiety in the course of their adaptation and survival in accordance with the complex social systems. The demands of the complex social life often become stressful for the individual.
Moreover, there is also the natural process of decay and disease. The natural and social demands often persuade an individual to seek for a peculiar state of mind which remains untouched by the anxieties and suffering of normal life-cycle. The viscidities of normal social and personal life make some individuals to seek for a state of mind that may be called “enlightenment”.
However, the concepts of enlightenment differ between the Eastern and Western traditions. Eastern traditions see enlightenment as a spiritual phenomenon, while the Western concept seems to relate enlightenment with the acquirement of knowledge. Enlightenment is also an intellectual movement in the European history known as the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason. Despite the various strands of Enlightenment ideas of the 17th and 18th century Europe, there seems to be a common theme of, “a drive to break the power of dogmatic religion and throw off the shackles of superstition, appealing instead of the power of reason” (Stokes 93).
Kant famously placed his faith in human reason in his answer to the question of “What is Enlightenment?” with, “Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage . . . Sapere Aude! ‘Have courage to use your own reason!’ – that is the motto of enlightenment” (15). Thus, while Eastern traditions see enlightenment as a mystic experience of an individual in the course of spiritual evolution, on the other hand, the Western focus on reason takes Enlightenment away from mysticism.
Enlightenment as a state envisaged in the Eastern traditions is an individual phenomenon. Perhaps, therefore, the phrases “self-enlightenment” or “self-realization” are also used in the Eastern traditions to denote the goal of every individual spiritual seeker. How and when enlightenment dawns upon a person differs from individual to individual. As Kupperman observes, “The Buddha provides only what amounts to a do-it-yourself kit for liberation, so that in the last analysis enlightenment is a matter of individual effort” (40). On the other hand, in the Hindu philosophic system, an individual must possess the knowledge of one’s Atman or real self, “both for enlightenment and for liberation” (Kupperman 12).
However, once an individual has achieved his enlightenment, for him the duality of this world and the other world as well as the stages of enlightenment or non-enlightenment becomes irrelevant. Whether an individual is enlightened or not matters only to others, but not for the person who himself gets enlightened. The individual’s enlightenment, “would seem real from outside – from the point of view of those who still think of the world in terms of distinct individuals and are not enlightened – but not from inside” (Kupperman 14). Thus, even the distinction made between Atman and Brahman becomes meaningless, for Atman becomes Brahman for the enlightened individual.
However, there is also opposition to the concept of enlightenment that transcends all miseries as deception or illusion. Although enlightenment is supposed to vastly expand the individual’s consciousness by getting rid of personal ego, the psychologist Jung who was immensely influenced by Eastern mysticism tried to convince the Hindus that “. . . it is impossible to get rid of the idea of the Ego or of consciousness, even in the deepest state of Samadhi” (Serrano 62-63).
Even the Western concept of Enlightenment that celebrates the triumph of human reason and rationalism has been criticized as deception. The European Enlightenment superiority promoted more sophisticated violence and warfare, along with the call for democracy and personal freedom increased bureaucratic control over the individual, the natives’ control over natural resources were robbed off in the name of free trade, and exploitation of the native population took place through the spread of European colonialism in Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas.
Even in the postmodern era of the 20th and 21st century, Foucault feels the need to re-investigate Kant’s question of “What is Enlightenment?” observing that, “From Hegel through Nietzsche or Max Weber to Horkheimer or Habermas, hardly any philosophy has failed to confront this same question, directly or indirectly” (103). Foucault further warns not to confuse Enlightenment with “faithfulness to doctrinal elements” (113). Similarly, justifying Hesse’s model of aestheticism devoid of ideological dogmatism, Dollimore observes “In short, the Second World War confirmed, for many, the bankruptcy of Enlightenment humanism . . . not just of its inability to prevent barbarism, but its complicity with it” (39).
Thus, while the proponents and followers see enlightenment as a liberating phenomenon, critics claim the idea of enlightenment itself to be illusory and deceptive.