Re: Philosophy and arrogance

[Nick Dippie <nd603@soton.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


well i agree with daniel that this debate is a tad hackneyed, but it always
was, and i can't resist responiding to peter i'm afraid.

peter you say that being a lover of wisdom, and possessing great wisdom are
two different things.obviously they are, it is conceivable to be possess
great swathes of knowledge and understanding but to also hate, or even just
be neutral in opinion of it.but i'm not sure it is possible to love wisdom
but not to have any.

to love something, you have to understand it, or with wisdom, to have some
at least.so most philosophers (including us) have some knowledge, and
thirst for more.if you have very little, it must be hard to understand and
love what you are missing. unless you simply love the idea of wisdom.

you said 'a great philosopher is not necessary one who possesses great
understanding.' but surely a great lover of wisdom will have sought out and
obtained a fair deal of understanding of things?if you truly love it, you
will never be satisfied with the amount you have.

this argument is getting silly now, i think i might actually now be
disagreeing with my own earlier contributions about a broad definition of
philosophers.and we're arguing about possession of 'wisdom' which is surely
one of the wooliest concepts around (understanding? knowledge? by that
defintion knowing how to make a cup of tea is a kind of wisdom).so anyways,
hope i haven't missed your point again peter.

nick




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm