|
Post by Gil Alexander on Oct 12, 2006 19:43:57 GMT -5
Let us not also forget about the power of the heart, and of the hardships that it faces. In some ways it can work just as hard as the mind or the body.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 12, 2006 19:54:20 GMT -5
I Firstly, there is a difference between "intelligence" and "the mind". The mind is equal among all men, our minds our how we think, or rahter, how we use our intellect. Thus far I agree. The mind instructs every part of us, including other parts of the mind how to function. The intellect itself is not particuarly relevant. It is importnat that we use it, but it is not at all a lasting thing. You mention intellect here, but use 'knowledge' for the rest of the paragraph. There is a great difference between the two. One's intellect gives one the capacity for great thoughts. One may write them down, as I do, and thus the thoughts last. To paraphrase the words of shakespeare, "Our thoughts are our own, their ends, none of ours." If we record ideas, they can evolve. This, as you say, is 'how we use our intellect'. But having the capacity to create the thought in the first place is by far the most vital cog in the wheel. wis·dom n 1. accumulated knowledge of life or in a particular sphere of activity that has been gained through experience 2. an opinion that almost everyone seems to share or express 3. ancient teachings or sayings in·tel·lect n 1. somebody’s ability to think, reason, and understand 2. a very intelligent and knowledgeable person It is important to pusue knowledge, but wisdom is far more enduring and infinitly more useful. wis·dom n 1. accumulated knowledge of life or in a particular sphere of activity that has been gained through experience 2. an opinion that almost everyone seems to share or express 3. ancient teachings or sayings in·tel·lect n 1. somebody’s ability to think, reason, and understand Given these definitions, quoted from the Oxford Dictionary of English, do you still hold your position? The 'ability to think, reason, and understand' is FAR more important than 'accumulated knowledge', 'an opinion', or 'ancient teachings'. And what's more, by this definition, intellect is something that one has for one's self and can evolve with. Wisdom is stagnant. Perhaps you may apply it to your life at places, but it isn't something alive and perpetually versitile. JS
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 12, 2006 19:56:40 GMT -5
Let us not also forget about the power of the heart, and of the hardships that it faces. In some ways it can work just as hard as the mind or the body. So you're saying let's reward or feel bad about emotional sufferingn. Eternal mush.
|
|
|
Post by Gil Alexander on Oct 12, 2006 20:05:28 GMT -5
Maybe not, but for some people who don't necessarily have the capacity for extreme intellect, or even normal intellect for that matter, love (or hate) for one can drive them toward a goal more fiercely than anything else. The heart gives us courage, strength and brevity; while the intellect gives us cold hard facts that may bring us to reality but also away from passion.
|
|
|
Post by The Observer on Oct 12, 2006 20:30:17 GMT -5
Given those definitions, no I do not hold my position. I'm sorry for the confusion, but to argue something this deep in English is very difficult, there are few words to describe the proper concepts.
WHen I said "intellect" I meant the definition that you provided. When I said wisdom, I meant something that the word apparently does not mean. That was my error, but I could think of no better word for what I was trying to express. Wisdom, as I meant it, is very close to that first definition presented. It is expirience and understanding, a deep comprehension that extends beyond facts and into feelings. It is wisdom (as I meant it) that allows one to suffer with grace, to turn the other cheek, and to act with kindness and civility. It is also wisdom that sees through peripheral situations and into deeper causes and meanings. Wisdom, expirience that is learned from properly, can also give courage to stand up for things that matter, as well as the heart to stand up for others that may not be able to protect themselves. Wisdom helps us know how to live, and yes, it quickly gets religious, I won't deny that. Anyone who tries to seperare religion and knowledge is a fool. They are both seeking truth. And yes, atheism is a religion also, it is a system of beliefs.
Given this definition for wisdom, I find it much more imporatnat than information (knowledge) or the ability to learn and express information (intellect). If you are looking for immortality, wisdom can't really help you, but intellect can't either. If you are looking for how to live a good life, as well as what a good life is, there wisdom will help you. About wisdom being stagnant, perhaps. I will admit it is rather unchanging, but then again, so is a mountain. I would rather build my life on a mountain than on something that changes and shifts, never to be fully trusted.
Oh, and writing down thoughts don't make them last. I'm sorry to break it to you, but after you die (and quite possibly before) everyone will forget about you. Everyone is forgotten eventually, some more completely than others, but EVERY HUMAN is eventually forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Oct 12, 2006 23:46:18 GMT -5
I feel smarter just reading this.
Yes we have to think in order to go about our daily lives, and get us through with life. But strictly. I guess I just like to believe that I have something greater than my scatterbrained thoughts to constitue who I am, something more divine.
Gosh I wish you all could meditate in the school I do...
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 13, 2006 17:58:15 GMT -5
Before I continue, Observer, what are your religious convictions? Eakyra?
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Oct 13, 2006 20:06:39 GMT -5
My religious convictions? Im sorry for being blonde, but I dont have time to go look up what convictions means in this phrase. I would be happy to tell you though, once I figure out what you truely want.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 13, 2006 21:22:01 GMT -5
con·vic·tion n 1. a belief or opinion that is held firmly 2. firmness of belief or opinion
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Oct 13, 2006 21:23:45 GMT -5
Sorry, Im at work and we're really busy. Well.. not really. Or I wouldnt be on here. Right now im on break actually.
Which doesnt leave me enough time to post my religious convictions, so look for an edit soon.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 13, 2006 21:35:06 GMT -5
It doesn't take practically any time to say "I'm a God-fearing christian" or "I'm a rational atheist" or "I'm an undecided agnostic" or the like.
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Oct 13, 2006 22:08:16 GMT -5
I'm an unorthodox Christian. I believe I know the rest of the guild's religious convictions, but I'll let each of them speak for themselves. But don't worry about bothering me concerning religion.
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 13, 2006 22:10:50 GMT -5
Ah well, you can't win 'em all.
|
|
|
Post by Denithar on Oct 13, 2006 22:20:02 GMT -5
How about you, John? What are your convictions?
|
|
|
Post by johnsapphire on Oct 13, 2006 22:42:16 GMT -5
Staunch atheist. I believe that as the Bible is only infallible because it says it is, and there are no books from the period to confirm the issue, we can never be certain of its validity, though all rational, reasonable, scientific evidence points to it being BS. Moreover, there have been several psychological/historical studies concerning the ability of the author(s). They have come to the conclusion that ANY semi-educated man of the 1st century CE could have written all the text in the bible WITHOUT divine inspiration.
To quote Sam Harris, "Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know more or less everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the eart his the center of the cosmos, or that trepanning constitutes a wise medical intervention, his religious ideas would still be beyond reproach. There are two explanations for this: either we perfected our religious understanding of the world a millennium ago - while our knowledge on all other frongts was still hopelessly inchoate - or religion, being the mere maintenance of dogma, is one area of discourse that does not admit of progress. We see that there is much to recommend the latter view."
|
|