Reply
Wed 30 May, 2007 03:59 am
Who is your nominee for wise person?
Some consider that wisdom is "seeing life whole"
John Henry Newman wrote that the pursuit of knowledge will "draw the mind off from things which will harm it," and added that it will renovate man's nature by rescuing him "from that fearful subjection to sense which is his ordinary state."
Modern parents and students want universities and colleges to focus on matters of importance; how to get a good job. It seems that few recognize that education has an extrinsic and an intrinsic value. The extrinsic value is contained within the fact that a practical education is the key to making a better living.
What is the intrinsic value of learning? Why study history or literature or religion? Of what value is philosophy? Why study logic or how to think when I only care about learning how to build a bridge? Of what value is it for me to become a critically self-conscious thinker?
Everybody comprehends how the intellect can be used to build bridges, or repair a broken bone, or be an accountant but our culture has slowly removed from our comprehension the purpose of an ordered intellect in matters of providing meaning and purpose to life.
It appears that the mind has its own ?'grammar' (system of rules). Many forms of thinking, i.e. math and music or logic, help us construct a solid structure for exercising this grammar. Other types of knowledge, i.e. history, help us because we understand the present through analogies with the past.
Creativity is greatly enhanced by the cross-fertilization of multiple sources and kinds of knowledge. The broad scope afforded by a liberal education prepares us to see things in ?'the whole'; we see things holistically (in combination, in completeness, not dissected or fragmented).
I think that there are at least three forms of intellection: textual intellection is what we do when we reason in text form, artistic intellection is reasoning in artistic form, and practical intellection is what we do in our day-to-day living.
I think that one must acquire a significant degree of understanding in each of these three forms of intellection to qualify for the distinction of "seeing life whole".
How do I ?'get ready' for becoming wise?
It seems to me that to see life whole I must learn a great deal more than I already have learned but I must start with where I presently am. I am convinced that learning new stuff requires three aspects of mind; mentally I must have curiosity, caring, and an orderly mind.
Understanding is necessary for wisdom. Understanding is a step beyond knowing and is seldom required or measured by schooling. Understanding is generally of disinterested knowledge, i.e. disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic (due to the nature of the self) value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ?'disinterested knowledge' as similar to ?'pure research', as compared to ?'applied research'. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.
Winston Churchill is my nomine for wise man. He was an accomplished painter, he was a historian with many books to his credit, and he was accomplished broadly in practical intellection as he demonstrated in his political career.
Quote:I am convinced that learning new stuff requires three aspects of mind; mentally I must have curiosity, caring, and an orderly mind.
An orderly mind? Nietzche pointed out that the process of thinking is a chaotic one, not at all as orderly and neat as thinkers like to present it.
Coherency is an additive from the thinker, not the idea itself, and if this is too rigidly applied it will damage creativity.
Cyracuz wrote:Quote:I am convinced that learning new stuff requires three aspects of mind; mentally I must have curiosity, caring, and an orderly mind.
An orderly mind? Nietzche pointed out that the process of thinking is a chaotic one, not at all as orderly and neat as thinkers like to present it.
Coherency is an additive from the thinker, not the idea itself, and if this is too rigidly applied it will damage creativity.
Well said.
I have been reading a lot about Otto Rank's theory regarding creativity and the will. I think there is a strong correlation between what an artists does and what a self-learner does in the process of trying to understand. Understanding is an extension of knowing. It extends knowing into meaning, which adds a large emotional factor to knowing.
As I see it, self learning is a creative process. It is a matter of try and fail, same as making creative works. Experience helps, it gives confidence in one's abilities, which is all one really needs.
A friend of mine always says that he isn't very good at improvising melodies on the guitar. He compares himself to me, but I've been doing it for decades, so I have more practice.
But when we play and sing, and I start playing some chords that he doesn't know, he starts playing melodies. Often he forgets that he doesn't know how, and the stuff that he plays is really good.
Cyracuz wrote:As I see it, self learning is a creative process. It is a matter of try and fail, same as making creative works.
The trick is recognizing and admitting "failure" when one sees it. As I've remarked in previous threads, the analogy between learning and artistic creation is an attractive one and has its uses, but it has its abuses as well. Those who treat empirical knowledge like an aesthetic experience run the risk of thinking there is some correlation between the validity of the knowledge and the pleasure afforded by the aesthetic experience: the more pleasurable the aesthetic experience, the more correct the knowledge must be. The abstract and personal nature of the aesthetic experience has always been designed to evade criticism, which may work for art but doesn't work so well for learning. I wouldn't want to throw out the "aesthetic model of self-learning" altogether, but I would add that the model requires a certain degree of intellectual honesty.
I agree shapeless.
One thing is recognizing and admitting failure, but in my particular line of creativity (I'm a song writer) the success or failure is determined by how many people like what I do. Similarly, the success or failure of learning and discovering is often determined by how many people believe in you or agree with you.
Otto Rank speaks about the energy that is latent within the creative act. I consider that understanding is a creative act of meaning and I am convinced that the energy is created in the process of certain types of learning and understanding. This energy is a very important consideration I think.
Good stuff guys. I do believe that all real learning is auto-didactic. Even the appreciation of someone else's art is a creative act. And this applies without doubt to learning in general.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace