Thankyou, it seemed almost like nearly being a rare original idea; rather than an old idea recycled from someone else. As an aside -- I just remembered with this Socratic criticism of authority. Well, the problem now is "political correctness". There are various differing groups, and they take offence at any criticism of their beliefs, so the Politicans are putting limits on what is allowed to be said. Various comedians (such as I think Benny Hill) became politically incorrect. And possibly philosophers like Socrates will also become Politically Incorrect. The Motto might be: "you have freedom of speech, so long as what you say does not upset anyone" -- which could translate into - any criticism you have is bond to upset someone, so you can't say anything. Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: Karl Rogers To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 10:36 PM Subject: Re: On the issue of Wisdom Inquiry Well said Roger. Roger Anderton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Poor Socrates was forced to drink poison for criticising authorities; to teach this method to students and get everyone criticising everything must eventually end up with anarchy (I think). The problem with grading is that there needs to be an authority saying what's right and what's wrong. Then if this authority could be wrong, there needs to be those who are Socratic in criticising. There are lots of different points-of-view. There are religious groups that want to impose their point-of-view on Society. But Society is composed of these many groups and other types. It is difficult to judge one point-of-view against another. On the emotive issue of child abuse, Society has had different beliefs as to what was acceptable. For instance in the Dickensian period (Victorian) it was acceptable to send orphans up chimneys to clean them, often they died; opinions changed and such a thing is now considered child abuse. Different societies will hold different opinions as to acceptable behaviour. >>Can we stop pretending that we do not need to make judgments about difficult issues, despite our fallibilities and the likelihood that many of our judgments may, after all, turn out to be wrong. It is part of our nature to try to make judgements on issues. As to what will be considered right or wrong, opinions will vary over the years, and society will be based upon these different opinions which can reverse the beliefs of the past; so what is considered wrong will continually change. Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: "John H Spencer" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:10 PM Subject: Re: On the issue of Wisdom Inquiry Karl and others are missing important distinctions. True enough, as Socrates long ago showed us, Wisdom cannot be taught. And I agree with Karl that the purpose of wisdom inquiry is to 'teach students how to learn for themselves, how to challenge and criticise authority, how to participate in their own educational process, how to develop their characters, and how to discover for themselves what is of value for the enhancement of the quality and meaning of life.' But I completely disagree with the notion that there should be no grades and that just going though the motions of attempting to defend a thesis is enough to get a PhD. I think such a proposal is as frightening as it is self-contradictory, which I will explain. Do we want surgeons who really understand how to perform surgery, pilots who really know how to fly planes, and so on? Surely we do. You do not want me to perform surgery on you or to fly your plane, because I am not trained in either profession. If I could just show up for a class whenever I wanted and not be graded or assessed and then still be able to be employed as a surgeon or pilot, clearly that could be disastrous. Thus, here is the first problem, which requires a proper distinction between wisdom and technical knowledge. Perhaps it is unwise to grade people according to their level of wisdom, but we must grade people according to their level of technical competence, whether in medicine, aeronautics, or logic etc. These distinctions between wisdom and technical knowledge require finer tuning, but the main point should be clear. Learning about oneself is one of the most important things we can do (wisdom based inquiry) but it is also important to learn technical arts (which require clear assessments). I have already mentioned to the list that the University of Philosophical Research has successfully integrated both approaches. If the FoW want to develop an educational institute, then we will have to focus on wisdom based inquiry or technical knowledge or integrate them both. The second problem concerns self-contradiction. If Roger, for example, thinks that we should grade students and Karl thinks we should not, then Karl believes that his own ideas are better than Roger's, which implies that Karl would necessarily judge himself to be wiser than Rogers, at least so far as future educational development is concerned. But, Karl has stated that no one can judge who is better or wiser etc, and so Karl cannot say that his ideas are better or wiser than Roger's or anybody's. Thus, Karl cannot attack the current educational system's emphasis on high grades and careers etc because such an attack requires making a judgment, in effect a grading, and he places his own ideas above the conventional ones. But he cannot both say that we cannot make such judgments AND yet make such judgments. This is the problem with holding a relativist position. If relativism is true, then everything is just as true and just as false as anything else. But, relativism does not equal pluralism. Pluralism allows for many voices to be heard and to be given equal consideration, although we still must judge which ones are better. Karl sent an email about the horrific child abuse around the world, but a relativist cannot really condemn such horrors, only someone who really believes that it is REALLY wrong can consistently say that child abuse in all forms everywhere is wrong. But only a realist can say that, someone who is not afraid to make a judgment and provide reasoned arguments to defend it. There will always be a difficult dialectal tension between differing ideas and desires etc, but refusing to make distinctions and judgments is no way to deal with the inherent challenges. Worse still is pretending not to value distinctions yet making them yourself about others. A relativist who refuses to make distinctions cannot disagree with me, so, if you disagree with me, if you really think I am wrong about one or all my points (or correct), then you are being a realist. And it is only with someone who admits that there is truth outside of relativized context that you can have a good argument. If truth is nothing but context- dependent convention, then there is no way to say that child abuse is really wrong if it is an accepted, prevalent practice in a particular society. Can we stop pretending that we do not need to make judgments about difficult issues, despite our fallibilities and the likelihood that many of our judgments may, after all, turn out to be wrong. John ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine