I will play at being a gadfly. What sort of _specific_ and _practicable_ activities
should this group engage in, starting close to now, to promote among academics
formulation and promulgation of ways of obtaining or producing wisdom to be
employed in making the world a better place?
For example, we are apparently being ask to seek what we will call
_wisdom_, a kind of knowledge of what is of value (for everyone in the world?),
and to promote and carry into action ways to use such wisdom to make
the world a better place. We are asked to contrast this with another kind of knowledge
which some (all?) academics are said to seek nowadays without concern for
what is of value in people's lives, and how the world can be made a better place.
What are some concrete examples of this latter kind of knowledge, preferably
naming names or works of this nature? How widespread is pursuit of this kind
of not-wisely-directed knowledge spread in the academies of the world? Is it the
case that all or most academic philosophers, literary critics, sociologists, theologians,
etc., as well as many physicists, mathematicians, biologists, geologists, etc., are
nowadays concerned mainly with (as one says) knowledge for its own sake?
I am primarily a mathematician, although I have also taught and published work in history
of science in general, especially physics, and I have done some work in academic philosophy.
I can't envisage a way to _do _ mathematics which is directed by a search for what is of value
in people's lives. Furthermore, most if not all mathematics can be applied for what we are
calling wise purposes, but the very same mathematics can also be applied for unwise purposes.
I have not been able (in a long life of seeking) to see anything in the practice of seeking and
promoting and teaching mathematical knowledge which would enable people to distinguish
between good and bad uses of mathematical knowledge. Am I to be infer that mathematicians
should all become philosophers, and teach ethics of a wise (and rational) kind? Perhaps we
should decide that we have enough mathematical knowledge already?
On another topic, I wonder what the implications of seeking and promoting
wisdom "by rational methods" might be? Is there an underlying contrast intended
between some of what is said in the world's religions to be wise and world-improving,
and what academics of some kinds should seek in the way of world-improving
wisdom?
Finally, along the lines indicated by others in this exchange, seeking and promoting
knowledge of what is valuable in llfe goes back a long ways. For example, Plato
and Aristotle have been notorious for doing this (not to mention people like Buddha,
Confucius, Moses, Jesus or some of their followers, who seem to have been rational
sometimes).
Gordon Fisher
At 01:24 PM 2/17/2007, Nicholas Maxwell wrote:
>Dear Tom,
>
> Friends of Wisdom was set up with the idea that - as it
>says on our website (www.knowledgetowisdom.org):-
>
>"We need a revolution in the aims and methods of academic inquiry. Instead
>of giving priority to the search for knowledge, academia needs to devote
>itself to seeking and promoting wisdom by rational means, wisdom being the
>capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom
>thus including knowledge but much else besides. A basic task ought to be to
>help humanity learn how to create a better world."
>
> The task before us is to help get this idea into the
>public arena. This task is immense. Simply to discover some sort of
>working agreement among ourselves as to what this task involves seems in
>itself a difficult enough project. It would be a mistake, in my view, to
>branch out, and take on even more tasks, very likely in themselves to
>provoke more disagreement and controversy - especially as the doctrines you
>mention do receive skeptical treatment elsewhere. No other group, as far as
>I know, is attempting to do what we are attempting: to help humanity acquire
>an instrument of inquiry rationally designed - well-designed - to help us
>learn how to create a better world. Let us concentrate on this immense,
>enormously important and, at present, largely overlooked, task.
>
> This task includes, of course, discussion of such things
>as how academia might offer greater help with tackling our immense,
>intractable global problems: global warming; war and the threat of war
>whether within or between nations; production and proliferation of
>armaments, conventional and nuclear; the threat of chemical and biological
>weapons; extreme poverty in Africa and elsewhere; destruction of tropical
>rain forests and other natural habitats, and the rapid extinction of
>species; existence of dictatorial regimes; violation of human rights; unjust
>distribution of the world's wealth. Our central concern should be to
>discover how academia could more effectively help humanity learn how to
>resolve its conflicts and problems of living in somewhat more peaceful,
>just, cooperatively rational ways than at present.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nick
>www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Milner-Gulland" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Should Friends of Wisdom be a Society with a Constitution?
>
>
>I looked for an option on this list to make a poll but can't find one. In
>association with any survey you might make as regards the desirability of a
>constitution (which sounds a good idea to me, for reasons other have given),
>you might want to test the water on a few things like:
>
>-- What is the consensus on popular science and its apparent control over
>peer review? How skeptical are people on the list towards such doctrines as
>relativity theory, big bang theory, 'hard' Darwinian theory, psychoanalysis
>(I myself am immensely skeptical towards all of those) and other entrenched
>or orthodox theories and accounts of eg. ancient history? (The Natural
>Philophy Alliance could be a good organisation to link up with, here.)
>
>-- What is the consensus on the apparently common, and in some quarters
>unquestioned view among academics that philosophy is inherently atheistic
>and should militate against theism (see my comments in the archive relating
>to Simon Critchley, who espouses this view)?
>
>-- Going a step further, what is the consensus on various aspects of the
>paranormal (something almost entirely neglected in the sphere of academic
>philsophy) - alien contact, UFO's, crop circles, spiritual mediums,
>pre-cognition, apparitions? (Here, I must admit, I have been persuaded -
>having initially been a skeptic - on many things that fall into this
>category). And should FoW embrace this field of enquiry?
>
>-- To what extent ought FoW focus on issues specifically pertaining to the
>modern world (eg. technology, global warming)?
>
>-- What is the consensus on various so-called conspiracy theories, and to
>what extent should FoW involve itself with these?
>
>-- How far ought FoW seek on a very general level to change attitudes in
>university departments as distinct from campaigning on specific matters of
>eg. ethics?
>
>-- To what extent ought FoW play the 'philosophy' card? i.e. should FoW
>present itself as an essentially philosophy-based setup?
>
>Some of those might be put in for a bit of fun but should nevertheless give
>some kind of indication as to the kind of people who have come here.
>
>Oh, heck, I didn't mention inclusionality....
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom
