For my
money, wisdom necessarily entails a radically critical component. The mere
extension of academic interests in isolated areas, and the maintenance of
academic input as relatively esoteric (removed from everyday discourse and
utility) is surely not the wisest way forward.
Let me
put that differently – the multiplication of academic claims to global
significance, usually accompanied by polysyllabic terminology and
serving
the ambitions of career academics, does little to create a wiser, more humane
and safer world. The attempt to turn “wisdom” into some new specialism misses
the point. Every academic module, even if it’s called something like ‘Global
Issues’, as long as it’s embedded in the same old credit-seeking mentality,
misses the point if students are not personally moved by the content. In
other words, wisdom (in my view) is as much ‘emotional’ as
intellectual.
Colin
Feltham
From: Group
concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of tom
abeles
Sent: 27 October 2008 16:48
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re:
Activities
Hi Nick/all
I
was interested in your suggestion that universities should offer a "seminar" on
global problems. It would be most interesting to understand which universities
are not addressing such issues today in one or more courses across their
respective institutions. That the same issues you cite for SGR added to global
warming, world hunger etc are absent from university campuses in seminars,
lectures, campus organizations and related activities would seem
amazing.
As an added thought, not since Ayn Rand's novels and her
philosophy of objectivism (requiring metaphysics, epistemology and ethics as
subjects of serious study- her defining of tems) has philosophy reached a more
general audience rather than being tucked away in some dusty corner of the
humanities where some departments even limit admitting Ph.D. students because of
a paucity of teaching positions.
If one is interested in seeing how
"Wisdom" might be tested as a philosophical topic one might want to apply such
precepts to the current controversy between neo-classical economics and the
rising arena of heterodox or post autistic economics. A review of Lindy Edwards'
2nd edition of "How to Argue with an Economist" might be an interesting start.
An extended review such as appears in the NYTimes Review or similar pub would be
of interest to the journal I edit, On the Horizon,
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/oth.htm .
Or, in relation to SGR's
efforts, one might apply concepts of "Wisdom" to analyze the controversy
surrounding the issue of "Climate Change" and why the various sides can not
agree on the facts and the possible responses. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"
which was brought before the British courts might serve as an interesting
starting point.
best
tom
tom abeles
Date: Sun, 26 Oct
2008 14:05:23 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
Activities
To: [log in to unmask]
Dear Friends of
Wisdom,
Yesterday I attended the annual meeting of Scientists for Global Responsibility
(SGR). When it came to discussing the future, I made an impassioned speech
from the floor arguing that SGR ought to do more to involve both staff and
students at Universities - especially as, more and more these days, both
academics and students can see that continuing as we are is likely to lead us to
catastrophe. Chris Langley, research officer for SGR who has written
reports on the military and its involvement with universities, made the point
that there is, these days, an increasing dissatisfaction among academics
with what universities are doing these days.
It is of course not just SGR which ought to be making contact with academics and
students. We ought to be doing it too.
What can we do to make FoW more active and effective? Do please email
suggestions - to the main FoW emailing list, not just to the discussion
list. (If you click "reply" to this email, your reply will go to the "d"
discussion list.)
Comparing SGR and FoW, it is clear that SGR is bigger, better organized, more
focused, and more effective. SGR was formed in 1992, not from scratch like
us in 2005, but from the merger of Scientists Against Nuclear
Arms, Electronics and Computing for
Peace and Psychologists for Peace.
It has just short of 1,000 members, whereas we have just reached
200 members. It has a constitution, salaried officers, membership fees,
and obtains funding (without which it could not do what it does). It has a
Newsletter and an annual conference. It has produced reports on the
involvement of the military in science, universities and schools, which are
well thought of, and which have got through to British MPs and the media.
Another initiative has to do with ethical scientific careers. SGR manages
to take part in "career fairs" at universities in the UK. Increasingly -
we were told yesterday - the press consult and quote SGR in connection with the
issues they are concerned with.
FoW has much to learn, it seems to me, from SGR. We are a fifth of the
size, we don't have a constitution, membership fees, funding, staff, Chair and
coordinating committee. And we don't have specific projects that we are
actively pursuing. (But Mat Iredale and I have drawn up a draft
constitution.)
We do have a website, a Newsletter, an emailing group, active plans for a
conference next year (which I hope to report on soon) - and an agenda of
profound importance for the future of humanity.
What we need, most urgently, it seems to me, is specific projects that we are
pursuing actively (analogous to the projects actively pursued by
SGR).
Our overall task is to help transform universities and schools so that the basic
aim becomes to seek and promote wisdom rather than just acquire knowledge -
wisdom being the capacity to realize what is of value in life (thus including
knowledge, understanding and technological know-how). We want universities
to give intellectual priority to problems of living, problems of knowledge
emerging out of and feeding back into, rational tackling of problems of
living.
What we need at this stage, it seems to me, is two or three specific projects
that we can actively pursue that are exemplars, specific paradigms, of our
general, immense project. Do please send in suggestions.
Here is one suggestion of mine.
1. Every
university and school ought to have a seminar devoted to discussing global
problems. Could we not take up, as a campaign, to get our own university
or school (if we are associated with one) to bring such a seminar into
existence? Even better, could we not ourselves create and chair such a
seminar, with help from fellow enthusiasts? We could have a page of our
website devoted to this campaign, and there record our efforts. Above all,
keep a list those universities and schools that do have such a seminar (one that
meets once a month say, on a regular basis).
I confess I have not
myself done much so far to get such a seminar created at my own university -
University College London (although when I worked actively at UCL I did create
and chair an interdisciplinary seminar at UCL). All I have done
is email the Provost (the name UCL gives to its vice President) on the
22nd Feb., 2008, making the suggestion. Here is a copy of my
email:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear
Provost,
I would like to congratulate you on the way you have nurtured various
initiatives, seminars and institutions devoted to tackling global
problems. One thinks immediately of the Global Health Seminar, the UCL
Environment Institute, and of course UCL Global.
In
line with these developments, I would like to see a permanent Seminar at
UCL, which meets perhaps once a month, devoted to sustained discussion of global
problems: problems of health, environment, climate change, poverty, war,
population growth, tyranny, extinction of species, destruction of natural
habitats, armaments, priorities of research and development, global democracy
(lack of), depletion of natural resources, crime, natural
disasters,
sustainability, global justice. One could imagine the seminar sometimes
being big affairs, involving the media, with well-known speakers. And on
other occasions it might be smaller, more private, an affair for a group of
specialists, and the seminar might devote itself to some rather more specific
issue. Experts from other universities might well be invited to take
part. The aim would be, not just to highlight existing problems, or
criticize existing policies, but to come up with workable, realistic, effective
new policies.
In my view, every University ought to have a seminar of this type, and given
current trends, it is quite possible that in 30 years or so, they will.
Setting up such a seminar at UCL would seem to me to be an excellent opportunity
for UCL to lead the way.
It is quite possible that something along these lines is already being
considered. If not, I would like to suggest that it be
considered.
Best wishes,
Nicholas Maxwell
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no response, and so far nothing has happened - although UCL does have
the Global Health Seminar which meets once a month, is open to staff and
students alike, discusses a wide range of issues, including political and
economic ones, and has a drinks reception afterwards for those who attend.
It is lively and well attended.
We need, I think, a number of possible specific projects before us, so that we
may choose one or two to take up in earnest. Then we could think of taking
up some of the other matters - funding, forming a society with a constitution
and perhaps membership fees, becoming more active in general as far as academia
and the media are concerned.
Do please email to the general emailing list a specific project you would like
to see FoW take up - one which, perhaps, you personally would like to become
involved with.
Best wishes,
Nick Maxwell
Store, manage and
share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive. Start uploading now