Opening 5 Dialogues
Zo:
Thanks again for your comments. I really, really enjoyed reading them. I haven’t posted in a while, and I think part of the cause is a lack of dialogue. I’d like to respond to each of your comments. Although, I must say that only some of my responses directly engage your comments, others were inspired by them.
RE: The Count
When the abbe says he can teach Dantes all of his knowledge in two years, he uses the verb “transfer.” This essentially is the traditional model for university teaching: knowledge transmission. The professor stands before his class and presents his vast array of facts for student absorption.
Knowledge and facts are integral. But I think “knowledge transmission” will only develop and transform the minds of independent, active learners. For most, knowledge transmission done well is entertaining and informative. Done poorly, knowledge transmission is terribly boring. Moreover, the students who passively receive the information aren’t transforming themselves. (Transference is not transformation. Is this too bold a claim?)
Of course, my progressive, constructivist colors are showing through here.
I like the abbe’s definition of philosophy, “the union of all acquired knowledge” (a lot of experience) and “the genius that applies it” (wisdom). This brings me back to the original question regarding the relationship between knowledge and wisdom. I think wisdom needs knowledge. It’s an abstract faculty that operates in a deeply contextual world…
RE: Socrates
Does the writer simply package the seeds, or does he construct the seeds? If the former, where do the seeds come from? If the latter, does the writer’s molecular construction have any effect on the reader who plants the seeds?
RE: Amateurish Notes
Another fragment that underscores the passivity of knowledge and activity of wisdom: Knowledge is used; wisdom is use.
Also, my breakthrough in these notes is that wisdom (in the conventional way we use the concept) is fundamentally, necessarily good. Genius, on the other hand, can be good or evil. To be sure, knowledge can be used for good or evil as well. But wisdom is always right and just. I called wisdom “value-laden,” because its definition resides partially within the sphere of ethics. Thus it’s more complex than knowledge. If I may take a poetic liberty, I’d say that wisdom has more dimensions than knowledge. (If we can even categorize concepts as having dimensions. I like this idea. What’s the difference between a 2- and 3-dimensional concept?)
RE: Nee-chu
This is Nietzsche’s famous doctrine of perspectivism! There’s more to it as I’m sure you’ve read by now. I don’t think Nietzsche argues that there is objectivity. As I said in an essay I once wrote, notice that objectivity appears in quotation marks. Nietzsche doesn’t use the word, he only mentions it.
RE: The Madman
I could go on forever about this aphorism. I think there are two themes present here that connect with Nietzsche’s overall (non) program. The first is that Europe is severely shortsighted, having not attained the status of bovine rumination. Thus the Europeans don’t even recognize that their morality is based on a system they no longer believe in. The second point is embodied in the madman’s questioning. Now that God is dead, who will fill the void? For Nietzsche, I think the answer would be “the strongest men.” The madman broaches this when he looks to the future generations for an answer to this question. But, sadly, the madman (like Nietzsche) came too early. The villagers weren’t ready to hear any of it. I imagine he skulks away—back to a forest or cave—to wait until the world catches up with him, if he doesn’t die first.
Thanks again for your comments. I really, really enjoyed reading them. I haven’t posted in a while, and I think part of the cause is a lack of dialogue. I’d like to respond to each of your comments. Although, I must say that only some of my responses directly engage your comments, others were inspired by them.
RE: The Count
When the abbe says he can teach Dantes all of his knowledge in two years, he uses the verb “transfer.” This essentially is the traditional model for university teaching: knowledge transmission. The professor stands before his class and presents his vast array of facts for student absorption.
Knowledge and facts are integral. But I think “knowledge transmission” will only develop and transform the minds of independent, active learners. For most, knowledge transmission done well is entertaining and informative. Done poorly, knowledge transmission is terribly boring. Moreover, the students who passively receive the information aren’t transforming themselves. (Transference is not transformation. Is this too bold a claim?)
Of course, my progressive, constructivist colors are showing through here.
I like the abbe’s definition of philosophy, “the union of all acquired knowledge” (a lot of experience) and “the genius that applies it” (wisdom). This brings me back to the original question regarding the relationship between knowledge and wisdom. I think wisdom needs knowledge. It’s an abstract faculty that operates in a deeply contextual world…
RE: Socrates
Does the writer simply package the seeds, or does he construct the seeds? If the former, where do the seeds come from? If the latter, does the writer’s molecular construction have any effect on the reader who plants the seeds?
RE: Amateurish Notes
Another fragment that underscores the passivity of knowledge and activity of wisdom: Knowledge is used; wisdom is use.
Also, my breakthrough in these notes is that wisdom (in the conventional way we use the concept) is fundamentally, necessarily good. Genius, on the other hand, can be good or evil. To be sure, knowledge can be used for good or evil as well. But wisdom is always right and just. I called wisdom “value-laden,” because its definition resides partially within the sphere of ethics. Thus it’s more complex than knowledge. If I may take a poetic liberty, I’d say that wisdom has more dimensions than knowledge. (If we can even categorize concepts as having dimensions. I like this idea. What’s the difference between a 2- and 3-dimensional concept?)
RE: Nee-chu
This is Nietzsche’s famous doctrine of perspectivism! There’s more to it as I’m sure you’ve read by now. I don’t think Nietzsche argues that there is objectivity. As I said in an essay I once wrote, notice that objectivity appears in quotation marks. Nietzsche doesn’t use the word, he only mentions it.
RE: The Madman
I could go on forever about this aphorism. I think there are two themes present here that connect with Nietzsche’s overall (non) program. The first is that Europe is severely shortsighted, having not attained the status of bovine rumination. Thus the Europeans don’t even recognize that their morality is based on a system they no longer believe in. The second point is embodied in the madman’s questioning. Now that God is dead, who will fill the void? For Nietzsche, I think the answer would be “the strongest men.” The madman broaches this when he looks to the future generations for an answer to this question. But, sadly, the madman (like Nietzsche) came too early. The villagers weren’t ready to hear any of it. I imagine he skulks away—back to a forest or cave—to wait until the world catches up with him, if he doesn’t die first.
posted by AJV at 6:55 AM
0 comments
