Conquer Club

So let's say you grew apples. You need to water the apples right? Let's say you were conservative about your water use. To be truly conservative you wouldn't water them at all, right? well then maybe it would be better to be liberal? To be truly liberal you would have water running constantly... wait a second??? in both these scenarios you're killing the tree. Perhaps, could this mean that it isn't healthy to be entirely conservative or liberal???? Wait WHAT??? Surely being moderate couldn't be what's best. Everyone knows that moderates are just pussies who don't have opinions, right?

I can be conservative with the water if there's a creek going through my orchard.

maybe its good to be conservative with things like spending, but better to be liberal about things like human rights and not being a total dick to people you find "icky".

also, your metaphor is wrong.

squishyg wrote:maybe its good to be conservative with things like spending, but better to be liberal about things like human rights and not being a total dick to people you find "icky".

also, your metaphor is wrong.

your face is wrong

Army of GOD wrote:

squishyg wrote:maybe its good to be conservative with things like spending, but better to be liberal about things like human rights and not being a total dick to people you find "icky".

also, your metaphor is wrong.

your face is wrong

wut? i can't hear you from up here.

squishyg wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

squishyg wrote:maybe its good to be conservative with things like spending, but better to be liberal about things like human rights and not being a total dick to people you find "icky".

also, your metaphor is wrong.

your face is wrong

wut? i can't hear you from up here.

=(

Also, this is why I strive to be moderate (though I lean a lot more socially liberal because f*ck, it's absolutely ridiculous that crazies out there don't want certain groups of people getting married and whatnot). It is healthy that we have extreme people like NS and natty(_)derp though because they balance each other out.

Army of GOD wrote:

squishyg wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

squishyg wrote:maybe its good to be conservative with things like spending, but better to be liberal about things like human rights and not being a total dick to people you find "icky".

also, your metaphor is wrong.

your face is wrong

wut? i can't hear you from up here.

=(

Also, this is why I strive to be moderate (though I lean a lot more socially liberal because f*ck, it's absolutely ridiculous that crazies out there don't want certain groups of people getting married and whatnot). It is healthy that we have extreme people like NS and natty(_)derp though because they balance each other out.

Nah f*ck the extemes, line the fuckers up and shoot em imo.

Lootifer wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

squishyg wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:

squishyg wrote:maybe its good to be conservative with things like spending, but better to be liberal about things like human rights and not being a total dick to people you find "icky".

also, your metaphor is wrong.

your face is wrong

wut? i can't hear you from up here.

=(

Also, this is why I strive to be moderate (though I lean a lot more socially liberal because f*ck, it's absolutely ridiculous that crazies out there don't want certain groups of people getting married and whatnot). It is healthy that we have extreme people like NS and natty(_)derp though because they balance each other out.

Nah f*ck the extemes, line the fuckers up and shoot em imo.

Perhaps that's a bit extreme?

Either way, I agree that moderation is the way to go. And to elaborate, I agree pretty much 100% with squishyg. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal is the way to go, for the most part.

The Bison King wrote:So let's say you grew apples. You need to water the apples right? Let's say you were conservative about your water use. To be truly conservative you wouldn't water them at all, right? well then maybe it would be better to be liberal? To be truly liberal you would have water running constantly... wait a second??? in both these scenarios you're killing the tree. Perhaps, could this mean that it isn't healthy to be entirely conservative or liberal???? Wait WHAT??? Surely being moderate couldn't be what's best. Everyone knows that moderates are just pussies who don't have opinions, right?

if i've learned anything from this forum, it's that neither i nor anybody else can be moderate. there are two states: "conservative" and "liberal". one can only quantum leap from one state to the other, and they only collapse into a single political party upon being observed. THERE IS NO IN-BETWEEN.

Being a moderate seems great, but it depends on which goal the moderate ultimately wishes to achieve.

For example, you can ideally be libertarian, or pro-economic freedom, yet remain Moderate by working with the status quo in order to shift it toward a more libertarian, or pro-economic freedom, society.

john9blue wrote:

The Bison King wrote:So let's say you grew apples. You need to water the apples right? Let's say you were conservative about your water use. To be truly conservative you wouldn't water them at all, right? well then maybe it would be better to be liberal? To be truly liberal you would have water running constantly... wait a second??? in both these scenarios you're killing the tree. Perhaps, could this mean that it isn't healthy to be entirely conservative or liberal???? Wait WHAT??? Surely being moderate couldn't be what's best. Everyone knows that moderates are just pussies who don't have opinions, right?

if i've learned anything from this forum, it's that neither i nor anybody else can be moderate. there are two states: "conservative" and "liberal". one can only quantum leap from one state to the other, and they only collapse into a single political party upon being observed. THERE IS NO IN-BETWEEN.

You spelled conservatard and libtard incorrectly.

Polarized thought is part of the problem.

Wisdom is necessary. Only wise people should be elected to make decisions.

nietzsche wrote:Polarized thought is part of the problem.

Wisdom is necessary. Only wise people should be elected to make decisions.

Wisdom is subjective you elitist cunt.

nietzsche wrote:Polarized thought is part of the problem.

Wisdom is necessary. Only wise people should be elected to make decisions.

Sure, philosopher kings and central planning is definitely the best path to take for political and bureaucratic decision-making.

In other news, Byron F. Garcia, "the official security advisor to the Cebu government who was assigned as head of the prison..., CPDRC," in the Philippines instituted this dance program for the inmates. From what I've heard, such a program has been beneficial for the prisoners (assuming that actual rehabilitation is the goal).

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebuda ... e_to_dance

He wasn't the wisest man on prisoner management, and his proposals met much resistance from that government. I'd imagine that most of the prison management "experts" would be appalled at Byron Garcia's suggestions.

Besides, wisdom isn't tractable. The wise can't know what's best for everyone (maybe within a village, maybe and with a council of wise people), the wise wouldn't select people into power only based on how wise these applicants are, etc.
Yeah, what AoG said.

there's a difference between wisdom being "subjective" and wisdom being "too complex for any person to understand"

john9blue wrote:there's a difference between wisdom being "subjective" and wisdom being "too complex for any person to understand"

What is wisdom, john?

I generally associate it with "excellent decision-making" plus "keen foresight." In that sense, being wise depends on the subject matter with which one is interacting. So, wisdom is subjective since it derives from the individual and is in relation to whatever that individual is controlling, managing, or interacting with. Wisdom is "too complex for any person to understand" because wisdom is subjective--it depends on what the subject matter.

If you can find one is wise on everything or numerous issues, then please let me know.

Wisdom requires knowledge, and since knowledge is asymmetric, or dispersed across many individuals in varying amounts and is contradictory at times, then wisdom (as a whole, i.e. encompassing all subject matter) must be too complex for any one person to understand.

I subscribe to the George Carlin school of thought.

Either we have no rights or we have unlimited rights.

"I believe I have the right to do anything I want. But if I do something you don't like, I believe you have the right to kill me!"

But in all seriousness, I think that moderation and compromise is really the only way to progress forward. The government has gotten woefully short on both of those things I feel.

Ha! The Philosopher Kings. Each and every one of the people who visit this forum would crap a brick if they had to live in something like Plato's Republic. It's totalitarian is hell. The supposed "philosopher kings" would change us from human beings into a mere colony of ants......

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:there's a difference between wisdom being "subjective" and wisdom being "too complex for any person to understand"

What is wisdom, john?

I generally associate it with "excellent decision-making" plus "keen foresight." In that sense, being wise depends on the subject matter with which one is interacting. So, wisdom is subjective since it derives from the individual and is in relation to whatever that individual is controlling, managing, or interacting with. Wisdom is "too complex for any person to understand" because wisdom is subjective--it depends on what the subject matter.

If you can find one is wise on everything or numerous issues, then please let me know.

Wisdom requires knowledge, and since knowledge is asymmetric, or dispersed across many individuals in varying amounts and is contradictory at times, then wisdom (as a whole, i.e. encompassing all subject matter) must be too complex for any one person to understand.

by "subjective" i mean that there is no objective way to measure wisdom (which is the ability to make correct decisions) and that one person can be both wise and unwise, within the minds of different people.

i believe that wisdom is not subjective, and that a person's ability to make correct decisions does not change based on the opinion of the observer.

patches70 wrote:Ha! The Philosopher Kings. Each and every one of the people who visit this forum would crap a brick if they had to live in something like Plato's Republic. It's totalitarian is hell. The supposed "philosopher kings" would change us from human beings into a mere colony of ants......

i honestly think i would be a fucking amazing king/emperor/leader, mostly due to the fact that i would not have a problem with letting other experts make decisions in areas that i don't know much about.

but "power corrupts" as they say, so who knows, maybe i would just turn into even more of a selfish asshole like most other leaders

So, what's your criteria for determining wisdom? What are "correct" decisions, and how do you know?

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, what's your criteria for determining wisdom? What are "correct" decisions, and how do you know?

i don't "know", it's too complicated for me or anyone else, remember?

i'm just telling you that a scale for wisdom exists outside of what we think

john9blue wrote:i honestly think i would be a fucking amazing king/emperor/leader,

Yeah, they all think like that........Every King, Emperor, President, Czar, Pope or whatever title you'd want to use, they all think that very line. Even in the face of reality.

patches70 wrote:

john9blue wrote:i honestly think i would be a fucking amazing king/emperor/leader,

Yeah, they all think like that........Every King, Emperor, President, Czar, Pope or whatever title you'd want to use, they all think that very line. Even in the face of reality.

wow, you really did stop reading right in the middle of my sentence. good job bro

BigBallinStalin wrote:

john9blue wrote:there's a difference between wisdom being "subjective" and wisdom being "too complex for any person to understand"

What is wisdom, john?

I generally associate it with "excellent decision-making" plus "keen foresight." In that sense, being wise depends on the subject matter with which one is interacting. So, wisdom is subjective since it derives from the individual and is in relation to whatever that individual is controlling, managing, or interacting with. Wisdom is "too complex for any person to understand" because wisdom is subjective--it depends on what the subject matter.

If you can find one is wise on everything or numerous issues, then please let me know.

Wisdom requires knowledge, and since knowledge is asymmetric, or dispersed across many individuals in varying amounts and is contradictory at times, then wisdom (as a whole, i.e. encompassing all subject matter) must be too complex for any one person to understand.

BBS,

You are talking about specialized knoledge. Wise people can delegate, listen to all accounts and make decisions. People not so wise can be easily fooled by one of the parts. I was merely trying to point out that Polarized thought is part of the problem. Candidates use that speech to get to a base of voters, but as election approaches, they move to center. That is just politics is.

It's not that saving is good in itself, neither spending. Sometimes it's wise to save, sometimes it's wise to spend. Decisions have to be made to try and go to the best possible future. If you have a right wing idiot he might always take the side of saving, and he might be taking the wrong path. But you elected him, so you have to wait 4 years of that.

Also, democracy has its value, some say there's wisdom in the masses. Might be true. We will never now really, but if you ask me, I'd rather trust a wise man. Wise men are rarely crooks, they know better.

john9blue wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, what's your criteria for determining wisdom? What are "correct" decisions, and how do you know?

i don't "know", it's too complicated for me or anyone else, remember?

i'm just telling you that a scale for wisdom exists outside of what we think

like god, huh? I'm not buying your argument... let me rehash:


Essentially, my argument is that individual 1 might be wise about Z but is not wise about A, B, C, D, ..., X and Y.

Wisdom is "the ability to make correct decisions," which requires relevant knowledge. Because if you don't have the knowledge required, then you're incapable of making a correct decision--unless by pure luck, which I don't view as wise, but lucky. That withstanding, in order to make a decision, a living conscious human being* is required [1]. Wisdom, as a whole, doesn't exist, because all knowledge cannot be held by one individual (as already explained, and reiterated below)[2]. It would be impossible to deem if one was wise if the term "wisdom" encompasses all knowledge.

Can one be considered wise in the field of knowledge of Z? I really don't think that's possible, and I'll explain below (relates to the **** section too).


I disagree that "a scale for wisdom exists outside of what we think" because that scale of wisdom must entail all knowledge, which is impossible for any human being (or computer, as explained below). If a human being is incapable of possessing all knowledge, thus being all-wise, then for me it makes no sense to talk about wisdom which is beyond humans because wisdom would become delegated to this realm beyond this actual world.

Furthermore, without any grounding in human action (decision-making), then to say that "a scale for wisdom exists outside of what we think" is pointless. If we accept your position as true, then why not accept this as true: "outside of what we think, there is a flying circus of abnormally tall Quasi-AoGs which live on the button of Quasi-Haggis' favorite trousers?"[3] "Objectively, that is true, but we just can't perceive it" seems to be the gist of that part of your argument. I just don't buy that.


*******
*What about a super computer that can compile all knowledge and then theoretically make decisions (i.e. not be programmed, but can program itself)?

All knowledge encompasses not only knowledge of the past and of the present but also of the future. Future knowledge is simply inaccessible; otherwise, we'd already have this knowledge in the present (to grossly simplify Karl Popper on that ). Furthermore, knowledge can be contradictory across all individuals [4], and some matters have no one correct decision (or answer). So, there is no absolute truth, or absolutely correct decision to make for all individuals in all "circumstances of time and place." The possibility of a computer with total wisdom is impossible, unless we delve beyond this world and pull out something unfalsifiable.

Making correct decisions depends on... what exactly? Outcomes? For who? Value is subjective, and interpersonal comparisons of utility (i.e. usefulness of an outcome) is a flawed concept. Regarding outcomes, the "correct" choice is a subjective matter. Choices are based on expected benefits and one's opportunity cost, which is only known to the decision-maker at that time [5]. A decision might be correct at the time of the decision, but could be realized as correct (later, as in, 10 seconds, 1 day, or maybe even 50 years, who knows). Knowing the correct decision involves future knowledge as well.

________________________________

tl;dr for the shameful:

Basically, wisdom is subjective because its definition hinges on "correct decisions." Decisions are based on knowledge, which is relative, sometimes contradictory with someone else's knowledge, is imperfect, and is permanently incomplete (no accessibility to future knowledge). Wisdom that encompasses all knowledge, or even a field of knowledge, is impossible.

The "correctness" of a decision depends on the outcomes, and possibly how that effects the decision-maker and also everyone even remotely involved. So, what we have is wisdom which can only be relative, imperfect, and is subjectively constrained. The "existence of a scale of wisdom outside of what we think" is as true as those tall AoGs on Haggis' trousers which is also outside of what we think. (I don't buy Plato's Theory of Forms, as in a "Wisdom itself" concept.)


Biblilolgraphy

show