We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
...if Socrates is right, and true wisdom is accepting one's own ignorance ... what does that say about "progress?" As individuals, of course, we recognize our personal idiocy. But the arrogance of progress is that no matter how stupid individuals are, progressives have confidence that society (as a whole) is on a one-way trajectory toward comprehensive wisdom. Progressives trust that society is growing collectively smarter and wiser.
Progressives trust that society is growing collectively smarter and wiser.
No, no, no. We just know more stuff. The application isn't necessarily any wiser.
And intelligence - sure, it may be that a higher proportion of the human population is smarter than before, due to better nutrition, health & such factors. Doesn't mean today's smart people are smarter than the smart people yesterday.
And, besides, raw intelligence is not a natural, or at least reliable, vector for wisdom or virtue.
It kills me that this isn't obvious. Why do people assume that we're fundamentally different in our humanity than earlier humans? Are we supposed to have substantially evolved beyond people a thousand years ago? And why couldn't we evolve to be dumber and more foolish - Natural Selection only cares about survivability.
The trouble is "Progressives" trust that they happen to be masters of the universe. Sheesh.
I agree - Knowledge\intellect is not wisdom - wisdom comes from experience, exposure, and expenditure of time, able to evaluate the data, remove the chafe and cherish the grain.
We're actually worse now than ever before - we have all this empirical data at our fingertips, but do not have the self-mechanism to evaluate it effectively. We know how to collect\observe, but eval\implement.
Progressives fear those whom can use knowledge, articulate it, and can bring that light to their shady presentations as a counter - these people are their worst nightmares and need destroyed at the turn...
We have lots more knowledge, but it seems we are not wise, or have good judgement about how to use our knowledge, or even what knowledge is useful. Wikipedia, for example has lots of "knowledge" World Book Encyclopedia, Collier's or even Britannica would have never published (a listing of all the episodes of "Everyone Loves Raymond"--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Everybody_Loves_Raymond_episodes, for example). I do like the show...but... I'm not even certain Socrates would know what to make of this "knowledge" being posted for all. And we're not smarter. School scores show that. Years ago I saw an 8th grade "final". I don't think a Harvard grad today could pass the test, let alone get a 50 percent. Finally, what's "smarter"? Figuring out a car stereo without having to resort to the manual, or being able to feed 8 people on 20 acres, with two horses and a mule? I can't do either, and I have an engineering degree.
--the whole string trying to figure out what 'SCOAMF' means, but never learning. However, Ace of Spades says sweasel is the ''best photoshopper on the internet'' --and she IS good --and they ARE funny --