Wisdom versus Logic....

a reply to: auto3000
There is a difference between a man who is wise in factual knowledge and one who is wise with truth knowledge.

originally posted by: auto3000
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Knowledge is awareness by way of information or observation....what you don't want to end up doing is becoming the reference for objective meaning despite the objective reference and nature of words.

Truth is what is.

Knowledge is what we currently think we know.

Wisdom is understanding the difference between the first two statements.

a reply to: ketsuko

Truth is what is "immaterially" not just what is.....because truth and fact are concepts that exist in different natures...fact is what is materially.....that's why a person can't say with validity, "it's a fact that I have a mind" and that's because....it's true that a person has a mind. It's a fact that they have a body. What happens in these types of conversations is common...truth gets treated in a "factual" manner. This is why statements can only be true or false, this is because statements exist as a truth not a fact (nature of the existence of a statement).

a reply to: auto3000

In short, wisdom is knowledge known and knowledge understood. There two different natures of knowledge: Factual knowledge and knowledge of the truth.

Can you define both of these phrases. What is the difference between a correct fact and a truth? It doesn't seem to me that the two are separate, but rather one relies on the other.

Logic itself can't be used by a person but instead are processed "logical processes". Since logic is processed, those processes are subject to the individual "contingent"

Are you trying to say that logic is a mental process, and therefore contingent upon the mind processing those thoughts?

Because logical processes are subject to the man himself only wisdom can get to the truth and not logical processes.

If wisdom is knowledge known how does one come to have knowledge if not thru logical thinking? How do you arrive at the idea that something is true?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ok...we'll do it like this....Everything (concepts and physical things) in the universe, exist in a state and nature....example: a car exist materially (state)..and exist as a fact (nature). A mind exist immaterially and exist as a truth. example #2.......I saw a UFO, that is either fact or fiction....I can't stop "thinking" about candy...true or false....the key is to pay attention to what a persons "statement" is referring to, not just the statement itself....here's an example of an invalid statement: it's a fact that I don't like the color red.....the correct statement would be, it is true that I don't like the color red, because it refers to a state of mind "like"...immaterial.....ok....LOGIC...1.the law of identity 2.law of non contradiction 3.law of excluded middle....we process from these laws (logical processes) two logical thinkers can contradict each other, but two people speaking the truth cannot. (quick example: it's logical to kill prey with a gun because it's faster: No, a knife is a more logical choice because you don't have to waste ammo, if you know what you are doing.) logical absolutes just tells you that A cannot be A and not A at the same time...logic says "it can't be something and not that same something....Wisdom....I know what A means and why A doesn't mean anything else and the reason why it is that way and can reference it so that you're not just believing me on blind faith....Logic cannot tell you where the confirmation of truth derives from, only wisdom does and that can be demonstrated.

a reply to: auto3000

a car exist materially (state)..and exist as a fact (nature).

I would argue that may not necessarily be the case. I would posit that a car exist in a virtual state as a projection of sorts. Now that perception could be shared by both of us and if it was we might come to the agreement that it is indeed a fact in our perceived realities.

A mind exist immaterially and exist as a truth.

A mind exist immaterially that we can agree upon, and it may exists as a truth known to that one mind but not necessarily a truth known to all minds.

it's a fact that I don't like the color red.....the correct statement would be, it is true that I don't like the color red, because it refers to a state of mind

If a fact is a thing that is indisputably the case and it is true that you don't like red, then how could one hope to dispute the fact that you don't like red? Can there not be facts about mental states?

two logical thinkers can contradict each other, but two people speaking the truth cannot.

Of course two logical thinkers can contradict because humans are not perfectly logical, but if they contradict then it is the case that one of them made a logical error. Sure the two guys can disagree on what is best for killing prey, but either one or the other is telling the truth or they are both telling a falsehood they believe to be true. My question is how do you come to the idea that you have obtained a belief that is actually true?

Logic cannot tell you where the confirmation of truth derives from, only wisdom does and that can be demonstrated.

Truth derives from what actually is. Logic is used to determine what actually is the case. Wisdom is knowledge known and understood. Knowledge is a justified true belief. How do we come to the idea that knowledge is known and understood without the use of logic? I suppose my confusion is pitting one against the other. It seems one requires the other.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Now, I want you to take note of how this is broken down and why..."I would argue that may not necessarily be the case. I would posit that a car exist in a virtual state as a projection of sorts"....let's address each statement...remember what I posted?......what the statement is referring to...Virtual: not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so........a car does not rely on a computer to be a car in this manner......Let's look at the next..."A mind exist immaterially that we can agree upon, and it may exists as a truth known to that one mind but not necessarily a truth known to all minds."..... good point...This is not to be confused...truth is based upon objective reference meaning this....some people don't know that something is true...and some know but don't believe it, in other words: They are aware of the information but, they don't accept it to be true......" My question is how do you come to the idea that you have obtained a belief that is actually true?"....note the question....this is not a bad thing by no means but at least look closely....A BELIEF THAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE?....watch what the statement really says....something that you accept to be true, actually..(as the truth or facts of a situation; really) being true?....then we look at this: what is auto3000 accepting to be true and claiming to understand? The meaning of the words that we use to express what we accept and don't accept to be true. Here's the conclusion....THE CONFIRMATION OF TRUTH: This means how truth is confirmed in a human mind...where does the confirmation derive from? by what is revealed, and then understood....why by what is revealed? because truth is a conceptual reality and is absolute, meaning, it's not subject to man, so man can't say with validity that he can apprehend that reality at will, but that it's revealed by objective meaning and he understands it. CONFIRMATION OF FACTS: This means, what confirms facts in a human mind....where does the confirmation of facts derive from? what is determined and what is proven.....

a reply to: auto3000

There is...but my point is that both can be faulty because both are based on current knowledge known to the individual. A wise man in 1500 B.C.E. would not be very wise today on many topics, factually or concerning "truth."

a reply to: auto3000

not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so........a car does not rely on a computer to be a car in this manner......

This will explain what I mean by virtual in a far better way than I could hope to verbalize.

....note the question....this is not a bad thing by no means but at least look closely....A BELIEF THAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE?....watch what the statement really says....something that you accept to be true, actually..(as the truth or facts of a situation; really) being true?....then we look at this: what is auto3000 accepting to be true and claiming to understand?

Aristotle would have said that knowledge is known when a person has a justified true belief. My question was not about what are you accepting to be true or understand but rather how do you come to the idea that what you believe is objectively true is actually objectively true. You seem to want truth with no real way of verifying the statements to actually be true. Lets look at the movie a Beautiful Mind. John Nash believed he was working for the government finding secret codes in new articles and magazines, yet we would say that John Nash is objective a schizophrenic. He might argue the he is objectively finding codes of a Russian spy organization. How can one understand a truth without some form of rational thought(meaning a thought processed with the absolutes of logic in mind) first?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What's happening here is this...your'e looking for facts that leads to the truth. How do you deal with a statement that is true, and what the statement is referring to is a truth?......Example (facts) 1: A horse is in my yard....you come to my house and see the horse in my yard...this means now you have determined the facts by seeing the horse and therefor discovered that the statement is true.....that's what you can understand better, I notice that...now Example (truth) 2.....I tell you that humans have feelings...you laugh and say "prove it"...The reason why I know this truth without a doubt is not because people express feelings..that's just evidence that points to the case...I know undeniably because of this...Feelings: an emotional state or reaction.....we experience what it means...the experience does not make it true...the word meaning does....you not experiencing it has no bearing on the truth of it....the definition tells you the case before any physical demonstration does. Let's look at the concept of love...it exist but, as a truth not a fact....it is love "before" you ever express it...If you don't experience love, the definition tells you rather it's an imagined concept or not....see that's just the point...your'e wanting to follow a material path to understand immaterial realities....

a reply to: auto3000

Let's look at a beautiful mind.....what he was claiming was either fact of fiction not true or false...when a person makes a factual claim.."hey I work for the government" or "I'm chased by the military" these are factual claims and are subject to the person that you make the claim to...they are valid for demanding proof....the evidence of truth is the definition of words themselves....Truth claims don't work like factual claims work....someone says to you "a dog is an mammal"...where is the proof that a dog is an mammal?....not looking at it...that's evidence that you are looking at something..how do you know what your'e looking at?...simple...what you are looking at is consistent with this....Dog: a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. It is widely kept as a pet or for work or field sports......The meaning is true and validates what you are looking at....Truth validates facts.

a reply to: auto3000

What's happening here is this...your'e looking for facts that leads to the truth. How do you deal with a statement that is true, and what the statement is referring to is a truth?......Example (facts) 1: A horse is in my yard....you come to my house and see the horse in my yard...this means now you have determined the facts by seeing the horse and therefor discovered that the statement is true.....that's what you can understand better, I notice that...n

You seem to completely ignore that a fact is either true or false. If its false we would remove the label of a fact from that statement. If truth is what actually is, and a fact actually is then that fact is a truth about the nature of reality.

The reason why I know this truth without a doubt is not because people express feelings..that's just evidence that points to the case...I know undeniably because of this...Feelings: an emotional state or reaction.....we experience what it means...the experience does not make it true...the word meaning does....you not experiencing it has no bearing on the truth of it....the definition tells you the case before any physical demonstration does.

This is not my position but the cause of that emotional state very well could be bio-chemical reactions. Sure we experience what we would describe as emotional states, but that doesn't tell you if those are actually emotional states or simply states of matter in a particular form doing what matter does. Defining a word does not mean that word is a truth about reality it simply means that is the message that word tries to portray. I do not believe that emotions can be explained purely thru naturalistic mechanisms, so on that we would agree, but simply defining emotion does not bring one to the idea that emotions come from more than some material cause.

your'e wanting to follow a material path to understand immaterial realities....

Only when the situation suits that you do such, for example, if I want to know if it is actually the case that their is a horse in your yard the most obvious response would be to see if a horse is in your yard. Its a statement containing a message about the physical. Love on the other hand is a description of a relationship between to minds which we have both already said are not something physical but something more.

a reply to: auto3000

Let's look at a beautiful mind.....what he was claiming was either fact of fiction not true or false...when a person makes a factual claim.."hey I work for the government" or "I'm chased by the military" these are factual claims and are subject to the person that you make the claim to.

I think you are missing the point. When that gentleman says I am chased by the military or hey I work for the government he is making a claim about what actually is. If those thing are not actually the case then he has used words but conveyed a message about reality that was false.

he evidence of truth is the definition of words themselves....Truth claims don't work like factual claims work....someone says to you "a dog is an mammal"...where is the proof that a dog is an mammal?

A mammal is an animal with hair. The definition of that word doesn't make a dog a mammal characteristics about that dog make it a mammal. We could say a groupa is an animal with hair then a dog could also be called a groupa. The word itself doesn't have an intrinsic truth value its the message that word is trying to convey that has a truth value.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It doesn't work that way....the correct wording would be...he's making a claim centered around what he has determined to be a fact.....see, with truth it's like this....you don't determine a truth because truth as a concept is not subject to man, man is subject to the truth....so actually I perceive the point undeniably....The definition of a word, validates what is claimed to be the case. That's why It's called objective reference....how would you know the definition of a mammal if you can't reference mammal objectively...you can't.

a reply to: auto3000

For future reference, a statement can't be factual...only what the statement is referring to can be factual...statements can only be true or false. This because statements are not material realities, they are immaterial, and are conveyed by means of words and letters or symbols.

a reply to: auto3000

It doesn't work that way....the correct wording would be...he's making a claim centered around what he has determined to be a fact.

We aren't talking about what he has determined. We are looking at the situation from the outside. He has makes a claim about what is actually the case. but we both know that he was a schizophrenic and that his claim was about something physical in reality. What determines whether his claim is true or false is whether reality is actually that way.

you don't determine a truth because truth as a concept is not subject to man, man is subject to the truth.

ee, with truth it's like this....you don't determine a truth because truth as a concept is not subject to man, man is subject to the truth.

Of course you don't. You don't determine facts either. You discover them. I have never made the argument that truth is subjective to man nor is that my position.

The definition of a word, validates what is claimed to be the case.

Again. Validates means to make valid, and you said earlier to be valid means to have a sounds basis in logic or fact. Defining the word mammal doesn't make a dog a mammal, it simply conveys a message about what a mammal is in reality. If a dog matches the message then we could agree to call a dog a mammal. The word mammal does not have an intrinsic meaning however. The meaning of a word is subject to the person using it so it would seem to me that you are the one arguing for something that is subject to man.

how would you know the definition of a mammal if you can't reference mammal objectively...you can't.

There is not intrinsic definition of the word mammal. Its a word in a language that we have agree means a particular thing. There is no objective reference its merely a mutual agreement on terms by society. 200 years from now mammal could mean something with a particular pattern found in the genome and have absolutely nothing to do with hair.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If a fact is a thing that is indisputably the case and it is true that you don't like red, then how could one hope to dispute the fact that you don't like red? Can there not be facts about mental states? No, there can be no facts about a specific state of mind...only charged activity that results from it....a person can't validly argue with a person about his or her own state of mind. They can only address the outcome that is seen from their behavior....Meaning this: That man is "behaving" this way or that way...and they draw a conclusion or professional diagnosis based upon what they can see and determine.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Faith is a belief and when you have it in One that is Allknowing ie God/Jesus, then we who do not know everything have to rely on Him to Reveal what He knows through Relationship not association. If your faith is based on what you know instead of who you have faith in then your blindness will be great due the unknown.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

There is not intrinsic definition of the word mammal. Its a word in a language that we have agree means a particular thing. There is no objective reference.....This type of thinking leads to this....I can only absolutely know what I can determine and there is no objective reference besides what I can determine....This is called total "subjectivity".....which is unrealistic...and here's why....because of reality itself...REALITY:...the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an IDEALISTIC or NOTIONAL idea of them.....This means reference that's not objectively referenced.

Sure the two guys can disagree on what is best for killing prey, but either one or the other is telling the truth.



There is no truth in either position, because their stand points are subjectively based upon logical processes....what's best for killing prey is a subjective discussion.