Stealing of Wisdom

[Skyblack]

It seems the truly wise have a responsibility. It is part of their self-accountability. It is their responsibility not to disrespect wisdom by encouraging thieves. After all the general conditioning of modern times is to steal wisdom from whatever sources said thief can lay his or her hands on. Be it a book, an expert, a teacher, or some other source.

But the lover of wisdom has to question, can wisdom be stolen? Can it gleaned for a book, in college, or from a person? Certainly not. If wisdom could be stolen by education, by gleaning, the world be in a different state, and the wise would be produced/manufactured in batches each year. Then the question is can wisdom be stolen by devious means? Surely not. Upon inquiry it seems one can steal information, but one cannot steal wisdom. Because, wisdom is the key, required to unpack the gleaned information and put it to use.

Therefore some of the wise who are repulsed by thieves and the thieving mentality, ensure that these thieves do not get even the basic wisdom on how to unpack information, unless they demonstrate some basic qualifications. Perhaps this why the sages of yore, the giants, insisted and ensured that the person seeking wisdom has to demonstrate the required qualities in their conduct. Qualities such as a sincere and serious desire to know, to find out, the quality of a mind that is exploratory and not eristic, possesses the jewel of humility and so forth.

Having understood the above, yours truly can easily spot the defects being mentioned, and being blessed with the virtue of sobriety, doesn’t get swayed by flattery/criticism, fortune/ adversity. It seems to OP this is perhaps the application of wisdom. For what’s the measure of wisdom if not conduct. Hence it’s in conduct one can truly measure where one truly stands.

[Ecurb]

Wisdom is never stolen; it is shared. Since it cannot be "owned", it cannot be stolen.

You seem to suggest that Newton was wrong in seeing further than others because he "stood on the shoulders of giants". But we all stand on the shoulders of others. Without language (which we learn -- steal? -- from others) we would have completely different modes of thinking. Wisdom is not individual; it is cultural.

[Skyblack]

A note to any new readers/posters: OP isn't going to respond to individual posters or individual posts, but may continue penning some of his thoughts which should only be considered as a continuity of OP and not rebuttals.

To continue for what was said in OP:

Wisdom isn’t in books. OP has mentioned it using an example which is common knowledge. The lover of wisdom then asks is wisdom mere accumulation of knowledge, cultural, societal or some other kind? Surely not. Wisdom isn’t in the accumulated knowledge of othes’ experiences. Then one simply becomes a second hand, mechanical repetitive parrot. At the best perhaps a modified continuity of the old.

It seems wisdom comes in self-understanding, in self-discovery of the whole structure of oneself, and n the understanding of oneself. It also appears wisdom clarifies the nature of one's relationship with the ‘outside’, with the universe. How can a mind be wise when it’s caught up in fear, in malice, in sorrow, in self-interest, in divisiveness, in ego etc? Surely the ending of all these, creates the possibility for wisdom.

To bring about such a radical change in one's mind, and by extension in one's life/living, is the quest of the lover of wisdom. However such a quest is doomed to fail even before it starts, if the person does not understand the application of wisdom, it's measure, it's translation in/is conduct. Therefore the mentality, that in the quest for such a radical change, one can engage in malicious thieving isn't going to help at all.

[AmericanKestrel]

What has wisdom and thieving got to do with each other? This is a very strange juxtaposition of two very distinct things, one a noun and the other a verb. Wisdom cannot be stolen, It can only be acquired by one's own effort. It cannot be lost once acquired so there is no question of it being thieved.
Is there a point to the OP?

[Robert66]

A note to any new readers/posters: OP isn't going to respond to individual posters or individual posts, but may continue penning some of his thoughts which should only be considered as a continuity of OP and not rebuttals.

Is this wise? People use this forum because they are interested in philosophy, and wish to engage in debate. Not to read someone's blog.

BTW if I could be bothered I would explain why your Op is a half-baked concoction gleaned from cut-price self help books flicked through at a shopping mall bookstore.

[LuckyR]

What has wisdom and thieving got to do with each other? This is a very strange juxtaposition of two very distinct things, one a noun and the other a verb. Wisdom cannot be stolen, It can only be acquired by one's own effort. It cannot be lost once acquired so there is no question of it being thieved.
Is there a point to the OP?

Obviously, it all depends on what you mean by wisdom. My definition fits your post.

[LuckyR]

A note to any new readers/posters: OP isn't going to respond to individual posters or individual posts, but may continue penning some of his thoughts which should only be considered as a continuity of OP and not rebuttals.

Is this wise? People use this forum because they are interested in philosophy, and wish to engage in debate. Not to read someone's blog.

BTW if I could be bothered I would explain why your Op is a half-baked concoction gleaned from cut-price self help books flicked through at a shopping mall bookstore.

To each their own. As I attempted to explain in a previous thread, since posts are read way more than they are responded to, there is value in responses that goes beyond the opinion of posters on threads. Thus such opinions are of low importance.

[AmericanKestrel]

A note to any new readers/posters: OP isn't going to respond to individual posters or individual posts, but may continue penning some of his thoughts which should only be considered as a continuity of OP and not rebuttals.

Is this wise? People use this forum because they are interested in philosophy, and wish to engage in debate. Not to read someone's blog.

BTW if I could be bothered I would explain why your Op is a half-baked concoction gleaned from cut-price self help books flicked through at a shopping mall bookstore.

To each their own. As I attempted to explain in a previous thread, since posts are read way more than they are responded to, there is value in responses that goes beyond the opinion of posters on threads. Thus such opinions are of low importance.

Can you clarify your opinion please? Who are posters, whose opinions, and which is of low importance?
Since the OP is refusing to engage, aren’t they just preaching? I thought that was not the purpose of the forum.

[LuckyR]

A note to any new readers/posters: OP isn't going to respond to individual posters or individual posts, but may continue penning some of his thoughts which should only be considered as a continuity of OP and not rebuttals.

Is this wise? People use this forum because they are interested in philosophy, and wish to engage in debate. Not to read someone's blog.

BTW if I could be bothered I would explain why your Op is a half-baked concoction gleaned from cut-price self help books flicked through at a shopping mall bookstore.

To each their own. As I attempted to explain in a previous thread, since posts are read way more than they are responded to, there is value in responses that goes beyond the opinion of posters on threads. Thus such opinions are of low importance.

Can you clarify your opinion please? Who are posters, whose opinions, and which is of low importance?
Since the OP is refusing to engage, aren’t they just preaching? I thought that was not the purpose of the forum.

Posters are folks who post on threads. Opinions (such as the one you referred to, which I referred to in a different thread) expressed in posts about the importance of this or that member's postings or in the case you referenced, choosing not to respond because of the supposed low quality of responses are examples of low importance opinions (though not the only type).

My point is of the members who read a thread, only the opinion of folks who respond are seen, yet those opinions are far outnumbered by members who read but choose not to write a response. You can think of them as the Silent Majority.

If someone decides they can best serve the Forum by posing intrtesting opinions, without contributing to the discussion, who am I to argue? I agree it is a very uncommon stance, but he knows himself better than we do. Perhaps there is a completely logical reason we are unawsre of.