KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM

In this write-up, I'd like to draw some points of difference between knowledge and wisdom.  What is meant by being knowledgeable?  What is meant by being wise?  Is a knowledgeable person wise?  Or, is a wise man knowledgeable?


To begin, let me give some examples of cases where a person claims he knows or has knowledge, as follows: (1) a scientist finds out that “there is water in Mars;” (2) a geologist finds out that “the core of the earth is extremely hot;” (3) a farmer knows the best of soil for planting rice; (4) a fisherman knows the best time of the day to catch fish; (5) a nursing mother knows the best time to give milk to her infant.  The first two examples are considered scientific knowledge.  These are forms of knowledge which help mankind understand the physical world and how to deal with it.  The last three examples, on the other hand, are considered “technical knowledge” necessary for one’s survival.  Take note: any form of knowledge is expressed in a form of a proposition, such as “There is water in Mars,” or “The core of the earth is extremely hot.”  Each of these propositions contains a truth-value –that is, whether a proposition is true or false.  Again, the proposition, “There is water in Mars,” can be true or false.”  Since a proposition can be true or false, it can also be contested or refuted.  But, we come to a very important question when we claim we know: “What are the criteria of knowledge?”  In other words, how do we know that what we claim is true?  To answer this question, let’s have Plato’s definition of knowledge.


Knowledge is defined by Plato --ancient Greek philosopher, as a “justified true belief.”  It’s a belief because it signifies a firm conviction or personal assent to a truth-claim.  For example, if one claims that there are other forms of life that exist on Mars and his claim is justified and really true, then he must have a firm conviction of it.  Otherwise, he might easily give up when other persons challenge or refute his claim.  Thus, belief implies a conversion of mind and heart to give assent to a propositional claim, which is really true and founded on sufficient rational grounds/justification.  Though it logically follows that if one is justified in his claim, then he sticks to it with firm conviction --even shed his blood for it, but of course, this is not always the case or true to all knowers.  There are some knowers who just simply give up what they know in that they are afraid to hold onto it, or fear for their lives if they hold it on.  Cowardice is what makes knowers shun to share what they know.  Courage is what makes them spread what they know.

Now, what about wisdom?  To understand more about wisdom, let me cite the idea of wisdom espoused by Socrates, ancient Greek philosopher, known today as "Socratic wisdom."  Socrates is known as the wisest person ever lived.  His wisdom lies in his claim that "he knows of only one thing with certainty --that is, he doesn't know."  He does not pretend he knows everything that there is to know.  However, he humbly accepts that he can't know everything.  Socratic wisdom, then, is characterized with humility.  It doesn't mean that one has to give up his desire to know or one has to give up knowledge and end up in skepticism.  Yet, to be wise like Socrates is to engage in dialogue with other seekers for truth.

So, what is the answer to the question, "What is the difference between the knowledgeable and wise person?"  A knowledgeable person is one who makes truth-claims about the world but he is not necessarily wise because he has the tendency to never admit mistakes.  A wise person is a knowledgeable one yet he has the attitude of humility to accept that he can commit mistakes and to admit the fact that he can't know everything.

Related articles: 
1)  What is Real Knowledge? [click] 
2)  Research-based Knowledge is Falsifiable [click]
3)  Scientific Knowledge is Falsifiable [click]

Legal Battle

When having a class in Sociology, I tried to open the minds of my students that Sociology is born as a distinct social science because of social changes tremendously impacting the lives of people.  These social changes were spawned by invention of technologies like compass, telescope, machines, etc.  The great social thinkers like Karl Marx have struggled to understand the changes that were happening in society during their times.  

The time of Karl Marx, for example, was characterized by changes spawned by industrial revolution.  Because of industrialization, the landscape of a city changed enormously so as the society in general –from agricultural to industrial or commercial district.  To recall, before the industrial revolution, much of Europe was agricultural –technically known as feudalistic society.  A certain agricultural land was ruled by a feudal lord; his substituents were the tenants.  Tenants tilled the land and paid tributes to the lord.  In return, the lord gave protection to the tenants in times of war against intruders.  During the Spanish colonial administration, Philippines was under the “encomienda system” –more or less akin to the feudalism in Europe.  Under this system, an “hacienda” was owned by a Spanish settler by virtue of a Royal Decree and all of its original inhabitants became tenants of the “haciendero.”  What was significant of encomienda system in the Philippines is that, perhaps, it was the first kind of land grabbing in the islands.  

Industrial age marked the end of feudalism.  Industries mushroomed in cities.  Cities were turned into industrial and/or commercial districts, which enticed people to look for better opportunities like jobs rather than work in haciendas.  Cities, then, shone like a jewel to the eyes of workers, and investors alike.  On the part of the workers, cities are places where they could find work, earn a living and support their families.  On the part of the investors, cities are good avenues for them to invest and gain more profit.  Eventually, cities became centers of material wealth and pride of those people living in the city.  However, there were negative faces of industrial cities, which puzzled social thinkers, sociologists in particular.  Poverty is one of the evils of industrialization.  Karl Marx theorized that poverty was caused by social injustice.  Social institutions, economic and government institutions in particular, were unjust which ensued to a big gap existing between the capitalists and workers.  The workers who were working in unfavourable conditions were given less share of the total income of the company; the owners enjoyed the bigger share.  Marx noted that these practices made the rich richer and the poor poorer.  And, it’s blatantly unjust!

Social injustice makes thinkers find ways to effect change in the existing status quo of the society.  If a class of people is abused or exploited by the other class, or say, “by the influential or the rich,” then it’s unjust.  If these unjust practices and structures are prevalent, then there is a need to change its current status quo to a more just one.  For Marx, bloody revolution is a favourable means to change bourgeois society.  Many dictators in different parts of the world adapted Marxism and took bloody revolution to effect drastic changes in their particular nations.  Many of them, if not all, were successful in taking over the government yet, in other side of coin, it was a failure because human abuses got worst.  Marxism as an ideology has helped shape modern societies with negative and positive features, which become lessons in the continuing formation or transformation of societies today.  One positive effect, maybe, of Marxism as witnessed in some communist European countries is that the collapse of communism proves that democracy is better than communism.  Most communist countries are dictatorial or authoritarian and totalitarian.  Citizens shall work for the good of the state.  The state, in return, is duty-bound to give what is good for its citizens.  Of course, this is what is ideal in communism.  It turns out, however, that only dictators enjoy the wealth of their patrimony but their citizens suffer suppression from them.  

In modern times, democracy is at its best as a form of government and a way of life.  History proves that democracy is best for all people to attain a certain sense of self-realization in life.  Democracy as a form of government promises equal opportunities for all people to be voted in public offices.  Democracy as a way life promises equal opportunities for each and every citizen to grow professionally or be happy in life.  However, democratic society does not promise all values necessary for one’s social life.  There are still a number of cases of injustices and human rights abuses in any democratic society.  For example, illegal activities like drug trade and use are still rampant in democratic countries like in the Philippines.  Government pursuing policies to end illegal drug trade and use may violate human rights in the process like again “allegedly” happening in the Philippines.  Many other more telling stories reveal how democracy as an ideology creates public spaces where social injustice still is happening.

Because of this, social transformation is sought for –a transformation of society into a better one.  If pressed what is meant by a “better society,” it’s a kind of society with less cases of social injustice and human rights abuses.  A better way to do this is through a “legal battle.”  It’s a battle without any use of arms as in bloody revolution or rebellion.  It’s a battle which takes place in the public arena, which at present, refers to the arena of legislation.  In the Philippine politics, it is in the arena of Congress and Senate.  To effect changes in society starts its promulgation in either house, House of Congress or House of Senate.  After its thorough deliberation among members of Houses, it will come out in a form of a bill.  Then, the executive will, or will not, sign it into law of the land.  Once signed by the executive, it’s ready for implementation.  The scope and extent of this law will take gradual changes in the lives of the people under the jurisdiction of the state.

A legal battle takes a long process.  But, it’s the only way through which social transformation is rationalized and not done in a drastic way.

Saving Philosophy!

Contemporary philosophers with post-modernist orientation reject outright the legacy of the philosophical tradition in the West.  Post-modernism is usually identified with philosophers in 19th century onwards and often characterized with non-dualistic perspective.  Friedrich Nietzsche is known as the prophet of post-modernism with his nihilist claim, “God is dead.”  (Nihilism –from the Latin word meaning “nothing.”)  In Christian tradition, God is said to be the “alpha and omega” (beginning and end), and foundation of everything that exists.  God is also the source of man’s knowledge and morals.  But with Nietzsche’s pronouncement that God is dead, man is left with nothing –no foundation of his being and the criterion of his knowledge and morals.  To overcome the death of God, he should become an “ubermensch” (superman) and shall be able to “fly without wings,” like the one we see in the series of Superman movies.  This Nietzschean philosophy is entirely “nihilist” –in the sense that it is non-foundationalist.  It rejects altogether the idea of all foundations of existence, knowledge, meaning of life, morals, among others.

Philosophy has been one of the celebrated sciences –if we mean by science in its literal sense, that is, a body of knowledge.  In the tradition of the ancient Greeks, philosophy –identified then with metaphysics, became the highest of all sciences (again, in its literal sense) and shall perch in the pedestal because philosophizing is a god-like activity.  Gods and goddesses dwell in Mount Olympus –the holy mountain in ancient Greek civilization.  Thus, they are apart from the habitation of the mortals.  While the mortals struggle against the vicissitudes of life, they stand on top of the mountain as spectators watching and intervening at times the affairs of the mortals.  To stand on top of the mountain like a god is a privilege.  It is on top of the mountain where one can see everything below as one unified whole.  It is on top where one can tell stories about the affairs of the mortals.  A mortal obsessed in a day-to-day concern has no place and time to stop, look, write and tell his own stories, his fellow mortal’s stories as well.  To scribble stories can only be done when a mortal is not directly engaged in the daily affairs of all other mortals.  That is exactly what is meant by philosophy as a “god-like activity.”  A philosopher is privileged to perch on top of the mountain like a god and sees everything below as a “unified whole,” and articulates his vision of the whole as a “theoria.”  Philosophizing, then, is simply having a “perspective” higher than the ordinary.  Since philosophizing is taking a higher perspective, it implies that a philosopher is (1) willing to break his ties from obsession of the day-to-day concerns, (2) willing to take the higher perspective, (3) willing to have the vision of the whole, (4) willing to articulate his vision of the whole, and (5) willing to defend his articulation of the vision of the whole.

Plato, however, made philosophy a search for something metaphysical to ground all realities.  Distrusting the physical world as a fleeting reality, he speculated of a world, which is the real, the unchanging and the eternal –the “World of Forms.”  At the outset, Plato divided two kinds of world: the world of senses and the world of forms.  The world of senses does not provide us the true knowledge but only opinion, since all perceptual experience of it is fleeting, keeps on changing –thus, perception is deceptive.  The world of forms, on the other hand, is the source of real knowledge since it is immutable and can only be accessed through reason.  Contemporary philosophers like Richard Rorty accuse Plato of introducing dualistic sort of philosophizing in the West.  And, all philosophies after Plato are caught up under the thrall of Plato.  Rorty also charged Platonism as foundationalist, aside from being dualistic.  One assumption of Platonism is that true knowledge must consist of a correspondence between language and reality, or the spoken word and the outside world.  For example, when I say, I know that the sun is hot is certainly true if and only if the sun is hot.  What I claim I know with certainty like “the sun is hot” is true if and only if it corresponds to the outside world. 

Richard Rorty rejects this sort of philosophy which is dualistic and foundationalist.  This sort of philosophy does not help for the improvement of humanity.  The betterment of human conditions does not rely on the search of what is true but on social hope.  Thus, there is a need to redirect one’s philosophical search for the “ideal form,” which will make the future of humanity better, instead of scrambling for something which doesn’t exist at all like the Platonic ideal forms.  It's futile to look for the ideal forms to ground for knowledge since in the first place there is no such thing as the World of Forms.  It is rather helpful to divert one's energy and attention to search for something that makes future humanity a better one.  Rorty wants to replace knowledge with social hope.  Rortian critic against Platonism is really and disturbing.  He dethrones philosophy from its place as the highest of all sciences.  Philosophy, therefore, shall be treated like one of the other disciplines.   And, he thinks he's right when he gives up teaching philosophy -a position where he becomes renowned worldwide, and holds position in teaching literature instead.

With this attack against philosophy, is there any way to save philosophy? 

In deeper analysis, what Rorty is ferociously attacking is not the whole philosophical tradition in the West.  He is particularly against Platonism.  Saving philosophy is possible if philosophy is still understood as a "god-like activity," not a metaphysical one like that of Plato.

Husserl’s Phenomenological Methods

In this article, I'd like to clarify some issues regarding phenomenological methods misunderstood or misinterpreted by practitioners of qualitative research studies.  When one uses phenomenological methods, it is understood that he’s designing his research in qualitative way of gathering data to support his purported conclusions.  

For Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), a German philosopher, credited as the Father of Phenomenology, phenomenology is not a school of thought such as idealism, realism, scepticism, relativism, Platonism, etc.  It is rather a movement against naturalistic psychology during his times.  What Husserl disliked in psychologism is that in conducting studies there are certain basic assumptions which it hasn’t put into question and has compromised the validity of its methods in doing research.  For example, psychologism believes (assumes) that human behavior is conditioned by external factors like its environment and history rather than caused by the free will of the agent.  This assumption is somehow influenced by naturalism, which claims that true factual knowledge is lurking or hidden in nature; one has to have the right discipline and methods to acquire it.  For a behaviorist, human behavior is just like any event in the physical world.  If a man gets angry, his behavior is like an event of an apple falling from its branch.  This event of a falling apple is caused by a force external to it (the gravitational force), so as man’s anger –caused by factors external of him rather than his inner states.  Thus, man’s behavior is predictable or controllable depending however on the systems of rewards and punishments given or imposed to the actor.  

Husserl’s intention in reacting against this scientific attitude in doing research studies is for a researcher to “stop, look and listen.”  There is a need for a researcher to recollect or reflect his ways or methods of doing research.  This is the reason why phenomenology is primarily a science of consciousness rather than of facts or physical world.  For one to see the world or phenomenon “with new eyes,” he has to bracket his natural attitude –all presuppositions he carries in conducting studies.  This step is what Husserl terms as “epoche.”  In using epoche, Husserl wants to make philosophy a “presupposition-less science,” –a philosophy with less number of presuppositions.

At first, it seems that Husserl’s attack against psychologism is merely concerned with its methods in doing studies.  Something is wrong in the way a behaviorist conducts his studies.  As mentioned above, psychologism assumes that human behavior is conditioned.  Every behavior of a single person is not caused by his own free will, which leads us to conclude that man has no freedom at all.  Hence, it is difficult to assert that a person has subjectivity, which is the source and fountain of meaning and initiatives of his being and becoming.  On this basis, it follows that to study the nature of man, a researcher should design his study in quantitative way.  Man’s behavior is caused by external factors, directly or indirectly affecting his behavior.  Since these factors are external, observable and quantifiable, a researcher has to rely on data quantitatively designed to support his purported conclusions.  In-depth interview or field note does nothing to gain knowledge of man's nature since, in the first place, man has no subjectivity –no inner fountain of meaning and initiatives.  How could the inner self of man be a source of knowledge if he doesn’t have such freedom and subjectivity?  But for psychologism, man’s freedom and subjectivity (taken as one) does not define his being, but the external factors influencing his behaviors do.

For Husserl, the method of psychologism is erroneous and unreliable.  At the outset, it compromises the validity of the results of its study.  Because of this, Husserl sees the importance of a researcher to “bracket” his presuppositions, biases, or what he calls the “natural attitude.”  This is not to get rid of all of these presuppositions since all scientists work within a certain framework tainted with biases and presuppositions.  The point of Husserl, however, is to hold in abeyance (temporarily) all these presuppositions so that a researcher can see the field of his investigation with “new eyes.”  To do this needs much discipline and a shift of paradigm.  Thus, phenomenology begins by examining all those presuppositions in conducting research studies.  “Back to the things in themselves,” Husserl claims.  A researcher shall make the phenomenon of his experiences pure, or shall I say “appear as it appears” untainted by his biases or presuppositions.  He can only let the “phenomenon” be, unless he brackets his biases or presuppositions. 

If a researcher can clear up all his biases or presuppositions in conducting studies, then he is now able to get the “eidos” (essence) of his experience.  Husserl believes that in one’s whole field of experience, there is something invariant, which serves as the essential of his experience.  Amidst the fleeting nature of experiences, eidos (essence) lurks behind.  This eidos is something important that one cannot neglect or it’s worth having for.  For example, in one’s whole field of experiences being a parent, he/she can figure out something invariant, which is also the essential.  This essence somehow depends on one’s experience –thus, more or less, subjective.  After finding the “eidos” of experience, one can reduce it to the very activity of himself.  He/she can own it and translate it into his very action or behavior.  In other words, the whole of phenomenology is not simply “reflecting one’s conduct of research,” or simply finding the essence of the whole of experience but also making one’s life meaningful with the essence he finds in his study. 

In conclusion, one thing misunderstood in the practice of phenomenology is that it is simply a method appropriate for qualitative research design.  However, Husserl's main intention to start the movement of phenomenology is to set aside presuppositions or biases in conducting studies, which among practitioners of phenomenology nowadays are no longer aware of.

“Intellectual Dryness”

For the past few months, I have experienced a sort of “intellectual dryness” –metaphorically “dry” because within this period I haven’t produced any article for my blog site.  It’s like an arid land –once fertile yet now futile since it has not experienced being showered by rain for a longer period of time.  It becomes unproductive.  Though I’d tried to manage to find time to write but there’s nothing.  In the end, all I realize is that a month ends and another month begins but not even a single article is written and posted in my account.  I feel it’s a wasted time.

I don’t know if what I have experienced is the same experience our great saints in the Catholic Church confessed about the “dryness of the soul.”  They spent much time praying; prayer became the center of their life for years.  Yet, there were some moments in their prayer life when they felt bored, or maybe when they didn’t feel any longer God’s presence in their prayer.  They felt the “dryness” of their soul.  They felt the absence of God.  Eventually, they quit praying.  Some scholars would interpret this experience of the “dryness of the soul” of the great saints as the peak moments of their prayer life.  This “peak moment” is somehow understood as getting on top of the mountain after a long and winding journey but there’s nothing on the top.  Just like in prayer, great saints like John of the Cross earnestly prayed to God but when they almost got near to God in their prayers, God is nowhere to be found.

In those experiences, disappointment is given.  It's really disappointing when one dedicates his life in a certain work like in writing articles or in prayer yet after all it's not rewarding.  But, those saints who experienced the "dryness of the soul" are still able to find consolations in their moments of desperation since it is in this moment of "dryness" that God will finally satisfy the earnest longing of their hearts -that is, to go back to the bosom of the Father.  My experience of "intellectual dryness," however, is different since my disappointments are clearly coming from the fact that posting philosophical articles in my blogsite is not rewarding -of course, financially.  It's a waste of time.  I spend time in writing yet there is no monetary remuneration.  My only consolation is in the thought that in a way I am enhancing my writing skills in the process, and in the long run I may be able to publish a book about philosophy in the days to come.

One time in my philosophy class, a student asked me, "Sir, is a philosopher paid -better paid?"  This question struck me and disturbed my thought for a while.  It's undeniably true that writing about philosophy is not extravagantly paid.  In fact, a trained philosopher doesn't have any place on earth to get employed except in colleges or universities.  Any commercial or industrial company has no place for philosophers in its place of work.  Philosophers' skills in philosophizing or in playing with ideas do not have any practical purpose to run the business, to manage people in the workplace, or maximize profits of the company.  Philosophers may even run counter with company's main goal in doing business, which is to earn and maximize profits because they are fun of toying ideas like justice, equality and fairness.  A philosopher may instead talk of justice, equality and fairness rather than talk of how to earn and maximize profits for the company.

With such question, I came to rethink of my intention in writing philosophical articles.  Likewise, I polish once more my understanding of the role of philosophers played in living a more meaningful life.  After all, life is not all about making money.  We aim for some higher aspirations in life like philosophical ventures than just earn a living.