How many of you would punish religious people for being religious?

[Ahriman]

At work.

And they were very wise people.

*Reads Ahriman's reply*


  Uhm.... by what metric?

 

They were accomplished philosophers and theologians of their time, and are still revered to this day.

[Thumpalumpacus]

At work.


*Reads Ahriman's reply*


  Uhm.... by what metric?

 

They were accomplished philosophers and theologians of their time, and are still revered to this day.

Just because someone is a philosopher or theologian, it doesn't follow that that makes them "wise".

They were foolish enough to believe in a god. I'm not impressed.

[Belacqua]

At work.

I don't think that wisdom is quantifiable, so it doesn't seem as if there will be a metric available. You might make a judgment call as to whether a person was wise or not, but you'd have to be wise to do so. 

I suspect we all agree that punishment is justifiable in some cases. Wisdom is here the important term, because getting the balance right between justice and mercy may be extremely difficult. And of course just because punishment is justified doesn't mean that a person enjoys meting it out. 

The question on the thread is whether anyone would like to punish people for being religious. It seems to me that if words calculated to make a person feel bad count as punishment, then there are some people who are more than willing to punish people for being religious.

Hmmmmm.... so, you've got no way to tell if some one or some 'Thing'(Words, concepts etc) actually is/are 'Wise'?

 That seems to be a tad problematic.

I don't think that wisdom is something we can be sure about. It can't be detected by empirical methods. It can't be measured or photographed. 

Maybe that will seem problematic if you require some kind of certainty. To me it seems more like something that experts -- experienced people, people who have lived and learned -- will be better able to discern than others, but even such people may disagree. 

Can you propose an alternative? Do you have a checklist for wisdom which we could apply to form an objective standard?

You then wax lyrical about something I've already answered with a 'No'.

 Frankly I'm nonplussed as to your reply.

I wasn't talking about you, as someone who wants to punish -- you don't seem to me like the type who would go out of his way to make someone feel bad because you disagree with him. You seem very even-tempered to me, and not at all cruel. 

Sadly, not everyone is so easy-going.

[abaris]

I don't think that wisdom is something we can be sure about. It can't be detected by empirical methods. It can't be measured or photographed. 

Exactly. And that's why I'm skeptical of people, who claim to possess wisdom. That's got nothing to do with religion or the absence thereof. People calling themselves wise, seldomly are. They're usually just full of themselves.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

*Reads Ahriman's reply*


  Uhm.... by what metric?

 

They were accomplished philosophers and theologians of their time, and are still revered to this day.

That is an interesting level.

Not really convincing.

To my uneducated self it would seem to be little more than 'Popular by authority'.

Still, thanks.

[Ahriman]

They were accomplished philosophers and theologians of their time, and are still revered to this day.

Just because someone is a philosopher or theologian, it doesn't follow that that makes them "wise".

They were foolish enough to believe in a god. I'm not impressed.

The concept of God meant a lot more back then than it does now.

[The Grand Nudger]

At work.


*Reads Ahriman's reply*


  Uhm.... by what metric?

 

They were accomplished philosophers and theologians of their time, and are still revered to this day.

Pretty easy to do when you're executing the others and destroying the work of competing views as a point of policy, huh?

Bit of a mis-statement, btw, their views were abandoned by the church, and have no purchase in contemporary philosophy. I guess that's something that falls by the wayside in the carousel of apologetics.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hmmmmm.... so, you've got no way to tell if some one or some 'Thing'(Words, concepts etc) actually is/are 'Wise'?

 That seems to be a tad problematic.

I don't think that wisdom is something we can be sure about. It can't be detected by empirical methods. It can't be measured or photographed. 

Maybe that will seem problematic if you require some kind of certainty. To me it seems more like something that experts -- experienced people, people who have lived and learned -- will be better able to discern than others, but even such people may disagree. 

Can you propose an alternative? Do you have a checklist for wisdom which we could apply to form an objective standard?

You then wax lyrical about something I've already answered with a 'No'.

 Frankly I'm nonplussed as to your reply.

I wasn't talking about you, as someone who wants to punish -- you don't seem to me like the type who would go out of his way to make someone feel bad because you disagree with him. You seem very even-tempered to me, and not at all cruel. 

Sadly, not everyone is so easy-going.

Can't properly/easily split the reply to the two conversations we're now having so I'll drop the spanking one.

Hmmmmm..... your take is that we can't be sure about 'Wisdom' based on 'X', 'Y' and 'Z'.

I wasn't moving to 'Certainty', was just looking for what Ahriman considered in their determination of said wise.

I agree that people knowledgeable in their field should be headed/respected/acknowledged.... but that's not really doing anything for the whole wise side of the chat.

So, you don't (Still) have anything for wise but... I'm supposed to?

Hmmm... is this how it's supposed to work?

Okay then. I'm wise.

You're welcome.

[Ahriman]

They were accomplished philosophers and theologians of their time, and are still revered to this day.

1) Pretty easy to do when you're executing the others and destroying the work of competing views as a point of policy, huh?

2) Bit of a mis-statement, btw, their views were abandoned by the church, and have no purchase in contemporary philosophy.  I guess that's something that falls by the wayside in the carousel of apologetics.

1) Well, that was the intelligent thing to do.

2) That's to be expected in a world that's growing increasingly godless and shitty.

[Belacqua]

I wasn't moving to 'Certainty', was just looking for what Ahriman considered in their determination of said wise.

That's Ahriman's judgment. A lot of people agree. 

To explain exactly why one or both of the named philosophers was wise would require an in-depth and serious thread. I'm not sure this forum is up for that. 

 I agree that people knowledgeable in their field should be headed/respected/acknowledged.... but that's not really doing anything for the whole wise side of the chat.

 So, you don't (Still) have anything for wise but... I'm supposed to?

I was asking if you have some standards. I'm not saying your "supposed to." 

As to whether the leader in a particular field is wise, that would depend a little bit on the field. A leading rocket scientist could be an extremely good rocket scientist, but also be divorced seven times and a gambling addict, and I don't think he'd be wise. 

As to how I would go about defining wisdom, you're not going to like this:

Greek has better terms than English -- more subtle in defining differences in quality. So I'd go with something like sophrosyne. That at least has a clear definition, though judging whether an individual possesses it or not is a judgment call. Overall I'd say that wisdom is a basic part of arete, which is often translated -- misleadingly -- as "noble," but means something like "really good at being a human being."

Anyway, it's my bedtime. What little wisdom I have is recommending sleep.