To know is to be corrupted

[jtskinner]

Okay, if knowledge is power and power corrupts that means that knowledge corrupts. Thus, absolute knowledge is absolute power and to know all means you are absolutely corrupted. Thus, is it better to be corrupt and thus wise or to be ignorant and thus foolish? Any comments? Of course, this is just a little philosophical debate and I am by no means an anti-intellectual. Also, if true knowledge is free how can one have true power, is it free will to power and thus everyone by free will is corrupted?

[The Rose]

Hmmm... I'm going to say that I don't believe that knowledge and wisdom are the same thing.

You remind me of the testing of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
To pursue the knowledge of all things - good and evil - they disobeyed God and chose their own demise.
All throughout the Bible it speaks of how those who obey God are considered wise.
In effect, one could say that Adam and Eve made a choice between knowledge and wisdom,
and we know that, as you say, knowledge corrupted them.

[logan235711]

"power corrupts" isn't really an objective notion, the argument doesn't get off the ground [along with many other things here]

[AntimonyLegault]

So by that logic: trees are green in summer, all trees are green, therefore trees are always green.

[thegnat]

Haven't you ever wondered why nerds were always planning world dominance?

[qwerty]

Yeah knowledge isn't wisdom.

Knowledge -> power
power -> corrupt
wisdom -> unbiased

So knowledge ^ wisdom -> uncorrupted

Wisdom is gained by learning from your mistakes and the mistakes of others.
Knowledge is gained by learning about a subject.

[jtskinner]

Yeah my mistake about wisdom, I wasn't thinking biblically I just thought it would be a neat discussion. I like to be smart.

[thegnat]

Yeah my mistake about wisdom, I wasn't thinking biblically I just thought it would be a neat discussion. I like to be smart.

We actually can attempt to make this a discussion. I think.

It's kind of far fetched but here goes:

We have genius A who is book smart. They get promoted in their field. What can they do? Let's say A is a history buff.

We have genius B. B is a genetic engineer that has found a way to clone. B can use his knowledge for the betterment of society or selfish reasons or..... What does B do?

Then we have genius C who is a business major. Same situation as A and B.

[Ijz]

Haven't you ever wondered why nerds were always planning world dominance?
To get back on the E's?

[jtskinner]

Of course why else take over the world if you can't get back at the Extroverts! Anyways continuing from the clone analogy. Someone develops clones to benefit society, but they only want it to benefit their version of society, so it is selfish no matter what. If you are truly unbiased, it means you haven't been influenced by anyone in your life or anything which is impossible. Knowledge would have to influence people somehow in order to corrupt, and give them a position of great power. Even the wise are biased by their experiences. So, biased -> knowledge, learn a subject -> power they have mastered a subject -> corrupted by it's implications. A country dislikes another nation, knowledge is picked up on nuclear weaponry, now they have understood it and they are corrupted by it's implications since it means winning and then they blow up the opposing country. But it as good implications too, but knowledge is always misused by those who intend it to be used otherwise. Like I make a clone, share my knowledge of it and then someone somewhere misuses it to create an immense army.

[Rei]

It really depends on what you plan to do with the knowledge. Knowledge is potential power, it is not power if you choose not to use it to gain power.

Likewise, knowledge exposes the mind to corruption; it's whether you choose to be corrupted or not. Essentially it depends on how well your sense of value is and how determined you are to hold on to it.

There are always choices, and things are not always black and white.
[hr]
EDIT:
*cough*
I should really read the whole discussion before replying.

But anyway...
I think book smart is useless.
You and the stuff of a gazillion books are useless if you can't use the stuff you learn from the books. (some people can't, they just regurgitate)

[blueback]

I think the problem you are having is that there are no absolute standards. You are trying to approach the subject logically but to do so you have to relate everything to something else. So, if you want to get anywhere you are going to have to establish a baseline.

For example, corruption means different things to different people. In this case you might want to define corruption as feeling as if one is above the commonly accepted moral principles of one's society. The more powerful one becomes, the less one has to worry about the opinions of other people. The more you act on your own sense of morals, and as you diverge from the average of the society, you are viewed as corrupt.

In the same way, wisdom is only defined in relation to the society. There were people who were wise enough to understand that the world was flat and the earth revolved around the sun, but because their conclusions were too far outside the mainstream they weren't viewed as wise. Only when the mainstream caught up to them were they postumously titled "wise."

[rwyatt365]

Okay, if knowledge is power and power corrupts that means that knowledge corrupts. Thus, absolute knowledge is absolute power and to know all means you are absolutely corrupted. Thus, is it better to be corrupt and thus wise or to be ignorant and thus foolish? Any comments? Of course, this is just a little philosophical debate and I am by no means an anti-intellectual. Also, if true knowledge is free how can one have true power, is it free will to power and thus everyone by free will is corrupted?
From a strictly logical standpoint there are some points in the argument where the logic is flawed. Is knowledge indeed power - that is an adage, but is it truth? The same holds for the statement that knowledge corrupts. The answer is a resounding "maybe". Given that, the logical conclusion cannot be supported.

Knowledge can lead to enlightenment and enlightenment can – based on predisposition, circumstance and opportunity – lead to corruption. So, in some cases, knowledge can result in corruption – but not in every case.

In the case of those knowledgeable individuals that have chosen the path of corruption one cannot infer that choice to be "better", which implies a moral judgment, based on the knowledge component only. Knowledge of something is neutral. Application of that knowledge to a product, or act is what can be judged as being "better" or "worse". So, knowledge or ignorance "is", the application (or lack of application) is what can be judged "better" or "worse".

I think the problem you are having is that there are no absolute standards. You are trying to approach the subject logically but to do so you have to relate everything to something else. So, if you want to get anywhere you are going to have to establish a baseline.

For example, corruption means different things to different people. In this case you might want to define corruption as feeling as if one is above the commonly accepted moral principles of one's society. The more powerful one becomes, the less one has to worry about the opinions of other people. The more you act on your own sense of morals, and as you diverge from the average of the society, you are viewed as corrupt.

In the same way, wisdom is only defined in relation to the society. There were people who were wise enough to understand that the world was flat and the earth revolved around the sun, but because their conclusions were too far outside the mainstream they weren't viewed as wise. Only when the mainstream caught up to them were they postumously titled "wise."
The relativity of corruption and wisdom is an interesting point. It's the old, "the one that wins the war, write the history", point of view. Thus, the side that prevails becomes the "heroic vanquisher" while the loser becomes the "evil tyrant". If one accepts this position then corruption is relative to the viewpoint and is neither good nor bad.

[jtskinner]

So thus power sometimes corrupts, so that means all power corrupts isn't logical either. Knowledge is enlightenment, enlightenment gives you power to achieve and benefit others or destroy others. So thus, my argument is illogical or at the very least flawed and I refrain it. But I did get you all thinking(hopefully), this place is great, in real life I have no thoughtful conversations. Congrats! I know I'll like it here!

[Rohsiph]

Um . . .

I'll respond to the topic title, moreso than to the content of the thread:

To reject epistemology (that is, to reject knowledge) is just a step or two away from blatant nihilism. Now, to truly reject epistemology would mean that one could not actually claim nihilism (for how could he/sho know), but it is still to exist in a state where very little, if anything, can actually have meaning.

Corruption, as a general state, is not necessarily a bad (nor evil) thing--a little corruption can amplify the awareness of tremendous flaws that need to be corrected in a system--flaws that might otherwise go unnoticed unto the collapse of said system.

What I try to suggest is: knowledge is likely worth the trouble of potential corruption.

Why I ignored most of the thread:

Please define "absolute corruption."
Please show an argument why "there are no absolute standards."
Please show me how/why "knowledge is enlightenment."

Basically, "Please don't jump to conclusions."

[blueback]

Why I ignored most of the thread:

Please show an argument why "there are no absolute standards."


I think if you had read the thread you would have found the answer to this objection. I already covered it. In fact, I'm pretty sure you got this objection from the first line of my post. . .BTW, the rest of the post explains why there are no absolute standards.

If you want a summary: think of something you consider to be an absolute standard which defines other standards. Maybe it's God's Will, maybe it's human suffering, maybe it's never standing on the white lines on a tennis court. . .whatever. If you can't think of one then you support my point. If you can, then try to imagine that NO ONE else in the whole world disagrees with you. I guarantee that I can find someone who disagrees with you on anything you can possibly think of. Therefore, there are no absolute standards. QED.

[Rohsiph]

I think if you had read the thread you would have found the answer to this objection. I already covered it. In fact, I'm pretty sure you got this objection from the first line of my post. . .BTW, the rest of the post explains why there are no absolute standards.

If you want a summary: think of something you consider to be an absolute standard which defines other standards. Maybe it's God's Will, maybe it's human suffering, maybe it's never standing on the white lines on a tennis court. . .whatever. If you can't think of one then you support my point. If you can, then try to imagine that NO ONE else in the whole world disagrees with you. I guarantee that I can find someone who disagrees with you on anything you can possibly think of. Therefore, there are no absolute standards. QED.

Your argument follows that it is *possible* there are no absolute standards, but is not sufficient to QED prove "there are no absolute standards." I grant that you successfully cast doubt on there being any absolute standards, but this does not solve the problem I attempted to raise.

I would appreciate an explanation as to how you are using the term ("Absolute standards"), as the possible examples you provide do not follow my understanding of absolute standards. Some examples I would use: morally, "Treat all humans as an end in themselves;" epistemically, "Knowledge is justified true belief;" or metaphysically, "Human perception does not include neumenal reality."

I'm sure you can find someone to believe the opposite of any of these standards . . . but I wonder if you can find someone who could assert necessary and sufficient justification as to why they refuse to believe any of these standards. I do not necessarily see why the existence of an idiot (or even a moderate number of idiots) should interfere with my answers to any of the major questions of philosophy (namely: relativism, skepticism, nihilism).

[jtskinner]

Okay I thought this thread was dead, why do everyone need to resurrect it? Let it die already. I truly wish I had never, ever posted this because I have made myself look like a fool. Okay, I get the point already! My argument was flawed, I know it already why do everyone need to keep pointing it out? But I guess that's what happen when you look like a fool in front of a bunch of fellow INTJs. I've corrected myself already, so can everyone stop? I thought the idea was neat, I said it was flawed already but a neat thought to have a debate about and I regret posting it because the debate as not been constructive. The end, okay?

[blueback]

but I wonder if you can find someone who could assert necessary and sufficient justification as to why they refuse to believe any of these standards.

This right here shows that you're using logic because belief doesn't require evidence. If you want evidence then you are using logic to get from the observable to the unobservable.

Now, my point was that it is impossible to prove there are any absolute standards because to "prove" something you have to use logic, but logic only relates things to each other. If you can't get outside of it you can't prove it with logic. Absolute standards are like God, they might be real but there is no way to prove they are.

In the absense of proof of an absolute standard we are left with the choice of standard. There are certain standards bred into us by evolution, like murder is bad, children need to be taken care of, etc. But a concious being that, say, evolved in space and never died wouldn't care about those things. So even evolutionary standards aren't absolute. We make up standards every day. Each person has standards that they won't violate, but those standards vary.

[Rohsiph]

I'll grant that it is sometimes un-pragmatic to use logic in certain situations/following some concepts. I can get on the same page with that idea.

However, I am still having some trouble understanding your perspective: "We make up standards every day"--I'll grant this . . . but are you suggesting we should never extend ourselves towards trying to come up with the *best* standards?

Are you arguing that there are no best standards? Because you do seem to allow there to be standards of extensive degrees insofar as you acknowledge "absolute standards are like God" . . .

Day-to-day life I'll agree with you: lots and lots is relative. But, for the few who peer beyond the day-to-day, to strive for something higher than common standards, I would have a problem if you are indeed claiming that there are no absolutes (although I agree that it is unlikely that we could ever sufficiently prove exactly what the "true" absolutes really are).

[blueback]

I think I see where the disconnect is. I'm not saying, and will never say, that the pursuit of absolut standards is a waste of time. When I say that there are no absolute standards I mean that to be a Theory in the same vein as the Theory of Gravity. We have already found that gravity works differently in 1% of the situations we can so far observe, but the Theory still holds in the other 99%, which is all most people need in their lifetime.

Absolute standards would be, for lack of a better phrase, a God-Send. If we could actually prove them the same way gravity is proven we would have a foundation to build upon. The problem right now is that we have all sorts of different people claiming to have found absolute standards. . .but all the standards contradict each other.

So, until someone produces evidence of absolute standards I say that there are none. And I support my Theory by simply asking anyone who disagrees to observe the world. As the poets say, the only things in life that are certain are death and taxes, and that last one might be debateable.

[The Many]

I think I see where the disconnect is. *I'm not saying, and will never say, that the pursuit of absolut standards is a waste of time. *When I say that there are no absolute standards I mean that to be a Theory in the same vein as the Theory of Gravity. *We have already found that gravity works differently in 1% of the situations we can so far observe, but the Theory still holds in the other 99%, which is all most people need in their lifetime.

Absolute standards would be, for lack of a better phrase, a God-Send. *If we could actually prove them the same way gravity is proven we would have a foundation to build upon. *The problem right now is that we have all sorts of different people claiming to have found absolute standards. . .but all the standards contradict each other.

So, until someone produces evidence of absolute standards I say that there are none. *And I support my Theory by simply asking anyone who disagrees to observe the world. *As the poets say, the only things in life that are certain are death and taxes, and that last one might be debateable.

Before answering, I need to mention that I am rubbing my hands just at reading through this topic...

So, as to answer and nitpick - you said gravity behaved differently in 1% of the situations, thus "proving standards like gravity" hardly gives us anything, now does it? After all there is still this 1% of uncertainty around...

Having said this, however, I am quite the Kantian when it comes to these matters. Rohsiph is correct in claiming that noumenal reality cannot be experienced - but on the other hand, our (subjective, since we can necessarily only view reality subjectively) quest is then to actually understand our perceptions; to induct, falsify (quite an ironic term on a MBTI message board ;) ), and try to come as close as possible to the truth of our perceptions as possible; to relate to ones percieved reality as much as possible. I have written quite some on these matters, and I call achieving a logically coherent understanding of ones place amongst ones perceptions a Transcendence. Quite something like reaching the best standard possible.