Frameworks for Navigating the World — Part 1: Wisdom

Introduction 🔗

This is the first entry in a short series on frameworks that have shaped my worldview. Each entry will consist of shorter essays in a logical order each beginning with a maxim and expanding upon previous ideas. I will consider making a wiki-style webpage for easier cross-referencing.

This was written for me to formulate my thoughts to a clear and comprehensible standard worthy of publicizing. I seek the truth, and hope that criticism will guide me closer to it,¹ although I have not integrated such a feature in the website as of now. With the objective declared, we can proceed.

Maxims 🔗

Wisdom cannot be taught; it can only be lived. Knowledge can be conveyed, but lived experience cannot. 🔗

This is necessary to start with as it affects the meta-point of the series. As I already declared don’t expect nor intend to enlighten.

The maxim is a paraphrase from Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha, in which he uses the Western novel format to explore Buddhist themes:

[…] wisdom cannot be passed on. Wisdom, which wise man tries to pass on on to someone, always sounds like foolishness. […] knowledge can be conveyed, by not wisdom; it can be found, it can be lived, it is possible to be carried by it, miracles can be performed with it, but it cannot be expressed in words and taught.²

The novel functions as a self-discovery story that culminates with the protagonist reflecting over his life at an old age. He has consistently chosen his own path throughout this life, and seen his son turn criminal despite his loving efforts.

Some people just seem immune to the advice they need. The other side of this is that they are not ready for the truth, and they might never be. The world has more wisdom than most human minds are capable of comprehending. As we are exposed to it, whether through searching it out or being told advice, we rarely understand it. What we do understand is what we already know, and that we easily spot. This phenomena is known as confirmation bias.

This runs contrary to another popular wisdom: that one of the main utilities of reading is to learn from the mistakes of others. I am doubtful to how reliable this is to preventing certain issues from ever occurring; I learn the best through negative means: lived experience in the form of tests with painful results. But you can certainly recall something you’ve read after an incident, and then comprehend it.

Of course you can reason for why certain things are to be avoided. However, this shows only that you have intellectualized the wisdom, not that you have internalized it. The ignorant person who takes wisdom on faith, will have higher success of abiding to it, even if it is not in their best interest.

Returning to Hesse’s writing, I maintain that the real-world context of a narrative might prove more capable of conveying wisdom than pure aphorisms. Though, I’d argue that large parts of narratives are limited to the reader than have not experienced anything alike it; we find some characters relatable while others escape forgotten.

Stability is proportional to the level of internal trust. 🔗

A man is happy
if he finds good advice
within himself.
Many men have received
bad advice
by trusting someone else.

—Hávamál [9]³

Words only become wisdom if they are true and when they are understood. The former is the danger: trusting that the words are necessarily true, and proceeding to building conviction upon it. The very structure of that individual rests on uncertainty and faith, and it risks crumbling on an existential level if it contains too many falsehoods. This is the source of Kierkegaard’s philosophical and personal existential angst,⁴ and one of Camus' rejections of philosophical suicide.⁵

However, this must not be confused as denying the Truth which comprises reality, or its deterministic force.⁶ The Truth will show itself, and it can be recognized in elements of religious systems.

On a more practical level it is a warning against surrendering autonomy of important judgment to the external world, especially to those who are not wiser about one’s own situation. This is the relation between reader and writer that I want to acknowledge when it comes to reading philosophical texts such as this.

In contrast, Schizophrenia induces the inverse problem: should one deny one’s own perceived reality in favor of another’s imposed one? The genius schizophrenic Terry Davis was smart enough to understand that something was wrong, yet was still tremendously tormented.⁷

The limitations of our mind directly limit what we can know about the mind… and the universe. 🔗

A well-know epistemological fact, and a caution against intellectual arrogance.

I believe have stated my case for why the truth is not easily communicable or perceptible—neither conceptually or existentially.

Next Entry 🔗

Frameworks for Navigating the World — Part 2: Psychology