Any way doesn't work: Without a nature, Man has no wisdom

Nature versus nurture is an old debate, and the implication for whether wisdom exists is huge. If there is no nature--essential qualities--behind the way people work, there cannot be a deeper understanding of that nature. Wisdom cannot exist.

I’ll explain what I mean by nature in a couple scenarios before considering how it applies to our culture.

Why do you take your car to a mechanic instead of a hair stylist? Perhaps because it is because any old way of assembling your car will not work. The nature of car is specific, and it takes someone with appropriate understanding to reassemble it.

On the other hand, few people would have to consult an expert if asked to form a geometric shape in the sand by placing a pebble at each vertex. This task is trivial. The nature of shapes is nothing compared to the nature of a car, which is why everyone can form shapes but not necessarily fix cars.

When understood as illustrated, nature is essential to wisdom. Wisdom does not make sense without nature because there would be nothing to understand.

One final way to consider nature is its relation to proper function. Things with a complex nature will have correspondingly specified proper functions. If most any old way will do, clearly there is not a complex nature. Wisdom is then also linked to function. If most any old way will do, how could there be any understanding of proper function?

From a philosophical perspective, a practical perspective, and a functional perspective, wisdom and nature are tied together. Lose nature and you cannot have wisdom.

In the next blog, I’ll explore ways our society lives as if any old way would work, fundamentally denying nature and wisdom.  

The Unknowing of Knowledge

I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion.--Proverbs 8:12

Last week, I wrote about serious problems presented to wisdom by modern philosophies of post-modernism, scientism, and Darwinism. The first two attack man's ability to know wisdom and I'd like to explore those today. 

I scarcely think there is there is an idea spread more widely among varied conversations than the claim of the relativist. Whatever the conversation, you may hear, "But, that's just your opinion," or "who are you to judge?" These popular sayings passively make a strong claim: you cannot know what is real. Reality is disconnected from human knowledge and understanding. 

If reality is disconnected from us, then all human knowledge and understanding are impossible.  Now here's the problem: Postmodernism claims to have knowledge about reality, so postmodernism disqualifies itself from having any knowledge about reality.* When simplified, Postmodernism says "I know the reality that one can't know reality." Like the claim, "Sentences cannot be more than three words," postmodernism could not possibly be true. The self-refuting claim commit's "suicide" does not meet up to its own minimum criteria.** 

Consequently, the person who says, "You cannot judge me," disqualifies her own statement, which is in fact a judgment. "Is that a judgment?" is a good thing to ask her. Some people dismiss another's views as "just opinions," not realizing that their view is self-refuting. Asking "Is that your opinion?" may help them see their error. 

  

Scientism does not fair much better than post-modernism. Scientism claims you can only know things through your five senses. For something to be considered true, they need to be able to prove it through their five senses. Can you guess the right question to ask?

"Which of your five senses--smell, taste, touch, sight, and/or hearing--taught you that you can only know things through your five senses?" Of course, there is no answer because it's the wrong question.*** 

The person who holds this view has to acknowledge that she came to know their main philosophy by using something other than her five senses. Scientism then could not possibly be true because it cannot meet up to its own criteria. 

  

Perhaps post-modernism and scientism are some of the most influential “new” ideas in the west, but clearly they are intellectually bankrupt and cannot meet up to their own criterion for knowledge. They would lead us to disbelieve we can know wisdom. I hope you will be unmoved by these self-refuting challenges.

Next time we will consider a more elaborate problem for wisdom, Darwinism's denial that there is a human nature. 

The Problem with Wisdom

To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight,to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity;
to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth---
Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance,
to understand a proverb and a saying, the words of the wise and their riddles.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

I am inspired by these ancient sayings to realize a long-time dream: to reason in writing about wisdom--an understanding of human nature. Writing is a process that always has bothered me. My mind tends to branch at most conceivable points and it is only with considerable efforts that I am able to trim the sails and productively harness that wind. But with God's help, I begin my first contemplation, To Know Wisdom. 

Every page in this blog will contain a series of controversial words: to know wisdom. You might say, but who would argue with that?

The refutation of knowing wisdom is not widely realized. Nevertheless, it is the logical outcome of common points of view.


Three powerful ideas in contemporary culture independently refute that wisdom exists and can be known. 
(1) Postmodernism--We can't get out of our metanarrative.
(2) Scientism--We can only know things with our five senses.
(3) Darwinian Evolution--Human beings were created by purely unguided random processes.
*Note: there are stronger and weaker versions of each. I do not believe I am misrepresenting any of these views; please let me know if you think I am* 


(1) Postmodernism--We can't get out of our metanarrative. This means that we are hopelessly disconnected from being able to know reality. Hence, if there was a human nature to understand--gain wisdom about--then we could never know it. 
(2) Scientism--Which of the five senses--sight, smell, taste, touch, or hearing--is able to reliably detect wisdom on its own? 
(3) Darwinian Evolution--For evolution, species do not actually exist, but merely describe a point on a continuum of biological change. Species may stay roughly similar at points but there is no nature. There can be no human nature to understand. Why would we expect there to be rules for wise living if humans themselves could have turned out many other ways, not being constrained by a nature in any way?  


These are three common paradigms that will not allow wisdom's project to begin. 


Next time, I will consider how each of these paradigms fail.