Innocence: Loss or Life
There are some desires that are not meant to be fulfilled. What we call 'innocence' in Western thought is, I think, the impoverished desire of wisdom i.e. old world philosophy. A bubble-world is cultivated where wisdom is purposefully made inaccessible, in order to conceive a drive for it. Philosophers are nothing but curious children, and children are our purest philosophers. Do you agree? And if so, is this drive still a part of our collective will?
Comments (52)
I don't know whether "some desires" are "meant" to remain unfulfilled, but we are all better off if "some desires" remain unsatisfied. We don't have a "drive for wisdom" as much as it takes time for individuals to develop it. In my old age, I don't know whether I have developed all that much wisdom or not. Some people seem to find it earlier. Lucky them.
Children have the temporary advantage of not knowing much about the world; their quest to know and understand the world may or may not be successful, but fairly soon human minds become a warehouse of second and third hand goods--some of value, some ready for final recycling. It's dirty work sorting out all this crap.
What we call "innocence" is short lived. Kittens and puppies, figuratively. Literally, kittens and puppies grow up to be killer cats and wolves. Children lose their temporary innocence-advantage pretty quickly. Urges and wishes, kindly and not, start arising fairly soon.
Social historians tell us that "childhood and adolescence" is a very recent view of childhood. As far as we can tell, ancient people on up to the recent times thought of children as miniature adults--not especially innocent and capable of economic contribution.
What gave you the idea that it was something worth finding to begin with?
Would you equate these urges and wishes with wisdom? Almost all ancient philosophies worth caring about say something to the tune of wisdom is a level above simple animal urges and desires.
The more reason to think of it as a construction of Western reason. The way you word it sounds like you think it worth less because it's not a notion that has existed forever.
No. "Wisdom" isn't a word I use very often. I don't like it. It's a Hallmark greeting card kind of word.
As we age, infancy to senescence, we discover the various costs that our urges and wishes impose on us. I don't regret having inconvenient urges and wishes -- I regret acting on some of them. Wisdom means "the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgment". Those are better words to use.
Quoting kudos
Well, "having experience, knowledge, and good judgment" allows one to avoid some of the errors we are prone to.
Quoting kudos
Well, western reasoning is all I have got. No, I don't think it worth less because it hasn't existed forever. A lot of very good ideas are very recent.
How did you learn what experience, knowledge and good judgement were, and where did you get the idea that they were better than the absence thereof? All solely from yourself?
If you are asking about the impulse to philosophy, I would think it often seems to be connected to unhappiness or dissatisfaction. People who are content may not need to ask such questions.
Philosophy for me isn't just the asking of questions, more importantly, it involves the forensic examination of our presuppositions, along with an underlying suspicion that what we consider our foundations may be insubstantial and flawed.
We must act out the process of finding wisdom, it cannot just be handed to us; and I can't believe we just 'pick it up' by nature. The same way the individual through their subjective actions in capitalistic society is intended to do good to others through their internal mechanisms of form.
It seems to me we pick up experience and knowledge by nature. Experience and knowledge are part of most definitions of wisdom I have seen.
Why think that people wouldn't tend to pick up wisdom by nature?
"Experience" arises from existence. Once I existed (not my fault -- somebody else did it) experience began and started shaping my existence. The existence of any animal with some sort of central nervous system will be shaped by its experience--learning. If one's species has a big enough CNS it will develop a culture, and action of that culture will be one more type of experience shaping one's existence. There is a human "I" in the process. The "I" becomes conscious of its existence and becomes aware of self, existence, and experience, and begins to direct the process.
I never did get the idea that no experience, no knowledge, and no good judgement were even a thing. People "judge" their experience on the basis of how it affects their existence. "Good judgement" -- however one defines it -- leads to better existence and better experiences than bad judgement. Falling down drunk in the snow and losing one's fingers to frostbite is an example of exercising bad judgement -- drinking too much to manage one's existence.
Quoting kudos
There's no way for us to exist without experience and knowledge, never mind philosophy.
There are a lot of dull-normals in the world, and most of them get along quite well without worrying about philosophy and wisdom. They sleep well, get up and go to work, produce the world's needs and wants. They go shopping, play with their children, make love, watch Fox News, drink beer, pay their rent or mortgage, dine at Olive Garden to celebrate important events. They get old and die. Life goes on.
The arch of life for very bright philosophers is not all that different than the lives of dull normals. They might not watch Fox News (preferring the BBC), but they drink beer. They may shop more carefully, or not, and may dine at an out-of-the-way ethnic restaurant preferred by food snobs. They may read more, and think interesting thoughts (or not). Otherwise, their lives are about the same as dull normals. They might very well have less money than dull normals. They might not even have a pot to piss in. They get old and die. Life goes on.
Quoting Tom Storm
It sounds like the point both BC and yourself are making is that when innocence tends to be insular and not ask questions of itself, it becomes plainly satisfied. That we need to be 'impelled' by something, no?
Isn't that simply a certain content and form of philosophy? What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings?
At your convenience, of course. But what are you trying to say by mentioning a jump off the bridge?
"Innocence" is another word I don't like very much. It is a feature that belongs to children, presumably, but how long are they supposed to be "innocent"? Freud didn't think they were so innocent. Innocence fits puppies and kittens for only a while.
Experience impels us forward into the world. We find rich and interesting details in experience and we want more rich and interesting experiences. Curiosity, you know.
There's nothing wrong at all with living a simple life, if that's possible. But what does "simplicity" mean? In some ways, the simpler the life, the more anxiety and worry. Picture a family living simply on the land. No worries, except for providing shelter, fuel, food, water, clothing, etc from the land, with their labor. The fatal "simplicity" of that life is deceptive.
Picture a more complex life, one with a house, electricity, canned food, clothing, transportation, medical care, a telephone, etc. This more complex life tends to have more protections, more back-up systems, more help when we need it than a very simple life. Yes, complex lifestyles have significant vulnerabilities. What if electricity fails in a storm? What if the wind blows the roof off one's house? The likelihood of surviving these disasters are really pretty good. Having people to help you means complexity.
If you're saying that innocence means, in part, being open to rich and interesting experiences, then we are in full agreement. But certain experiences qualitatively bring about the loss of innocence and the development of wisdom. So innocence is simply a moment of wisdom, because the gain does not occur without the openness to it. To put it another way, someone who never stands outside the idea of the pursuit of philosophical wisdom can't actualize it. The actualization of wisdom and its attainment are two ways of saying the same thing.
Innocence is the baby in the cradle. It's a lovely state in some ways, but we don't want to go back to being babies in cradles.
Sorry. I don't think I said, and I didn't mean to say that innocence means being open to rich and interesting experiences.
I don't like the terms innocence and wisdom; they're way too loaded to mean much. And I don't think the boss of innocence leads to the gain of wisdom. Innocence is lost early on. Wisdom comes along a lot later and is the result of being 'refined' in the mills of experience.
In a similar vain, we have the idea of childhood innocence. It is a cultural idea, but that doesn't make it any less actual. And the main thesis of preserving innocence hinges on avoiding exposure to certain ideas and not allowing them to be actualized in the child because the effects are known to be negative to the subject and society. By preserving this transitional state, the innocent becomes more suggestible, because more content grows in the unconscious that isn't finding expression and actualization. I would argue that this process trains the user in desiring ideation and expression.
I guess you might call it the creative spark or the philosophical insight or the religious zeal or so forth. But I believe this process forms a positive idea in the innocent.
And yet you find yourself on a philosophy forum, the word generally means 'love or pursuit of wisdom.' And we will happily watch reruns of Family Matters, but find innocence to be a dirty word...
Wisdom is the only word that really matters in philosophy, it's literally in the name.
My point about dissatisfaction being the launching pad of much philosophy doesnt imply that wisdom is achieved. Im not sure that philosophy has a necessary connection to wisdom. In some cases, perhaps. And perhaps more so if you fetishise wisdom in some Platonic framework. For me wisdom is enhanced discernment or judgement generally based upon experience.
I have never seen an episode of Family Matters.
A lot of words get abused and take on improper meanings. Take genocide. It is horrible. Take war. It is horrible. War and genocide are different things, even though they are both horrible. So I object to calling Israel's war on Gaza "genocide", especially when the word is tossed around in a facile chant, like "you can't run, you can't hide/we charge you with genocide" chanted at the city council of Helena, Montana. Total bullshit.
"Innocence" and "wisdom" have been abused and over used. It isn't the fault of the word, it's the fault of jabbering.
Yes, I find myself on this "love of wisdom" or "study of reality" site, and often think that many of the arcane posts I read have nothing to do with the price of potatoes--aka, reality. But, carry on, gentlemen.
I think we agree.
But why? And dont just give me a vague because were curious! Thats like asking an alcoholic why they drink and getting it tastes good.
Unlearnéd humans have sought explanations to avoid harms. Over the millennia we didn't make a lot of progress in understanding how nature worked. Then within the last several hundred years we discovered more about the world, and devised more theories about how the world actually worked that turned out to be correct.
Vaclav Smils points out that Newton, et al who extracted some solid principles of understanding the world would not understand much about the modern world, even though gravity, for instance, is still a challenge. The 19th century scientists who probed deeper and developed an understanding of electricity and magnetism, chemistry and atomic structure would be very surprised by the modern world, but they would understand a lot about what we are doing now.
We are safer now in a world we understand much better. Vaccines, storm prediction, quake-proof architecture, and so on make us safer. Of course understanding how to suck up an ocean of oil and burn it has huge down-sides--global warming. But at least we understand WHY there is global warming, and we know WHAT we should do, even if BP, Exxon, Ford, GM, Toyota, and Trump et al stand in the way.
Making life better (or more richly interesting) and survival is why we strive to understand the world.
Yes, I'd go along with this - which fits with my idea that dissatisfaction is often the fillip for philosophy.
I think a generic 'curiosity' is a fairly inchoate or unsophisticated path to knowledge or philosophical acumen. The real skill is in questioning the assumptions the answers one encounters. This seems quite sophisticated and requires rigorous critical reflection. Im not good at this past a certain point.
Quoting BC
Bullshit certainly seems to get a run on this site. But I also think there are a range of arcane explorations of subjects here that are simply beyond my interest or capacity. But if I did understand, they might well be transformative and enlightening.
In the end, I fear that all of us, no matter how well educated in this subject, still need to piss and eat and still need to treat the world as though realism were true, which means avoiding the worst of the cold, trying to dodge cancer and scrounging enough money to live comfortably into old age.
Your description of why you are interested in philosophy matches almost exactly with your definition of love of wisdom that is its etymology. I personally dont agree this captures the essence of the idea of wisdom, but for one person, sure.
Hasnt this understanding of wisdom, and the accompanying tendency that it is good, done you any good? Or perhaps you dislike certain peoples wisdoms you believe are false, finding that the name has lended a false credibility? The belief of it as learned and experienced qualities to you makes them arbitrary?
Quoting Tom Storm
On the other hand, psychologist George Kelly makes some good points about the dangers of a realistic attitude being taken too far:
Quoting kudos
I am more likely to agree with the latter than the former. Much of philosophy strikes me as anti-curious and focused more upon shutting down the curious rather than seriously considering their questions.
Socrates may be a good example of the philosopher as curious child but we know what happened to him. His incessant questioning was not well received.
Quoting BC
Or do we shut it down? The socialization process is often heavily focused upon shutting people up. Though we do try to find kinder ways to shut them up, the goal remains the same.
What do we need to do other than convince the innocent they are not capable or prepared to accept the whole truth of something. In a sense the intention is to prepare the subject for that wisdom. And being conditioned by that preparation trains us in the discipline of philosophy and teaches us of its necessity. To understand, we use isolation and/or deconstruction, or decay.
Great stuff. I do not disagree with it. But we often do the opposite by fostering the innocents mistaken belief (and perhaps our own) that we know the "whole truth". And rather than end the innocents continually asking why by admitting we do not know the "whole truth", we find ever more sophisticated ways to say "because I said so."
Our collective problem isn't the term, it's how to get the content.
Yes, everything can be taken too far. I don't consider myself a realist.
So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence?
Wishful thinking, possibly born out of incompetence.
It looks as if for many people, loss of innocence has to do with opposing one's elders or with the onset of sexuality of any kind.
What is "wrong" with such a life is that one cannot choose it; it's not the result of deliberate action, at least not always.
No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence.
I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right. You seem to call them the same thing. During earlier times women, for instance, were innocent. Would you consider women like Emily Brontë, diminished 'in her own right' in lieu of never having climbed tall mountains or gone on bestial sexual escapades?
Did Miss Brontë greatly desire bestial sexual escapades on the mountain top?
This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further?
Quoting kudos
During earlier times women and children were thought to be innocent. What applied to men and adults didn't apply to them. They were exempt. Human beings--men, women, and children--whatever they might think about their personhood and being, from childhood to senescence, are not innocent. I do not mean they are evil, disfigured by some sort of Calvinistic stain, original sin, or any of that crap. I mean we are afflicted and conflicted from birth by desires, wishes, urges, fears, and WILL which prevents us from ever approaching innocence. This is not a bad thing -- it's all necessary for us to become effective agents in our own lives.
Innocence is the perfect dismissal: "Oh, you are too good, too pure, too 'innocent' for the real world." Bullshit!
Sorry, getting carried away here.
It depends on the nature of the desire and the cost of achieving it. Most of us have desires which we do well to leave unsatisfied. .
On one hand youre calling innocence a trait of a person in isolation from their outer world, and on the other you claim it is beyond them because of factors (desires, urges, fears) that are largely conditioned upon them from outside. This is perhaps the difference showing itself a bit.
No one is isolated from the or their outer world under generally normal circumstances. We aren't just conditioned rats. We are our impulses, desires, urges, fears, etc. etc. etc. It is our striving, conflicting, conflicted nature. That why life is difficult.
See, I don't believe that 'innocence' exists. It's a myth. We aren't born blank slates, white paper without a mark, the product of an immaculate conception. Neither are any other creatures on earth. We can't lose something we never had to begin with. And that's perfectly OK.
How Christian ...
thinking that you're x
vs.
being x
thinking that you can climb a tree
vs.
successfully climbing a tree
thinking that you're productive
vs.
being productive
thinking that you're a person in your own right
vs.
being a person in your own right
Being x requires some type of evidence, often objectively, interpersonally measurable.
But its an idea, so its non-existence is purely consequential of the fact that you dont believe in it; its not like the belief just survives in society on its own by feeding on cattle at night, it must be earned. Thats like saying friendship or love dont exist because there are no transcendent or complex relationships anymore, only superficiality.