[QUOTE=Quasimodal]
Fairly accurate. I think the natural tendency of people without guidance is to follow an easy path. The easy path involves going for easy pleasures by any means. I think Christ understood that that is part the nature of man, however he also understood that part of the nature of man is to overcome these limitations. He understood that his philosophies such as turning the other cheek would eventually work for his people. He understood the nature of people to feel empathy towards others, and the good it can work. And while I don’t have a direct quotation, I don’t think Christ was all doom and gloom regarding humanity…because if we were beyond redemption he wouldn’t have been on his mission to save us.
[/QUOTE]
The solution that Jesus offered is a completely new life ie, John3:3 “Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again he cannot ever see the kingdom of God.” The Bible declares repeatedly that “old man” must die, it can’t be regenerated.
(Who was, of course, raised from birth to be wise and spiritual. Or who was recognized at birth to already be wise and spiritual. Does it matter which?)
[/QUOTE]
Bull!
Look at some of the bigoted and just plain ignorant statements he has made about GLBT people, and try to claim he is “wise and spiritual”.
Alfonso X el Sabio de Castilla y León is a decent candidate, I think, specially in view of news like this.
Apart of “the usual kingly work”, he opened the Translator’s School in Toledo, which attracted a lot more than translators. He was visiting it and the astrologers (remember, they weren’t astronomers yet) explained the system they used in their calculations, with everything turning around the earth following circular orbits that were modified by smaller circles (as many as five sub-circles). His response: “if God had asked for my opinion, this would be a whole lot simpler.”
The “Wise” surname comes mostly from his work re. education, but other people (ex Juana la Loca, who decreed that women have education access equal to men’s) who had a lot to say about education weren’t as wise as him in… more day-to-day matters.
(I’m not this Hispano-centric when I’m in other places, just taking it upon me to broaden horizons :D)
I nominate Jesus. Even if you don’t accept his divinity, his philosophy of loving your enemies and serving others would make the world a better place if we only practiced what he preached.
[QUOTE=Malienation]
Hmmm…maybe. Smart, yes. Cynical, yes. Funny, yes. Excellent writer, yes. Wise? That might be a reach… BTW, along the same lines, you could make a similar case for H.L. Mencken.
[/QUOTE]
Specifically regarding a knowledge of human nature, I have to say Twain fits almost every definition of “wise”: 1. Having wisdom or discernment for what is true, right, or lasting; 2.a. Exhibiting common sense; b. Shrewd; crafty. 3. Having great learning; erudite. 4. Provided with information; informed.
(I apply “wise” to Twain only as regarding his knowledge of human nature; in matters of business, money, science and technology, I don’t think he was very wise at all.)
And I completely agree that Mencken fits those definitions as well.
[QUOTE=commasense]
Just in case any Dopers need evidence in support of Malienation’s excellent nomination of John Stuart Mill, here is a famous passage from On Liberty:
<snip>
The full text of On Liberty is here.
[/QUOTE]
Been meaning to give you a heads up to this post at a conservative website of some repute (not a tinfoil hat website). Brace yourself: they give On Liberty an honorable mention for most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century. :eek: Assholes! :mad:
[QUOTE=Malienation]
Been meaning to give you a heads up to this post at a conservative website of some repute (not a tinfoil hat website). Brace yourself: they give On Liberty an honorable mention for most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century. :eek: Assholes! :mad:
[/QUOTE]
I think the whole notion of harmful books or harmful ideas is simply absurd and delusional. As if, had Karl Marx never lived, no one else would have ever conceived of the principles of communism. The attitude of the censor, that some people simply aren’t capable of coping with some ideas and need to be protected from them, is condescending, paternalistic, and anti-democratic. That way leads to fascism.
George Washington, for using power for good ends, and for refusing power that would have gone to most people’s heads. “Modest, wise and good,” as Abigail Adams described him.
Ben Franklin, for being an all-around supergenius and astute observer of human nature.
H.L. Mencken and Mark Twain, ditto.
Gandhi, Jesus and the Buddha are right up there, too.
