Knowledge vs. Wisdom
Posted by B. Cotter on November 4th, 2005In our last conversation an interesting thing was said by Wade. He presented a theory that in this life we do not learn anything new but that life is remembering what we new before we came to earth.
I am sure I am not stating his comments or thoughts exactly the way he stated them so we must excuse Wade from teaching any sort of false doctrine. But as I thought about it this week I think in many ways I believe that what he said is true.
I think that there is a difference between knowledge and Wisdom. I think that learning can encompass both Knowledge and Wisdom but that the things we come to know (meaning knowledge) are things that we already new before the veil was lowered we are just remembering the truth.
Wisdom is why (among other things like obtaining a body) we needed to come to earth. Knowing the stove will burn you is very different then having the experience of getting burned. Learning what its like to sin and overcome weakness is wisdom we could not get any other way than to come to earth and fall. With out this wisdom we could not become like our Heavenly Father.
I should include scriptural references but I do not have the time right now. I just thought I would share with the group my thoughts this week. I will add the scriptural references that I read this week later. I look forward to the input.
Nice post Blaine. I do tend to believe that virtually all acquisitions of knowledge are mere recollections of truths as idea or concept. However, I’m no so sure whether the distinction between knowledge and wisdom has to do with application of knowledge in the way you describe (although I am not saying you’re wrong either). I used to think that wisdom is knowing without the actual experience, but based on other experience. For example, I have the wisdom that touching the stove will burn me. This is wisdom because I’ve seen others who were burned, or have experienced burning in a more minor way myself, and from that I have the knowledge. The knowledge is not derived from my own experience with that particular stove, rather from learning through others, or through my own other experiences. Thus, I tend to think that wisdom actually is “applying” knowledge without having to gain the knowledge through personal experience with that thing. Sounds weird and I don’t know if I am clear here, but I still do ascribe to my belief about recollection - wisdom is a side issue to that belief.
Also, I encourage any critiques of my recollection theory.
Comment # 1 left by Wade on November 4th, 2005
Blaine:Learning what its like to sin and overcome weakness is wisdom we could not get any other way than to come to earth and fall.
Following that theory, the wisdom of Christ is not as complete as ours?
Comment # 2 left by Ryan on November 4th, 2005
Sorry I didn’t include any scriptural support for my claim that Christ didn’t sin… If there’s any dispute to that I’ll make it the topic of my next post
Comment # 3 left by Ryan on November 4th, 2005
Ryan: the wisdom of Christ is not as complete as ours?
If I understand Blaine correctly, I don’t necessarily think he meant that we have to sin in order to experience the effects of the fall. In other words, Christ did experience the effects of Sin/fall. In fact, it could be argued (quite strongly even) that Christ experienced sin like no other person through performing the atonement. Perhaps this “experience” of his is what makes his wisdom complete. After all, Paul said Christ only became perfect after he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. (Hebrews 5:8-9)
Also, your comment seems to flesh out my point that wisdom is different than knowledge in that it is not necessarily obtained through direct personal experience, but rather can be obtained through indirect experience (such as Christ’s experience in the atonement)?
Comment # 4 left by Wade on November 4th, 2005
Hmm… Christ and sin…
Okay, well that’s leading off on a tangent that we’ll have to get back to later… Let me get back to Blaine’s post.
If I understand correctly, what we are trying to determine here is whether or not we are learning or remembering during mortality and consequently; how can determining the correct answer be useful in working out our salvation?
So, let’s see the scriptural support for what we did or did not know before we came to earth.
Comment # 5 left by Ryan on November 4th, 2005
Ryan: Let’s see the scriptural support for what we did or did not know before we came to earth.
As for scripture, I think DC 93:12-13 are instructive (referring to Christ’s lack of knowledge after birth). Clearly Christ was a god before he was born. Indeed, he was the God of the Israelites and created this earth. Yet, he had to go from “grace to grace” after his birth because of the veil.
Also, I think maybe the fact that after Michael became Adam (pre-mortal to mortal being) he had forgotten all and had become as a little child is also instructive. As Adam is the great prototype.
Comment # 6 left by Wade on November 4th, 2005
As to precise “things” you or I may or may not have known is obviously unknown in itself and hence our discussion. I think it is pertinent to our salvation because it goes to the purpose of existence in this sphere.
Comment # 7 left by Wade on November 4th, 2005
Wade: As to precise “things” you or I may or may not have known is obviously unknown in itself and hence our discussion.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the claim that is being made. As I understand it, the theory being proposed is that we don’t learn anything new here, we just remember what we knew and then get to experience it. I guess my disagreement is that I believe that we both remember principles we understood before this life but that we also learn new things that we did not know before we came here (not just because of our experiences, but actual learning of gospel principles). I cite as my support the concept that the more knowledge we gain in this life, the more advantage we will have in the life to come. If we are only remembering things here, what benefit could it be for us in the next life as we pass through the veil and recollect everything we once knew?
Comment # 8 left by Ryan on November 4th, 2005
Ryan: what benefit could it be for us in the next life as we pass through the veil and recollect everything we once knew?
You make the assumption that when we die the veil is completely withdrawn and we automatically recollect everything obtained before. I don’t necessarily ascribe to this assumption. Thus, even without discussing your point further, I still think there is at least some merit to the recollection theory.
However, as far as the theory establishes the fact that “nothing” new is learned, I think this is an overstatement. As I said in the first comment: “I do tend to believe that virtually all acquisitions of knowledge are mere recollections of truths as idea or concept. Thus, I think it’s more complicated than just declaring all things learned are just recollections because I think the process of recollecting through the body is, in and of itself, a learning process that is new and therefore may be classified as new knowledge.
As far as DC 130 goes, I don’t see how a strict construction of it makes the recollection theory invalid. This is why: I think there is a difference between knowing and understanding. For example, I know (because I have been taught and told by professors) that when I begin practicing law I will have to file a motion (written or oral) with the court in order to have the court consider any argument that I make on behalf of a client. I have learned this “concept” or “idea” or “law” in school. However, I won’t completely understand how the process works until I actually do it myself. And, even after experiencing the process, I still may not have a complete understanding of how to be effective in moving the court untill I’ve done it numerous times. It’s similar with the stove analogy: I “know” that the stove is hot because I’ve been told - but understanding how or why the stove is hot is a different matter. Understanding will come by learning more about thermodynamics and how energy increases the speed of molecules and then when I witness those principles in action I can better understand it. But without the experience with the elements and seeing how they work after learning the principles, my understanding will be lacking even if I know the effect of touching something hot.
Verse 18 reads: “Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with use in the resurrection. Thus, the principle of intelligence may already have been attained unto in previous eons, yet attaining unto that same principle “in this life” may be considered something totally different because of the further understanding that comes from this different realm.
Also, it is my personal belief (and feel free to critique it) that verses 18-19 are retroactive. Whatever principle of intelligence attained unto in the previous life(s) rises (inately, and thus the need for recollection) with us after birth and those who were really diligent before, have so much the advantage here! This is because obtaining knowledge may be easier for them due to their efforts heretofore.
In conclusion, I think the concepts or “forms” of truth are always the same, but government over them and understanding of them may be different in applying them in different realms.
Comment # 9 left by Wade on November 5th, 2005
Have I offended everybody already?
Comment # 10 left by Wade on November 8th, 2005
Or is the issue stale?
Comment # 11 left by Wade on November 8th, 2005
What happened to our discussion? Did my usurpation of administrative power really offend everyone that much?
Comment # 12 left by Wade on November 9th, 2005
Great comments guys. Next week I have a few things to add.
Comment # 13 left by Cpt. Teancum on November 18th, 2005
as far as i know this idea was first put forward by Plato in the ‘Meno’. If you are interested in the idea that all knowledge is recollected, then that, and commentary on it is a good place to start.
Comment # 14 left by Progressive Democrat on November 20th, 2005
Progressive Democrat:
Yes, in fact I’ve read Plato’s Meno more than once. However, the way in which he uses the slave boy’s “recollection” of mathmatics or idea of the square is not very convincing. I like the Platonic ideas put forth in The Republic concerning recollection better, e.g. the whole concept of needing “light” in order to see and recollect.
Comment # 15 left by Wade on November 21st, 2005