essay wisdom

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

What is wisdom? Philosophers, psychologists, spiritual leaders, poets, novelists, life coaches, and a variety of other important thinkers have tried to understand the concept of wisdom. This entry will provide a brief and general overview, and analysis of, several philosophical views on the topic of wisdom. It is not intended to capture the many interesting and important approaches to wisdom found in other fields of inquiry. Moreover, this entry will focus on several major ideas in the Western philosophical tradition. In particular, it will focus on five general approaches to understanding what it takes to be wise: (1) wisdom as epistemic humility, (2) wisdom as epistemic accuracy, (3) wisdom as knowledge, (4) a hybrid theory of wisdom, and (5) wisdom as rationality.

1. Wisdom as Epistemic Humility

2. wisdom as epistemic accuracy, 3. wisdom as knowledge, 4. hybrid theory, 5. wisdom as rationality, other internet resources, related entries.

Socrates’ view of wisdom, as expressed by Plato in The Apology (20e-23c), is sometimes interpreted as an example of a humility theory of wisdom (see, for example, Ryan 1996 and Whitcomb, 2010). In Plato’s Apology , Socrates and his friend Chaerephon visit the oracle at Delphi. As the story goes, Chaerephon asks the oracle whether anyone is wiser than Socrates. The oracle’s answer is that Socrates is the wisest person. Socrates reports that he is puzzled by this answer since so many other people in the community are well known for their extensive knowledge and wisdom, and yet Socrates claims that he lacks knowledge and wisdom. Socrates does an investigation to get to the bottom of this puzzle. He interrogates a series of politicians, poets, and craftsmen. As one would expect, Socrates’ investigation reveals that those who claim to have knowledge either do not really know any of the things they claim to know, or else know far less than they proclaim to know. The most knowledgeable of the bunch, the craftsmen, know about their craft, but they claim to know things far beyond the scope of their expertise. Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know things he does not know, nor the vice of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom. In this revelation, we have a potential resolution to the wisdom puzzle in The Apology .

Although the story may initially appear to deliver a clear theory of wisdom, it is actually quite difficult to capture a textually accurate and plausible theory here. One interpretation is that Socrates is wise because he, unlike the others, believes he is not wise, whereas the poets, politicians, and craftsmen arrogantly and falsely believe they are wise. This theory, which will be labeled Humility Theory 1 (H1), is simply (see, for example, Lehrer & Smith 1996, 3):

Humility Theory 1 (H1) : S is wise iff S believes s/he is not wise.

This is a tempting and popular interpretation because Socrates certainly thinks he has shown that the epistemically arrogant poets, politicians, and craftsmen lack wisdom. Moreover, Socrates claims that he is not wise, and yet, if we trust the oracle, Socrates is actually wise.

Upon careful inspection, (H1) is not a reasonable interpretation of Socrates’ view. Although Socrates does not boast of his own wisdom, he does believe the oracle. If he was convinced that he was not wise, he would have rejected the oracle and gone about his business because he would not find any puzzle to unravel. Clearly, he believes, on some level, that he is wise. The mystery is: what is wisdom if he has it and the others lack it? Socrates nowhere suggests that he has become unwise after believing the oracle. Thus, (H1) is not an acceptable interpretation of Socrates’ view.

Moreover, (H1) is false. Many people are clear counterexamples to (H1). Many people who believe they are not wise are correct in their self-assessment. Thus, the belief that one is not wise is not a sufficient condition for wisdom. Furthermore, it seems that the belief that one is not wise is not necessary for wisdom. It seems plausible to think that a wise person could be wise enough to realize that she is wise. Too much modesty might get in the way of making good decisions and sharing what one knows. If one thinks Socrates was a wise person, and if one accepts that Socrates did, in fact, accept that he was wise, then Socrates himself is a counterexample to (H1). The belief that one is wise could be a perfectly well justified belief for a wise person. Having the belief that one is wise does not, in itself, eliminate the possibility that the person is wise. Nor does it guarantee the vice of arrogance. We should hope that a wise person would have a healthy dose of epistemic self-confidence, appreciate that she is wise, and share her understanding of reality with the rest of us who could benefit from her wisdom. Thus, the belief that one is not wise is not required for wisdom.

(H1) focused on believing one is not wise. Another version of the humility theory is worth considering. When Socrates demonstrates that a person is not wise, he does so by showing that the person lacks some knowledge that he or she claims to possess. Thus, one might think that Socrates’ view could be better captured by focusing on the idea that wise people believe they lack knowledge (rather than lacking wisdom). That is, one might consider the following view:

Humility Theory 2 (H2): S is wise iff S believes S does not know anything.

Unfortunately, this interpretation is not any better than (H1). It falls prey to problems similar to those that refuted (H1) both as an interpretation of Socrates, and as an acceptable account of wisdom. Moreover, remember that Socrates admits that the craftsmen do have some knowledge. Socrates might have considered them to be wise if they had restricted their confidence and claims to knowledge to what they actually did know about their craft. Their problem was that they professed to have knowledge beyond their area of expertise. The problem was not that they claimed to have knowledge.

Before turning to alternative approaches to wisdom, it is worth mentioning another interpretation of Socrates that fits with the general spirit of epistemic humility. One might think that what Socrates is establishing is that his wisdom is found in his realization that human wisdom is not a particularly valuable kind of wisdom. Only the gods possess the kind of wisdom that is truly valuable. This is clearly one of Socrates’ insights, but it does not provide us with an understanding of the nature of wisdom. It tells us only of its comparative value. Merely understanding this evaluative insight would not, for reasons similar to those discussed with (HP1) and (HP2), make one wise.

Humility theories of wisdom are not promising, but they do, perhaps, provide us with some important character traits associated with wise people. Wise people, one might argue, possess epistemic self-confidence, yet lack epistemic arrogance. Wise people tend to acknowledge their fallibility, and wise people are reflective, introspective, and tolerant of uncertainty. Any acceptable theory of wisdom ought to be compatible with such traits. However, those traits are not, in and of themselves, definitive of wisdom.

Socrates can be interpreted as providing an epistemic accuracy, rather than an epistemic humility, theory of wisdom. The poets, politicians, and craftsmen all believe they have knowledge about topics on which they are considerably ignorant. Socrates, one might argue, believes he has knowledge when, and only when, he really does have knowledge. Perhaps wise people restrict their confidence to propositions for which they have knowledge or, at least, to propositions for which they have excellent justification. Perhaps Socrates is better interpreted as having held an Epistemic Accuracy Theory such as:

Epistemic Accuracy Theory 1 (EA1) : S is wise iff for all p , ( S believes S knows p iff S knows p .)

According to (EA1), a wise person is accurate about what she knows and what she does not know. If she really knows p , she believes she knows p . And, if she believes she knows p , then she really does know p . (EA1) is consistent with the idea that Socrates accepts that he is wise and with the idea that Socrates does have some knowledge. (EA1) is a plausible interpretation of the view Socrates endorses, but it is not a plausible answer in the search for an understanding of wisdom. Wise people can make mistakes about what they know. Socrates, Maimonides, King Solomon, Einstein, Goethe, Gandhi, and every other candidate for the honor of wisdom have held false beliefs about what they did and did not know. It is easy to imagine a wise person being justified in believing she possesses knowledge about some claim, and also easy to imagine that she could be shown to be mistaken, perhaps long after her death. If (EA1) is true, then just because a person believes she has knowledge when she does not, she is not wise. That seems wrong. It is hard to imagine that anyone at all is, or ever has been, wise if (EA1) is correct.

We could revise the Epistemic Accuracy Theory to get around this problem. We might only require that a wise person’s belief is highly justified when she believes she has knowledge. That excuses people with bad epistemic luck.

Epistemic Accuracy 2 (EA2) : S is wise iff for all p , ( S believes S knows p iff S ’s belief in p is highly justified.)

(EA2) gets around the problem with (EA1). The Socratic Method challenges one to produce reasons for one’s view. When Socrates’ interlocutor is left dumbfounded, or reduced to absurdity, Socrates rests his case. One might argue that through his questioning, Socrates reveals not that his opponents lack knowledge because their beliefs are false, but he demonstrates that his opponents are not justified in holding the views they profess to know. Since the craftsmen, poets, and politicians questioned by Socrates all fail his interrogation, they were shown, one might argue, to have claimed to have knowledge when their beliefs were not even justified.

Many philosophers would hesitate to endorse this interpretation of what is going on in The Apology . They would argue that a failure to defend one’s beliefs from Socrates’ relentless questioning does not show that a person is not justified in believing a proposition. Many philosophers would argue that having very good evidence, or forming a belief via a reliable process, would be sufficient for justification.

Proving, or demonstrating to an interrogator, that one is justified is another matter, and not necessary for simply being justified. Socrates, some might argue, shows only that the craftsmen, poets, and politicians cannot defend themselves from his questions. He does not show, one might argue, that the poets, politicians, and craftsmen have unjustified beliefs. Since we gain very little insight into the details of the conversation in this dialogue, it would be unfair to dismiss this interpretation on these grounds. Perhaps Socrates did show, through his intense questioning, that the craftsmen, poets, and politicians formed and held their beliefs without adequate evidence or formed and held them through unreliable belief forming processes. Socrates only reports that they did not know all that they professed to know. Since we do not get to witness the actual questioning as we do in Plato’s other dialogues, we should not reject (EA2) as an interpretation of Socrates’ view of wisdom in The Apology .

Regardless of whether (EA2) is Socrates’ view, there are problems for (EA2) as an account of what it means to be wise. Even if (EA2) is exactly what Socrates meant, some philosophers would argue that one could be justified in believing a proposition, but not realize that she is justified. If that is a possible situation for a wise person to be in, then she might be justified, but fail to believe she has knowledge. Could a wise person be in such a situation, or is it necessary that a wise person would always recognize the epistemic value of what he or she believes? [ 1 ] If this situation is impossible, then this criticism could be avoided. There is no need to resolve this issue here because (EA1) and (EA2) fall prey to another, much less philosophically thorny and controversial problem.

(EA1) and (EA2) suffer from a similar, and very serious, problem. Imagine a person who has very little knowledge. Suppose further, that the few things she does know are of little or no importance. She could be the sort of person that nobody would ever go to for information or advice. Such a person could be very cautious and believe that she knows only what she actually knows. Although she would have accurate beliefs about what she does and does not know, she would not be wise. This shows that (EA1) is flawed. As for (EA2), imagine that she believes she knows only what she is actually justified in believing. She is still not wise. It should be noted, however, that although accuracy theories do not provide an adequate account of wisdom, they reveal an important insight. Perhaps a necessary condition for being wise is that wise people think they have knowledge only when their beliefs are highly justified. Or, even more simply, perhaps wise people have epistemically justified, or rational, beliefs.

An alternative approach to wisdom focuses on the more positive idea that wise people are very knowledgeable people. There are many views in the historical and contemporary philosophical literature on wisdom that have knowledge, as opposed to humility or accuracy, as at least a necessary condition of wisdom. Aristotle ( Nichomachean Ethics VI, ch. 7), Descartes ( Principles of Philosophy ), Richard Garrett (1996), John Kekes (1983), Keith Lehrer & Nicholas Smith (1996), Robert Nozick (1989), Plato ( The Republic ), Sharon Ryan (1996, 1999), Valerie Tiberius (2008), Dennis Whitcomb (2010) and Linda Zagzebski (1996) for example, have all defended theories of wisdom that require a wise person to have knowledge of some sort. All of these views very clearly distinguish knowledge from expertise on a particular subject. Moreover, all of these views maintain that wise people know “what is important.” The views differ, for the most part, over what it is important for a wise person to know, and on whether there is any behavior, action, or way of living, that is required for wisdom.

Aristotle distinguished between two different kinds of wisdom, theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom is, according to Aristotle, “scientific knowledge, combined with intuitive reason, of the things that are highest by nature” ( Nicomachean Ethics , VI, 1141b). For Aristotle, theoretical wisdom involves knowledge of necessary, scientific, first principles and propositions that can be logically deduced from them. Aristotle’s idea that scientific knowledge is knowledge of necessary truths and their logical consequences is no longer a widely accepted view. Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, I will consider a theory that reflects the spirit of Aristotle’s view on theoretical wisdom, but without the controversy about the necessary or contingent nature of scientific knowledge. Moreover, it will combine scientific knowledge with other kinds of factual knowledge, including knowledge about history, philosophy, music, literature, mathematics, etc. Consider the following, knowledge based, theory of wisdom:

Wisdom as Extensive Factual Knowledge (WFK) : S is wise iff S has extensive factual knowledge about science, history, philosophy, literature, music, etc.

According to (WFK), a wise person is a person who knows a lot about the universe and our place in it. She would have extensive knowledge about the standard academic subjects. There are many positive things to say about (WFK). (WFK) nicely distinguishes between narrow expertise and knowledge of the mundane, from the important, broad, and general kind of knowledge possessed by wise people. As Aristotle puts it, “…we think that some people are wise in general, not in some particular field or in any other limited respect…” ( Nicomachean Ethics , Book 6, 1141a).

The main problem for (WFK) is that some of the most knowledgeable people are not wise. Although they have an abundance of very important factual knowledge, they lack the kind of practical know-how that is a mark of a wise person. Wise people know how to get on in the world in all kinds of situations and with all kinds of people. Extensive factual knowledge is not enough to give us what a wise person knows. As Robert Nozick points out, “Wisdom is not just knowing fundamental truths, if these are unconnected with the guidance of life or with a perspective on its meaning” (1989, 269). There is more to wisdom than intelligence and knowledge of science and philosophy or any other subject matter. Aristotle is well aware of the limitations of what he calls theoretical wisdom. However, rather than making improvements to something like (WFK), Aristotle distinguishes it as one kind of wisdom. Other philosophers would be willing to abandon (WFK), that is, claim that it provides insufficient conditions for wisdom, and add on what is missing.

Aristotle has a concept of practical wisdom that makes up for what is missing in theoretical wisdom. In Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics , he claims, “This is why we say Anaxagoras, Thales, and men like them have philosophic but not practical wisdom, when we see them ignorant of what is to their own advantage, and why we say that they know things that are remarkable, admirable, difficult, and divine, but useless; viz. because it is not human goods they seek” (1141a). Knowledge of contingent facts that are useful to living well is required in Aristotle’s practical wisdom. According to Aristotle, “Now it is thought to be the mark of a man of practical wisdom to be able to deliberate well about what is good and expedient for himself, not in some particular respect, e.g. about what sorts of thing conduce to health or to strength, but about what sorts of thing conduce to the good life in general” ( Nichomachean Ethics , VI, 1140a–1140b). Thus, for Aristotle, practical wisdom requires knowing, in general, how to live well. Many philosophers agree with Aristotle on this point. However, many would not be satisfied with the conclusion that theoretical wisdom is one kind of wisdom and practical wisdom another. Other philosophers, including Linda Zagzebski (1996), agree that there are these two types of wisdom that ought to be distinguished.

Let’s proceed, without argument, on the assumption that it is possible to have a theory of one, general, kind of wisdom. Wisdom, in general, many philosophers would argue, requires practical knowledge about living. What Aristotle calls theoretical wisdom, many would contend, is not wisdom at all. Aristotle’s theoretical wisdom is merely extensive knowledge or deep understanding. Nicholas Maxwell (1984), in his argument to revolutionize education, argues that we should be teaching for wisdom, which he sharply distinguishes from standard academic knowledge. Similar points are raised by Robert Sternberg (2001) and Andrew Norman (1996). Robert Nozick holds a view very similar to Aristotle’s theory of practical wisdom, but Nozick is trying to capture the essence of wisdom, period. He is not trying to define one, alternative, kind of wisdom. Nozick claims, “Wisdom is what you need to understand in order to live well and cope with the central problems and avoid the dangers in the predicaments human beings find themselves in” (1989, 267). And, John Kekes maintains that, “What a wise man knows, therefore, is how to construct a pattern that, given the human situation, is likely to lead to a good life” (1983, 280). More recently, Valerie Tiberius (2008) has developed a practical view that connects wisdom with well being, requiring, among other things, that a wise person live the sort of life that he or she could sincerely endorse upon reflection. Such practical views of wisdom could be expressed, generally, as follows.

Wisdom as Knowing How To Live Well (KLW) : S is wise iff S knows how to live well.

This view captures Aristotle’s basic idea of practical wisdom. It also captures an important aspect of views defended by Nozick, Plato, Garrett, Kekes, Maxwell, Ryan, and Tiberius. Although giving an account of what it means to know how to live well may prove as difficult a topic as providing an account of wisdom, Nozick provides a very illuminating start.

Wisdom is not just one type of knowledge, but diverse. What a wise person needs to know and understand constitutes a varied list: the most important goals and values of life – the ultimate goal, if there is one; what means will reach these goals without too great a cost; what kinds of dangers threaten the achieving of these goals; how to recognize and avoid or minimize these dangers; what different types of human beings are like in their actions and motives (as this presents dangers or opportunities); what is not possible or feasible to achieve (or avoid); how to tell what is appropriate when; knowing when certain goals are sufficiently achieved; what limitations are unavoidable and how to accept them; how to improve oneself and one’s relationships with others or society; knowing what the true and unapparent value of various things is; when to take a long-term view; knowing the variety and obduracy of facts, institutions, and human nature; understanding what one’s real motives are; how to cope and deal with the major tragedies and dilemmas of life, and with the major good things too. (1989, 269)

With Nozick’s explanation of what one must know in order to live well, we have an interesting and quite attractive, albeit somewhat rough, theory of wisdom. As noted above, many philosophers, including Aristotle and Zagzebski would, however, reject (KLW) as the full story on wisdom. Aristotle and Zagzebski would obviously reject (KLW) as the full story because they believe theoretical wisdom is another kind of wisdom, and are unwilling to accept that there is a conception of one, general, kind of wisdom. Kekes claims, “The possession of wisdom shows itself in reliable, sound, reasonable, in a word, good judgment. In good judgment, a person brings his knowledge to bear on his actions. To understand wisdom, we have to understand its connection with knowledge, action, and judgment” (1983, 277). Kekes adds, “Wisdom ought also to show in the man who has it” (1983, 281). Many philosophers, therefore, think that wisdom is not restricted even to knowledge about how to live well. Tiberius thinks the wise person’s actions reflect their basic values. These philosophers believe that being wise also includes action. A person could satisfy the conditions of any of the principles we have considered thus far and nevertheless behave in a wildly reckless manner. Wildly reckless people are, even if very knowledgeable about life, not wise.

Philosophers who are attracted to the idea that knowing how to live well is a necessary condition for wisdom might want to simply tack on a success condition to (KLW) to get around cases in which a person knows all about living well, yet fails to put this knowledge into practice. Something along the lines of the following theory would capture this idea.

Wisdom as Knowing How To, and Succeeding at, Living Well (KLS) : S is wise iff (i) S knows how to live well, and (ii) S is successful at living well.

The idea of the success condition is that one puts one’s knowledge into practice. Or, rather than using the terminology of success, one might require that a wise person’s beliefs and values cohere with one’s actions (Tiberius, 2008). The main idea is that one’s actions are reflective of one’s understanding of what it means to live well. A view along the lines of (KLS) would be embraced by Aristotle and Zagzebski (for practical wisdom), and by Kekes, Nozick, and Tiberius. (KLS) would not be universally embraced, however (see Ryan 1999, for further criticisms). One criticism of (KLS) is that one might think that all the factual knowledge required by (WFK) is missing from this theory. One might argue that (WFK), the view that a wise person has extensive factual knowledge, was rejected only because it did not provide sufficient conditions for wisdom. Many philosophers would claim that (WFK) does provide a necessary condition for wisdom. A wise person, such a critic would argue, needs to know how to live well (as described by Nozick), but she also needs to have some deep and far-reaching theoretical, or factual, knowledge that may have very little impact on her daily life, practical decisions, or well being. In the preface of his Principles of Philosophy , Descartes insisted upon factual knowledge as an important component of wisdom. Descartes wrote, “It is really only God alone who has Perfect Wisdom, that is to say, who has a complete knowledge of the truth of all things; but it may be said that men have more wisdom or less according as they have more or less knowledge of the most important truths” ( Principles , 204). Of course, among those important truths, one might claim, are truths about living well, as well as knowledge in the basic academic subject areas.

Moreover, one might complain that the insight left standing from Epistemic Accuracy theories is also missing from (KLS). One might think that a wise person not only knows a lot, and succeeds at living well, she also confines her claims to knowledge (or belief that she has knowledge) to those propositions that she is justified in believing.

One way to try to accommodate the various insights from the theories considered thus far is in the form of a hybrid theory. One such idea is:

S is wise iff S has extensive factual and theoretical knowledge. S knows how to live well. S is successful at living well. S has very few unjustified beliefs.

Although this Hybrid Theory has a lot going for it, there are a number of important criticisms to consider. Dennis Whitcomb (2010) objects to all theories of wisdom that include a living well condition, or an appreciation of living well condition. He gives several interesting objections against such views. Whitcomb thinks that a person who is deeply depressed and totally devoid of any ambition for living well could nevertheless be wise. As long as such a person is deeply knowledgeable about academic subjects and knows how to live well, that person would have all they need for wisdom. With respect to a very knowledgeable and deeply depressed person with no ambition but to stay in his room, he claims, “If I ran across such a person, I would take his advice to heart, wish him a return to health, and leave the continuing search for sages to his less grateful advisees. And I would think he was wise despite his depression-induced failure to value or desire the good life. So I think that wisdom does not require valuing or desiring the good life.”

In response to Whitcomb’s penetrating criticism, one could argue that a deeply depressed person who is wise, would still live as well as she can, and would still value living well, even if she falls far short of perfection. Such a person would attempt to get help to deal with her depression. If she really does not care at all, she may be very knowledgeable, but she is not wise. There is something irrational about knowing how to live well and refusing to try to do so. Such irrationality is not compatible with wisdom. A person with this internal conflict may be extremely clever and shrewd, one to listen to on many issues, one to trust on many issues, and may even win a Nobel Prize for her intellectual greatness, but she is not admirable enough, and rationally consistent enough, to be wise. Wisdom is a virtue and a way of living, and it requires more than smart ideas and knowledge.

Aristotle held that “it is evident that it is impossible to be practically wise without being good” ( Nicomachean Ethics , 1144a, 36–37). Most of the philosophers mentioned thus far would include moral virtue in their understanding of what it means to live well. However, Whitcomb challenges any theory of wisdom that requires moral virtue. Whitcomb contends that a deeply evil person could nevertheless be wise.

Again, it is important to contrast being wise from being clever and intelligent. If we think of wisdom as the highest, or among the highest, of human virtues, then it seems incompatible with a deeply evil personality.

There is, however, a very serious problem with the Hybrid Theory. Since so much of what was long ago considered knowledge has been abandoned, or has evolved, a theory that requires truth (through a knowledge condition) would exclude almost all people who are now long dead, including Hypatia, Socrates, Confucius, Aristotle, Homer, Lao Tzu, etc. from the list of the wise. Bad epistemic luck, and having lived in the past, should not count against being wise. But, since truth is a necessary condition for knowledge, bad epistemic luck is sufficient to undermine a claim to knowledge. What matters, as far as being wise goes, is not that a wise person has knowledge, but that she has highly justified and rational beliefs about a wide variety of subjects, including how to live well, science, philosophy, mathematics, history, geography, art, literature, psychology, and so on. And the wider the variety of interesting topics, the better. Another way of developing this same point is to imagine a person with highly justified beliefs about a wide variety of subjects, but who is unaware that she is trapped in the Matrix, or some other skeptical scenario. Such a person could be wise even if she is sorely lacking knowledge. A theory of wisdom that focuses on having rational or epistemically justified beliefs, rather than the higher standard of actually having knowledge, would be more promising. Moreover, such a theory would incorporate much of what is attractive about epistemic humility, and epistemic accuracy, theories.

The final theory to be considered here is an attempt to capture all that is good, while avoiding all the serious problems of the other theories discussed thus far. Perhaps wisdom is a deep and comprehensive kind of rationality (Ryan, 2012).

Deep Rationality Theory (DRT): S is wise iff S has a wide variety of epistemically justified beliefs on a wide variety of valuable academic subjects. S has a wide variety of justified beliefs on how to live rationally (epistemically, morally, and practically). S is committed to living rationally. S has very few unjustified beliefs and is sensitive to her limitations.

In condition (1), DRT takes account of what is attractive about some knowledge theories by requiring epistemically justified beliefs about a wide variety of standard academic subjects. Condition (2) takes account of what is attractive about theories that require knowledge about how to live well. For example, having justified beliefs about how to live in a practically rational way would include having a well-reasoned strategy for dealing with the practical aspects of life. Having a rational plan does not require perfect success. It requires having good reasons behind one’s actions, responding appropriately to, and learning from, one’s mistakes, and having a rational plan for all sorts of situations and problems. Having justified beliefs about how to live in a morally rational way would not involve being a moral saint, but would require that one has good reasons supporting her beliefs about what is morally right and wrong, and about what one morally ought and ought not do in a wide variety of circumstances. Having justified beliefs about living in an emotionally rational way would involve, not dispassion, but having justified beliefs about what is, and what is not, an emotionally rational response to a situation. For example, it is appropriate to feel deeply sad when dealing with the loss of a loved one. But, ordinarily, feeling deeply sad or extremely angry is not an appropriate emotion to spilled milk. A wise person would have rational beliefs about the emotional needs and behaviors of other people.

Condition (3) ensures that the wise person live a life that reflects what she or he is justified in believing is a rational way to live. In condition (4), DRT respects epistemic humility. Condition (4) requires that a wise person not believe things without epistemic justification. The Deep Rationality Theory rules out all of the unwise poets, politicians, and craftsmen that were ruled out by Socrates. Wise people do not think they know when they lack sufficient evidence. Moreover, wise people are not epistemically arrogant.

The Deep Rationality Theory does not require knowledge or perfection. But it does require rationality, and it accommodates degrees of wisdom. It is a promising theory of wisdom.

• Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics , in The Basic Works of Aristotle , Richard McKeon, New York: Random House, 1941, pp. 935–1112.
• Garrett, R., 1996, “Three Definitions of Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 221–232.
• Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy , in The Philosophical Works of Descartes , Volume 1, E. Haldane and G. Ross (trans. and eds.), London: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 131–199
• Descartes, R., Principles of Philosophy , in Philosophical Works , E. Haldane and G. Ross (trans. and eds.), London: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 201–302.
• Kekes, J., 1983, “Wisdom,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 20(3): 277–286.
• Lehrer, Keith, B. Jeannie Lum, Beverly A. Slichta, and Nicholas D. Smith (eds.), 1996, Knowledge, Teaching, and Wisdom , Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
• Lehrer, K., and N. Smith, 1996, “Introduction,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 3–17.
• Maxwell, N., 1984, From Knowledge to Wisdom , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Norman, A., 1996, “Teaching Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 253–265.
• Nozick, R., 1989, “What is Wisdom and Why Do Philosophers Love it So?” in The Examined Life , New York: Touchstone Press, pp. 267–278.
• Plato, The Apology , in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 3–26.
• Plato, The Republic , in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 575–844.
• Ryan, S., 1996, “Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 233–242.
• –––, 1999, “What is Wisdom?” Philosophical Studies , 93: 119–139.
• –––, 2012, “Wisdom, Knowledge, and Rationality,” Acta Analytica , 27(2): 99–112.
• Sternberg, R., 2001, “Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom: The Balance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings,” Educational Psychologist , 36(4): 227–245.
• Tiberius, V., 2008, The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Whitcomb, D., 2010, “Wisdom,” in Routledge Companion to Epistemology , S. Bernecker and D. Pritchard (eds.), London: Routledge.
• Zagzebski, L., 1996, Virtues of the Mind , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

The Wisdom Page http://www.wisdompage.com/

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

evidence | justification, epistemic: coherentist theories of | justification, epistemic: foundationalist theories of | justification, epistemic: internalist vs. externalist conceptions of | knowledge: analysis of | modesty and humility | reliabilist epistemology

Copyright © 2013 by Sharon Ryan < sharon . ryan @ mail . wvu . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• About Project
• Testimonials

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Wisdom: Top 4 Essays on Wisdom

• Essay on Wisdom

Essay on Relationship Between Wisdom and Knowledge

Essay on wisdom is power, essay on true wisdom come from experience.

Wisdom is one of the highest forms of human characteristics. Through wisdom, virtues can be brought to life. The beauty of wisdom is that it is not dependent on the theories that are written in books, or the curriculum in the schools and colleges. It is not something that can be transferred just by talking about it. Wisdom is how life shapes us. It is about the impacts that we have upon our soul while going through all sorts of pleasant and unpleasant experiences of life.

Various Versions But One

Many philosophers, religious institutions, and educationalists have defined wisdom in their own definite ways. Some try to relate it to the right way of living, some say that wisdom is acknowledging and being answerable to God for all the deeds. It has also been known to associate with decision-making between right and wrong, habits like speaking truth, following the moral values.

Intelligence is Not Always Wisdom

Although, on a more spiritual note, or a generic note, as we may say, wisdom is not confined to some rules or paths. A collection of experiences and virtues shape our wisdom. One may have a wide range and depth of knowledge but that doesn’t necessarily make her/him wise.

Illustrations

There are so many beautiful illustrations reflecting light on the uniqueness and significance of wisdom. It is very simple and possible for almost anybody to learn to fire a gun. But not everybody is capable of making the right decision about when to and when not to fire the gun. This decision-making requires wisdom.

The Importance of Wisdom

But why so much fuss about wisdom? How does it make our life different or change it? Well, wisdom takes us above the loop of feelings, emotions, and the whirlpools of envy, restlessness, and anger. It brings peace to the heart and to the mind as well. It is only through wisdom, that one may realize that forgiving others bad deeds, ignoring their faults, and being kind and accepting to all is the highest and truest virtues of all human beings.

Wisdom is the germination of the seeds of empathy, compassion, and kindness. It is the eruption of unconditional love toward every soul, whether human beings, animals, or trees. Wisdom gives us the ability to see the beauty and real power of nature. In true words, this is the real way of being close to God.

It is only through wisdom that one understands and realizes that religions, rules of worshipping, and confining God to being a particular person or version are nothing but just a human way of interpretation of the power of nature. To a wise person, they look mere concepts to him and he/she is able to go beyond these things. The definition of God, the right path, the understanding of the whole universe changes to him. Wisdom gets us out of the chains of the societal norms and allows us to look past them. It shows us the real purpose of life and gifts us with the power to attain and live with that true purpose.

Many of us may get confused when asked about the difference or relationship between wisdom and knowledge. On the surface level, both look similar, if not the same. But the thing is, wisdom is more abstract in nature and knowledge is somewhat technical.

Knowledge comes from reading, exploring, learning, and educating oneself. In order to increase the knowledge, one can turn toward reading more books or learning and specializing in a skill. In other words, it is measurable up to a certain extent.

Wisdom is what life and its experiences teach us. Being wise is not the same as being intelligent. It is about much more than just the skills and mastery of a subject. In fact, wisdom is about human virtues, that makes us different from other animal species. These virtues are developing empathy, having compassion and kindness, becoming more self-aware of our thoughts, emotions, and feelings.

Wisdom and Knowledge

The difference between the two is very subtle. However, if put into simpler words, it is not that difficult to understand either. One can gain knowledge and know what is right and wrong, what is healthy and what is unhealthy, how to perform a task, how to drive, how to cook. All these things can be learned and specialized in. But, the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, the capacity to choose the right and skip the wrong, comes from wisdom.

In another way, the ability to use the learned knowledge in the best and most ethical way is called wisdom. Knowing how to use the knowledge is wisdom. Knowledge can be given but wisdom cannot. Knowledge can be learned but wisdom can only be attained.

An example would be the best way to understand the concepts deeply. So, for instance, all kinds of thoughts, whether positive or negative, healthy or toxic, happy or sad come to our mind. We feel them and know that these feelings are a very natural part of human beings. This is knowledge. But understanding, observing, and staying aware and detached of these thoughts requires wisdom. Wisdom takes us to a much higher level and answers the riddle of why we are feeling in a particular way and whether we should act on those feelings or not. That judgment call depends on our wisdom.

There have been many philosophical, religious, and educational versions and definitions of wisdom and knowledge. Nonetheless, all lead to the same conclusion. Everybody knows and has been taught about the right way of living but not all can do it really. That is where a fine demarcation comes between knowledge and wisdom. To be able to apply the knowledge, to be able to think, and acknowledge why things are the way they are, makes us wise.

Thus, it is only through wisdom that we begin to behave beyond the petty attributes like self-obsession, jealousy, anger and instead, learn to grow as a human being filled with compassion, empathy, acceptance, and love for all.

The human race has wondered and marveled for a long time for its distinguished ability to behave and think differently than other animal species. We have highly evolved emotional, mental, and social etiquette. But is that the end of the list? Of course not. There is something very peculiar about us which makes us stand out as a species, which transforms us from Homo Sapiens into human beings. And that is called wisdom.

Seeking Wisdom

There is a reason why people do not find peace in spite of being surrounded by all kinds of materialistic pleasures. There is also a reason why many people living a highly comfortable and rich life, leave it just like that and set out to explore something that is still unknown to them.

In India, such ways of life are not new to us. We have always been surrounded bys saints and celibates. The culture in India has long been enriching. It has always focused less on physical pleasures and more on the seeking nature within us. After a certain point, we all begin to realize that the worldly amusements can only satisfy us on a superficial level but cannot quench our soul. For our spiritual growth, something deeper is needed.

What is not Wisdom

All around us, we see the world burning with feelings of competition, unsparing greed, unforgiveness, jealousy, anger, and what not. And this is not the story of those who lack basic amenities to a dignified life. This is the case of people who have everything in abundance but peace and gratitude.

Wisdom takes us from this path of uncertainty and shallowness and brightens up with the light of truth. And that same truth would liberate us. This is the power of wisdom. Wisdom is not restricted to listening to some discourses or following the religious rites and rituals. It is about realizing the darkness of greed, that the constant need for competing with each other is nothing but just a bottomless pit. A whirlpool of desires.

Wisdom is Empowering

Through our experiences comes a realization that the peace of our mind is in our hands. This is the most empowering thing that can happen to us and no book can teach this to us. It is like reaching and activating the seeds and portals of consciousness which were dormant within us till now. The whole phenomenon enriches us at a much deeper level and calms down the inside chaos. After which, we start to see the beauty in everything and learn to accept life the way it is. Our heart is filled with forgiveness and compassion.

Wisdom frees us from the chains of a limited mind so that we do not remain the slaves of our own desires. Books can teach us what is just and what is unjust. But the power of standing and walking down that just path is provided by our wisdom. This spiritual and emotional advancement is irreplaceable and can only become possible through wisdom.

They say that life changes you and shapes you like nothing else can. That there is a great difference between knowing something and living it. Well, it is quite true in the case of wisdom. True wisdom comes only from experience.

What the Life Phases Teach Us

Let us recall how we felt when we were just a kid. Life looked so uncomplicated and manageable at that time. Then, came teenage. Our own definition of life was metamorphosed a bit. We realized that after all, life is not that simple. It is not confined to having your favorite meals and dresses.

When we crossed teenage and entered into adulthood, even the young age years looked dreamy and we again felt that life is more than just having a relationship. It is more about making yourself independent, taking care of ourselves and our loved ones. Being responsible and accountable for our decisions and choices topped the list of our way of living.

How Experience Shapes Us

We all travel different paths of life. The ups and downs of our lives are unique. It is interesting to observe that same event or experience can be perceived in a completely non-identical way by two different persons. The impacts and effects of a trauma, a joy, or any other major change of events may not be the same for both of them. This is the reason, even after going through the same phases and stages of living in this world, we may end up having dissimilar perceptions of life.

Wisdom is Independent

There is no specific set of rules to becoming wise. What’s more intriguing is that having the same age, gender, or ethnicity does not make two people wise in the same way. Wisdom is independent of these factors. A person may attain wisdom at the age of 20, that doesn’t in any way mean that another person of age 40 would be double wise.

True Wisdom

Truth is, true wisdom can only be attained through experiencing life and that means having experienced it in its fullest form. Understanding that life is not always about being happy, satisfaction, or running for temptations. In fact, sorrow, pain, tragedy, self-restraint are a part of it. True wisdom teaches us that if life has to be embraced, then, the only way to do that is through acceptance, self-observation, and with full consciousness.

With practice, wisdom takes us above the basic instincts. It doesn’t let us be reduced to mere puppets in the hands of our instant gratification. Wisdom gives our mind the power to differentiate between justified and unjustified and act accordingly. Experiencing the bright and dark, both faces of life, are we filled with love, kindness, compassion, and non-judgment toward others and also ourselves. And there is no shortcut to that. Every event in the life has a purpose. It is trying to teach us something. Opening our mind and soul to it fully is what wisdom teaches us.

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

No related posts.

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

• Donald Trump
• Warren Buffett
• Email Address
• Free Stock Photos
• Keyword Research Tools
• URL Shortener Tools
• WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

• How To Win Friends
• Rich Dad Poor Dad
• The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
• The Luck Factor
• The Millionaire Fastlane
• The ONE Thing
• Think and Grow Rich
• 100 Million Dollar Business
• Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

• Mobile Addiction
• Social Media Addiction
• Computer Addiction
• Drug Addiction
• Internet Addiction
• TV Addiction
• Healthy Habits
• Morning Rituals
• Wake up Early
• Cholesterol
• Reducing Cholesterol
• Fat Loss Diet Plan
• Reducing Hair Fall
• Sleep Apnea
• Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

• Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

• Subconscious Mind
• Vision Board
• Visualization

Law of Vibration

• Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

• Bob Proctor
• Robert Kiyosaki
• Vivek Bindra
• Inner Peace

Productivity

• Not To-do List
• Project Management Software
• Negative Energies

Relationship

• Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

• Body Language
• Complainers
• Emotional Intelligence
• Personality

Social Media

• Project Management
• Anik Singal
• Baba Ramdev
• Dwayne Johnson
• Jackie Chan
• Leonardo DiCaprio
• Narendra Modi
• Nikola Tesla
• Sachin Tendulkar
• Sandeep Maheshwari
• Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

• Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

From Knowledge to Wisdom

The Key to Wisdom

Nicholas Maxwell University College London

Section 1 of " Arguing for Wisdom in the University: An Intellectual Autobiography ", Philosophia , vol 40, no. 4, 2012. Nearly forty years ago I discovered a profoundly significant idea - or so I believe. Since then, I have expounded and developed the idea in six books [1] and countless articles published in academic journals and other books. [2] I have talked about the idea in universities and at conferences all over the UK, in Europe, the USA and Canada. And yet, alas, despite all this effort, few indeed are those who have even heard of the idea. I have not even managed to communicate the idea to my fellow philosophers. What did I discover? Quite simply: the key to wisdom. For over two and a half thousand years, philosophy (which means "love of wisdom") has sought in vain to discover how humanity might learn to become wise - how we might learn to create an enlightened world. For the ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and the rest, discovering how to become wise was the fundamental task for philosophy. In the modern period, this central, ancient quest has been laid somewhat to rest, not because it is no longer thought important, but rather because the quest is seen as unattainable. The record of savagery and horror of the last century is so extreme and terrible that the search for wisdom, more important than ever, has come to seem hopeless, a quixotic fantasy. Nevertheless, it is this ancient, fundamental problem, lying at the heart of philosophy, at the heart, indeed, of all of thought, morality, politics and life, that I have solved. Or so I believe. When I say I have discovered the key to wisdom, I should say, more precisely, that I have discovered the methodological key to wisdom. Or perhaps, more modestly, I should say that I have discovered that science contains, locked up in its astounding success in acquiring knowledge and understanding of the universe, the methodological key to wisdom. I have discovered a recipe for creating a kind of organized inquiry rationally designed and devoted to helping humanity learn wisdom, learn to create a more enlightened world. What we have is a long tradition of inquiry - extraordinarily successful in its own terms - devoted to acquiring knowledge and technological know-how. It is this that has created the modern world, or at least made it possible. But scientific knowledge and technological know-how are ambiguous blessings, as more and more people, these days, are beginning to recognize. They do not guarantee happiness. Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act. In endless ways, this vast increase in our power to act has been used for the public good - in health, agriculture, transport, communications, and countless other ways. But equally, this enhanced power to act can be used to cause human harm, whether unintentionally, as in environmental damage (at least initially), or intentionally, as in war. It is hardly too much to say that all our current global problems have come about because of science and technology. The appalling destructiveness of modern warfare and terrorism, vast inequalities in wealth and standards of living between first and third worlds, rapid population growth, environmental damage - destruction of tropical rain forests, rapid extinction of species, global warming, pollution of sea, earth and air, depletion of finite natural resources - all only exist today because of modern science and technology. Science and technology lead to modern industry and agriculture, to modern medicine and hygiene, and thus in turn to population growth, to modern armaments, conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear, to destruction of natural habitats, extinction of species, pollution, and to immense inequalities of wealth across the globe. Science without wisdom, we might say, is a menace. It is the crisis behind all the others. When we lacked our modern, terrifying powers to act, before the advent of science, lack of wisdom did not matter too much: we were bereft of the power to inflict too much damage on ourselves and the planet. Now that we have modern science, and the unprecedented powers to act that it has bequeathed to us, wisdom has become, not a private luxury, but a public necessity. If we do not rapidly learn to become wiser, we are doomed to repeat in the 21st century all the disasters and horrors of the 20th: the horrifyingly destructive wars, the dislocation and death of millions, the degradation of the world we live in. Only this time round it may all be much worse, as the population goes up, the planet becomes ever more crowded, oil and other resources vital to our way of life run out, weapons of mass destruction become more and more widely available for use, and deserts and desolation spread. The ancient quest for wisdom has become a matter of desperate urgency. It is hardly too much to say that the future of the world is at stake. But how can such a quest possibly meet with success? Wisdom, surely, is not something that we can learn and teach, as a part of our normal education, in schools and universities? This is my great discovery! Wisdom can be learnt and taught in schools and universities. It must be so learnt and taught. Wisdom is indeed the proper fundamental objective for the whole of the academic enterprise: to help humanity learn how to nurture and create a wiser world. But how do we go about creating a kind of education, research and scholarship that really will help us learn wisdom? Would not any such attempt destroy what is of value in what we have at present, and just produce hot air, hypocrisy, vanity and nonsense? Or worse, dogma and religious fundamentalism? What, in any case, is wisdom? Is not all this just an abstract philosophical fantasy? The answer, as I have already said, lies locked away in what may seem a highly improbably place: science! This will seem especially improbable to many of those most aware of environmental issues, and most suspicious of the role of modern science and technology in modern life. How can science contain the methodological key to wisdom when it is precisely this science that is behind so many of our current troubles? But a crucial point must be noted. Modern scientific and technological research has met with absolutely astonishing, unprecedented success, as long as this success is interpreted narrowly, in terms of the production of expert knowledge and technological know-how. Doubts may be expressed about whether humanity as a whole has made progress towards well being or happiness during the last century or so. But there can be no serious doubt whatsoever that science has made staggering intellectual progress in increasing expert knowledge and know-how, during such a period. It is this astonishing intellectual progress that makes science such a powerful but double-edged tool, for good and for bad. At once the question arises: Can we learn from the incredible intellectual progress of science how to achieve progress in other fields of human endeavour? Is scientific progress exportable, as it were, to other areas of life? More precisely, can the progress-achieving methods of science be generalized so that they become fruitful for other worthwhile, problematic human endeavours, in particular the supremely worthwhile, supremely problematic endeavour of creating a good and wise world? My great idea - that this can indeed be done - is not entirely new (as I was to learn after making my discovery). It goes back to the 18th century Enlightenment. This was indeed the key idea of the Enlightenment, especially the French Enlightenment: to learn from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world. And the philosophes of the Enlightenment, men such as Voltaire, Diderot and Condorcet, did what they could to put this magnificent, profound idea into practice in their lives. They fought dictatorial power, superstition, and injustice with weapons no more lethal than those of argument and wit. They gave their support to the virtues of tolerance, openness to doubt, readiness to learn from criticism and from experience. Courageously and energetically they laboured to promote reason and enlightenment in personal and social life. Unfortunately, in developing the Enlightenment idea intellectually, the philosophes blundered. They botched the job. They developed the Enlightenment idea in a profoundly defective form, and it is this immensely influential, defective version of the idea, inherited from the 18th century, which may be called the "traditional" Enlightenment, that is built into early 21st century institutions of inquiry. Our current traditions and institutions of learning, when judged from the standpoint of helping us learn how to become more enlightened, are defective and irrational in a wholesale and structural way, and it is this which, in the long term, sabotages our efforts to create a more civilized world, and prevents us from avoiding the kind of horrors we have been exposed to during the last century. The task before us is thus not that of creating a kind of inquiry devoted to improving wisdom out of the blue, as it were, with nothing to guide us except two and a half thousand years of failed philosophical discussion. Rather, the task is the much more straightforward, practical and well-defined one of correcting the structural blunders built into academic inquiry inherited from the Enlightenment. We already have a kind of academic inquiry designed to help us learn wisdom. The problem is that the design is lousy. It is, as I have said, a botched job. It is like a piece of engineering that kills people because of faulty design - a bridge that collapses, or an aeroplane that falls out of the sky. A quite specific task lies before us: to diagnose the blunders we have inherited from the Enlightenment, and put them right. So here, briefly, is the diagnosis. The philosophes of the 18th century assumed, understandably enough, that the proper way to implement the Enlightenment programme was to develop social science alongside natural science. Francis Bacon had already stressed the importance of improving knowledge of the natural world in order to achieve social progress. The philosophes generalized this, holding that it is just as important to improve knowledge of the social world. Thus the philosophes set about creating the social sciences: history, anthropology, political economy, psychology, sociology. This had an immense impact. Throughout the 19th century the diverse social sciences were developed, often by non-academics, in accordance with the Enlightenment idea. Gradually, universities took notice of these developments until, by the mid 20th century, all the diverse branches of the social sciences, as conceived of by the Enlightenment, were built into the institutional structure of universities as recognized academic disciplines. The outcome is what we have today, knowledge-inquiry as we may call it, a kind of inquiry devoted in the first instance to the pursuit of knowledge. But, from the standpoint of creating a kind of inquiry designed to help humanity learn how to become enlightened and civilized, which was the original idea, all this amounts to a series of monumental blunders. In order to implement properly the basic Enlightenment idea of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards a civilized world, it is essential to get the following three things right. 1. The progress-achieving methods of science need to be correctly identified. 2. These methods need to be correctly generalized so that they become fruitfully applicable to any worthwhile, problematic human endeavour, whatever the aims may be, and not just applicable to the one endeavour of acquiring knowledge. 3. The correctly generalized progress-achieving methods then need to be exploited correctly in the great human endeavour of trying to make social progress towards an enlightened, civilized world. Unfortunately, the philosophes of the Enlightenment got all three points wrong. They failed to capture correctly the progress-achieving methods of natural science; they failed to generalize these methods properly; and, most disastrously of all, they failed to apply them properly so that humanity might learn how to become civilized by rational means. Instead of seeking to apply the progress-achieving methods of science, after having been appropriately generalized, to the task of creating a better world, the philosophes applied scientific method to the task of creating social science. Instead of trying to make social progress towards an enlightened world, they set about making scientific progress in knowledge of social phenomena. That the philosophes made these blunders in the 18th century is forgivable; what is unforgivable is that these blunders still remain unrecognized and uncorrected today, over two centuries later. Instead of correcting the blunders, we have allowed our institutions of learning to be shaped by them as they have developed throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, so that now the blunders are an all-pervasive feature of our world. The Enlightenment, and what it led to, has long been criticized, by the Romantic movement, by what Isaiah Berlin has called 'the counter-Enlightenment', and more recently by the Frankfurt school, by postmodernists and others. But these standard objections are, from my point of view, entirely missing the point. In particular, my idea is the very opposite of all those anti-rationalist, romantic and postmodernist views which object to the way the Enlightenment gives far too great an importance to natural science and to scientific rationality. My discovery is that what is wrong with the traditional Enlightenment, and the kind of academic inquiry we now possess derived from it - knowledge-inquiry - is not too much 'scientific rationality' but, on the contrary, not enough. It is the glaring, wholesale irrationality of contemporary academic inquiry, when judged from the standpoint of helping humanity learn how to become more civilized, that is the problem. But, the cry will go up, wisdom has nothing to do with reason. And reason has nothing to do with wisdom. On the contrary! It is just such an item of conventional 'wisdom' that my great idea turns on its head. Once both reason and wisdom have been rightly understood, and the irrationality of academic inquiry as it exists at present has been appreciated, it becomes obvious that it is precisely reason that we need to put into practice in our personal, social, institutional and global lives if our lives, at all these levels, are to become imbued with a bit more wisdom. We need, in short, a new, more rigorous kind of inquiry which has, as its basic task, to seek and promote wisdom. We may call this new kind of inquiry wisdom-inquiry. But what is wisdom? This is how I define it in From Knowledge to Wisdom, a book published some years ago now, in 1984, in which I set out my 'great idea' in some detail: "[wisdom is] the desire, the active endeavour, and the capacity to discover and achieve what is desirable and of value in life, both for oneself and for others. Wisdom includes knowledge and understanding but goes beyond them in also including: the desire and active striving for what is of value, the ability to see what is of value, actually and potentially, in the circumstances of life, the ability to experience value, the capacity to use and develop knowledge, technology and understanding as needed for the realization of value. Wisdom, like knowledge, can be conceived of, not only personal terms, but also in institutional or social terms. We can thus interpret [wisdom-inquiry] as asserting: the basic task of rational inquiry is to help us develop wiser ways of living, wiser institutions, customs and social relations, a wiser world." (From Knowledge to Wisdom, p. 66.) What, then, are the three blunders of the Enlightenment, still built into the intellectual/institutional structure of academia? First, the philosophes failed to capture correctly the progress-achieving methods of natural science. From D'Alembert in the 18th century to Karl Popper in the 20th, the widely held view, amongst both scientists and philosophers, has been (and continues to be) that science proceeds by assessing theories impartially in the light of evidence, no permanent assumption being accepted by science about the universe independently of evidence. Preference may be given to simple, unified or explanatory theories, but not in such a way that nature herself is, in effect, assumed to be simple, unified or comprehensible. This orthodox view, which I call standard empiricism is, however, untenable. If taken literally, it would instantly bring science to a standstill. For, given any accepted fundamental theory of physics, T, Newtonian theory say, or quantum theory, endlessly many empirically more successful rivals can be concocted which agree with T about observed phenomena but disagree arbitrarily about some unobserved phenomena, and successfully predict phenomena, in an ad hoc way, that T makes false predictions about, or no predictions. Physics would be drowned in an ocean of such empirically more successful rival theories. In practice, these rivals are excluded because they are disastrously disunified. Two considerations govern acceptance of theories in physics: empirical success and unity. In demanding unity, we demand of a fundamental physical theory that it ascribes the same dynamical laws to the phenomena to which the theory applies. But in persistently accepting unified theories, to the extent of rejecting disunified rivals that are just as, or even more, empirically successful, physics makes a big persistent assumption about the universe. The universe is such that all disunified theories are false. It has some kind of unified dynamic structure. It is physically comprehensible in the sense that explanations for phenomena exist to be discovered. But this untestable (and thus metaphysical) assumption that the universe is physically comprehensible is profoundly problematic. Science is obliged to assume, but does not know, that the universe is comprehensible. Much less does it know that the universe is comprehensible in this or that way. A glance at the history of physics reveals that ideas have changed dramatically over time. In the 17th century there was the idea that the universe consists of corpuscles, minute billiard balls, which interact only by contact. This gave way to the idea that the universe consists of point-particles surrounded by rigid, spherically symmetrical fields of force, which in turn gave way to the idea that there is one unified self-interacting field, varying smoothly throughout space and time. Nowadays we have the idea that everything is made up of minute quantum strings embedded in ten or eleven dimensions of space-time. Some kind of assumption along these lines must be made but, given the historical record, and given that any such assumption concerns the ultimate nature of the universe, that of which we are most ignorant, it is only reasonable to conclude that it is almost bound to be false. The way to overcome this fundamental dilemma inherent in the scientific enterprise is to construe physics as making a hierarchy of metaphysical assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe, these assumptions asserting less and less as one goes up the hierarchy, and thus becoming more and more likely to be true, and more nearly such that their truth is required for science, or the pursuit of knowledge, to be possible at all. In this way a framework of relatively insubstantial, unproblematic, fixed assumptions and associated methods is created within which much more substantial and problematic assumptions and associated methods can be changed, and indeed improved, as scientific knowledge improves. Put another way, a framework of relatively unspecific, unproblematic, fixed aims and methods is created within which much more specific and problematic aims and methods evolve as scientific knowledge evolves. There is positive feedback between improving knowledge, and improving aims-and-methods, improving knowledge-about-how-to-improve-knowledge. This is the nub of scientific rationality, the methodological key to the unprecedented success of science. Science adapts its nature to what it discovers about the nature of the universe. This hierarchical conception of physics, which I call aim-oriented empiricism, can readily be generalized to take into account problematic assumptions associated with the aims of science having to with values, and the social uses or applications of science. It can be generalized so as to apply to the different branches of natural science. Different sciences have different specific aims, and so different specific methods although, throughout natural science there is the common meta-methodology of aim-oriented empiricism. So much for the first blunder of the traditional Enlightenment, and how to put it right. [3] Second, having failed to identify the methods of science correctly, the philosophes naturally failed to generalize these methods properly. They failed to appreciate that the idea of representing the problematic aims (and associated methods) of science in the form of a hierarchy can be generalized and applied fruitfully to other worthwhile enterprises besides science. Many other enterprises have problematic aims - problematic because aims conflict, and because what we seek may be unrealizable, undesirable, or both. Such enterprises, with problematic aims, would benefit from employing a hierarchical methodology, generalized from that of science, thus making it possible to improve aims and methods as the enterprise proceeds. There is the hope that, as a result of exploiting in life methods generalized from those employed with such success in science, some of the astonishing success of science might be exported into other worthwhile human endeavours, with problematic aims quite different from those of science. Third, and most disastrously of all, the philosophes failed completely to try to apply such generalized, hierarchical progress-achieving methods to the immense, and profoundly problematic enterprise of making social progress towards an enlightened, wise world. The aim of such an enterprise is notoriously problematic. For all sorts of reasons, what constitutes a good world, an enlightened, wise or civilized world, attainable and genuinely desirable, must be inherently and permanently problematic. Here, above all, it is essential to employ the generalized version of the hierarchical, progress-achieving methods of science, designed specifically to facilitate progress when basic aims are problematic. It is just this that the philosophes failed to do. Instead of applying the hierarchical methodology to social life, the philosophes sought to apply a seriously defective conception of scientific method to social science, to the task of making progress towards, not a better world, but to better knowledge of social phenomena. And this ancient blunder, developed throughout the 19th century by J.S. Mill, Karl Marx and many others, and built into academia in the early 20th century with the creation of the diverse branches of the social sciences in universities all over the world, is still built into the institutional and intellectual structure of academia today, inherent in the current character of social science. Properly implemented, in short, the Enlightenment idea of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world would involve developing social inquiry, not primarily as social science, but rather as social methodology, or social philosophy. A basic task would be to get into personal and social life, and into other institutions besides that of science - into government, industry, agriculture, commerce, the media, law, education, international relations - hierarchical, progress-achieving methods (designed to improve problematic aims) arrived at by generalizing the methods of science. A basic task for academic inquiry as a whole would be to help humanity learn how to resolve its conflicts and problems of living in more just, cooperatively rational ways than at present. The fundamental intellectual and humanitarian aim of inquiry would be to help humanity acquire wisdom - wisdom being, as I have already indicated, the capacity to realize (apprehend and create) what is of value in life, for oneself and others. One outcome of getting into social and institutional life the kind of aim-evolving, hierarchical methodology indicated above, generalized from science, is that it becomes possible for us to develop and assess rival philosophies of life as a part of social life, somewhat as theories are developed and assessed within science. Such a hierarchical methodology provides a framework within which competing views about what our aims and methods in life should be - competing religious, political and moral views - may be cooperatively assessed and tested against broadly agreed, unspecific aims (high up in the hierarchy of aims) and the experience of personal and social life. There is the possibility of cooperatively and progressively improving such philosophies of life (views about what is of value in life and how it is to be achieved) much as theories are cooperatively and progressively improved in science. Wisdom-inquiry, because of its greater rigour, has intellectual standards that are, in important respects, different from those of knowledge-inquiry. Whereas knowledge-inquiry demands that emotions and desires, values, human ideals and aspirations, philosophies of life be excluded from the intellectual domain of inquiry, wisdom-inquiry requires that they be included. In order to discover what is of value in life it is essential that we attend to our feelings and desires. But not everything we desire is desirable, and not everything that feels good is good. Feelings, desires and values need to be subjected to critical scrutiny. And of course feelings, desires and values must not be permitted to influence judgements of factual truth and falsity. Wisdom-inquiry embodies a synthesis of traditional Rationalism and Romanticism. It includes elements from both, and it improves on both. It incorporates Romantic ideals of integrity, having to do with motivational and emotional honesty, honesty about desires and aims; and at the same time it incorporates traditional Rationalist ideals of integrity, having to do with respect for objective fact, knowledge, and valid argument. Traditional Rationalism takes its inspiration from science and method; Romanticism takes its inspiration from art, from imagination, and from passion. Wisdom-inquiry holds art to have a fundamental rational role in inquiry, in revealing what is of value, and unmasking false values; but science, too, is of fundamental importance. What we need, for wisdom, is an interplay of sceptical rationality and emotion, an interplay of mind and heart, so that we may develop mindful hearts and heartfelt minds (as I put it in my first book What's Wrong With Science?). It is time we healed the great rift in our culture, so graphically depicted by C. P. Snow. The revolution we require - intellectual, institutional and cultural - if it ever comes about, will be comparable in its long-term impact to that of the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, or the Enlightenment. The outcome will be traditions and institutions of learning rationally designed to help us realize what is of value in life. There are a few scattered signs that this intellectual revolution, from knowledge to wisdom, is already under way. It will need, however, much wider cooperative support - from scientists, scholars, students, research councils, university administrators, vice chancellors, teachers, the media and the general public - if it is to become anything more than what it is at present, a fragmentary and often impotent movement of protest and opposition, often at odds with itself, exercising little influence on the main body of academic work. I can hardly imagine any more important work for anyone associated with academia than, in teaching, learning and research, to help promote this revolution. Notes [1] What's Wrong With Science? (Bran's Head Books, 1976), From Knowledge to Wisdom (Blackwell, 1984; 2nd edition, Pentire Press, 2007), The Comprehensibility of the Universe (Oxford University Press, 1998, paperback 2003), and The Human World in the Physical Universe: Consciousness, Free Will and Evolution (Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), Is Science Neurotic? (Imperial College Press, 2004), Cutting God in Half - And Putting the Pieces Together Again (Pentire Press, 2010). For critical discussion see L. McHenry, ed., Science and the Pursuit of Wisdom: Studies in the Philosophy of Nicholas Maxwell (Ontos Verlag, 2009).

Back to text

[2] See, for example, "Science, Reason, Knowledge and Wisdom: A Critique of Specialism", Inquiry 23, 1980, pp. 19-81; "What Kind of Inquiry Can Best Help Us Create a Good World?", Science, Technology and Human Values 17, 1992, pp. 205-227; "What the Task of Creating Civilization has to Learn from the Success of Modern Science: Towards a New Enlightenment", Reflections on Higher Education 4, 1992, pp. 139-157; "Can Humanity Learn to Become Civilized? The Crisis of Science without Civilization", Journal of Applied Philosophy 17, 2000, pp. 29-44; "A new conception of science", Physics World 13, no. 8, 2000, pp. 17-18; "From Knowledge to Wisdom: The Need for an Academic Revolution", London Review of Education, 5, 2007, pp. 97-115, reprinted in. R. Barnett and N. Maxwell, eds., Wisdom in the University (Routledge, 2008, pp. 1-19) "Do We Need a Scientific Revolution?", Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, vol. 8, no. 3, September 2008, pp. 95-105. All my articles are available online here .

[3] For further details see my The Comprehensibility of the Universe: A New Conception of Science, Oxford University Press, 1998; Is Science Neurotic?, Imperial College Press, 2004; and From Knowledge to Wisdom, especially chs. 5, 9, and 2nd ed., ch. 14. Back to text

Back to Top

• Join Friends of Wisdom

This is an association of people sympathetic to the idea that academic inquiry should help humanity acquire more wisdom by rational means. Wisdom is taken to be the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others. It includes knowledge, understanding and technological know-how, and much else besides. Friends of Wisdom try to encourage universities and schools actively to seek and promote wisdom by educational and intellectual means. At present, Friends of Wisdom communicate with one another in the main by email (JISCMAIL).

If you wish to join, click on the link below, and then click on "Subscribe" under "Options" on the LHS of the screen, and join:

or email: nick [at] knowledgetowisdom.org

• Friends of Wisdom Website .

© Copyright Nicholas Maxwell: All Rights Reserved

Wisdom Isn't About What You Think, but How You Think

March 11, 2021

by Alex Steullet, Kintopia

As a wise man once said, "What does wisdom mean, anyway?" It's a trait revered by cultures around the world, yet still shrouded in mystery and misconceptions. Does wisdom come naturally with age? Is it enough to rack up a lot of life experience? Is wisdom an individual pursuit, or a collective one? Are our workplaces conducive to developing wisdom? 

To find answers—and perhaps become a bit wiser in the process—we sat down with award-winning wisdom researcher and associate professor of psychology at the University of Waterloo, Igor Grossmann. He helped break down wisdom into its psychological components, and gave some advice on how to nurture our own burgeoning wisdom. 

Thinking about thinking

Alex: I took some psychology classes back in university, but not a single one of my teachers talked about your area of expertise: wisdom. What is wisdom from a psychological standpoint, and how is it different from knowledge or experience?

Igor:  Generally, when people talk about wisdom—whether in philosophy or psychology—they focus on good or sound judgment. Here, the perspective that my lab follows is to say that wisdom concerns how people deal with practical issues in everyday life.

This perspective isn't new. You can find a similar approach in the works of Aristotle, as well as in East Asia, for example in the writings of Lao Zi or Confucius. What's interesting is that many philosophical perspectives relate to two sets of processes that have recently come into the limelight in psychology.

The first set concerns metacognition—in other words, thinking about thinking, but also reasoning about feelings and the goals you want to achieve. Wisdom is in part the ability to focus on how to get a better perspective on yourself and your situation, as well as how to practically resolve problematic situations and move ahead.

The second set involves your moral aspirations. I use the term "aspirations" because oftentimes you may want to do good, but can't due to the constraints of the situation, or due to a conflict between different moral pursuits. In challenging situations, wisdom can often involve figuring out how to balance between the willingness to cooperate with others on the one hand and the pursuit of truth on the other hand.

Igor:  The formulation of wisdom as sound judgment through the lens of metacognition and moral aspirations is different from knowledge or experience. Knowledge is not enough to be wise. You can have a lot of knowledge but no way of applying it in your life, like having a brain with the storage of a supercomputer but still being incapable of smooth social interaction with other people. That's why you need those metacognitive processes.

As for experience, the problem is that it's not necessarily beneficial. Experiences can be traumatic and lead to psychological problems. There is also very domain-specific experience, which doesn't translate to other areas in life. If you're very experienced at using a certain form to fill out your taxes, that experience may no longer be useful the day you have to use a different form. 

The question then becomes: When put into a challenging life situation, does the person with experience fare better than a random person pulled off the street? I don't know, it depends on the type of experience.

Alex: Does that mean that wisdom is not domain specific? Once you're wise, you're generally wise across domains?

Igor:  Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle emphasized that wisdom is about figuring out what strategies fit what situations. Theoretically, metacognitive processes should be applicable across all domains. However, that doesn't mean you'll be able to respond similarly to every situation. The likelihood you will show wisdom depends on a lot of factors, like prior exposure, experience, socialization, upbringing, how you understand the situation in front of you, and so on.

Alex: Is wisdom defined the same way around the world?

Igor:  There are different flavors, some cultures emphasize certain things more, and the terms vary. For example, the technical terms Christians use to talk about wisdom, focusing on virtues, is very different from Buddhist or Confucian traditions. However, if you break the terms down into their psychological components, you'll find that the focus on metacognitive processes occurs in most cultures.

Wisdom as a social process

Alex: What distinguishes a wise person from an unwise person? Is it just a matter of how efficiently they perform metacognitive tasks?

Igor:  Wisdom is not about efficiency. A fighter pilot is very efficient at retrieving information and executing complex tasks, but that doesn't make them wise. Metacognition is about taking the time to look beyond snap judgments, figuring out how to consider multiple interests, where to look for unknown factors, and figuring out how to balance them.

Instead, what differentiates a wise person from an unwise person is their process of reasoning. They don't rely on a single, top-down algorithm to solve all problems. They reflect in a less algotithmic, top-down fashion, and instead consider a breadth of perspectives, including outside perspectives. The quality of that reflection is a key criterion of wisdom.

Alex: How can people become wiser?

Igor:  If I knew the answer to that question, I'd probably be a billionaire guru!  (laugh)

We've only made serious empirical research advances in the last 30 years, and hence there is more speculation than rigorous scientific research on this topic. One thing we've noticed is that some people develop wisdom over time through repeated exposure to  challenging situations . Those people learn to take more of a back seat, gain some distance—almost like a distant observer—and from that position they can improve their metacognitive process, leading to a more sound reflection. If you focus on that improvement, you can train yourself over time.

Alex: How about in a company setting?

Igor:  In a company setting, you can emphasize group-related activities. There is  research  showing you're more likely to display wisdom in a social context. If you track people over time, you'll find that those who interact more with coworkers or have people they care about will be wiser. The reason we see this is likely because being in a group confronts us with different mindsets; different viewpoints that challenge our preconceptions.

Another point we've noticed is that you can encourage building wisdom by having mentor-mentee pairs. People do that quite a lot in the workplace, but the focus is often on the mentee. I think it's also interesting to focus on the mentor, because when you're in a teaching role, you tend to shift your perspective and start thinking of issues differently. A similar thing happens when you become a parent. There's a  benefit  to observing others making decisions rather than doing so yourself.

Finally, a useful idea is to embrace the fact that you will fail. This is a radical idea for businesses. I'm not talking about the Silicon Valley way of wearing failure as a badge of honor and bragging about it—that would be antithetical to what I have in mind! What I mean is admitting your limitations, being willing to learn from them, and sharing with your group the wrong turns you took, as well as strategies more likely to lead to success.

Alex: I had always associated wisdom with a lot of work on the self, so it's interesting that you mention all these social elements!

Igor:  We had this debate among wisdom scholars: Can you be wise if you're stranded alone on a desert island like in the movie "Cast Away," with Wilson the anthropomorphized volleyball as your only friend? My position is that actually, you can, but only as long as you have Wilson to talk to!

Humans are social animals that evolved to communicate with each other, coordinate our activities, and plan for the future together. If you put us in a box and ask us to make decisions with no consideration for social context, that's contrary to our capabilities as social animals.

Alex: Does that mean that in my company, if I want to become wiser, I need to interact with my coworkers more?

Igor:  Probably, unless you have your own Wilson.  (laugh)

Older doesn't necessarily mean wiser

Alex: Is wisdom a function of age? Is it even possible for a young person to be wise?

Igor:  We don't know; we have little to no evidence that can tell us whether or not wisdom is a function of age. The problem is that if you look at two different age groups, it's impossible to know if the differences you're observing are because of their age itself, or because of the culture they grew up in.

We know from research that most cognitive abilities decline with age, starting when you're in your twenties. Crystallized intelligence—which is the knowledge you build up over time—is something you can keep accumulating into your seventies or eighties provided you stay healthy, but that will decline eventually as well.

For wisdom, we don't know. Adults are definitely more likely than children to engage in metacognitive processes, but we don't have studies that track the same person over a long period of time. We can only infer based on our observations of people who grew up in different cultures and different eras.

Igor:  We also see bias depending on how the study is conducted. For example, there are studies from Germany that asked younger and older Germans to solve a problem. If the problem was formulated in a way that was easy to understand for all ages, both groups performed the same. However, if you take the exact same problem and formulate it in a way that doesn't resonate with the daily experience of the older group, then they perform much worse. So older adults have more experience, but that's not necessarily helpful. 

Unless you are repeatedly exposed to the same type of experiences, the strategies you developed in reaction to those experiences may not be accessible, and the memories of those experiences will decay over time.

Alex: So an older person saying, "This is how we used to do things back in my day," is not a sign of wisdom, but a sign of experience?

Igor:  Yes, it's them sharing a different type of experience. It still has value though, because that older person is bringing ideas from a different culture—based on the culture they grew up in—which younger people wouldn't have considered. 

Keep in mind, though, that "old age" is a very strange term. If you look at historical narratives from hundreds of years ago about old age—and this is true not just in North America and Europe, but also China, Japan and Korea—they think of old age as people in their thirties and forties, because people didn't live as long. If you managed to make it to 40, you would've lived a long time, survived a lot, while also still being in good physical and mental condition. That's why when you see old texts saying that wisdom comes with age, you have to be careful, because that often refers to a very different age group.

A culture of intellectual humility

Alex: You mentioned earlier that the mentor-mentee relationship was one way of developing wisdom. Is there a case for intergenerational collaboration in the workplace?

Igor:  I think any type of diversity is good in the workplace, since it brings more perspectives. Young adults typically are more spontaneous, quicker, and generate lots of arguments and brainstorming ideas. However, they're not as good as older adults at trimming ideas, selecting, and integrating them together.

As I mentioned before, an older person coming in and saying, "Why aren't you doing things this way?" can be disruptive. It's especially problematic if that person is trying to push old templates that are no longer relevant. However, that can also be positive, since the younger person may have forgotten something, or taken something for granted. 

The mere fact of asking the question and starting a conversation is beneficial. Having intergenerational collaboration in that sense is really important.

Alex: What are your thoughts on seniority?

Igor:  I'm not a fan. I think it is morally important to respect the elderly, but confusing respect and appreciation with power can be dangerous and can stifle creativity. 

Also, people in positions of power may be less likely to admit their failures. That's also an obstacle to wisdom, since an important aspect of becoming wise is intellectual humility.

In the workplace, we should be looking to facilitate a culture of humility. Not in the sense of being agreeable and avoiding conflict, but rather encouraging, sharing and accepting different viewpoints. Obviously, that depends on the company, the job, the tasks, and so on. Overall though, encouraging intellectual humility can be very powerful.

Alex: What would be a preferable alternative to seniority? Perhaps a flat structure, or something more rotational?

Igor:  A rotational structure. As somebody born in the Soviet Union on the day of the October revolution, I'm very sensitive about flat structures. They don't work, because some people will always strive for power, so you need some kind of leadership. However, that leadership doesn't have to be top-down, and it doesn't have to be set in stone.

In that sense, a rotational system could be quite advantageous. Allow people from different ages and backgrounds to access important positions. It's also more fun that way, since you can also learn more and broaden your horizon.

Alex: That's interesting, because it brings to mind another big debate within the corporate world about specialization versus generalization. Is being a generalist more favorable to developing wisdom?

Igor:  It's not one or the other. One of my favorite authors from the 20th century was another Eastern European expat—the hugely influential intellectual Isaiah Berlin. He wrote a famous essay classifying previous intellectuals like Tolstoy and Shakespeare as either hedgehogs or foxes. The hedgehog was the specialist, who would see the world through the lens of a single idea. The fox was the generalist, who believed in the importance of a wide variety of experiences. So which one is better? Well, you need a bit of both, depending on the situation.

For wisdom, you also need a bit of both. You need the ability to bring matters into focus, but also to be aware of diverse perspectives.

Wisdom isn't something you are, it's something you do

Alex: Is there a downside to wisdom? Does it hamper creativity, or make people stubborn, for example?

Igor:  I don't think there's a serious downside. To be creative, you need metacognitive processes, so in that sense creativity is a part of wisdom. The ability to look at things from different perspectives and consider different viewpoints are key ingredients for creativity.

You will also be less stubborn, since another part of wisdom is the ability to cooperate, compromise, and balance things together. This means wise people are generally more agreeable, not just socially but also intellectually, since they are open to the idea that the opposite of the truth may also be true. Sometimes, this tendency may be somewhat of a downside.

One thing that can be a disadvantage is that wise people are more deliberate. They take more time to reflect on everything and wait, which can be a virtue, but can also be a problem when a spontaneous decision is necessary.

If you define wisdom as the ability to figure out which strategy best fits every situation, then by that definition there is no downside, because a wise person would figure out any downsides and adapt their strategy accordingly. However, this is not a practical definition from an empirical standpoint, as it can lead to tautological, non-falsifiable claims.

Instead, I think it's important to recognize that some aspects of metacognition or morals may be relevant at times, and sometimes the same aspects of metacognition may be totally irrelevant and other features may be relevant. Will being intellectually humble help you ride a bike or pay your taxes? Probably not. Are moral aspirations important when driving a car? Perhaps if you're on a cusp of making a life or death decision, but hopefully that doesn't happen too often.

That being said, metacognitive processes can be exhausting. If you practice a lot, you make them more automatic, but on average they take more effort than just using a rule of thumb to make your decisions. To be wise, you need to step out of your comfort zone and think carefully, which is energy intensive. That's perhaps the biggest drawback of wisdom. You have to use it wisely!

Alex: So wisdom isn't something you have, it's something that you do?

Igor:  Yes. There's a common misconception that you are either wise or unwise. That may be the case for some individuals, but they are remarkably few. My research shows that it's more of a gradation, and can vary dramatically across different situations.

We do see general tendencies. Some people are more likely than others to engage in metacognitive processes. Those who engage more may on average be wiser. But just because someone shows more wisdom on average doesn't guarantee they will be wiser in a given situation. It's probabilistic, not deterministic.

About the author: Alex is the editor in chief of Kintopia and part of the corporate branding department at Cybozu. He holds an LLM in Human Rights Law from the University of Nottingham and previously worked for the Swiss government. 

Image by Ayami Takano

Read the article:

Steullet, A. (2021, March 11). Wisdom isn't about what you think, but how you think. Kintopia. Retrieved from https://kintopia.kintone.com/articles/005943.html

Explore the Center for Practical Wisdom

The 5 Character Strengths of Wisdom in Positive Psychology

How do you define wisdom?

Aristotle believed in two types of wisdom: theoretical and practical. The former involves the exploration of things we can’t change, but about which we seek truth. The latter explores that which we can change through making good choices (Lacewing, n.d.).

Descartes viewed wisdom as good judgment in everyday life and seeking knowledge in all things one is able (Rutherford, 2017).

Confucius said:

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.

Do you agree with the heavy-hitters like Aristotle, Descartes, Confucius, and others? Or do you believe wisdom only comes with old age? Let’s discuss it for ourselves. Leave your definition of wisdom in the comments.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Strengths Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients realize your unique potential and create a life that feels energized and authentic.

This Article Contains

Wisdom as a virtue and the definition of wisdom, the psychology of wisdom, wisdom and positive psychology, the 5 types of character strengths in wisdom, how can we best use them as strengths, 8 resources, a take-away message, frequently asked questions.

Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

A single definition of wisdom is difficult to find in psychological research. Some view it as an integration of two forms of knowledge: logos and mythos. Logos comes from formal structures employing logic. Mythos comes from “speech, narrative, plot, and dialogue” (Compton & Hoffman, 2013, p. 200).

Other researchers see wisdom as encompassing a transcendent quality. More openness and the ability to wrestle with life’s greatest questions are hallmarks.

Philosophers Valerie Tiberius and Philip Kitcher and psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett share their definitions of wisdom.

Positive psychologists are exploring what it means to be wise. They’re also curious about how wisdom affects wellbeing.

Although a definition is difficult to come by, agreement on what wisdom is not , have been much easier. Researchers agree that wisdom isn’t a result of aging. They also believe that higher IQ scores don’t equal increased wisdom.

What role does age play in attaining wisdom? Can a child be wise? Current research indicates that the “optimal age to attain wisdom is about 60 years old” (Compton & Hoffman, 2013, p. 201).

Within psychological research, there are a handful of theories about wisdom. One is Robert Sternberg’s Balance Theory of Wisdom . He defines wisdom as “using one’s intelligence, creativity, common sense, and knowledge” to balance three life domains. They are interpersonal, intra-personal, and extra-personal interests. People do this over the short and long-term. The goal is to achieve balance among:

• adaptation to current environments,
• shaping of those environments, and
• choosing a new environment

Baltes and Staudinger (2000, p. 124) define wisdom as “expertise in the fundamental pragmatics of life.” This is further defined as “knowledge and judgment about the essence of the human condition and the ways and means of planning, managing, and understanding a good life.”

Through their research, they developed five criteria for evaluating wisdom-related performance.

• Factual (declarative) knowledge which asks, ‘What does one know about human nature, interpersonal relations, and social norms?’
• Procedural knowledge criteria answers, ‘What strategies does one use to navigate the twists and turns of life?’
• Lifespan contextualism criteria consider questions like, ‘Where does everything fit?’ ‘How are things interconnected?’ and ‘How are the various roles – education, family, etc. connected?’
• The relativism of values and life priorities allows for the tolerance of differences in values between people.
• Recognition of and management of uncertainty criteria acknowledges that we don’t know everything. There are limits to human processing.

Ardelt (2004, p. 257) in contrast to Baltes and Staudinger (2000), viewed wisdom as an “ integration of cognitive, reflective, and affective personality characteristics .” She argues that preserved wisdom (writings) represent theoretical (intellectual) knowledge. This knowledge doesn’t become wisdom until or unless the person internalizes it. For this to happen a person must experience the truth contained in the preserved wisdom. Doing this leads to the person becoming wise(r).

Meeks and Jeste (2009) reviewed the wisdom literature and identified common areas. From their review, they created the six sub-components of wisdom:

• Prosocial attitudes/behaviors: promotion of common good, empathy , social cooperation, and altruism
• Social decision making/pragmatic knowledge of life: understanding others’ emotions and motivations and using the information to make “wise” social decisions
• Emotional homeostasis: self-control and impulse control; ability to manage oneself in challenging situations
• Reflection/self-understanding: Self-knowledge
• Value relativism/tolerance: perspective-taking behavior
• Acknowledgment of and dealing effectively with uncertainty/ambiguity: navigating uncertainty and acknowledging/accepting the limits of what one knows.

Their review also is interesting for its inclusion of specific brain regions believed to play a role in the six sub-components.

Download 3 Free Strengths Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover and harness their unique strengths.

Download 3 Free Strengths Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Peterson and Seligman (2004, p. 39) define wisdom as “ knowledge hard fought for, and then used for good. ” They describe it as a noble virtue or trait — one that people appreciate in others.

To date, five strengths fall beneath the wisdom umbrella in their research:

Love of Learning

Perspective.

Each of these strengths exists in every person to some degree. They also can increase in prominence as you learn to use them more. These strengths are part of a larger list consisting of twenty-four.

You can learn about all 24 of your character strengths and see how each rank. Here are two resources:

• Read Seligman’s (2011) book, Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing . Beginning on p. 243 of the appendix, you can take a condensed version of the VIA character strengths test .
• Visit ViaCharacter.org .

After you discover your top five strengths (the ones you use most often), take a look at your bottom five. These represent the strengths you don’t use as often. Some consider these weaknesses, but this isn’t necessarily true. They could be areas you don’t think much about or don’t value. For example, are you an Atheist? If so, then spirituality might be in your bottom five.

You use the strengths in the middle on an “as needed” basis. For example, if leadership is in the middle of your list, what situations call it forth? Do you use it when no one else will “step up,” and you feel the situation is important?

Revisit your results. Where do the five “wisdom” strengths fall in your list?

Wisdom/Knowledge includes some of the most dominant character strengths (VIA Character Institute, 2015a).

As of 2015, The VIA Institute on Character analyzed 655,000 results. They learned the following (VIA Character Institute, 2015a):

• 93% of respondents have either fairness, curiosity, love, judgment, or kindness among their top-5 ranked character strengths.
• 87% of respondents have either fairness, curiosity, love, or judgment as one of their top-5 strengths.
• 77% of respondents have either fairness, curiosity or love as one of their top-5 strengths.
• 61% of respondents have either fairness or curiosity as one of their top-5 strengths.
• All the Temperance strengths (self-regulation, modesty, prudence, and zest) appear least often. They’re usually ranked at the bottom.
• The 10 most frequent “go-to” strengths fall into either Wisdom/Knowledge or Transcendence.

You might be curious, and most of you are according to the previous stats if your “go-to” strengths change. Suppose you take the assessment and then retake it 6 months or a year later — what might happen?

The test has good reliability which means that things aren’t likely to change much if at all. You could see a bit of shifting. Some results are close to others so they could flip. What is less likely is that your top five will become your bottom five.

Your strengths also could move around if you’ve experienced significant personal growth. Later, you’ll read about specific activities you can do so that you can develop your strengths.

Visit the VIA Institute’s FAQ page for more information.

Like wisdom, a definition of creativity is difficult to find. Researchers tend to refer to Big C and Little c creativity as a way to ferret out differences. Big C creativity is those works that transform whole groups of people. The impact of Big C creativity remains throughout history. It’s transformative.

Little creative endeavors impact the person but also can affect others on a smaller scale. The originality associated with this type of creativity involves solving common problems. You also might apply creative originality to everyday routines.

Creativity, as defined by Peterson and Seligman (2004), is “ thinking of novel and productive ways to conceptualize and do things; includes artistic achievement but is not limited to it ” (p. 29). The essential elements of creativity are originality plus adaptiveness.

Measuring creativity is difficult, but that hasn’t prevented researchers from trying. In fact, many have developed original scales and assessments to do it.

The Remote Association Test (RAT), Alternative (Unusual) Uses Test, and Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking all are process measures. All these tests seek to answer how creativity happens.

The first test asks subjects to form an association between a set of words. For example, try these:

• Swiss, cake, cottage
• man, glue, star

The Alternative (Unusual) Uses Test requires subjects to find as many possible uses for an ordinary object. Fluency, flexibility, and originality factor into the scoring. The purpose of the test is to measure divergent thinking.

The last test, used primarily with children, measures creativity, e.g., divergent thinking. Creativity Explained has a helpful explanation of this test.

Three assessments are useful in assessing creativity related to outcome:

The first is the Lifetime Creativity Scale. It’s a self-assessment. The second is the Consensual Assessment Technique. Both of these measures Little c. The latter being a more objective measurement tool. A Big C creativity measurement is the Creative Achievement Scale. It evaluates a person’s lifework.

The Creative Achievement Scale questionnaire is available in Carson, Peterson, and Higgins’ (2005) Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. You can download the article at Researchgate.net .

For more information about these assessments, read Character Strengths and Virtues by Peterson and Seligman (2004).

If you’re told to “be creative” then you will be. Open, supportive, informal, and reinforcing environments increase creativity (Peterson & Seligman, 2004.) The opposite doesn’t. In fact, it is easier to create an unsupportive, constrained environment that suffocates creativity.

Highly creative people tend to allow ideas to marinate while they’re working on other projects. You’ll notice that these people work on many problems simultaneously (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Peterson and Seligman (2004) point out three areas needing more research. They are:

• the genetic basis of creativity
• the relationship between little c and Big C creativity, and
• the relationship between creativity and other human virtues

Creativity correlates highest with curiosity, bravery, perspective, zest , and judgment/critical thinking (Niemiec, 2018).

Have you ever wondered what’s happening in your brain when you’re curious? Researcher Matthias Gruber explains this beautifully.

Curiosity is taking an interest in ongoing experience for its own sake; finding subjects and topics fascinating; exploring and discovering (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

There’s extensive research, dating back to the late 70s, about curiosity. The tools developed and used to assess this trait are all self-report questionnaires. Some have inadequate psychometric properties, but others provide useful information.

Peterson and Seligman offer insights into each, concluding with the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI). This tool consists of seven items. The researchers state that this assessment has “good psychometric properties and construct validity” (p. 133). You can access the CEI-II , a ten-item scale from MIDSS. It takes less than two minutes to complete.

Current research is asking a slightly different question. Rather than “ How curious are you? ” Kashdan, Disabato, Goodman, and Naughton (2018) are asking, “ How are you curious? ”

They’ve identified five dimensions of curiosity using a 25-item questionnaire. They are:

• Deprivation Sensitivity – Deep need to fill knowledge gaps.
• Joyous Exploration – Finding the world to be a fascinating place.
• Social Curiosity – Wanting to know what others are thinking and doing.
• Stress Tolerance – Accepting and using the anxiety associated with new experiences.
• Thrill Seeking – Risk-taking behavior that gives “varied, complex, and intense experiences” (Kashdan et al., 2018)

The team uncovered a few interesting results while working with two large organizations. For instance:

• intense positive emotions have a strong link with joyous exploration
• competency, autonomy, and belongness have a strong link to stress tolerance
• being kind, generous, and modest has a strong link to social curiosity
• four of the dimensions improve work outcomes, particularly stress tolerance and social curiosity
• 84% of the people in their Merck KGaA study believe curiosity leads to new ideas

The study of curiosity isn’t a “one size fits most” endeavor. Scientists like Kashdan advocate taking what he calls a nuanced approach.

Curiosity correlates highest with zest, love of learning, creativity, hope , and perspective (Niemiec, 2018).

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Also called open-mindedness or critical thinking, judgment is thinking things through. Peterson and Seligman emphasize that it’s “not jumping to conclusions” (2004, p. 29). Judgment is the ability to take in new evidence and change one’s mind if necessary. It’s weighing information fairly.

Researchers approach the assessment of judgment in three ways:

• Self-report surveys
• Content analysis of verbal statements
• Expert analysis of arguments

You can find several examples in Character Strengths and Virtues (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 147). Here are three, one from each category:

• Dogmatism Scale (self-report survey) – Read: Dogmatism updated: A scale revision and validation
• Integrative Complexity (content analysis of verbal statements) – See: University of Montana Automated Integrative Complexity
• Argument Evaluation Test (expert analysis of arguments) – See: Critical Thinking Worksite : Argument Evaluation

Exercising good judgment isn’t easy even when it’s a person’s strength. It requires one to identify personal biases, and work against them to assess the situation fairly; be less self-centered, and understand the impermanence of many decisions. Oftentimes, people forget that course-corrections are possible after a judgment error.

Judgment/critical thinking correlates highest with perspective, prudence, honesty, love of learning, and fairness (Niemiec, 2018).

Peterson and Seligman (2004) describe a love of learning as “ mastering new skills, topics, and bodies of knowledge .” Formal or informal education isn’t important. Love of learning involves systematically adding to one’s knowledge base.

You might have this in your top five if you strongly agree with the following statements (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 163):

• I can’t do the task now, but I think I’ll be able to do it in the future.
• I like to learn new things
• I’ll do whatever it takes in order to do a task correctly.
• Learning is a positive experience
• I care more about doing a thorough job than whether I receive a good grade.

Love of learning doesn’t typically fall in the top five for most people. In fact, it shows up about 27% of the time placing it in the top ten.

Having a love of learning translates into a motivational superpower. People with this strength tend to persist in the face of challenges (VIA Character Institute, n.d.). Learning invigorates them.

There are five conditions that affect a person’s ability to find connections so that content is more easily learned. Think about a subject with which you struggled in school. If you were able to master it, what factors helped you do that? If you were unable to succeed, what was missing?

Peterson and Seligman (2004) highlight the following characteristics or traits:

• positive feelings about the specific content area
• knowledge about the content area relative to the other involvements they have
• belief that a task is doable
• curiosity about a task that manifests itself in the asking of curious questions
• the ability to identify and make use of resources in order to work on a task.

There are several measurement tools available to determine one’s love of learning (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 165). They fall into four categories:

• Motivational orientation
• Well-developed individual interest

Love of learning is universal, but the way it takes shape isn’t. Culture does play a role in how it comes to fruition. There aren’t necessarily gender differences either. Males don’t have a stronger predisposition for a love of learning than females (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 172-73).

Love of learning correlates highest with curiosity, appreciation of beauty/excellence, judgment/critical thinking, creativity, and zest (Niemiec, 2018).

Wise counsel is the trademark of perspective. It’s the ability to look at the world and see your role, as well as the role of others, in it. From the standpoint of onlookers, how this person views things clicks. It makes sense.

The Vlogbrothers, John and Hank Green offer a steady supply of wisdom laced with perspective. Here’s an example you might enjoy.

As we discovered with the previous aspects of wisdom, measurement is challenging, but not impossible. Most research falls into one of three areas:

• wise process
• wise product, or
• wise persons

It’s the combination of these three that yields what researchers now agree about: Wise products are generated by wise persons using wise processes .

How do researchers determine the wiseness (measure of being wise) or perspective of subjects? The most often used scales highlighted by Peterson and Seligman (2004) are:

• ACL Practical Wisdom Scale, a self-report questionnaire
• Transcendent Wisdom Scale, open-ended question format
• CAQ Wisdom Scale, observer-based
• Acquired Wisdom Scale, open-ended question format
• CPI Wisdom Scale, self-report tool

One interesting note about perspective is that it’s not only available from the elderly. Some people, according to Hartman (2000, p. 101) “attain higher levels of wisdom earlier in the life course than is expected [the 40].” She called this precocious wisdom.

She conducted a longitudinal study of women in midlife that revealed that a “wide range of adult experiences precedes the development of wisdom” (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p. 191).

Five factors enable or inhibit perspective, according to Peterson and Seligman (2004):

• Life tasks – Pursuing career tasks in the late 30s and 40s, for example, led to the development of precocious wisdom by age 43.
• Adjustment – Wisdom isn’t simply about adjusting to societal norms and expectations.
• Coming to terms with life choices – People who are able to do this by age 53 are wiser at age 53. This was true when compared to people having no regrets. It also was true when compared to people with unresolved regrets (Hartman, 2000).
• Life changes – Hartman (2000) found that women who experienced more major changes in love and career developed more wisdom by midlife.
• Stressful life experiences – Higher rates of negative stressors inhibit the development of wisdom.

You might recall one of the questions posed at the beginning of this article, “Can a child be wise?” How does reading about perspective influence your judgment of this?

Perspective correlates highest with social intelligence, judgment, hope, bravery, and honesty (Niemiec, 2018).

As promised, here are several activities you can try for each of the five wisdom strengths. You can find these, and much more in, Character Strengths Interventions: A field guide for practitioners .

• In what situations are you most creative?
• How does creativity help you solve problems?
• What holds you back from expressing your creativity?
• Engage in divergent thinking about a problem or situation. How many alternate solutions can you generate?
• Before getting started on a problem, remind yourself to “be creative.” You could use the Creative Whack Pack to jumpstart your ideas.
• How does your curiosity present across the different domains of your life?
• Where do you feel most comfortable being curious?
• In what situations does your curiosity get you into trouble?
• What blocks or interferes with your curiosity?
• Consider an activity you don’t like. Find three novel features of it while you do it.
• Practice active curiosity. Actively explore your environment instead of responding only when something new pops up.
• What are some ways you use judgment/critical thinking in an automatic way that is also productive for you?
• As judgment is a strong “mind” strength, in what situations is it best to combine it with a “heart” strength?
• When are you most vulnerable to overusing this strength?
• Challenge your personal biases by seeking out information that is counter to your beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.
• When in an argument, practice taking an approach that embodies the belief that truth emerges from a process of critical inquiry in which all important sides should be considered.
• What is a new area you could apply this strength to?
• In what situations does your curiosity lead you to dig deeper and systematically learn a new skill/topic and in what situations is curiosity not a driving force?
• What topic areas of your learning are most important to you?
• Choose a subject matter that you are most curious about learning more. Pursue this interest area as you dig deeper and wider on the topic.
• When faced with learning something that might be boring to you, consider how learning it might benefit you and the world beyond you.
• In what situations do you feel most/least comfortable in sharing your perspective?
• How has this character strength helped you in your relationships and work?
• Name instances when you have missed opportunities to share a bigger picture view. How might you learn from this?
• Name a life problem. Imagine yourself traveling around the world speaking about it with people from different cultures. Gather information about differences in life contexts, values, and perspectives.
• Talk with a wise person or imagine the conversation. What questions do you ask? What answers are given? What advice is offered?

General Strength-boosting

• Use a signature strength in a new way. Take the VIA assessment. Choose one of your top 5 and use it in a different way. For example, for creativity, turn an inanimate object into something meaningful (Niemiec, 2018, p. 41).
• Acting “as if” – Choose a strength you want to improve. Using all the synonyms for it, practice that strength in real situations.
• Create a strengths habit – Think about a strength you want to build. Establish a cue, routine, and reward for it. Initially, try keeping it to something you can do in 30 seconds or less. For example, maybe you want to increase humor. Place a joke book near your bed. When you get up in the morning choose a page and read one joke. Tell yourself “good job!”
• Boost a lower strength – Choose a strength from your bottom 5. Use it in a new way every day for a week.

Character strengths can be over/underused. The goal is to achieve optimal use of each of the 24 as needed. Following are examples of issues arising from over/under use of particular strengths (Niemiec, 2018).

• Extreme creativity leads to eccentricity, but a lack of it leads to conformity. We strive for adaptive originality.
• Someone who is overly curious is nosy, but a lack of curiosity leads to disinterest. Strive for a balance between exploration/seeking novelty.
• Narrow-mindedness and cynicism are judgment “gone bad.” People who lack good judgment tend to skip reflecting on situations.
• Balanced use marries critical thinking and rationality.
• Know-it-alls flaunt their love of learning. Complacent people don’t care. Strive for deepening your knowledge systematically.
• Extreme use of perspective is overbearing, and a lack of it is shallowness. A wider view is optimal.

17 Exercises To Discover & Unlock Strengths

Use these 17 Strength-Finding Exercises [PDF] to help others discover and leverage their unique strengths in life, promoting enhanced performance and flourishing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

• Positive Psychology: The science of happiness and flourishing by William C. Compton and Edward Hoffman ( Amazon )
• Character Strengths and Virtues by Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman ( Amazon )
• Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being by Martin Seligman ( Amazon )
• Character strengths Interventions: A field guide for practitioners by Ryan M. Niemiec ( Amazon )
• Philosophy: An illustrated history of thought by Tom Jackson ( Amazon )
• Researcher Francesca Gino’s article , Why curiosity matters: The business case for curiosity offers great insights. Among them are five ways employers can encourage this trait.
• Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale ( Docx )
• What if affect – our mood – could be a source of wisdom? Lisa Feldman Barrett explains how mood (not emotions) can inform our actions and allow us to make better choices in this video . She encourages us to take a breath before acting so that negative affect doesn’t take control.

Each of the 5 character strengths of wisdom can, like all 24 strengths, develop over time. Think of every strength as a perennial seed planted in your garden. The ones you feed, water, and weed, will thrive. The ones you don’t will wither, but not necessarily die. When you decide to give that little withered plant a bit more attention, it’ll perk back up and start anew.

Which wisdom strength will you feed today?

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Strengths Exercises for free .

We need wisdom to;

• make better decisions,
• navigate complex situations, and
• find meaning in our lives.

Wisdom can also help us cultivate positive relationships, cope with challenges, and promote personal growth (Ardelt, 2016).

The three types of wisdom identified by some scholars are (Jeste & Vahia, 2008);

• cognitive wisdom – involves knowledge and the ability to think critically,
• reflective wisdom – involves introspection and self-awareness, and
• compassionate wisdom – involves empathy and concern for others.

Wisdom is a form of knowledge that involves more than just factual or theoretical knowledge. It also involves practical knowledge and the ability to apply knowledge in a way that promotes personal and social wellbeing (Sternberg, 2003).

• Ardelt, M. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: A critical review of a contemporary operationalization of an ancient concept.  Human Development ,  47 (5), 257-285.
• Ardelt, M. (2019). Wisdom as expert knowledge system and its development in adulthood. In The Routledge Handbook of Wisdom Studies (pp. 117-129). Routledge.
• Baltes, P. B., & Staudinger, U. M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence.  American Psychologist ,  55 (1), 122-136.
• Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire.  Creativity Research Journal ,  17 (1), 37-50.
• Compton, W. C., & Hoffman, E. (2013). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and flourishing (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,  37 (8), 1398-1405.
• Hartman, P. S. (2000). Women developing wisdom: Antecedents and correlates in a longitudinal sample. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
• Jeste, D. V., & Vahia, I. V. (2008). Comparison of the conceptualization of wisdom in ancient Indian literature with modern views: Focus on the Bhagavad Gita. Psychiatry, 71(3) , 197-209.
• Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R. & Naughton, C. (2018, September-October). Why curiosity matters: The five dimensions of curiosity. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2018/09/curiosity
• Lacewing, M. (n.d.). Practical wisdom. Retrieved from http://s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A22014/ethical_theories/Aristotle%20on%20practical%20wisdom.pdf
• Meeks, T. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2009). Neurobiology of wisdom: A literature overview.  Archives of General Psychiatry ,  66 (4), 355-365.
• Niemiec, R. M. (2018). Character strengths interventions: A field guide for practitioners. Hogrefe Publishing.
• Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004).  Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
• Rutherford, D. (2017). Descartes’ ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ethics/
• Seligman, M. E. P. (2011).  Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Atria Books.
• Shearman, S. M., & Levine, T. R. (2006). Dogmatism updated: A scale revision and validation. Communication Quarterly ,  54 (3), 275-291.
• Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized . Cambridge University Press.
• Sternberg, R. J. (n.d.). Balance theory of wisdom. Retrieved from http://www.robertjsternberg.com/wisdom
• VIA Character Institute (2015a, August 18). Signature strengths-frequency analysis. Retrieved from http://www.viacharacter.org/blog/signature-strengths-frequency-analysis/
• VIA Character Institute (n.d.). Love of learning. Retrieved from https://www.viacharacter.org/www/Character-Strengths/Love-of-Learning

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

The Root of Wisdom is knowing what an asshole we really are.

Truly excellent. Thank you.

Interesting

Good for clarity n learning.

Here’s a definition of wisdom that I like. Wisdom is the application of the right principle at the right time, as a response to difficult circumstances, that furthers a life affirming outcome.

Wisdom is seeing things as they are and doing things as they should be done.

My top 5 strength are Creativity, Love of learning, Judgment,Curiosity and Perspective. I’m HVAC technician.Seems like i need to change my career. What do you think?

lol then you should be wise enough to decide what’s best for you…

Love this. Thank you for sharing!

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Type B Personality Advantages: Stress Less, Achieve More

Type B personalities, known for their relaxed, patient, and easygoing nature, offer unique advantages in both personal and professional contexts. There are myriad benefits to [...]

Jungian Psychology: Unraveling the Unconscious Mind

Alongside Sigmund Freud, the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) is one of the most important innovators in the field of modern depth [...]

12 Jungian Archetypes: The Foundation of Personality

In the vast tapestry of human existence, woven with the threads of individual experiences and collective consciousness, lies a profound understanding of the human psyche. [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (36)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos

Make Your Note

Wisdom Finds Truth

• 07 Feb 2024

“The Only True Wisdom is in Knowing You Know Nothing”

—Socrates

In the complex fabric of human life, the timeless pursuit of wisdom has always been a constant journey. As individuals navigate the complexities of life, they are often confronted with the need to discern truth from falsehood, and clarity from ambiguity. This quest for wisdom, intertwined with the discovery of truth, forms a symbiotic relationship that has been a cornerstone of human intellectual and spiritual development throughout history. 

Wisdom, in its essence, transcends mere knowledge. While knowledge refers to the accumulation of facts and information, wisdom encompasses a deeper understanding that involves insight, discernment, and the ability to make sound judgments. It is the application of knowledge in a way that promotes a harmonious and balanced existence. Wisdom is not static but dynamic, evolving through experiences, reflections, and the continuous quest for a deeper understanding of the self and the world.

The search for truth is a fundamental aspect of the human condition. From ancient philosophical inquiries to modern scientific investigations, humans have sought to uncover the underlying principles and realities that govern existence. Truth, in this context, is not merely a collection of facts but a profound understanding of the nature of reality , ethics , and purpose . The quest for truth is a journey marked by curiosity, skepticism , and a relentless pursuit of deeper understanding .

Wisdom and truth intersect in various dimensions. Wisdom, as the application of knowledge with discernment, enables individuals to navigate the complexities of life with a profound understanding of the underlying truths that govern human existence. In turn, the pursuit of truth contributes to the development of wisdom, as the process of seeking truth involves critical thinking, self-reflection , and an openness to challenging one's preconceptions.

One avenue through which wisdom is cultivated is through lived experiences. Life's challenges and triumphs provide a fertile ground for the development of wisdom. Through facing adversity, making choices, and learning from the consequences of actions, individuals gain insights that contribute to their wisdom. Each experience becomes a lesson, shaping a person's worldview and influencing their ability to discern truth from falsehood.

Throughout the history of philosophy, thinkers from different traditions and cultures have contemplated the relationship between wisdom and truth. In ancient Greek philosophy, Socratic wisdom emphasized the acknowledgment of one's ignorance as the starting point for true understanding. Socrates' famous statement, "I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing," highlights the humility and openness to truth inherent in wisdom.

Eastern philosophies, such as Buddhism and Taoism, emphasize the cultivation of wisdom through mindfulness, meditation , and a deep understanding of the interconnectedness of all things. The pursuit of truth in these traditions involves transcending the illusions of the ego and gaining insight into the impermanence and interdependence of existence.

Wisdom is not only about intellectual understanding but also encompasses ethical dimensions . The wise person is often characterized by virtues such as compassion, empathy, and a sense of justice. These ethical dimensions are closely linked to the pursuit of truth, as understanding the ethical implications of actions requires a deep appreciation of the truth about human nature, society, and the consequences of one's choices.

Reflection and contemplation are integral to the development of wisdom. Taking the time to ponder one's experiences, beliefs, and values allows for a deeper understanding of oneself and the world. In this process, individuals confront their biases, challenge their assumptions, and open themselves to the possibility of discovering new truths. Contemplation, whether through philosophical inquiry or spiritual practices , becomes a pathway to wisdom and truth.

In the realm of scientific inquiry, the pursuit of truth is often framed as the search for objective knowledge . The scientific method, with its emphasis on empirical observation, hypothesis testing , and peer review , seeks to uncover universal truths about the natural world. However, the scientific quest for truth is not devoid of philosophical considerations, as scientists grapple with questions about the nature of reality, causality, and the limits of human understanding.

Despite the earnest pursuit of wisdom and truth, humans are bound by the limitations of their perception and cognition. The subjective nature of individual experiences, coupled with cognitive biases and cultural influences, can impede the attainment of absolute truth. Recognizing these limitations is an essential aspect of wisdom, prompting individuals to approach truth with humility and an awareness of the inherent complexity of reality.

In the contemporary era, marked by unprecedented access to information through technology, the quest for wisdom and truth faces new challenges. The wealth of information, frequently accompanied by misinformation and disinformation , necessitates individuals to refine their abilities in critical thinking. Navigating the digital landscape calls for a discerning mind capable of sifting through the vast sea of information to extract meaningful truths.

As individuals strive for wisdom and truth, they often find themselves on a parallel journey toward virtue. Virtue, in this context, refers to the cultivation of moral excellence and ethical character . The virtuous person, guided by wisdom and an understanding of truth, seeks to live a life aligned with principles of goodness, justice, and compassion . The interconnectedness of wisdom, truth , and virtue creates a holistic framework for a meaningful and purposeful existence.

In the intricate dance between wisdom and truth, human beings embark on a journey that transcends the boundaries of time and culture. Wisdom, with its roots in the deep understanding of oneself and the world, becomes the guiding force in the pursuit of truth. Conversely, the quest for truth, whether through philosophical inquiry, scientific exploration, or lived experiences, contributes to the development of wisdom.

As individuals navigate the complexities of life, they encounter the ethical dimensions of wisdom, the transformative power of reflection , and the limitations of human perception . Philosophical perspectives from various traditions shed light on the profound connection between wisdom and truth, emphasizing humility, openness, and a continual willingness to explore the mysteries of existence.

In the digital age, where information abounds and misinformation proliferates, the need for discernment and critical thinking becomes paramount. The virtuous person, guided by wisdom and truth, seeks to navigate the complexities of the modern world with integrity, compassion, and a commitment to ethical principles.

In the journey of life, seeking wisdom is not a one-time thing but a constant exploration. Wisdom and truth mix together, forming a story of learning, discovering, and always trying to understand life better.

“Nothing will Satisfy You Until You Know the Truth for Yourself”

— Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Character Traits — Wisdom

Essays on Wisdom

The pursuit of wisdom: an enduring love affair, the powerful paper: the importance of wisdom, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Socrates Views on Human Wisdom

Love and wisdom in plato’s symposium, futility of quest for knowledge in stephen crane's poem, superiority of democracy - collective wisdom and networked digital media, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Thoreau's Misconceptions About The Elderly and The Value of Their Knowledge

The judgement by thamus, the role of wisdom ideals in studying, philosophy – the pursuit of wisdom, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Intellectual Yet Idiot: a Critical Analysis of Nassim Taleb's Concept

Aphorism in tuesdays with moorrie, examples of hrothgar in beowulf, it is only knowledge truly value, my most prized possession, relevant topics.

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

More From Forbes

Why you need wisdom and how to be (more) wise—according to science.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Wisdom is important for happiness and community.

Popular belief suggests we gain wisdom through life experience—and with everything we’ve been through over the past year, we should all be brilliant sages, scholars and savants. But interestingly, wisdom has depth and nuance that is worth understanding—because it can be developed. Perhaps most importantly, it can be put to good use in our work and lives: making decisions, sustaining success and reinforcing relationships.

Wisdom isn’t reserved only for the elderly or the aged. Contrary to popular opinion, anyone can be wise based on their characteristics and skills—not just their years of experience. It’s more typical for the wise to be more senior, but it’s not a prerequisite.

In addition, wisdom tends to be correlated with less loneliness and it is also related to our biology. In a fascinating new study from the University of California, San Diego , researchers found a healthy gut microbiome (characterized by phylogenetic richness and diversity) was associated with higher levels of wisdom as well as compassion and engagement. Wow.

Wisdom is more than just knowledge, of course. It is the application of knowledge and the discernment that comes from perspective. This saying sums it up well, “Knowledge is knowing what to say. Wisdom is knowing when to say it.” Knowledge is required for wisdom. After all, you must have a foundation on which to build. But it’s possible to have knowledge—book smarts or awareness of something—without the judgement that goes along with how to use it.

Why You Need Wisdom

There are plenty of reasons you need wisdom—and the first reasons are happiness and fulfillment. When you make wise decisions, you keep your immediate needs in mind, along with holding long-term perspectives. This is key to making choices that bring you joy. In addition, wisdom allows you to make better contributions to your community by balancing your needs and boundaries with those of others.  

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

Wise people also pave the way toward greater fulfillment in their work because they can discern the best way to handle everything from relationships with colleagues to judgements about their customers—all important to effectiveness at work.

Developing Wisdom

Previous research from the University of California, San Diego, makes it fairly straightforward to understand, build and develop wisdom. There are five key elements:

Consider others . One of the main components of wisdom is a sense of empathy toward others . It is altruism and the ability to cooperate. It makes sense: When making decisions and deciding on courses of action, the wise person thinks about how their actions will affect those around them. Since none of us live in a vacuum, this ability to consider the community, the connections and the bridges around you is important. In addition, wisdom is always about making decisions in context and understanding how any choice will affect not only ourselves, but those around us.

Manage yourself . Another element of wisdom is the ability to regulate emotions. As you seek to develop your wisdom, be aware of yourself and actively reflect on your own state of mind, opinions and attitudes. Then, be able to make choices about what you share and how you appropriately control your emotions. In addition, the wise are typically authentic. In our world of curated identities—where we put only our best faces forward through social media—those who are authentically themselves set a wise tone for their relationships.

Seek diversity. Those who research wisdom suggest it is associated with a tolerance of diverse values, but it’s probably even more than that. Wisdom demands ongoing learning, and this can only come from true openness to different points of view and a belief we don’t already have all the answers. Wise people also have a sense of humility, realizing their point of view is not the only one and appreciating how much they don’t know. As the quote from Sockman goes, “The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder.” Wisdom demands asking questions and listening to expand understanding, appreciating all that is unknown.

Embrace uncertainty . Another element of wisdom is the ability to deal effectively with ambiguity . As humans, we crave clarity and certainty, so the maturity of wisdom allows us to work through this natural inclination and find ways to make judgements, take action and be constructive even without much clarity. It's similar to agile expertise, in which small steps and incremental improvement allow for continuation on a journey—in which we aren’t stagnating or falling behind—making steady progress despite ambuigity.

Take a long-term view . Wisdom is also built through the ability to put aside short-term gain to make decisions that serve for the longer horizon—investing in yourself through additional schooling for development of your career or avoiding the additional cupcake in favor of the dress you want to fit into for your daughter’s wedding.   

While wisdom can sometimes be the purview of older or more senior members of our community, it is also helpful perspective to apply to our work—no matter what our age. Whether you’re seeking to make better choices in business or for your community, a little wisdom can go a long way.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Review of Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction by Craig Bartholomew and Ryan O'Dowd in the Stone-Campbell Journal 15 (2012), 126-127.

Related Papers

This chapter introduces the volume by arguing that the study of biblical wisdom is in the midst of a potential paradigm shift, as interpreters are beginning to reconsider the relationship between the concept of wisdom in the Bible and the category Wisdom Literature. This offers an opportunity to explore how the two have been related in the past, in the history of Jewish and Christian interpretation, how they are connected in the present, as three competing primary approaches to Wisdom study have developed, and how they could be treated in the future, as new possibilities for understanding wisdom with insight from before and beyond the development of the Wisdom Literature category are emerging.

Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies

Nicholas Majors

Interpreting Old Testament Wisdom Literature presents a collection of essays on wisdom books and wisdom ideas. The essays interact with Old Testament wisdom literature and offer up-to-date evaluations on the current issues. Craig Bartholomew provides an introduction with a survey of the landscape of Old Testament wisdom literature. Section two covers the issues within the wisdom books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes. The inclusion of Song of Songs and some Psalms as wisdom texts are considered. Section three subsequently covers major ideas within Old Testament wisdom literature.

Arthur J Keefer

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Thomas Kuhn famously argued that old paradigms continue to dominate a discipline even after problems with it begin to emerge until, following a period of crisis, that paradigm is eventually overthrown by a new model. Within his model, there is a period of crisis in which the old paradigm is unable to deal with the data before a new paradigm emerges. Although Kuhn is never invoked in this erudite and at times witty study, his model would seem to reflect Kynes's goals. In effect, in writing this obituary for the wisdom literature as a distinct corpus, he is attempting to bring together the crisis phase with the emergence of the new paradigm in the treatment of these texts. Those familiar with Kynes's work will know that he has been pointing in this direction for some time, 1 but this is easily the most substantial work in which he seeks to dismantle the concept of wisdom literature as a distinct genre, arguing that placing Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs into this category means substantial features of these texts are either missed or distorted.

PERSPECTIVES ON ISRAELITE WISDOM: PROCEEDINGS OF THE OXFORD OLD TESTAMENT SEMINAR EDITED BY JOHN JARICK

Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar focuses on ‘Perspectives on Israelite Wisdom,’ and covers broad issues in the wisdom tradition and corpus. The volume has no overarching thesis, hermeneutic, or methodology, but provides essays from diverse theological perspectives. After an introduction by John Jarick, the book divides into three sections. The first section covers ‘Issues in the Study of Israelite Wisdom.’ Stuart Weeks evaluates the watershed article by W. Zimmerli ‘The Place and Limits of Wisdom’ and finds his conclusions wanting. John Barton writes on four different issues on ethics in the Old Testament but unfortunately covers each briefly with no conclusion or synthesis. Jenni Williams employs Samuel and Proverbs to illustrate women’s relationship to wisdom. Aulikki Nahkola offers a paremiological study of Proverbs to understand the worldview of Israel. Will Kynes ends the first section with a fundamental critique of wisdom literature.

Josh Philpot

Michael Gill

The Oxford Handbook of Theological Anthropology

Suzanna Millar

Tebogo Sewapa

Old Testament theology. A book review. PGDipl in Theology, Stellenbosch University

anthony loke

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Claudiu-Cristian DAMIAN

Riddles and Revelations: Explorations into the Relationship between Wisdom and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Russel L. Meek, and Rusty Osborne. LHBOTS. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, forthcoming 2018.

Daniel J Ebert IV

Jaco Gericke

Lance Higginbotham

Religious Studies Review

Susan E Bond

Alan Mitchell

Andrew Judd

josephine draper

Charlotte Hempel

Mark Hamilton

lorenzo martin

Bálint Károly Zabán

Melvin Sensenig

Alex "Sasha" M Vukelich

R. Sean Emslie

Douglas Lawrie

Tyson Putthoff, PhD

Stéphanie ANTHONIOZ

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Feature of Character / Wisdom

Wisdom Essay Examples

There is a wisdom of head and there is a wisdom of heart.

When Charles Dickens said this line in his novel ‘Hard Times’: “There is a wisdom of head and there is a wisdom of heart “. The only thing he brought in here was that he has solved the conflict between the Heart and the head....

Factors that Contribute to Generational Differences in Intelligence and Age Differences in Wisdom

The millennials are smarter than the previous generation firstly with the widely available knowledge that is free and open to access for any one on the internet who chooses to access it. The education system is more advanced and this has an effect on the...

Theories of Wisdom and My Opinion on It

Socrates’ teachings on wisdom are enormously valuable regardless if one agrees with them or not. Because Socrates’ ideas were very specific, they left room for intelligent discussions that can expand upon his definitions. Socrates’ ideas primarily aligned with two of the five theories: wisdom as...

Socrates’ Way of the Pursuit of Wisdom

In philosophy, providing an exact definition of not only philosophy itself but many other concepts as well, can be rather challenging. With human knowledge constantly expanding, and humans having different outlooks on things, philosophy and its branches can all be seen differently. To continue, philosophy...

The Concept of the Living Force

The living force itself is everlasting, and the universe continues through all of infinity. The reason that the universe is able to endure and continue the way it has been, is because it does not actually live for itself. The same is true of the...

Contentment is Natural Wealth. Luxury is Artificial Poverty

I once asked granny "how come you kept giving birth year after year until you had a dozen of them?" "Allah makes you forget the all the pain and all you are left with is mere reflection of it", she replied. I was perplexed so...

Socrates’ Theory of Wisdom in Relation to the Downfall of Oedipus

Wisdom is defined as the ability to think and make good judgment. In other words, wisdom is the quality of being wise. Wisdom is a great thing, always resulting in awareness. Genuine astuteness originates from knowing the enormous aspect of things throughout everyday life. To...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

You may also like

• Integrity Essays
• Perseverance Essays
• Humility Essays
• Parenting Styles Essays
• Hometown Essays
• Challenges Essays
• Deja Vu Essays
• Hope Essays
• Adversity Essays
• Volunteering Essays

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->