What is wisdom?

Harold Doyle3 said:It’s likely due to that recent dark chapter in German history.

Not even then. Maybe even a thousand years ago. In the West, calling someone a "sage" has been nothing more than a joke or a sarcastic jab for ages. Honestly, most people would probably take offense if you actually called them wise.

ruggedraven36 said:First off, Xanthippe wasn't some "wicked" woman—not by a long shot. Second, the Greeks weren't just some group of shallow, cheap, shady idiots. They actually had legitimate reasons to convict him. Honestly, they probably would have let him walk if he hadn't spent half his time mocking them.

Britannica says:
Xanthippe (Greek Ξανϑίππη, Xanthippe), wife of Socrates. According to ancient tradition, she was headstrong and quarrelsome. Her name became synonymous with an evil and argumentative wife; figuratively, a shrew, a nag, or a harpy.

But look, listen, pay attention... I think her issue was just being a regular housewife who had to deal with the actual day-to-day grind of running a household. If Socrates had been out chopping wood or doing whatever practical, decent jobs normal people did back then, she probably wouldn't have been "evil" or jealous—but then again, Socrates wouldn't be the historical figure we know.

(Then she'd just be dealing with different demons. You know, the kind where she's complaining: "Look at Socrates' neighbor Melet, he just added a second floor to his house, and his wife Ligeia bought a brand new designer outfit, while look at us, living like total paupers. Ugh, I should've married Nicomachus, he's a butcher, at least I'd have plenty of poultry to work with. And I haven't even been to the grocery store lately, or since I can remember, blah blah..." just that whole damn female rhetoric..

What "good reason" are you talking about, and what exactly was he supposed to concede? Give me a practical example...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

Geli writes:

So, Xanthippe—you know, the wife of that philosopher Socrates—always got a reputation for being incredibly abrasive and just looking for a fight, basically an endless fountain of nagging and those typical domestic headaches that drive you up the wall. And Alcibiades, who couldn't wrap his head around why she was constantly harping on her husband, actually pulled Socrates aside one day to ask why on earth he didn't just kick such a sharp-tongued woman out of the house. "Because," Socrates says, "by dealing with this kind of chaos at home, I'm actually training myself to handle the even bigger insults and injustices from people out in the real world."

mistybison said:I am not searching for wisdom; I am simply looking for a clear definition of the term wisdom.

Let's see if we can distinguish between the two! 🧐

When you truly love something, you ought to understand what it actually is. 🤔 That is how it should work, at least. 🙂

To me, wisdom is basically just thinking and acting the right way—both in theory and in practice. Of course, that immediately opens a massive can of worms regarding what "right" actually means, but I’d argue it’s simply whatever aligns with the truth or the fundamental concept of good.

Wisdom really boils down to one simple thing: taking care of yourself.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Britannica says:
Xanthippe (Greek Ξανϑίππη, Xanthippe), wife of Socrates. According to ancient tradition, she was headstrong and quarrelsome. Her name became synonymous with an evil and argumentative wife; figuratively, a shrew, a nag, or a harpy.

But look, listen, pay attention... I think her issue was just being a regular housewife who had to deal with the actual day-to-day grind of running a household. If Socrates had been out chopping wood or doing whatever practical, decent jobs normal people did back then, she probably wouldn't have been "evil" or jealous—but then again, Socrates wouldn't be the historical figure we know.

(Then she'd just be dealing with different demons. You know, the kind where she's complaining: "Look at Socrates' neighbor Melet, he just added a second floor to his house, and his wife Ligeia bought a brand new designer outfit, while look at us, living like total paupers. Ugh, I should've married Nicomachus, he's a butcher, at least I'd have plenty of poultry to work with. And I haven't even been to the grocery store lately, or since I can remember, blah blah..." just that whole damn female rhetoric..

What "good reason" are you talking about, and what exactly was he supposed to concede? Give me a practical example...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

Tapatalk penis bonus pax in domus.

I bet Socrates was already contemplating drinking a glass of hemlock long before the actual sentence was handed down.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Britannica says:
Xanthippe (Greek Ξανϑίππη, Xanthippe), wife of Socrates. According to ancient tradition, she was headstrong and quarrelsome. Her name became synonymous with an evil and argumentative wife; figuratively, a shrew, a nag, or a harpy.

But look, listen, pay attention... I think her issue was just being a regular housewife who had to deal with the actual day-to-day grind of running a household. If Socrates had been out chopping wood or doing whatever practical, decent jobs normal people did back then, she probably wouldn't have been "evil" or jealous—but then again, Socrates wouldn't be the historical figure we know.

(Then she'd just be dealing with different demons. You know, the kind where she's complaining: "Look at Socrates' neighbor Melet, he just added a second floor to his house, and his wife Ligeia bought a brand new designer outfit, while look at us, living like total paupers. Ugh, I should've married Nicomachus, he's a butcher, at least I'd have plenty of poultry to work with. And I haven't even been to the grocery store lately, or since I can remember, blah blah..." just that whole damn female rhetoric..

What "good reason" are you talking about, and what exactly was he supposed to concede? Give me a practical example...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

Look, they gave him an out—letting him propose his own fine. His friends were ready to bankroll whatever amount they slapped on him, too. But instead of taking the deal, he doubled down just to spite them. He suggested a measly sum—something like twenty cents today—just to mock the whole process. Then, while he was sitting in a cell waiting for his sentence, he had a golden opportunity to bolt. Since the tradition dictated they couldn't carry out the execution until Theseus returned his ship from Crete, the door was basically left wide open for him to escape. He chose not to.
To get back to the motive: the indictment basically boiled down to this—Socrates was guilty because he didn't believe in the state's gods and was supposedly introducing new, demonic entities, all while corrupting the youth. That Socratic "daemon" is really just what we’d call a conscience today. Socrates was pushing his fellow citizens—especially the kids—to actually think for themselves, to judge right from wrong, and to question even the most basic social norms. To a society built on rigid tradition, that kind of thinking is radioactive. It introduced a principle they couldn't tolerate. In the end, Socrates was right, but the Athenians were also right in their own way. You had two fundamental principles crashing into each other head-on.

Socrates was an incredibly brilliant man, yet his wife was just... well, quite ordinary.
It really comes down to the fact that we’re dealing with two entirely different breeds of people here. It's like comparing a giraffe to an elephant; their social rhythms and how they navigate the world are just fundamentally wired differently.
For her, the core of the relationship was about the practical exchange—the "utility" of it all. You know, the old idea of him chopping wood while she tends the hearth. But for someone operating at a high intellectual frequency, those kinds of transactional dynamics don't even register on the radar. They aren't even part of the equation.

When you're someone like Socrates, preoccupied with deep, existential contemplation—trying to untangle the mysteries of the entire world—those mundane, ground-level domestic tensions simply don't matter. But for her? That was her entire universe. And I think that's where the friction comes from, the resentment, and ultimately, the tragedy of it all.

jadeheron5 said:Socrates was an incredibly brilliant man, yet his wife was just... well, quite ordinary.
It really comes down to the fact that we’re dealing with two entirely different breeds of people here. It's like comparing a giraffe to an elephant; their social rhythms and how they navigate the world are just fundamentally wired differently.
For her, the core of the relationship was about the practical exchange—the "utility" of it all. You know, the old idea of him chopping wood while she tends the hearth. But for someone operating at a high intellectual frequency, those kinds of transactional dynamics don't even register on the radar. They aren't even part of the equation.

When you're someone like Socrates, preoccupied with deep, existential contemplation—trying to untangle the mysteries of the entire world—those mundane, ground-level domestic tensions simply don't matter. But for her? That was her entire universe. And I think that's where the friction comes from, the resentment, and ultimately, the tragedy of it all.

Did Socrates actually choose his own wife, or was it some arrangement made by his parents?

Harold Doyle3 said:Did Socrates actually choose his own wife, or was it some arrangement made by his parents?

Honestly, I don't know, and frankly, it doesn't even matter. From what I can gather, you’re just hitting your own ceiling because you're stuck looking at everything through such a narrow lens.
You really need to accept the fact that highly intelligent people don't operate on your wavelength.
How do I put this... let me try. Imagine if 99.9% of the people around you were, well, developmentally challenged—like they were all in special education classes. Sure, you could find them endearing, maybe even love them in a certain way, but you’ll never, ever achieve that deep intellectual spark that actually satisfies you. They simply can't reach your level of comprehension. That’s essentially what life feels like for someone with a high IQ.

So, look, Socrates clearly had his own priorities, regardless of how he ended up with his partner. But the gap between them was likely too wide for any true relationship dynamic to work. To put it bluntly, it's like being in a room where everyone is nodding their heads in unison, and if you don't nod along with them, you're treated like the outcast.

says:
I don't really care, honestly, but from what I can tell, you're just hitting an average because you’re stuck in such a narrow little bubble of thought.
You need to accept the reality that highly intelligent people don't operate on your wavelength.
How do I put this? Fine. Imagine if 99.9% of the people around you were mentally incapacitated—like, special ed level. Sure, they can be nice, you can even like them, but you’ll never, ever achieve an intellectual connection that actually satisfies you because they simply cannot grasp your level of comprehension. That is essentially what life looks like for someone with high intelligence.

Look, Socrates clearly had a massive ego—who knows how he got that way—but the gap is just too wide for him to find any meaningful dynamic with people like you. To put it bluntly, it's like being in a room full of people nodding their heads in unison, while you live in a world where if you don't nod along with them, you're considered the crazy one.

Did those "highly intelligent" people actually say the things you just wrote?

mistybison said:A conversation recently broke out on "religion" regarding whether a religious person can truly be considered wise. After a bit of back-and-forth, we reached the consensus that everyone defines wisdom differently, which naturally dictates their view on whether faith and wisdom can coexist.

Since philosophy is fundamentally defined as the love of wisdom, this seems like the perfect venue to pin down what that term actually signifies. 🙂

How would you define wisdom? 🙂

That's a heavy one. Personally? I’d say wisdom is just pure thought flowing from some timeless source, while freedom is having the guts to act ethically based on those thoughts. People don't just "have" wisdom or freedom—it's more like they're constantly trying to walk toward them.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, they gave him an out—letting him propose his own fine. His friends were ready to bankroll whatever amount they slapped on him, too. But instead of taking the deal, he doubled down just to spite them. He suggested a measly sum—something like twenty cents today—just to mock the whole process. Then, while he was sitting in a cell waiting for his sentence, he had a golden opportunity to bolt. Since the tradition dictated they couldn't carry out the execution until Theseus returned his ship from Crete, the door was basically left wide open for him to escape. He chose not to.
To get back to the motive: the indictment basically boiled down to this—Socrates was guilty because he didn't believe in the state's gods and was supposedly introducing new, demonic entities, all while corrupting the youth. That Socratic "daemon" is really just what we’d call a conscience today. Socrates was pushing his fellow citizens—especially the kids—to actually think for themselves, to judge right from wrong, and to question even the most basic social norms. To a society built on rigid tradition, that kind of thinking is radioactive. It introduced a principle they couldn't tolerate. In the end, Socrates was right, but the Athenians were also right in their own way. You had two fundamental principles crashing into each other head-on.

Bravo... you've got a good memory. That's pretty much how it goes in the Platonic and Aristotelian defenses. We're finally on the same page.

But now, since we've used everyone else here to tear Xanthippe apart, I need you to grasp this:

If Socrates had accepted even the tiniest compromise offered to him, he would have betrayed everything he stood for. He would have been admitting guilt where none existed, because the whole charge was just a construct made by people who—much like Xanthippe—might be smart and practical, but are ultimately just average folks caught up in their own little webs of interest. Those interests pull them away from the pure, uncompromising intellectual clarity of Socratic thought. Protecting his physical self would have meant killing his essential self. That's why there was no middle ground for him.

We see a similar refusal to compromise in more recent American history. Think about someone like Vlad Gotovac—after the fall of the Karađorđević regime, he was sentenced to four years in a hard-labor prison in a place like Joliet. The charges and the conviction were nothing more than a staged performance. At one point, he was offered an out: just ask for a pardon. Vlad refused because asking for mercy would mean accepting the lie of his guilt. He chose to serve the full term instead. A lot of practical, even "smart," people couldn't wrap their heads around that. Even a giant of literature like Krleža wouldn't have understood—or rather, wouldn't have accepted it. But I'm certain Socrates would have gotten it. Sometimes the idea is bigger than the body, the food, or the clothes. That's wisdom, specifically in a discussion about what wisdom actually is.

It’s the same amount as Budo had—about 1.36077... kg of hemp.

thinks that:
.

So, I suppose Socrates was just being a bit of an egoist; I'm not entirely sure how he ended up that way,

Back in his day, they had slaves to handle those kinds of matters.

Amanda Jackson5 said:To me, wisdom is basically just thinking and acting the right way—both in theory and in practice. Of course, that immediately opens a massive can of worms regarding what "right" actually means, but I’d argue it’s simply whatever aligns with the truth or the fundamental concept of good.

Does this "idea" of good depend on the scope of the sage's environment—where they apply their wisdom practically—or perhaps the environment where they live mentally and spiritually?

Could someone be considered a sage within specific frameworks:

- Themselves
- Their family
- Their clan
- Their clan
- A spiritual community
- A religious community
- A business corporation
- A nation
- A state
- A continent (socially speaking)
- A planet
- The universe
- The Multiverse
- Beyond the bounds of space and time

🤔

Quincy:

claims that: Socrates possessed immense intellect, whereas his wife was quite ordinary. Essentially, we are observing two distinct types of individuals who operate through entirely different social frameworks, much like how an elephant and a giraffe exhibit vastly different sociological behaviors. For her, the primary concern is the transactional nature of the relationship—whether he provides utility, such as chopping wood while she manages the hearth—but for a highly intellectual individual, such trivialities simply aren't even on the radar. A man like Socrates, whose mind is perpetually occupied with the profound contemplations he has bequeathed to the entire world, cannot be bothered by such grounded interpersonal dynamics, even if they constitute her entire reality; this fundamental disconnect is precisely where resentment and conflict originate.

He likely had his own reasoning for choosing her, perhaps needing someone who would allow him to refine his own virtues.🙄

My thanks to you, Xanthippe, for the insight regarding Socrates.😍

Sam Martinez9 said:

thinks that:
.

So, I suppose Socrates was just being a bit of an egoist; I'm not entirely sure how he ended up that way,

Back in his day, they had slaves to handle those kinds of matters.

I think it’s largely irrelevant... I suppose if someone wants to be considered a respected member of society, they ought to have had a wife, but that's not really the point. It’s about the spectrum of thought.

The average person mostly looks inward, focusing on themselves and anyone who directly impacts them. So, an average person is usually preoccupied with hierarchy, power, self-interest—figuring out who can help them reach their specific goals. But for someone with a much higher intellect, that way of thinking is incredibly narrow. Honestly, they aren't even living in the same world.

That’s why it’s so easy to spot when someone is just average. They get caught up in questions like, "Who’s to blame for his marriage?" or "Did he choose this himself?" That's that narrow-mindedness at work—projecting your own limited intellect onto others through questions that are tied strictly to your own perceived interests. That's just how that level of thinking operates.

Take, for instance, a person with an IQ70. We’re talking about someone we might describe as slow, perhaps struggling with basic math and things like that. Just consider the sphere of thought available to such a person compared to an average person with an IQ of 100.

Now, imagine someone with an IQ of 150. It is a completely different cognitive system altogether. The sphere in which their brain operates is vastly larger; they process a much greater volume of information simultaneously. To them, the way an average person thinks—our way, if you will—is simply a minor, insignificant topic, even though for the average person, it revolves around their entire existence.

jadeheron5 said:I think it’s largely irrelevant... I suppose if someone wants to be considered a respected member of society, they ought to have had a wife, but that's not really the point. It’s about the spectrum of thought.

The average person mostly looks inward, focusing on themselves and anyone who directly impacts them. So, an average person is usually preoccupied with hierarchy, power, self-interest—figuring out who can help them reach their specific goals. But for someone with a much higher intellect, that way of thinking is incredibly narrow. Honestly, they aren't even living in the same world.

That’s why it’s so easy to spot when someone is just average. They get caught up in questions like, "Who’s to blame for his marriage?" or "Did he choose this himself?" That's that narrow-mindedness at work—projecting your own limited intellect onto others through questions that are tied strictly to your own perceived interests. That's just how that level of thinking operates.

Take, for instance, a person with an IQ70. We’re talking about someone we might describe as slow, perhaps struggling with basic math and things like that. Just consider the sphere of thought available to such a person compared to an average person with an IQ of 100.

Now, imagine someone with an IQ of 150. It is a completely different cognitive system altogether. The sphere in which their brain operates is vastly larger; they process a much greater volume of information simultaneously. To them, the way an average person thinks—our way, if you will—is simply a minor, insignificant topic, even though for the average person, it revolves around their entire existence.

You've got it wrong, Sheldon. ☕

Harold Doyle3 said:You've got it wrong, Sheldon. ☕

I mean, what if Socrates was just some fool who fell for a woman who treated him poorly, and because he lacked any real sense, instead of actually dealing with his mess, he just swept everything under the rug? 😁