What is wisdom?

Ethan Gomez82 said:It never crossed my mind to suggest that human perspective belongs to an ideal mode of existence. It belongs strictly to the human (particular) mode. Sure, it could belong to a lion's mode or a monkey's mode, but it doesn't go much further than that. Human "truth" fares no better. It’s nothing more than a little truthlet—a mere shadow of Truth that doesn't even emerge from the subject-object relationship. In fact, the very assumption of a subject-object relationship is itself untrue.

When I use the term "ideal mode," I don't mean "perfect." I simply mean abstract. 😉

Ideology isn't wisdom, and it certainly isn't philosophy. If anything, I’d argue it’s often the direct antithesis of wisdom, because its whole purpose seems to be shoving people into these tiny, rigid little boxes of behavior based on whatever social engineering trend is currently in vogue.
Every ideology eventually collapses or morphs into something else, and honestly, that’s just because it inevitably clashes with human nature. That’s why you could almost call ideology the opposite of wisdom; wisdom strives to be universal and timeless, whereas ideology is always chasing the next fad.
It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see people conflate ideology with philosophy, but what can you really expect

Wisdom is just a concept you can apply to any facet of life. It doesn't have a shred of connection to ideology. I tend to define wisdom as a way of acting in the moment to achieve a desired outcome—sort of like a physical formula for living that remains completely neutral.
That means you can have tactical wisdom, street smarts, athletic intuition, and so on... basically, whatever you need it to be.

says:
Basically, you could have tactical wisdom, criminal cunning, sports intelligence, whatever you feel like calling it.

That’s just being crafty, not wise. It's about being shrewd or being a smooth operator.

...yes... I feel many people in this thread tend to conflate cunning with wisdom... cunning is ethically (and empathetically) "neutral"; it can be wielded for both good and evil... whereas wisdom integrates exceptional intelligence, knowledge, intuition, and empathy (which, by logical extension, brings ethics into the fold). As I have maintained previously, unlike cunning, wisdom simply cannot function as an "instrument" for evil.

Furthermore, I would argue that for wisdom, that measurable kind of intelligence (Intel) isn't particularly vital. For instance, regarding my own capacity, I fall somewhere within the top 1%, which certainly aided me in mathematics and programming... which is precisely why I chose Microsoft and then MIT, as it felt like the "path of least resistance"—I wanted to avoid having to grind through studying at home (since they didn't exactly demand that level of rote memorization there), though truth be told, I don't actually enjoy those subjects in and of themselves. Consequently, I've spent my life drifting toward things that lean more toward the arts, specifically photography, design, and music...

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself "wise" (which follows from the fact that there isn't a strong correlation with Intel), but I would certainly say that about, say, my maternal aunt. In terms of Intel, I'd place her just slightly above average—nothing extraordinary... yet, it seems to be that specific blend of everything else...

...she was one of those rare individuals who knew how to do more than just listen to a person; she could provide advice that, as a rule, turned out to be sound... all without needing a "crystal ball." That is a virtue. Intel, in its own right, is nothing special... a former colleague of mine from Microsoft used to rank in the top 0.1% rather than the top 1%, sweeping up first-place trophies in national math competitions, yet he was—and remains—a completely "lost" soul in the grand scheme of life... I have never once viewed someone like him as a "wise" person. Even though he is vastly above average in intelligence, and a genuinely honest and decent human being... I would say he doesn't possess even a m of "wisdom."

For wisdom, it seems to me that intuition and empathy are far more significant, as is the ability to synthesize those various traits (eventually including Intel, though I maintain it isn't a dominant factor, provided it isn't significantly below average).

Sigmund said:There are universal truths, and then there are particular ones—yours, mine, or anyone else's. The point is that truth as a concept only exists through the relationship between the subject and the object.

I’m not even talking about human truths or how we construct them. I’m talking about much larger truths that exist far beyond us—truths that simply *are*. We can only catch glimpses of them from a distance using various tools. Human truths are inherently limited by our own flaws, and frankly, they shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Ethan Gomez82 said:I’m not even talking about human truths or how we construct them. I’m talking about much larger truths that exist far beyond us—truths that simply *are*. We can only catch glimpses of them from a distance using various tools. Human truths are inherently limited by our own flaws, and frankly, they shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Man, you would absolutely love Lyotard

"with the disappearance of the country, thought will cease—leaving this vanishing completely
unthought. (...) If death, as a boundary, is truly that which flees and is deferred, and as the result of which thought must deal with itself from the very beginning—then death is still merely the life of our minds. But the death of the Sun is the death of the mind, because the death of death is the life of the mind."

Eric Newman75 said:

says:
Basically, you could have tactical wisdom, criminal cunning, sports intelligence, whatever you feel like calling it.

That’s just being crafty, not wise. It's about being shrewd or being a smooth operator.

Shrewdness, cunning, craftiness... to me, those all require wisdom. If you actually possess wisdom, you can master those traits. But if you try to act clever and cunning without having the actual wisdom to back it up, you just end up looking like an idiot. Such attempts are doomed to fail from the start. 😁

Well, there you have it—we've all defined this term differently. It mostly comes down to the context in which we first encountered the concept, and those contexts vary wildly. Once that's set, it stays with you for life.

gentlerider7 said:Man, you would absolutely love Lyotard

"with the disappearance of the country, thought will cease—leaving this vanishing completely
unthought. (...) If death, as a boundary, is truly that which flees and is deferred, and as the result of which thought must deal with itself from the very beginning—then death is still merely the life of our minds. But the death of the Sun is the death of the mind, because the death of death is the life of the mind."

Fair enough. If a tree grows in the woods, it carries a truth that doesn't care whether anyone actually sees it or thinks about it. That reality is far greater and deeper than any passing thought we have about it.

Eric Newman75 said:

says:
Basically, you could have tactical wisdom, criminal cunning, sports intelligence, whatever you feel like calling it.

That’s just being crafty, not wise. It's about being shrewd or being a smooth operator.

So, is Felix the Cat actually wise, or is he simply clever?

Sneaky. 😁 If my memory hasn't completely failed me—and if that supposed 'distinction' hasn't simply evaporated into thin air over the years—you clearly just read these kinds of stories 😁
fresh off the press, which would explain why you're so much more informed than I am.

Ethan Gomez82 said:I’m not even talking about human truths or how we construct them. I’m talking about much larger truths that exist far beyond us—truths that simply *are*. We can only catch glimpses of them from a distance using various tools. Human truths are inherently limited by our own flaws, and frankly, they shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I have absolutely no clue what you’re getting at here. First off, what does "human truth" even mean? Using the word "human" doesn't imply any specific quality—it just points to who owns it. Second, what kind of truths are these that just "exist"? Even if we ignore the philosophical headache of what that actually implies, wouldn't it be more logical to call them "smaller" truths if they simply *are*? Third—and this is the big one—what ethical standard are you using to decide that "human truths" shouldn't be taken seriously? If "goodness" has nothing to do with truth, like you claimed earlier, then how on earth do you know what deserves to be taken seriously in the first place?

medonaodmoru is discussing truths that exist entirely independently of human perception, perspective, or interpretation.

To one person, the "truth" might be that a thousand dollars is a massive sum of money, whereas to someone else, that same thousand dollars feels like pocket change. However, the actual truth—the kind you could verify with an objective device or a simple counter—is simply that there are exactly one thousand dollars present. That is the kind of absolute truth medonaodmoru is referring to; it isn't a "human truth" that shifts based on individual outlook or subjective bias.

@medonaodmoru
Do you have any objections to my post or my attempt at illustrating your point? Have I managed to strike the right chord?

Truth requires perception. There’s no such thing as truth just existing out there in a vacuum. Labeling some insight as "human truth" doesn't change anything—it just proves that we actually have the capacity to perceive it in the first place.

Human perception is fundamentally limited, which means any "truth" we claim to possess is inherently deceptive and subjective. Medina was discussing an objective truth—one stripped of human interpretation, perspective, or lived experience. Ethical "truths," however, don't function that way... our morality is built upon a foundation of human ethics tied to our biological makeup (including things like mirror neurons, for instance), our culture, and a whole host of other variables.

We have no way of knowing what the ethics of hypothetical extraterrestrials might look like, though it seems highly improbable they would mirror our own... seeing as we Americans can't even reach a consensus among ourselves (and that is precisely why human "truths" remain so subjective).

gentlerider7 said:Man, you would absolutely love Lyotard

"with the disappearance of the country, thought will cease—leaving this vanishing completely
unthought. (...) If death, as a boundary, is truly that which flees and is deferred, and as the result of which thought must deal with itself from the very beginning—then death is still merely the life of our minds. But the death of the Sun is the death of the mind, because the death of death is the life of the mind."

The US is just one single planet in an unimaginably vast universe. Once the Earth and the Sun are gone, life will simply persist on other worlds. Life possesses a certain stubborn quality; it tends to adapt planets to suit its own needs.

ruggedraven36 said:Truth requires perception. There’s no such thing as truth just existing out there in a vacuum. Labeling some insight as "human truth" doesn't change anything—it just proves that we actually have the capacity to perceive it in the first place.

If I’m following this correctly, the fact that there's empty space between an atom's nucleus and its shell is a fact—but it isn't "human truth." It exists regardless of whether we're around to see it. No person, no matter how brilliant or in what era, is ever going to actually experience or directly perceive that void. All we really know is the space and time that our own subjective experience layers on top of it.

Wisdom is basically just trying to think objectively about things that are inherently subjective, like ethics or perception.

At least, that's my take. When I dive into philosophy, certain arguments just feel timeless, no matter how much time passes.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Shrewdness, cunning, craftiness... to me, those all require wisdom. If you actually possess wisdom, you can master those traits. But if you try to act clever and cunning without having the actual wisdom to back it up, you just end up looking like an idiot. Such attempts are doomed to fail from the start. 😁

Well, there you have it—we've all defined this term differently. It mostly comes down to the context in which we first encountered the concept, and those contexts vary wildly. Once that's set, it stays with you for life.

Not quite. Resourcefulness, being crafty, acting slick... those terms really point toward the ability to outsmart someone or pull a fast one on them. The meanings are related, sure, but they aren't the same thing as wisdom. Even in English, there's a connection—think about how wise guys refers to mobsters or criminals in slang; the emphasis is totally on unethical behavior. They aren't wise men; they're just con artists.

Ethics is really just a functional tool designed for practical utility—basically, making group work actually function. If ethics ends up clashing with someone's interests, then it’s not true ethics; it's just an impulsive, mindless reflex. Because of that, there's no point in treating it as a separate variable in the equation of wisdom. After all, blunt, unthinking ethics can't possibly be wise.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:If I’m following this correctly, the fact that there's empty space between an atom's nucleus and its shell is a fact—but it isn't "human truth." It exists regardless of whether we're around to see it. No person, no matter how brilliant or in what era, is ever going to actually experience or directly perceive that void. All we really know is the space and time that our own subjective experience layers on top of it.

Wisdom is basically just trying to think objectively about things that are inherently subjective, like ethics or perception.

At least, that's my take. When I dive into philosophy, certain arguments just feel timeless, no matter how much time passes.

The second you label something as "truth," you've made a deduction. Every single truth is just a conclusion—period. You can't separate it from the act of concluding, nor the person doing the thinking.

bluemason3 said:Ethics is really just a functional tool designed for practical utility—basically, making group work actually function. If ethics ends up clashing with someone's interests, then it’s not true ethics; it's just an impulsive, mindless reflex. Because of that, there's no point in treating it as a separate variable in the equation of wisdom. After all, blunt, unthinking ethics can't possibly be wise.

That’s true, but the problem is that humans aren't capable of perceiving their full spectrum of interests. We mostly just see the ones tied to our immediate physical needs today or perhaps tomorrow.
In that case, ethics becomes irrelevant; what you actually need is the skill to wage war and maintain control over your enemies.
As for some grand concept of "wisdom," let's not even bother discussing it.