What is wisdom?

Sandra Murphy33 said: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.

Maybe that’s the best definition of a wise person: someone capable of looking beyond the immediate moment.

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.

Truth is essentially what happens when a subject interacts with an object. There’s no such thing as a "non-human" truth out there floating in a vacuum. Honestly, I’m not even sure "human truth" is a valid concept—I wouldn't even know how to define it, and it doesn't seem to hold water even in a theoretical debate. If you're feeling lost, just look up standard definitions of truth. Generally speaking, you have particular versus universal truths, or partial and relative perspectives standing in contrast to absolute truth. For anything else, refer back to my previous point. Using specialized jargon or a specific metalanguage certainly has its perks because it streamlines communication, but that only works if both people actually speak the same language. If you don't, you're just talking past each other, which is why I suggested trying to frame your thoughts in plain, everyday English.

feralranger said:...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).

If we accept the premise that good and evil are human constructs—wherever morality depends entirely on one's perspective—then wisdom and cunning will inevitably be subject to later revaluation and shifting definitions.
We might initially perceive an action as wise simply because it appears virtuous, yet as time passes and its negative consequences unfold, we will retroactively label it as unwise.

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.

When you claim a truth is "independent of people," you’re implying it holds that same status for every other kind of being out there.
The problem is that when we debate truth, we reduce it to a mere object; it becomes nothing more than the target of our observation.
It's a bit tricky to elevate it above itself by claiming, "It is greater than me, or all of us; it doesn't depend on us."
That sounds like the biblical golden calf—a false god manufactured by human hands and capabilities, a simple object hoisted up to the level of a Super-subject.

Experience is a completely different matter altogether.

bluemason3 said:Maybe that’s the best definition of a wise person: someone capable of looking beyond the immediate moment.

At that point, you’re talking about transcendence or pure guesswork. 😉

A Sage would be someone who, in most instances, "guesses" correctly—meaning they possess a predictive power reliable enough to base one's positioning upon.
If that foresight serves the entire community, then we call them a Sage.
If it serves nothing but their own interests, they aren't a Sage; they're just a trader... or perhaps an entrepreneur. 😎
That's it

Amanda Jackson5 said:Truth is essentially what happens when a subject interacts with an object. There’s no such thing as a "non-human" truth out there floating in a vacuum. Honestly, I’m not even sure "human truth" is a valid concept—I wouldn't even know how to define it, and it doesn't seem to hold water even in a theoretical debate. If you're feeling lost, just look up standard definitions of truth. Generally speaking, you have particular versus universal truths, or partial and relative perspectives standing in contrast to absolute truth. For anything else, refer back to my previous point. Using specialized jargon or a specific metalanguage certainly has its perks because it streamlines communication, but that only works if both people actually speak the same language. If you don't, you're just talking past each other, which is why I suggested trying to frame your thoughts in plain, everyday English.

Does wisdom equal truth?

Sages understand one another perfectly, whereas philosophers are always at each other's throats.
By that logic... have the Sages actually grasped the truth?

Sandra Murphy33 said:At that point, you’re talking about transcendence or pure guesswork. 😉

A Sage would be someone who, in most instances, "guesses" correctly—meaning they possess a predictive power reliable enough to base one's positioning upon.
If that foresight serves the entire community, then we call them a Sage.
If it serves nothing but their own interests, they aren't a Sage; they're just a trader... or perhaps an entrepreneur. 😎
That's it

Think about it this way: anything that isn't immediate is mediated rather than transcendent. Take a concept, for instance. Or look at existence itself—being is direct, whereas an absolute idea is essentially the same thing, just viewed through a lens of mediation.

Sandra Murphy33 said:At that point, you’re talking about transcendence or pure guesswork. 😉

A Sage would be someone who, in most instances, "guesses" correctly—meaning they possess a predictive power reliable enough to base one's positioning upon.
If that foresight serves the entire community, then we call them a Sage.
If it serves nothing but their own interests, they aren't a Sage; they're just a trader... or perhaps an entrepreneur. 😎
That's it

Not all guesswork is created equal. Guessing seven numbers on a Powerball ticket is wildly unreliable, so the attempt itself isn't particularly wise.

Predicting climate change, however, isn't quite the same thing. While the results aren't 100% certain, they are significantly more reliable than mere chance and certainly relevant.
That's because we aren't dealing with purely randomized events; we're dealing with highly complex systems. With enough experience, massive datasets, and decent analytical tools, you can make a pretty solid call on what's coming next.

I’d make a distinction here between guessing and predicting. If we define guessing as an attempt to hit a target in a randomized scenario—whether truly random or just appearing that way because we lack good data and analysis (either objectively or just from our limited perspective)—then prediction is its exact opposite.

Even if a prediction benefits the community, if the person is part of that group, they're still just a trader. An empathetic altruist is essentially just an automated trader who lacks the intelligence or self-awareness to recognize their own transactional mechanics. In fact, they might be so controlled by these internalized, automatic impulses that they can't even correct them when they become dysfunctional, which isn't exactly wise.

Harold Doyle3 said:Does wisdom equal truth?

Sages understand one another perfectly, whereas philosophers are always at each other's throats.
By that logic... have the Sages actually grasped the truth?

Not quite.

Harold Doyle3 said:Does wisdom equal truth?

Sages understand one another perfectly, whereas philosophers are always at each other's throats.
By that logic... have the Sages actually grasped the truth?

Well, look, maybe they've just drifted a little closer to the target than those who lack any insight at all. If we define wisdom as having the right mindset and the right conduct, then sure, you need some level of truth to function—you can't think correctly without leaning on logical truths, for one thing. And if we're talking about behaving properly, your underlying belief that a certain action will actually produce a good result has to be somewhat grounded in reality. So, wisdom isn't truth itself, but rather, truth is the necessary fuel that makes wisdom possible.

ruggedraven36 said: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.

In the example I gave earlier, we reached the truth by using specific tools to detect a fact—specifically, empty space. That fact doesn't depend on the tools themselves. It just exists.

It’s not like some mathematical truth where you conclude 1+1=2 based on one single experience.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:In the example I gave earlier, we reached the truth by using specific tools to detect a fact—specifically, empty space. That fact doesn't depend on the tools themselves. It just exists.

It’s not like some mathematical truth where you conclude 1+1=2 based on one single experience.

My point isn't that truth depends on our hardware, but rather that it hinges on perception. A thing is only true or false if there’s someone there to perceive it, to know it, or to form an opinion about it. Truth requires a bit of reflection. Truth is essentially an accurate and precise reflection of reality. As for pure existence—whether something simply *is* or *isn't*—that claim might not even apply here. Or maybe it does. That's a debate for another day.

David Robinson26 said:If we accept the premise that good and evil are human constructs—wherever morality depends entirely on one's perspective—then wisdom and cunning will inevitably be subject to later revaluation and shifting definitions.
We might initially perceive an action as wise simply because it appears virtuous, yet as time passes and its negative consequences unfold, we will retroactively label it as unwise.

That is certainly a possibility. It stems from the fact that humans are fundamentally flawed beings possessing nothing but imperfect insights. As time marches on, our perceptions may become more comprehensive or holistic, eventually exposing a profound discrepancy between our past assumptions and the reality that finally reveals itself...

Sandra Murphy33 said:When you claim a truth is "independent of people," you’re implying it holds that same status for every other kind of being out there.
The problem is that when we debate truth, we reduce it to a mere object; it becomes nothing more than the target of our observation.
It's a bit tricky to elevate it above itself by claiming, "It is greater than me, or all of us; it doesn't depend on us."
That sounds like the biblical golden calf—a false god manufactured by human hands and capabilities, a simple object hoisted up to the level of a Super-subject.

Experience is a completely different matter altogether.

I just figured matter was made of atoms and that there were no people involved.

Sandra Murphy33 said:When you claim a truth is "independent of people," you’re implying it holds that same status for every other kind of being out there.
The problem is that when we debate truth, we reduce it to a mere object; it becomes nothing more than the target of our observation.
It's a bit tricky to elevate it above itself by claiming, "It is greater than me, or all of us; it doesn't depend on us."
That sounds like the biblical golden calf—a false god manufactured by human hands and capabilities, a simple object hoisted up to the level of a Super-subject.

Experience is a completely different matter altogether.

Look, people can argue about this all they want. But from what I've seen? Kant was right.

Amanda Jackson5 said:My point isn't that truth depends on our hardware, but rather that it hinges on perception. A thing is only true or false if there’s someone there to perceive it, to know it, or to form an opinion about it. Truth requires a bit of reflection. Truth is essentially an accurate and precise reflection of reality. As for pure existence—whether something simply *is* or *isn't*—that claim might not even apply here. Or maybe it does. That's a debate for another day.

Fine, thanks for the lesson. I clearly mixed up facts with truth.

ruggedraven36 said:We don't need to sit around "agreeing on a definition." You can't separate deep insight from ethics—it's impossible. Just look at anyone throughout history who was actually considered wise; they all shared the same core. Every single one of them was viewed as both a good person and an expert on the things that actually matter. Wisdom is simply where theory meets practice—where the truth aligns with what's good.

There you go again, beating the same old drum. Why should I care about how people defined "sages" in some bygone era? We don't even talk about "sages" anymore; that's just intellectual archaeology, and frankly, neither do I. I’m talking about wisdom and wise individuals, not those ancient "sages." They're dinosaurs—an extinct species that hasn't been relevant for ages.

feralranger said: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?

I don't disagree. I just have an addendum. 😁

The whole concept of "truth" is tied to human cognition—it’s about how we perceive reality. In that sense, truth doesn't exist outside our own mental processing. There are simply things and events that remain unconceptualized. When I talk about truth existing beyond humanity, I mean everything that *could* be understood if our minds possessed infinite reach. But they don't. So, those truths remain forever out of our grasp.

feralranger said: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).

Thanks. That’s exactly where I was headed with this.

Eric Newman75 said: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.

Here we go again, the so-called "wise men." Honestly, what even is a wise man? I’ve never met one in my life, nor have I heard of a single real one. To me, the whole concept feels like chasing a unicorn. I’ll admit, I’ve always treated the term "sage" as a joke. I’ve met plenty of pretenders, though. 😁

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.

I honestly have nothing to add. I agree completely.

Ethan Gomez82 said:There you go again, beating the same old drum. Why should I care about how people defined "sages" in some bygone era? We don't even talk about "sages" anymore; that's just intellectual archaeology, and frankly, neither do I. I’m talking about wisdom and wise individuals, not those ancient "sages." They're dinosaurs—an extinct species that hasn't been relevant for ages.

So you're distinguishing between wise people and "sages"? You think sages aren't actually wise?

The truth is, you aren't even talking about wisdom or wise people. Being smart, being crafty, being street-smart—even having a massive amount of knowledge—doesn't equal wisdom. Not individually, and certainly not combined. Whether it was fifty years ago or right now, you can't call someone wise if they have technical intellect but zero moral backbone. Kindness and humanity aren't optional extras when it comes to wisdom—unless we're just making up our own definitions to suit ourselves.