What is wisdom?

Let’s steer this back to the main point, shall we? Wisdom, in my view, is really just about self-preservation. Like I mentioned before, you can't exactly look at a drunkard, or some pure hedonist, or even someone constantly chasing adrenaline through reckless stunts, and call them wise. To me, wisdom is having that internal compass—knowing how to truly read the room you're standing in and reacting in a way that actually makes sense for your situation.

jadeheron5 said: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? 😁

Falling for the wrong person isn't reserved for idiots.
There's a reason people say that first breath of love is often the final gasp of common sense.
I suspect Socrates understood that perfectly well.
The real question is whether he was being genuinely sincere when justifying why he stayed with her, or if he was just a man willing to own the consequences of his own bad decisions.

Harold Doyle3 said:Falling for the wrong person isn't reserved for idiots.
There's a reason people say that first breath of love is often the final gasp of common sense.
I suspect Socrates understood that perfectly well.
The real question is whether he was being genuinely sincere when justifying why he stayed with her, or if he was just a man willing to own the consequences of his own bad decisions.

It’s possible he truly loved her, but she just wasn't on his level. And then there's her—just an average woman expecting those standard gestures of affection that your typical guy would offer. He couldn't bring himself to do that; to him, it felt trivial, almost patronizing. So, her entire world basically imploded because she felt worthless and replaceable, which led to all those emotional outbursts.

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.

If it isn't relevant, there’s really no point in bringing it up.

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.

We actually know enough about that era to write about what really happened, rather than just speculating on what might have been. You just have to put in the work and do some actual reading.

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.

I have to disagree. Whether you’re looking at the scientists of today or those from centuries ago, they possess all the same flaws as anyone else. They aren't immune to greed, stealing intellectual property, or chasing power and money. If you take a moment to actually read through some biographies—of both the legends who have passed on and those still walking among us—you'll see that pattern clearly.

Your theory that they belong to some other world just doesn't hold water.

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.

How many individuals of varying IQ levels have you actually studied or looked into?

Even the most established researchers in psychology, neuroscience, or anything touching on cognitive function and IQ wouldn't dare make a claim like this. You simply don't see academics who have spent decades studying brain development or learning methodologies venturing into such territory. It’s outside the bounds of serious scientific discourse.

jadeheron5 said:It’s possible he truly loved her, but she just wasn't on his level. And then there's her—just an average woman expecting those standard gestures of affection that your typical guy would offer. He couldn't bring himself to do that; to him, it felt trivial, almost patronizing. So, her entire world basically imploded because she felt worthless and replaceable, which led to all those emotional outbursts.

You don't need to be a philosopher to see this; you just need enough life experience to realize that meeting basic survival needs is the foundation of existence. You have to secure food, shelter, clothing, and shoes first... only then can you move on to philosophy, athletics, or the arts.

People who fail to grasp this lack maturity and depth. In my view, it was Socrates who was immature and unprepared for reality, not his wife.

Sam Martinez9 said:You don't need to be a philosopher to see this; you just need enough life experience to realize that meeting basic survival needs is the foundation of existence. You have to secure food, shelter, clothing, and shoes first... only then can you move on to philosophy, athletics, or the arts.

People who fail to grasp this lack maturity and depth. In my view, it was Socrates who was immature and unprepared for reality, not his wife.

I wasn't talking about actual athletics or high culture—I’ve been active in sports since I was a kid, myself. I was referring to that mindless social posturing. You know, showing up to some gathering just to flaunt a new designer bag or whatever. It's these primitive little social games that matter so much to people of average intelligence, because their entire world revolves around labels, trends, and sucking up to others just to feel like they have some sort of self-worth.

As for biographies and the legends of the past, none of them spent their time engaging in that kind of shallow chatter. If they spoke, they spoke about their work or their passions. Some were incredibly eccentric, like Tesla. I can't think of a single true genius who spent their days obsessing over Instagram, doing that whole "follow me and I'll follow you back" nonsense.😁

says:
Think about someone with a 150 IQ for a second. It’s a totally different way of processing things. Their brain handles a massive amount of data all at once. For an average person, this kind of high-level thinking is just a tiny, irrelevant detail, but for them, it’s basically their whole world.

I think saying it's a completely different way of thinking is a stretch. There's a lot of nuance there. Honestly, someone scoring a 160 on an IQ test isn't necessarily using some alien logic. They usually use the same problem-solving frameworks we all do; they just use them much more efficiently.

Another thing is how we actually measure intelligence. Most tests use an interval scale, not a ratio scale. That means zero doesn't represent a total absence of intelligence. Because the gaps aren't equal, you can't just claim that someone with a 160 IQ is twice as smart as someone with an 80. You could make that argument if we were using a ratio scale, but from what I know, standard American IQ testing doesn't work that way.

Gerald Jackson48 said:

says:
Think about someone with a 150 IQ for a second. It’s a totally different way of processing things. Their brain handles a massive amount of data all at once. For an average person, this kind of high-level thinking is just a tiny, irrelevant detail, but for them, it’s basically their whole world.

I think saying it's a completely different way of thinking is a stretch. There's a lot of nuance there. Honestly, someone scoring a 160 on an IQ test isn't necessarily using some alien logic. They usually use the same problem-solving frameworks we all do; they just use them much more efficiently.

Another thing is how we actually measure intelligence. Most tests use an interval scale, not a ratio scale. That means zero doesn't represent a total absence of intelligence. Because the gaps aren't equal, you can't just claim that someone with a 160 IQ is twice as smart as someone with an 80. You could make that argument if we were using a ratio scale, but from what I know, standard American IQ testing doesn't work that way.

A highly intelligent person naturally ends up having different priorities and behaviors. It’s almost biological. They simply absorb a much higher volume of information about everything around them and process it more deeply. Consequently, certain social dynamics—you know, the whole "be my friend so I can follow you on Instagram" type of triviality—become totally irrelevant to them.

I don't mean to imply they aren't human, of course. They have flaws, they make mistakes, they trip up just like anyone else. It's just that they tend to be focused on much larger matters than the average person. Things that seem vital to the average person often barely even make it onto their radar.
It really comes down to a different value system. One might even argue they don't care much about their own personal status, but rather find value solely in the work or the subject they are pursuing.

jadeheron5 said:Let’s steer this back to the main point, shall we? Wisdom, in my view, is really just about self-preservation. Like I mentioned before, you can't exactly look at a drunkard, or some pure hedonist, or even someone constantly chasing adrenaline through reckless stunts, and call them wise. To me, wisdom is having that internal compass—knowing how to truly read the room you're standing in and reacting in a way that actually makes sense for your situation.

But why not? How does one actually become wise?

Your comment actually made me think of Charles Bukowski, and honestly, I've read so many profound, wise things written by that absolute drunk and hedonist—a man who never once spared life and certainly never spared himself, always dancing right on that razor-thin edge where wisdom meets pure madness in those intense, high-stakes moments.

There are no set rules
no magic formulas
for finding wisdom

But I truly feel that if a person spends their whole life playing it safe and shielding themselves from everything, they might never actually find their way to being wise.

Joseph Murphy10 said: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.

We didn't "expose" anything. Everything being said about Xanthippe here is just nonsense—cheap gossip. There’s so much actual substance in a Socratic biography that Xanthippe barely even registers, yet this thread makes it sound like she was some central figure in his life. It’s the same old misogynistic posturing we see on this sub constantly. And to make matters worse, now the whole discussion on wisdom is being trashed by people obsessing over Intelligence Quotients. 🤦

steelridge58 said:But why not? How does one actually become wise?

Your comment actually made me think of Charles Bukowski, and honestly, I've read so many profound, wise things written by that absolute drunk and hedonist—a man who never once spared life and certainly never spared himself, always dancing right on that razor-thin edge where wisdom meets pure madness in those intense, high-stakes moments.

There are no set rules
no magic formulas
for finding wisdom

But I truly feel that if a person spends their whole life playing it safe and shielding themselves from everything, they might never actually find their way to being wise.

To be honest, I never really viewed Bukowski as someone "wise." To me, he was just controversial—more of a rebel meant to provoke common sense.
Sort of like a clown performing for adults.

A wise person can be anyone, really, but nobody is simply born with it. Wisdom is something you earn, depending on how much you learn from your own mistakes—or the mistakes of others.
And then, of course, you have those old folk sayings and proverbs that just get passed down through generations.

It’s all about aligning one's thoughts and actions with some sort of universal ideal of intellect and conduct. I suppose a wise man is simply someone who has compressed and deepened that alignment to its absolute limit—just enough, perhaps, to keep from slipping entirely into madness.

jadeheron5 said:To be honest, I never really viewed Bukowski as someone "wise." To me, he was just controversial—more of a rebel meant to provoke common sense.
Sort of like a clown performing for adults.

A wise person can be anyone, really, but nobody is simply born with it. Wisdom is something you earn, depending on how much you learn from your own mistakes—or the mistakes of others.
And then, of course, you have those old folk sayings and proverbs that just get passed down through generations.

Exactly, which is why having a high, low, or even just an average Intelligence Quotient doesn't actually serve as a reliable yardstick for true wisdom.

Wisdom tends to travel through the vessel of religion, doesn't it? You look at Christianity, and you have the Commandments, or those little parables—stories meant to highlight our own human failings. Then you have something like Buddhism, where the wisdom is much more of an internal journey, focusing on how one might actually find a sense of peace in this chaotic world.
There’s also this almost psychiatric quality to wisdom, isn't there? It feels healing, in a way. It exists to give people a sort of compass, helping them navigate those heavy decisions we all face eventually.

I suppose there might be a way to link emotional and social intelligence to the concept of true wisdom, if one looks closely enough.

steelridge58 said:Exactly, which is why having a high, low, or even just an average Intelligence Quotient doesn't actually serve as a reliable yardstick for true wisdom.

I wouldn't say that... honestly, I’d argue that the biggest factor in being wise is how much you naturally tend toward harmony. On the flip side, being a rebel or acting on pure impulse? That's basically the antithesis of wisdom.

This whole idea about intelligence being the core of everything dates all the way back to Socratic thought. And look, if he were actually "smart" in the modern sense, maybe he wouldn't have been such a fool for not helping out with the firewood while his wife was busy cooking dinner.😁

Laura Jones56 said:I suppose there might be a way to link emotional and social intelligence to the concept of true wisdom, if one looks closely enough.

Well, I don't know about that... it feels more like empathy to me. Take that old saying, "man is a wolf to man"—it’s definitely a wise observation, right? But it’s the absolute opposite of being empathetic. To my mind, wisdom isn't required to be kind or empathetic; it's strictly about common sense and the lessons you pick up from life experience.

jadeheron5 said:Well, I don't know about that... it feels more like empathy to me. Take that old saying, "man is a wolf to man"—it’s definitely a wise observation, right? But it’s the absolute opposite of being empathetic. To my mind, wisdom isn't required to be kind or empathetic; it's strictly about common sense and the lessons you pick up from life experience.

Not really.

jadeheron5 said:Well, I don't know about that... it feels more like empathy to me. Take that old saying, "man is a wolf to man"—it’s definitely a wise observation, right? But it’s the absolute opposite of being empathetic. To my mind, wisdom isn't required to be kind or empathetic; it's strictly about common sense and the lessons you pick up from life experience.

No.