Define Wisdom

joshcork

What is it and when is one considered wise?

watty

It's easier to recognise foolishness.

A combination of Intelligence, Experience, Insight and intuition....

Intelligent and/or Experienced people can be very lacking in Wisdom.

I'm not talking about the "limited" measure of Intelliigence "measured" by and IQ test. An IQ test can give high scores to an "Idiot" that has practised similar tests a lot, and very low scores to someone with very high intelligence but little education and/or from a very different culture.

This is a very hard question.

If I even "really" could define "intelligence" I could write a computer program to mimic it. Similarly "Wisdom". It is nothing to do with the "Power" of the computer or programming language. If the computer was not powerful enough it would just be very slow intelligence or wisdom (Come back next week or tommorrow for the answer).


It is like "Good" or "Evil". There is universal agreement across cultures and throughout history as to "good" and "evil" in general sense, even if detial of laws and offences and punishments vary.

No-one has ever thought it "Heroic or Good" to kill a good Parent, a loving wife, a loyal servant etc.

No-one has ever thought it wise or right to steal and disregard the rights of others.

When society or people believe in a God(s) they univerally have thought it very unwise to curse that God or neglect worship of him. Real athiests (as apposed to Agnostics) are rare. Most "wise" folk think it advisable to not entirely rule out the "god option".

Knowing your own deficiencies and ingnorance is generally regarded as the beginning of Wisdom.

I expect very wise persons are thought so more by others, than themselves, as pride and arrogance usually gets in the way of making wise decisions

Fysh

Personally, I'd probably define it something along the following lines:

"the ability to respond to circumstances and react or manipulate the reactions of others in such a way as to achieve your desired outcome, likely building on both personal experience and perceived experiences of others"...

Trebor

to me wisdom is the ability to learn from your experiences and to not repeat your past mistakes.

chewy

the abilty to learn and adapt and to relasie your strenghts and weaknesses

also to know you know very little

keu

knowledge is the accumulation of information (power), wisdom is knowing what to do with it.

Fysh

Originally posted by remote viewer
knowledge is the accumulation of information (power), wisdom is knowing what to do with it.

Surely that means there's no distinction? Defining wisdom as something that can be known means that you can accumulate information on "what to do with information" and therefore wisdom and knowledge are essentially interchangeable.

However, it is necessary when discussing "wisdom" to make a distinction between raw data of the simple input variety and complex data which governs our thought processes.

By this I mean that there are at least 2 types of knowledge, which I am splitting into raw data and complex data for want of better categories. Raw data is that which acts as simple input - for example, visual information on the location of an object you are looking for. Complex data is that which can alter behavioural patterns or create new ones - for example, learning about cars and other automobiles leading to an avoidance of running across motorways.

I'm sure other philosophers have spoken about this with more depth and eloquence than myself, but I don't know who. Any suggestions on who to read for more information on this sort of discussion?

ferdi

Originally posted by remote viewer
knowledge is the accumulation of information

i disagree.

Knowledge is true justified belief - ie: "the grass is pink" is not knowledge, "the grass is green" is true and justified as i can us my sense perception to that the grass is green.

Socrates was called the wisest man in athens not because he had the most information or all the answers but because he could could sense and admit that he didnt have all the answers.

wisdom is nothing to do with Knowledge.

"i wish i could think a thought which is so difficult i cant think it....but i cant"

a wise statment but no knowledge is displayed.

Fysh

While I agree with your definition of knowledge as data that can be empirically verified (if you are willing to trust your senses and their perceptions of the physical world, that is), I think that your definition of wisdom is a little narrow in that it seems to boil down to an awareness of one's limitations.

I would argue that awareness of one's limitations is important, but can still be mostly considered to be raw data. Wisdom still remains as an ability to use this raw data to manipulate events in order to achieve desired outcomes. Not that I'm plugging my own argument or anything

McGinty

First of in my personal belief I will state what wisdom is not:-

It is not intelligence and it is not knowledge.

I do not claim to be wise.

I believe that wisdom is a form of self enlightenment, a form of awareness; that is awareness within oneself and awareness of the wonders of the world, and yet with this wisdom, the more one learns the more one knows less, because life becomes a greater and greater mystery.

So wisdom to me is, the more I learn, the less I know.

keu

<What is it and when is one considered wise?>

Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom." - Tao Te Ching.
From that definition one could be considered wise when one knows who they are.

accumulation of information is relative, if you define knowledge as data input, inevitably the wisdom you derive from life would pertain to the application of that information...and thats who you are.

does it make sense then to say that knowledge is a tool and wisdom is the craft, everyone labours in their own way, with their own tools to produce a some form of representation of who they are... and in this way define the meaning of his/her life.

which leads me to ask the question, do things really have meaning, or only the meaning we give it.

"All the arts we practice are apprenticeship. The big art is our life." - M. C. Richards

Fysh

Originally posted by remote viewer
<What is it and when is one considered wise?>

Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom." - Tao Te Ching.
From that definition one could be considered wise when one knows who they are.

accumulation of information is relative, if you define knowledge as data input, inevitably the wisdom you derive from life would pertain to the application of that information...and thats who you are.

does it make sense then to say that knowledge is a tool and wisdom is the craft, everyone labours in their own way, with their own tools to produce a some form of representation of who they are... and in this way define the meaning of his/her life.

We have no definition for intelligence in the above statement, which makes it too fluffy to be a genuine part of an argument.

Aside from this, your second statement appears to suggest that you can only learn to know yourself by processing data and applying it in some way. Surely the application is irrelevant? To know oneself one must ask questions and find answers to them, but these answers do not necessarily have to involve physical action or application of any ideas in order to be found.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you describe wisdom as a "craft", but I would have to question your suggestion that the ultimate drive of an individual is to create a representation of who they are.

originally posted by remove viewer:which leads me to ask the question, do things really have meaning, or only the meaning we give it.

"All the arts we practice are apprenticeship. The big art is our life." - M. C. Richards

Very much off-topic as a question - if you are interested in following that line of questioning, I'd suggest starting a new thread so that things don't get confused.

I assume the quote at the end is meant to tie in with the preceding paragraph about wisdom being a craft and so on?

keu

<Surely the application is irrelevant? To know oneself one must ask questions and find answers to them, but these answers do not necessarily have to involve physical action or application of any ideas in order to be found.>
Actually I’m saying the application is entirely relevant…such is wisdom.
Who mentioned physical action?

<I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you describe wisdom as a "craft",>
I used the word craft as an part of an analogy,
dictionary.com-“Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency.”

<but I would have to question your suggestion that the ultimate drive of an individual is to create a representation of who they are.>
Ok… that sounds enjoyable

<I assume the quote at the end is meant to tie in with the preceding paragraph about wisdom being a craft and so on?>
Yes

<We have no definition for intelligence in the above statement, which makes it too fluffy to be a genuine part of an argument.>
…again, when taken in context, it is used part of an analogy
btw..I hadn't considered that this exchange was supposed to be an argument...

Aside from this, your second statement appears to suggest that you can only learn to know yourself by processing data and applying it in some way. Surely the application is irrelevant?

Why?
In your own post you defined wisdom as "the ability to respond to circumstances and react or manipulate the reactions of others in such a way as to achieve your desired outcome…”
the ability to respond? Is that not just applying yourself to a situation..and if so..what are the abilities you are applying?



"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance." - Robert Quillen

simu

People interested in this topic might be like to read "The Wisdom of Life", an essay by Schopenhauer. It's available online here. A quote from the start of this text to give you an idea of his take on wisdom:

In these pages I shall speak of _The Wisdom of Life_ in the common meaning of the term, as the art, namely, of ordering our lives so as to obtain the greatest possible amount of pleasure and success

It's long but lively to read - he discusses what happiness is and why many people, instead of achieving happiness are drawn into lives of misery.

What do ye think? Is this what wisdom is?

Fysh

Originally posted by remote viewer
Surely the application is irrelevant? To know oneself one must ask questions and find answers to them, but these answers do not necessarily have to involve physical action or application of any ideas in order to be found.
Actually I’m saying the application is entirely relevant…such is wisdom.
Who mentioned physical action?

Well, ok. Can you then define what you mean by "applying information", as per your statement in a previous post that "inevitably the wisdom you derive from life would pertain to the application of that information...and thats who you are".

I'm not exactly sure what you mean when you describe wisdom as a "craft",
I used the word craft as an part of an analogy,
dictionary.com-“Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency.”

OK, but I don't see how you mean to consider wisdom a craft. How does one utilise one's wisdom and refine it?

but I would have to question your suggestion that the ultimate drive of an individual is to create a representation of who they are.
Ok… that sounds enjoyable

...In case it wasn't clear the first time around, I dispute your assertion that an individual's ultimate drive is to create a representation of themselves through their wisdom. I'm not even entirely sure that this is possible, but in any case I would certainly state that the urge to provide for one's desires and needs, such as procuring food and shelter, or finding a mate, takes clear precedence of the "urge" to create a representation of oneself.

We have no definition for intelligence in the above statement, which makes it too fluffy to be a genuine part of an argument.
…again, when taken in context, it is used part of an analogy
btw..I hadn't considered that this exchange was supposed to be an argument...

I refer you to dictionary.com "Argument":

A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood;
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason;
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.

The above is not a complete definition: the word can also be interpreted as meaning "quarrel or dispute", however when used in a discussion or academic discourse it is customary to interpret it as per the preceding paragraph.

As a separate issue, you may be using the word "intelligence" as part of an analogy. Since you haven't defined your usage of the word, I (and presumably others) am still left in a position where the intended meaning of your analogy is unclear.

Aside from this, your second statement appears to suggest that you can only learn to know yourself by processing data and applying it in some way. Surely the application is irrelevant?

Why?
In your own post you defined wisdom as "the ability to respond to circumstances and react or manipulate the reactions of others in such a way as to achieve your desired outcome…”
the ability to respond? Is that not just applying yourself to a situation..and if so..what are the abilities you are applying?

The ability to respond to external stimuli would indeed involve applying oneself to a situation. Specifically, applying whatever skill one deems best suited to the situation in hand, whether that be skill with weapons to hunt food for dinner or sly social manipulation in order to gain the confidence of a given individual.

One may learn to know oneself better through applying these skills; what I maintain is that one does not necessarily have to apply these skills in order to know oneself better. That is to say, application of skills is not the only path to knowing oneself. All that a person requires to know themselves is the ability to ask questions of themselves and provide an honest answer. Hence my distinction between my postulate and yours.

"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance." - Robert Quillen

Congratulations. Your ability to quote someone who shares your incomplete definition of the word "argument" is clearly well-honed. Since it provides no salient contribution to the theme at hand, however, I shall refrain from commenting upon it further.

Edited to correct formatting

keu

dear fysh....

it seems that your philosophy is based on redefining the english language to suit your own comprehension of it, I trust this is your application of your postulate.."the ability to respond to circumstances and react or manipulate the reactions of others in such a way as to achieve your desired outcome…”

which suggests to me that your preferred outcome is one where you are victorious..by any means.( particularly manipulation)

"The ability to respond to external stimuli would indeed involve applying oneself to a situation. Specifically, applying whatever skill one deems best suited to the situation in hand, whether that be skill with weapons to hunt food for dinner or sly social manipulation in order to gain the confidence of a given individual.

One may learn to know oneself better through applying these skills; what I maintain is that one does not necessarily have to apply these skills in order to know oneself better. That is to say, application of skills is not the only path to knowing oneself. All that a person requires to know themselves is the ability to ask questions of themselves and provide an honest answer. Hence my distinction between my postulate and yours."

..why do you keep changing the words?
suddenly "the ability to respond to circumstances" has become.."the ability to respond to external stimuli"
...this is just manipulating the information to satisfy your postulate.

I would suggest if you have not got a definition for intelligence..look it up in the dictionary and then apply it to the analogy.

Y'know I read everyones definition of wisdom...and accepted each of them on their own merits..it's not my desire to redefine anothers ideaology...I can always find a point of common interest or similar points of view and it is the sharing of them I find enjoyable or interesting....

but I'm finding this discussion pointless, these comments are hardly constructive by any means..just purely argumentative.(and boring)..I can only determine (through my innate wisdom) that by these means you are aiming at achieving philosopher of the month award, (or some other indicator of your own self importance) rather than finding common points of interest for discussion.

yaawwwn

DadaKopf

I used the word craft as an part of an analogy,
dictionary.com-“Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency.”

This definition sounds like sophistry. An ancient 'craft' or enterprise in Rome or Greece through which people made money by talking in circles, only sounding like they were saying something.

Sort of like Bu****e/Blairite-style politics.

Surely this isn't 'wisdom'.

keu

btw..everytime you respond to this issue, you are applying yourself (your ideas, assumations, based on the information provided) to this situation and in doing so continue to confirm my definition.

knowledge is the accumulation of information (power), wisdom is knowing what to do with it.

and as for your own perceptions of the word craft..thats just a personal value...as is mine..mine is derived from the fact that my father was a "craftsman" by trade.

keu

craftsman=carpenter

wise man he was too

Fysh

Remote Viewer:

I have repeatedly asked you to expand on your original points because, to me, they are not clear. I have in turn expanded on my original points in order to clarify them in light of queries you've made.

You may think that repeating yourself again and again will eventually lead to me understanding you; it won't. Only the worst teachers use repetition as a tool.

Similarly, you accuse me of changing my meaning when I change my words (well, actually you say I "keep" changing my words, even though it has so far happened once, and then only in order to try and better explain myself). "Responding to stimuli" and "responding to circumstances" are not identical statements in that one word has been changed; however, in terms of my suggested meaning and the framework into which they fit, they can be accepted as interchangeable. If your inherent pedatry will not let you accept this, then there is very little point in carrying on your participation in this discussion, since discussion requires elaboration and development of ideas, which will normally involve "changing the words" at one stage or another. If you still don't understand what I'm getting at, please say so and I will try to find another way of phrasing myself in order to try and clarify this for you.

You have reverted to your original statement in which you first say that knowledge is the accumulating of information/power, and then define wisdom as being a form of knowledge ("knowing" what to do with said information/power). This may be down to something as simple as your specific choice of words or it may be inherent to the point you are making - at the moment I'm not sure and would like to have this made more clear.

As regards your complaint about me asking for your definition of intelligence - you have previously proved you were unaware of the multiple meanings of the word "argument". Don't blame me for the fact that you arent' making yourself clear.

You may "determine" if you so wish that I am trying to be Philosopher of the Month. You determine incorrectly. The only thing I am striving for in this discussion is a better understanding of someone else's (in this case yours) opinion on a philosophical question. Since philosophy is based on logic and reasoning, it is fair for me (and you, and anyone else) to question or challenge anything they either don't understand or aren't in agreement with. So much the better if this can be done in some way which can lead to constructive discussion. So far I've asked you to expand, explain or define several points which you've mentioned. You have avoided the question, tried to belittle me by suggesting that there can only be one definition of certain words (despite having previously been proved wrong on a similar point), claimed to be bored of the whole discussion when I continued to question the vague statements you hold to as a "philosophy", and resorted to accusing me of "redefining the english language" as a defence of your original posts (often a last resort who cannot otherwise back up their argument).

If you don't want your ideas to be questioned and challenged, it might be worth not posting them on the Philosophy board.

keu

I submit..I do not know what your getting at.
I do enjoy constructive criticism fysh, I am all for learning and expanding but I don't see the point in deconstructing a definition to a point of meaningless, when that definition is being applied in a constructive fashion as we speak.

Just for clarification...my idea of intelligence is based on the properties of sentience, or consciousness..or just being alive.

and as for the teacher bit....we obviously have gone to different schools of thought, I'm always the student.


<...This definition sounds like sophistry. An ancient 'craft' or enterprise in Rome or Greece through which people made money by talking in circles, only sounding like they were saying something.

Sort of like Bu****e/Blairite-style politics.

Surely this isn't 'wisdom'>


very few wise politicians around.....

KlodaX

does it really matter? ... after all .. what is in a definition?

would you not decide what is wise to your ownself? .. in that respect what you would descide ... would describe wisdom?

40crush41

does it really matter? ... after all .. what is in a definition?

now thats profound KlodaX

I would say that wisdom is the ability to apply what you have learned.. idk, i think theres something about knowledge and wisdom that go together.

letsee, this is a tough one.. its just one of those words that people say and don't think about.. "thats very wise of you" or.. "thats very nice" .. u ever think about what nice it? not to fall off topic: my take-

u acquire information.. master it and call it ur own > turns into knowledge where u apply what you have learned > then look at this knowledge differently than other people.. make up ur own thoughts about it and express how u feel about it.. not just verbatim from what u have been taught.. and these saying and these thoughts turn into wisdom. when u share an idea that makes someone look at that information differently than before u have become wise.
is there anyone following me? or am im just rambling on.. singing my song.. la la la..

well- hopefully that was wise of me- if not, thanks anyway for reading
~beth

Fysh

KlodaX : If you want to have any meaningful discussion of an idea, it needs to have its original points clearly defined so that the chain of reasoning can be as self-evident as possible.

A definition is defined (hah!) as follows from dictionary.com:

"A statement conveying fundamental character.
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
The act of making clear and distinct"

Aside from the fact that it's a necessary part of any chain of reasoning, it's also mentioned in the charter. So it's a legitimate request as opposed to me being annoying and trying to pin down a vaguely-expressed statement into something specific.


Remote Viewer :

I don't mean for this discussion to reach a point where one person has to submit to another's opinion - the only reason for accepting another person's ideas should be your own judgement that their reasoning and starting points are sound.

I'm interested in your idea of what wisdom is, not least because it is apparently similar to my own idea, but as of yet I am unclear on how you distinguish between knowledge and wisdom, and how applying one's skills supports your definition of wisdom and knowledge. Further elaboration on your part regarding both these points would be welcomed by myself.

Since I think you may be unclear on my position, I will paraphrase my earlier post as follows:

Knowledge and wisdom should not be considered interchangeable terms. They are two distinct things.

Knowledge should be considered raw data. Any kind of input from the outside world is knowledge, no matter how useful or apparently useless it may be. Knowledge thus is any information which requires some interaction with the outside world in order to be obtained. As such, an awareness of one's limitations and abilities would be knowledge since an evaluation of these abilities and limitations would require interaction with the outside world.

Wisdom should be considered an ability to recognize one's inner desires and urges and conduct oneself in such a way as to best satisfy these urges. An intrinsic part of this ability would thus be the ability to process and use one's knowledge in order to manipulate external events or reactions in such a way as to lead to circumstances which best satisfy one's desires and urges.

I hope this makes my position more clear, but if it doesn't, please say so.

keu

do you consider wisdom as disciplined thought?

Fysh

It doesn't immediately appear to fit into my definition. As such I would say disciplined thought (by which I assume you refer to philosophical or scientific considerations and pursuits) is an ability, a skill that can be learned and refined.

However, it could be argued that wisdom and the ability to reason or think coherently should be linked. Offhand I can't think of a way to refute this suggestion, so I'll have to think about how I might expand my current definition to incorporate this. Will have to post again later, methinks.

Trebor

Originally posted by Fysh

Wisdom should be considered an ability to recognize one's inner desires and urges and conduct oneself in such a way as to best satisfy these urges. An intrinsic part of this ability would thus be the ability to process and use one's knowledge in order to manipulate external events or reactions in such a way as to lead to circumstances which best satisfy one's desires and urges.

So you are saying that wisdom(for you) means using what you know to get what you want?

i find that had to accept, surly wisdom is learning from experiences and thus be in a postion to give advice to someone who is about to do what you have done before so that they do not have the same difficulties that you have had.

on a side note: to me intelligence is a person's ability to comprehend data and understand it's use.

DadaKopf

knowledge is the accumulation of information (power), wisdom is knowing what to do with it.

do you consider wisdom as disciplined thought?

Foucault used the term power/knowledge to denote that knowledge constitutes a form of power. Power/knowledge, when exercised (power only exists when in relation with other people) results in a 'disciplining' of socially constructed reality. Disciplining means that those in power create discourses, which construct reality, in order to dominate. Power struggles, and disciplining, occur at all levels of human relations (perhaps even with nature). This form of power is manifested as a 'paradigm' - a set of rules that determine what may and may not be thought and said in a particlar place or epoch.

So, one could argue that (power/)knowledge is very often the opposite of wisdom.

By your definition, using this framework, wisdom as applied knowledge means domination.

Unless one were to map a route beyond current power/knowledge paradigms and apply knowledge in a way that destroys the constructed foundations of all power/knowledge.

And then we would have to start again.

keu

I have to stress, the question.."do you consider wisdom as disciplined thought?" was just that, a question...so it's not really a part of my framework, just a question.
so your reference to it in your summation that "wisdom applied knowledge means domination." is misguided and really not what I'm suggesting.

but I note your other points, I was very aware when I posted my original statement, that the inclusion of the word power was open to debate. I was just wondering when we were going to get around to it.

here are a just a few definitions for the word power........:)

pow·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pour)
n.
The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural: her powers of concentration.
Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might. See Synonyms at strength.
The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.
A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others: the western powers.
The might of a nation, political organization, or similar group.
Forcefulness; effectiveness: a novel of unusual power.
Chiefly Upper Southern U.S. A large number or amount. See Regional Note at powerful.

The energy or motive force by which a physical system or machine is operated: turbines turned by steam power; a sailing ship driven by wind power.
The capacity of a system or machine to operate: a vehicle that runs under its own power.
Electrical or mechanical energy, especially as used to assist or replace human energy.
Electricity supplied to a home, building, or community: a storm that cut off power to the whole region.
Physics. The rate at which work is done, expressed as the amount of work per unit time and commonly measured in units such as the watt and horsepower.
Electricity.
The product of applied potential difference and current in a direct-current circuit.
The product of the effective values of the voltage and current with the cosine of the phase angle between current and voltage in an alternating-current circuit.
Mathematics.
See exponent.
The number of elements in a finite set.
Statistics. The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis where it is false.
A measure of the magnification of an optical instrument, such as a microscope or telescope.
powers Christianity. The sixth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.
Archaic. An armed force.

adj.
Of or relating to political, social, or economic control: a power struggle; a power base.
Operated with mechanical or electrical energy in place of bodily exertion: a power tool; power car windows.
Of or relating to the generation or transmission of electricity: power companies; power lines.
Informal. Of or relating to influential business or professional practices: a pinstriped suit with a power tie; met with high-level executives at a power breakfast.




when a text conatins the words "power or discipline" people get very jumpy...

I'm going to take this defintion "The energy or motive force by which a physical system or machine is operated:"
but I'm going to replace physical system with human being and machine with brain..(or better still the mind.)..

therefore the power(knowledge) I refer to is the basic motivational energy (thought) which drives us to ask questions, answer them, query them, (objectivly and subjectivly) and well..just about all the other functions the human being is capable of in order to experience anything..all of which is knowledge of existance...or sentience.

In this sense I see knowledge as an accumulation of information, based on the experience of life.



<Unless one were to map a route beyond current power/knowledge paradigms and apply knowledge in a way that destroys the constructed foundations of all power/knowledge.
And then we would have to start again.>

This is a likely assumption when you consider power corrupts
maybe if there were more wisdom in the world, there would be less corruption.

DadaKopf

when a text conatins the words "power or discipline" people get very jumpy...

I'm going to take this defintion "The energy or motive force by which a physical system or machine is operated:" but I'm going to replace physical system with human being and machine with brain..(or better still the mind.)..

therefore the power(knowledge) I refer to is the basic motivational energy (thought) which drives us to ask questions, answer them, query them, (objectivly and subjectivly) and well..just about all the other functions the human being is capable of in order to experience anything..all of which is knowledge of existance...or sentience.

In this sense I see knowledge as an accumulation of information, based on the experience of life.

Well, now you're just getting confusing. Or perhaps not. What is for sure is that you really should define what you mean by: Motivational energy, thought, physical system, functions, experience, understanding.

You see, if you're attempting to assert a materialist or functionalist theory of mind, epistemology, aesthetics etc., then a little name dropping or linkage might better position your argument and help us understand you better. On the other hand, you may actually be putting forward some kind of 'intrinsic intentionality' approach to your materialistic outlook (see "motivational energy" and "thought"), which is fine so long as you can support it.

Bear in mind this probably comes before concerns about power because power is, as far as humans are concerned, a social phenomenon.

So please explain as clearly as possible how you can connect how one perceives the world to how one understands the world and how one attains knowledge with how one uses that knowledge to attain 'wisdom'.

It's kinda important you approach this like a philosopher .

I suspect the utility of the word 'wisdom' as some kind of special case of 'knowledge' declines as it emerges that both are fairly synonymous, save for the likely variations in the word's meaning from culture to culture, considering language is socially constructed.

keu

will do.

just want to reflect for a bit.