Contents:
Definitions of wisdom
Early definitions
Thomas Aquinas
Difficulty of defining wisdom
Descriptions of wisdom and of the wise person
Casual use of the term
Related concepts
Kieran Conley (2003:784) states that wisdom “may be given speculative or practical emphasis or even special religious value, but it always implies a type of knowing and usually a capacity to judge.”
Wisdom, health and flourishing seem to go together. Love is often linked with wisdom, though this seems less integral to it. (See Hartshorne, 1987)
For Juan Pascual-Leone (1990:245), who considers wisdom “as the ultimate possible achievement of a normal person’s growth”, it is the integration of the totality of a person’s being, when it “reaches sufficient breadth and cohesiveness”, that allows wisdom to appear.
sapientia, quae considerat altissimas causas, ut dicitur in I Metaphys Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II.57,2co
Wisdom, which investigates the highest causes, as Aristotle writes in the first book of the Metaphysics.
Aquinas is certainly one of the most thoughtful Western writers on wisdom from the past two thousand years. He followed Aristotle in writing about sapientia and prudentia, the former of which he equated with sacra doctrina in ST I.1,6. Before Thomas, it had probably been a long time since anyone had given such regard to practical wisdom. A sign of a world that was beginning to take a major change toward the secular.
Thomas's major statements on sapientia are probably in STI-II.57,1-2. See also In Meta Prol and I, lect. 1-3. Rather than get bogged down with Thomas here, a separate section is devoted to his thought on wisdom, following "Early definitions".
Definitions of wisdom
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., gives, as primary definition of wisdom, “Capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs: opp. to folly.”
The entire entry needs to be included.
Erik Erikson (1997:61) defined wisdom as “informed and detached concern with life itself in the face of death itself.”
But this cannot claim to be a complete definition. It is relevant to Erikson’s conception of the final task for psychosocial development in a person’s lifespan. It doesn’t seem to include the aspect of good judgment, or even the idea that the wise person has a particularly profound insight into “first things”, or the nature of reality.
Howard Gardner (Intelligence Reframed, 2000) wrote, “The defining characteristic of wisdom is the breadth of considerations taken into account when rendering a judgment or recommending a course of action.”
“In the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm, wisdom is defined as expertise in the fundamental pragmatics of life (e.g., Baltes & Staudinger, 2000). The fundamental pragmatics of life refer to deep knowledge and sound judgment about the essence of the human condition and the ways and means of planning, managing, and understanding a good life. Wisdom is further defined through a set of five criteria (e.g., Baltes, Smith, & Staudinger, 1992). The first criterion. . . .”
Staudinger, Ursula M., Dörner, Jessica, and Mickler, Charlotte. 2005. Wisdom and Personality. In Sternberg, Robert J., and Jennifer Jordan (Eds.). A Handbook of Wisdom: Psychological Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197
The Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Francis Hutcheson wrote that “Wisdom denotes the pursuing of the best ends by the best means” (2004:57—I.v).This is very similar to John Kekes’ 1983 statement that “the knowledge involved in wisdom concerns means to good ends” (1983:278). It is questionable whether wisdom must use the best means to pursue the best ends. Good means should suffice. Perhaps we could revise to Wisdom is knowing and using good means to the best possible ends.
John A. Meacham (1983:132) defines wisdom “as a balance between increases in the amount that one knows and simultaneous increases in the recognition that there is much that one does not know.”
“The six-volume Larousse 20th century dictionary (Larousse du XX Siècle), probably the world’s most famous philosophical glossary, says: “Wisdom (sagesse) means knowledge of things, instruction, teaching (…). Wisdom is health of mind and heart (…). Treating things as what they are and using them in accord with circumstance—this is the practical wisdom of life”.
“The German-language Dictionary of Philosophical terms (Wörterbuch der Philosophischen Begriffe) maintains: ‘Wisdom (Weisheit) is a measure of theoretical and practical knowledge enabling us to govern our lives in the best possible, rational way. It provides insight into the appropriate ways of serving the highest goals of life and the spirit”.
. . . . 60\
“The Polish-language Mala Encylopedia Filozofii [Concise Philosophical Encyclopedia] defines wisdom (sophia, sapientia) as ‘an understanding of existence and its principles and, at the same time, knowledge aobut the ways of achieving such understanding, involving the facility to distinguish fact from illusion, good from bad, beauty from ugliness. A virtue by whose means man is able to exist in truth. This capability (…) is disclosed in stages and manifested by thoughts and actions”.
Janusz Kuczyński. (2001). Metaphilosophy, Science, and Art as Foundation of Wisdom. Dialogue and Universalism. No. 7-8, pp. 45-61, at pp. 60f.
“We looked through Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and the Dictionary of Quotations and found a long list of fragments from poems, stories, and other works employing the word ‘wisdom.’ Among the positive qualities mentioned in the same breath as wisdom in these quotations are self-knowledge, kindness, caution, silence, patience, humility, hope, judgment, and knowing the cost of choices that are to be made. What wisdom is not is also of interest. It is not associated with money, power, strength, passion, excess, impulsiveness, or even knowledge. For the most part, agreement exists that wisdom comes with age. Several writers feel that wisdom comes from a life fully lived. The book of James identifies its antecedents as ‘earthly, sensual and devilish.’ In a similar vein, the nineteenth-century writer Adela Nicholson wrote that living, loving, and accepting what fate has to offer are essential to wisdom. Some writers feel that passions must be quieted by age before wisdom develops. These quotations also suggest tha wisdom is hard won, coming out of defeat (Housman), grief (Ecclesiastes), and suffering (Aeschylus).
“The intellect is not totally ignored among these writers. Presience is included among the traits of the wise: it is the ability to predict what lies ahead (Milton) and involves being able to pick the least dangerous course of action (Machiavelli and Fielding). Knowledge of the tendencies of nature, especialy human nature, is found among those possessing wisdom. This is suggested in a quote by Florio, ‘Wisdom sails with the wind and the tide.’ The wise have a sense of what is possible and what is impossible; they know the difference and can accept whatever happens.”
Powell, Douglas H, in collaboration with Dean K. Whitla. 1994. Profiles in Cognitive Aging. Cambridge, MA, London, England: Harvard University Press. p. 194.
Robert Nozick (1989:267f) says that “Wisdom is an understanding of what is important, where this understanding informs a (wise) person’s thought and action”, and in the next paragraph writes, in italics, “Wisdom is what you need to understand in order to live well and cope with the central problems and avoid the dangers in the predicament(s) human beings find themselves in. 267\
“This general account is designed to fit different particular conceptions of wisdom. These conceptions may differ in the goals (or dangers) they list or how they rank them, the coping devices they recommend, and so on, but what makes them all conceptions of wisdom, even when they differ in their content, is that all fit this general form. They fill in the schema: what you need to know in order to live well and cope. . . .”
“. . . it is my assumption here that wisdom will be conducive to the best life as a means and also be some integral part of it.” 268
“Wisdom is not just knowing fundamental truths, if those are unconnected with the guidance of life or with a perspective on its meaning” 269.
“Wisdom is not just one type of knowledge, but diverse. What a wise person needs to know and understand constitutes a varied list: the most important goals and values of life—the ultimate goal, if there is one; what means will reach these goals without too great a cost; what kinds of dangers threaten the achieving of these goals; how to recognize and avoid or minimize these dangers; what different types of human beings are like in their actions and motives (as this presents dangers or opportunities); what is not possible or feasible to achieve (or avoid); how to tell what is appropriate when; knowing when certain goals are sufficiently achieved; what limitations are unavoidable and how to accept them; how to improve oneself and one’s relationships with others or society; knowing what the true and unapparent value of various things is; when to take a long-term view; knowing the variety and obduracy of facts, institutions, and human nature; understanding what one’s own real motives are; how to cope and deal with the major tragedies and dilemmas of life, and with the major good things too. There also will be bits of negative wisdom: certain things are not important, other things not effective means, etc.” 269
“. . . to be wise, a person not only must have knowledge and understanding—have wisdom, if you will—but also use it and live it” 270.
Entities besides humans can have well-being. “A more general and generous view of wisdom might therefore see it as knowiing each and every thing’s well-being, what the dangers are to each thing’s well-being, and how these can and should be coped with. . . . A more limited wisdom would be about a particular thing or kind. . . . Yet a person would not be wise in general who did not know how extensively the notion of well-being applied; he might mistakenly think some particular things did not have any well-being at all, and therefore that there could not be any wisdom about that kind of thing. He would be wise only about people, and even here his wisdom would be limited. In not being able to specify how people should respond to the other things’ well-being, he would not be able to specify an appropriate part of human relation to reality—and that is part of human well-being. Even his wisdom about humans, therefore, would be only partial.
“Wisdom can be partial also in the part of human life it is concerned with, as when people are (said to be) wise about specialized areas, one about economic matters, another about foreign affairs, another about raising children, another about waging warfare, another about pursuing an occupation successfully. Common to all these would be their fitting the general notion of wisdom about something, in the sense of knowing what is important about it, how to avoid dangers concerning it, etc.; the differences would be in what somethings the wisdom was about. . . . Is there any one kind of thing, then, that constitutes wisdom about life? That last wisdom is not simply a weighting of all the different particular specialized kinds of wisdom. Rather, it is a wisdom about what is common to all of our lives, about what (I/we judge) it is important for any normal human life to be concerned with. And it is that which we mean when we \ speak (simply) of wisdom (period), without specifying any special area the wisdom is about; it is that sense which enables us to say of someone, for instance, that although he may have been wise about business matters, he was not a wise person” 272\3
“It is part of wisdom to understand what things are most important in life and to guide one’s life by that” 275.
“Moreover, the process of living wisely, pursuing or opening \ oneself to what is important, taking account of a range of circumstances and utilizing one’s fullest capacities to steer skillfully through them, is itself a way of being deeply connected to reality. The person who lives wisely connects to reality more thoroughly than someone who moves through life spoon-fed by circumstances, even if what these try to feed is reality. Whether or not he proportionally pursues the full range of reality, he is aware of that range; he knows and appreciates reality’s many dimensions and sees the life he is living in that wisest context. Such seeing itself is a mode of connection. Living wisely, then, is not just our means of connecting most closely to reality, it is also our way. (This is the central thing I want to say about wisdom.)
“Wisdom is not simply knowing how to steer one’s way through life, cope with difficulties etc. It also is knowing the deepest story, being able to see and appreciate the deepest significance of whatever occurs; this includes appreciating the ramifications of each thing or event for the various dimensions of reality, knowing and understanding not merely the proximate goods but the ultimate ones, and seeing the world in this light. This it is that the philosopher lives, and its claim to preeminence is less easily dismissed” 275f.
Andrew P. Norman (1996:254) writes that “Among the authors I have sampled, there seems to be a consensus, or something very near it, on this: that the peculiar expertise of the wise has to do with the ‘how-to’ of living well.”
“one distinct feature of wisdom as the optimum of human functioning. . .” Kunzmann & Baltes 2003:341.
“Because of its holistic space-time integration, wisdom can be seen as the most general framework that directs and optimizes individual development.” Kunzmann & Baltes 2003:341.
Baltes 1993:586 writes that “we define wisdom as an expert knowledge system in the fundamental pragmatics of life permitting excellent judgment and advice involving important and uncertain matters of life.”
Sternberg (2003:152) writes that “Wisdom is defined as the application of successful intelligence and creativity as mediated by values toward the achievement of a common good through a balance among (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extrapersonal interests, over (a) short and (b) long terms, in order to achieve a balance among (a) adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of existing environments, and (c) selection of new environments”.
Augustine, in Contra Academicos
W. Brown (2000a:194) says that “Wisdom is a term used to denote markedly successful problem solving ability, particularly in personal and social domains, in the face of complexity, subtlety, novelty, and/or uncertainty.”
Schloss (2000:155) quotes Crenshaw (1981): “ ‘Wisdom is the reasoned search for specific ways to assure well-being and the implementation of those discoveries in daily existence.’ Von Rad (1975), meanwhile, views wisdom as ‘one of the most elementary activities of the human mind, with the practical aim of averting harm and impairment of life from man,’ and suggests an even more economical notion of wisdom as entailing ‘the essentials for coping with reality.’”
Schloss goes on (157f) to give some of the characteristics traditionally associated with wisdom. It affirms that there is order to existence, “and that this order is discernible to human exegetes.” This order is a prerequisite to human flourishing. “Thirdly, the claims of wisdom are generally descriptive and not prescriptive (see Chapter 1), and the wise—even in biblical wisdom literature—typically do not invoke moral commandments or specially revealed doctrines of creation, but convey insights about how the world works, which appeal to enlightened self-interest and which are confirmable by experience and common sense.”
Schloss puts together his definition: “Wisdom is living in a way that corresponds to how things are” (156). A biologist, Schloss discusses wisdom in the context of evolution, and notes that biological adaptations “come to embody information about the organism’s environmental reality and enable the organism to live in accord with that reality—not unlike our notion of wisdom” (2000:163). Because physical adaptation is quite slow, learning can “be considered an example of a secondary biological heuristic capable of devising new adaptations” (163), and culture a tertiary biological heuristic, offering a broader range of adaptive responses.
The cultural heuristic, offering more varied and rapid adaptations, is also somewhat independent of biological restraints, and so its variations may not be positive for the organism or its environment. Schloss suggests that wisdom may be a strategy that operates to maintain positive adaptability as “a quaternary heuristic that is both contained within and partly free to transcend—even oppose—the cultural heuristic” (166).
Lawrence M. Hinman (2000:421) writes that “Presumably the wise individual is one (a) who is able to discern what is the right thing to do, and (b) is one who then acts in such a way as to bring this about.”
See Maslow, 1968 (Towards a Psychology of Being, p. 24) “For the writers. . . Fromm, Horney, Jung, C. Buhler, Angyal, Rogers, G. Allport, Schachtel, and Lynd, and recently some Catholic psychologists [M. Arnod, J. Gasson, J. Nuttin], growth, individuation, autonomy, self-actualization, self-development, productiveness, self realization, are all crudely synonymous, designating a vaguely perceived area rather than a sharply defined concept. In my opinion, it is not possible to define this area sharply at the present time. Nor is this desirable either, since a definition which does not emerge easily and naturally from well known facts is apt to be inhibiting and distorting rather than helpful, since it is quite likely to be wrong or mistaken if made by an act of the will, on a priori ground. Its meaning can be indicated rather than defined, partly by positive pointing, partly by negative contrast, i.e., what it is not.”
“One standard definition is that wisdom consists of ‘making the best use of available knowledge.’” Cohen, 2005:95 (The Mature Mind)
Dean Keith Simonton (1994. Creativity and Wisdom in Aging, in Abraham Monk, ed. Columbia Retiremenent Handbook. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 302)
defines wisdom as “a broad perspective on life, discerning a larger view of life’s meaning than permitted by hand-to-mouth subsistence. Presumably such wisdom allows individuals to reach an equilibrium with themselves, others, and the world that smooths over the vicissitudes of mundane existence.”
I have quoted this from Lamdin, with Fugate, Elderlearning 1997, p. 61.
Lamdin, Lois, with Fugate, Mary. 1997. Elderlearning: New Frontier in an Aging Society. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.
McKee & Barber (1999:156, 153) propose a definition of wisdom as “seeing through illusion,” that the essence of wisdom consists in “the pellucid insight that a belief is illusory, the freedom from further temptation by or vulnerability to the error, and the empathetic identification with those who are prey to the illusion.” They explain their rationale for this definition, using the pattern of Socratic ignorance and the statement by Aristotle (Metaphysics I.1) “that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things.” The reason Socrates’ ignorance is wisdom is that it involves overcoming a strong tendency to believe otherwise: they characterize this type of mental weakness as illusion, and recognition of first principles is arrived at through perceiving a reality behind appearances. They suggest that all different forms of wisdom share this feature of seeing through illusion.
Note: An advantage to the best possible choice model is that it offers guidance for choosing, whereas seeing through illusion does not.
Early definitions
“From very early in their history the Hebrew people were endeavoring to discover and utilize the wisdom and power of the universe, that is, to see things as they are and adjust life to them.” Genung, 1913.
Guthrie (1962:31, n. 1) notes that “the word sophia developed this meaning of philosophical wisdom out of an original connotation of skill in a particular craft or art. A good carpenter, surgeon, driver, poet or musician had his particular sophia. Yet this was not the meaning in the minds of those who used the word philosophia.”
“The usual Hebrew word for wisdom is hokhmah, which seems to have the primary sense of ‘firm,’ ‘fixed,’ and then ‘something which controls or restrains.’ In early times wisdom was mainly a practical matter. It was that native intelligence or shrewdness by which man performed his tasks skillfully and well. It is used of the artisans who worked on the tabernacle (Exod. 31:3; 36:1-2), and of those who made Aaron’s priestly robes (Exod. 28:3). It is applied to women who were professional wailers (Jer. 9:17). Ezekial uses it of the pilots and shipbuilders of Tyre (27:8-9). And in Prov. 30:24-28 wisdom is ascribed even to small animals such as ants, conies, locusts, and lizards with their amazing instincts and prowess. Thus wisdom for the Hebrew was a pragmatic, empirical thing, not speculative pr philosophical. Yet he knew that even this practical wisdom came from the Lord, as several of the passages just noted assert. . . . We cannot emphasize too strongly the difference between the wisdom literature of Israel and that of the pagan countries surrounding her. The emphasis on wickedness and righteousness, and on the fear of Yahweh, can be understood only 772\ in the light of revealed law and prophetic religion. Israel redeemed the pagan wisdom of her day and made it theocentric.
“This of course became more pronounced in later times when hockmah was almost exclusively applied to the well-ordered moral and religious life, as in Proverbs and the other wisdom books.
I have taught you the way of wisdom;
I have led you in the paths of uprightness (4:11)
Wisdom is synonymous with moral and religious intelligence; it is filled with a strongly ethical content.
“This union of practical wisdom with moral intelligence is expressed by the familiar motto, ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (1:7; cf also 9:10; Job 28:28; Ps. 111:10; Ecclus 1:14).” Fritsch 1955:772f.
“‘Wisdom’ is strictly a misnomer as applied to Babylonian literature. As used for a literary genre the term belongs to Hebraic studies and is applied to Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. Here ‘Wisdom’ is a common topic and is extolled as the greatest virtue. While it embraces intellectual ability the emphasis is more on pious living: the wise man fears the Lord. This piety, however, is completely detached from law and ritual, which gives it a distinctive place in the Hebrew Bible. Babylonian has a term ‘wisdom’ (nēmequ), and several adjectives for ‘wise’ (enqu, mūdû, hassu, etpēsu ), but only rarely are they used with a moral content (perhaps, e.g., Counsels of Wisdom 25). General ‘wisdom’ refers to skill in cult and magic lore, and the wise man is the initiate. One of the texts edited below begins, ‘I will praise the lord of wisdom’, where Marduk is the lord, and his wisdom is skill in the rites of exorcism.” Lambert 1996:1
“Since the time of Homer, the words sophia and sophos had been used in the most diverse contexts, with regard to modes of conduct and dispositions which apparently had nothing to do with those of ‘philosophers.’ In the Iliad (15.411), Homer speaks of a cerpenter who, thanks to the advice of Athena, knows his way around all sophia—in other words, all know-how
[410-412] Samuel Butler trans: As a carpenter's line gives a true edge to a piece of ship's timber, in the hand of some skilled workman whom Minerva has
instructed in all kinds of useful arts]
Similarly, the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, after recounting the invention of the lyre, adds that Hermes himself modeled the instrument of another sophia different from the art of the lyre—namely, the syrinx (I, 511).Here, then, we are dealing with musical art of know-how.
“To judge by these examples, we may reasonably wonder whether, in the case of the shipbuilder and the musician, the word sophia might not designate, above all, activites or practices which are subject to measures and rules. They presuppose instruction and apprenticeship, but they also demand the help of a god or divine grace which reveals the secrets of fabrication to theartisan and artist and helps them in the exercise of their art.
“Sophiē is used in the same way by Solon (Elegies I, 52) in the seventh century B.C. to designate poetic activity, which is the fruit both of lengthy practice by the poet and of inspiration by the Muses. This power of the poetic word, which is inspired by he Muses and gives the events of human life their meaning, appears at its clearest in Hesiod, at the beginning of the seventh century. Although he does not literally use the word sophia, “Sophia can also designate the skill with which a person behaves with other people; it can go as far as ruses and dissimulation. For instance, we find the following advice in a collection of sayings—precepts codifying aristocratic education—which Theognis, who write in the sixth century B.C. addressed to Cyrnos: ‘Cyrnos, turn a different aspect of yourself to each of your friends; adapt yourself to the feelings of each. For a whole day attach yourself to one, and then you’ll know how to change characters; for skillfulness (sophiē) is better than even a great excellence (aretē).
“Here we see the richness and variety of the notion of sophia. Components of this notion appear again in representations—first popular and legendary, then historical—of the Seven Sages.” Hadot 2002:20. E.g., encyclopedic and exceptional knowledge, like predicting the solar eclipse, political activity, maxims
“From the sixth century on, with the flourishing of the ‘exact’ sciences (medicine, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy) another component was added to the notion of sophia. There were no longer ‘experts’ (sophoi) only in the arts or in politics; they also existed in the domain of science. Moreover, since the time of Thales of Miletus, an increasingly precise mode of thought had developed around what the Greeks called phusis—that is, the phenomenon of the growth of living beings and of man, but also of the universe. This mode of thought, moreover, was often closely linked to ethical considerations, as it is in Heraclitus, and especially in Deomocritus.
“The Sophists were so called because their goal was to teach young people sophia. The epitaph of Thrasymachus read: ‘My career is sophia.’ For the Sophists, the word sophia meant first and foremost know-how in political life; but it also implied all the other components we have seen. In particular, it included scientific culture, at least insofar as this was a part of general culture.” Hadot 2002:22
Hadot, 2002:40-47 is useful.
The Stoic definition of wisdom as rerum humanorum divinarumque scientia, "knowledge of matters human and divine".
Augustine De Trinitate XIV.1.3. The footnote to this statement cites 12 - Cicerone, De fin. bon. mal. 2, 12, 37; De off. 1, 43, 153; 2, 2, 5; Tuscul. 4, 26, 57; 5, 3, 7; De orat. 1, 49, 212; Crisippo, Fragm. 35; Seneca, Ep. 84, 9 RT: I was not able to find any such reference in the Letters to Lucilius; cf. Agostino, C. Acad. 1, 6, 16; 1, 8, 23: NBA, III/1; Girolamo, Ephes. 1, 1, 9.
Cicero Tusculanae Disputationes V.3.7. Quam rem antiquissimam cum videamus, nomen tamen esse confitemur recens. Nam sapientiam quidem ipsam quis negare potest non modo re esse antiquam, verum etiam nomine? Quae divinarum humanarumque rerum, tum initiorum causarumque cuiusque rei cognitione hoc pulcherrimum nomen apud antiquos adsequebatur. Itaque et illos septem, qui a Graecis sofoi/, sapientes a nostris et habebantur et nominabantur, et multis ante saeculis Lycurgum, cuius temporibus Homerus etiam fuisse ante hanc urbem conditam traditur, et iam heroicis aetatibus Ulixem et Nestorem accepimus et fuisse et habitos esse sapientis.
Cassiodorus, Institutiones II.iii
Philosophia est diuinarum humanarumque rerum, in quantum homini possibile est, probabilis scientia. Aliter, philosophia est ars artium et disciplina disciplinarum. Rursus, philosophia est meditatio mortis, quod magis conuenit.
Augustine. The Enchiridion begins (1.1-2) by quoting Paul’s pugnacious rejection of the wisdom of this world (1Cor 1:20) and asserting that “reverence is wisdom for humans” (hominis autem sapientia pietas est; see also De Trinitate XII.15.22, XIV.1).
I forget where I read that wisdom is used in thirty-two different senses in Augustine.
Thomas Aquinas
For those who find it unhelpful to have untranslated quotations, I apologize, and ask for patience. Eventually, as we think through the rich thought of Aquinas, and as time permits, translations will be provided. Thomas's Latin is fairly simple. It was criticized by Renaissance scholars who had the idea that Golden and Silver Age Latin was the proper way to write. In the meantime, your thoughts and your translations are invited. Send them to rht@wisdomcenteredlife.org.
From his first writings, Thomas's works were imbued with thoughts on wisdom. He inherited a rich tradition in which wisdom was a central concept, and he gave it careful thought. The fact that he made assumptions, or accepted premises, that we can no longer accept, does not invalidate his basic insights. But let's look at the texts:
Lectio 1 Sententia Ethic., lib.1 l.1 n.1 Sicut philosophus dicit in principio metaphysicae, sapientis est ordinare. Cuius ratio est, quia sapientia est potissima perfectio rationis, cuius proprium est cognoscere ordinem. Nam etsi vires sensitivae cognoscant res aliquas absolute, ordinem tamen unius rei ad aliam cognoscere est solius intellectus aut rationis. Invenitur autem duplex ordo in rebus. Unus quidem partium alicuius totius seu alicuius multitudinis adinvicem, sicut partes domus ad invicem ordinantur; alius autem est ordo rerum in finem. Et hic ordo est principalior, quam primus.
anima est similitudo totius sapientiae DQV.8a.3arg.15
sapientia est de divinis DQV.8a.3arg.15
Praeterea, ad sapientiam pertinet probare principia aliarum scientiarum, unde ut caput dicitur scientiarum, ut VI Ethic. patet. STI.1,6arg.2
Sapientia . . . per infusionem habetur, unde inter septem dona spiritus sancti connumeratur, ut patet Isaiae XI. STI.1,6arg.3
Thomas wrote extensively about practical wisdom, phronesis or prudentia, in the Summa Theologiae.
Prudentia, secundum essentiam suam, est intellectualis virtus. Sed secundum materiam, convenit cum virtutibus moralibus, est enim recta ratio agibilium, ut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc, virtutibus moralibus connumeratur. ST I-II.58,3ad1.
Descriptions of wisdom and of the wise person
Sharon Ryan (1996:238) writes that according to Bruce Russell, “a wise person knows what really matters.”
Immanuel Kant gave an important place to wisdom in his writings, usually, it seems, from the point of view of the sage.
Difficulty of defining wisdom
Jeffrey P. Schloss (2000:154) notes “the fact that the nature of ‘wisdom’ is so elusively difficult to define” .
The fact that the term “wisdom”, or kindred terms, have been used over thousands of years, to refer to quite different activities (e.g., religious and practical, personal and political), makes it both difficult and necessary to draw the lines as clearly as possible if wisdom, considered as an explicit perspective or a “metaheuristic” (Baltes & Staudinger 2000) is to be of use for improving human existence. This is indicated by Taranto’s (1989:1) comment that in most of the recent psychological and philosophical writing on wisdom at that time, “the general intent. . . is to define wisdom.” Vagueness at the edges of definitional boundaries may not be a weakness, if such a definition makes it possible for people to acquire a clear understanding of wisdom’s central features, and where it applies in their lives. Holliday & Chandler’s (1986) comments on prototypes are worth considering in this regard.
Collins 1962:140 however, writes that “What is important at the outset of philosophical inquiry is not a set definition of wisdom but an image of the wise man and a love of sharing in his perfection of mind.” In this context Collins is discussing the distinction between wisdom in particular spheres of activity and wisdom exemplified in its fullness, including metaphysical wisdom. He notes that “In both instances, emphasis is placed upon the confident ability to judge and order matters falling within the wise man’s competence” (143)
Casual use of the term
In most instances in which the term “wisdom” is used, it is used as a substitute for thought. That is, it appears to be used as a word that has come to mind, that suits the occasion, but is being used without any further thought being given to what it actually means. Here are a number of examples, taken from scholars. A fortiori, use by people in nonscholarly communication will almost certainly, almost always, be used with even less thought given to the actual content of the term.
Wisdom is often used in the sense of “opinion”, as in “conventional wisdom”, or as Sharon Begley (2007, Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain. New York: Ballantine, p. 133) uses the term: “According to the accepted wisdom, brain states give rise to mental states.”
Related concepts
veritas nihil aliud est, quam adaequatio intellectus ad rem.
Truth is nothing else than the adequacy of the understanding to the thing.
Petrus Bonus (14th?c), Pretiosa margarita novella.
And what relation to wisdom has this striking asseveration from the Noche Oscura of John of the Cross:
¡Oh, cuán dichosa ventura es poder el alma librarse de la casa de la sensualidad! No se puede bien entender si no fuera, a mi ver, el alma que ha gustado de ello; porque verá claro cuán mísera servidumbre era la que tenía y a cuántas miserias estaba sujeta cuando lo estaba a la obra de sus potencias y apetitos y conocerá cómo la vida del espíritu es verdadera libertad y riqueza que trae consigo bienes inestimables. . . NII.14,3.
It brings to mind the statement of Gurdieff:
If a man could understand all the horror of the lives of ordinary people who are turning round in a circle of insignificant interests and insignificant aims, if he could understand what they are losing, he would understand that there can only be one thing that is serious for him—to escape from the general law, to be free. What can be serious for a man in prison who is condemned to death? Only one thing: How to same himself, how to escape: nothing else is serious.
Gurdjieff, quoted in P. D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977, p. 364.
Perhaps they are speaking of quite different liberations, but the claim both are making is that the person who is following the attractions of this world is in a miserable state, that E is incapable of understanding this misery that is accepted as normal or even good, and that there awaits far greater satisfaction and fulfillment—if she or he can manage to free hirself.