Originally posted by maximus
for the record, could you state the difference between wise and Wise . . .how is it that someone can specify one person as being wise and another as not being wise? what is the distinction?
So Maximus, can I assume you didn't like or agree with my efforts to define wisdom, and draw a distinction between the two types? To make sure you are still unsatisified with those explanations, let me reiterate.
First, in general I have been defining wisdom as (and I believe this is what others have been saying too)
experienced-based learning.
This is to be distinquished from intellectual learning which takes place through study and thought alone. So, for example, you might study law in books and have a brilliant understanding of it, but never become wise in law until you start practicing law. How wise someone gets depends on how open and dedicated one is to learning while doing.
I went on to try to give you a sense of some of the ways the knowledge you now have in your head from reading and thinking is a different type of knowledge than that learned from actually doing. I explained that the intellect only creates a model, a mental construct that approximates the aspect of reality it’s trying to represent, whereas the experience of doing is a multi-dimensional experience, which I characterized with the terms richness, certainty, and wholeness. I suggested that the rich understanding, certainty and holistic view amounts to a kind of power that builds in one the more one experiences – you know, you just don’t “think” so.
Second, the I suggested for the wise-Wise distinction separating wisdom into two types: mundane and profound. By “mundane” wisdom I mean that understanding of how things function one acquires from working with them for many years. Regarding profound wisdom (or Wise, as Boulderhead put it), I said that was hard to explain since there isn't a lot of agreement about what’s profound. But that if there is something which is profound, the same rules apply as with the mundane: one needs experience of the profound to acquire true wisdom.
Whether you believe there is anything beyond the mundane or not (and therefore making "Wise" possible), at least we should be at the point in this discussion where we are clear why an older person won't accept a young person can be wise, especially one still living at home.
It's because we are defining wisdom as experienced-based learning, and since youth haven't had time for much life experience, they also cannot have much wisdom.
It is no slight to you, and says nothing about how much wiser than all of us you will become when you do gain life experience. That is what I meant when I said to Mentat that there is difference between potential and realized potential. I mean, if you redefine wisdom to include the inexperienced, then wisdom ends up meaning nothing.
So, if you have to live to get it, then why fight it? Get on with living!
