Is wisdom innate?

[Amorphos]

Is wisdom innate?

This is something we have been discussing in a philosophy study group i go to [by the oxford school of economics]. Some people seam to have been born with wisdom, thus it is innate within them/us, yet surely as we learn new knowledge then the result of that becomes wisdom. I would presume then that the 'innate' wisdoms are variable and grow with time and life experience.

Wisdom is not knowledge! You could have a super computer with a library of all mans knowledge that could provide answers to given questions, yet would have no wisdom only correct answers to given questions. In theory there may come a time when most things have been discovered and all necessary knowledge has been found, so we could have all-knowledge [to a degree] at our finger tips, yet the computer would remain without wisdom!

So wisdom may be seen as the ability to use knowledge correctly in a given circumstance, and the ability to see things that are beyond knowledge. The most subtle and equally the greatest aspects and natures of reality are beyond the universal paradox and cannot be explained in terms of ordinary knowledge. If the truth is ultimately 'naked' then wisdom belongs to the place between nothingness and knowledge, it is of the same nature as our inner truth thus it may be seen as innate because it is 'of us'. yet the innate wisdom we begin with is not the same as that which we end up with after life - or is it?

[Tom Paine]

This seems to me to be trying to answer the rationalist/empiricist debate. If wisdom is innate then we can internalise and rationalise everything, and empirical evidence is unneeded and should be ignored as potentially flawed; if not all we learn is from the external world, and rationalising things internally is flawed. Descartes said wisdom was innate, that there were innate and essential truths, as did others; I would disagree and say that there is nothing innate, we are (to use the Locke idea) tabulae razae mentally, that is blank tablets, white sheets of paper, empty of knowledge or wisdom, and all we know is buit up through experience and learning.

[Amorphos]

Empirical evidence is indeed needed, this is part of the argument; that the said innate wisdom begins at one point then via life is transformed and enhanced, resulting in an ever increasing amount [if you will] of innate wisdom. Thus learning is fundamental, thence learning empirically is the most important aspect to this that man has to date! After all what is truth if not universal or specific based upon experiment? This i feel is the most important thing that man has now compared to that of the ancients, they may have known many truths yet they are all mainly subjective.

I don't agree with the blank tablet notion, as nothing cannot achieve something, that is to say that it would not have the capacity to learn if it had no 'foundation qualities'! A new born child has a formed mind full of knowledge or at least 'insticts' passed down genetically from the mother.

On a side note; More controversially i would add that; the being that inherits the body also has qualities of mind that unfurl as the infant matures. i wont mention the 'akashik' i.e. a place where all knowledge resides external to existence [as knowledge is essentially], and that this 'place' is within us all. even so i feel that if such things are so it also remains the case that nothing can be complete in an absolute sense - that one cannot arrive at 'everything' as a single or entire entity or else that thing would be all there is, thence even the akashic is ever increasing rather than being truly a place of 'all-knowledge' as there is no all or omni anything!

.

[Talbaz]

My take on Wisdom is that wisdom does not come with age. i have meet many a people that think because they are old there automaticly wise. this is not true the only thing that wisdom has to do with age is that it give you a longer time to obtain wisdom. on the ability to obtain wisdom it from my experioince depends on the person and there actully taking time to think about thing and trying to obtain true wisdom. as long as a child took time to thing about wisdom he could obtain wisdom at a young age of crouse he could not think and never obtain or not obtain till a later age if you are the smartest or dumbest perosn on earth and take no time to actully think about life you will never obtain wisdom but on the flip side the smartest or dumbest perosn could spend time on it and obtain wisdom. sadly tho are culture in this world espically mostly western ones work away form people obtain wisdom and very very few actully do. but there are something that need to be had to obtain wisdom and that is the ability to actully reason and think past what you see and not as most poeple say (live in the present not in the future or past) but to live and thing in all 3. also truly wise people have a very innate ability and that is to see the future now am not talking about visons here am talking about because they think in past present and future they see how other will react to things and to understand those connections.

[Denny Crane!]

Is wisdom innate?

This is something we have been discussing in a philosophy study group i go to [by the oxford school of economics]. Some people seam to have been born with wisdom, thus it is innate within them/us, yet surely as we learn new knowledge then the result of that becomes wisdom. I would presume then that the 'innate' wisdoms are variable and grow with time and life experience.

Wisdom is not knowledge! You could have a super computer with a library of all mans knowledge that could provide answers to given questions, yet would have no wisdom only correct answers to given questions. In theory there may come a time when most things have been discovered and all necessary knowledge has been found, so we could have all-knowledge [to a degree] at our finger tips, yet the computer would remain without wisdom!

So wisdom may be seen as the ability to use knowledge correctly in a given circumstance, and the ability to see things that are beyond knowledge. The most subtle and equally the greatest aspects and natures of reality are beyond the universal paradox and cannot be explained in terms of ordinary knowledge. If the truth is ultimately 'naked' then wisdom belongs to the place between nothingness and knowledge, it is of the same nature as our inner truth thus it may be seen as innate because it is 'of us'. yet the innate wisdom we begin with is not the same as that which we end up with after life - or is it?

I spend hours on here everyday debating analysing and reading. Yet I can go down to a friend who can cut to the chase of the arguement without concious effort, incredible insights/wisdom and emotional intelligence with no education to speak of.

Wisdom is not something you can aquire, it can be done though not easily yet it is gifted to a few without effort or experience.

Peter

[Da Skinna]

Then what is the means for this natural, truely innate wisdom being gifted to people?

I always believed that wisdom is the way we handle/use our knowledge to get the best/optimum effects/results in any given situation.

And I've often thought about why there seem to be some people born with common sense (I interchange that with wisdom) and some people are just... stupid, or they make decisions that some people on this board, or myself, would otherwise not make with what knowledge is available.

[Tom Paine]

Its a matter of how you acquire the knowledge. Say one acquires a piece of knowledge, just knowledge, without anything. No background, no real understanding. That does not come with wisdom. Whereas understanding of knowledge brings wisdom, and since knowledge only comes from experience...

[Denny Crane!]

Iq is a large part of it, experience certainly can be factored in but someone with enough intelligence can see to the heart of a problem in a second that the stupid man could not see after twenty years.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

Iq is a large part of it, experience certainly can be factored in but someone with enough intelligence can see to the heart of a problem in a second that the stupid man could not see after twenty years.

Peter

IQ is a matter of being good at IQ tests....
What you really mean is the ability to cut through the bs, which can be taught, in fact it is taught; critical thinking.

[Ummon]

IQ and wisdom are in truth something different. You can be dumb and wise, and intelligent and unwise.

[Denny Crane!]

IQ and wisdom are in truth something different. You can be dumb and wise, and intelligent and unwise.

There must be some correlation between intelligence and IQ otherwise it is one almighty coincidence that genius' have high IQ's, intelligent people tend to score well on them and dumb people don't. If the testing system is slightly flawed then so be it but it is still the best most reliable measure.

To not link wisdom to intelligence is flawed ummon, the wisest people are always intelligent.

Peter

[Ummon]

There must be some correlation between intelligence and IQ otherwise it is one almighty coincidence that genius' have high IQ's, intelligent people tend to score well on them and dumb people don't. If the testing system is slightly flawed then so be it but it is still the best most reliable measure.

To not link wisdom to intelligence is flawed ummon, the wisest people are always intelligent.

Peter

In truth, wisdom is about good euristics, self-control etc. Goleman describes it as emotional intelligence, and has introduced an emotional quotient to measure it, EQ.

Probably a high EQ betters your IQ rating as well, but they are not the same thing.

[Denny Crane!]

In truth, wisdom is about good euristics, self-control etc. Goleman describes it as emotional intelligence, and has introduced an emotional quotient to measure it, EQ.

Probably a high EQ betters your IQ rating as well, but they are not the same thing.

Your mixing EQ and IQ actually, heuristics is IQ relative not EQ.

So your definition of wise would seem to be based on social interpersonal actions, automatically ruling out einstein who was a social recluse.

Grim: Why quantify IQ? Well if intelligence is a factor which to me it surely is then it follows that IQ should be of use. In terms of probability wisdom is more likely in someone with a high IQ suggesting that it is in part innate.

Peter

[Ummon]

Your mixing EQ and IQ actually, heuristics is IQ relative not EQ.

So your definition of wise would seem to be based on social interpersonal actions, automatically ruling out einstein who was a social recluse.

Peter

Social euristics is relative to EQ.

[Tom Paine]

Why quantify IQ? Well if intelligence is a factor which to me it surely is then it follows that IQ should be of use. In terms of probability wisdom is more likely in someone with a high IQ suggesting that it is in part innate.

Peter

I don't see how this shows we should quantify IQ, in the end.

Equally, that assumes wisdom to be innate to show that wisdom is... innate. Circular.

[Tom Paine]

How does one measure either EQ or IQ properly? One does not. I want to know what the insitency on testing everything is, where it comes from... why do we feel the need to quantify the unquantifiable?

[Ummon]

They are measured through tests. The level of accuracy is sufficient to use them as tools.

[Tom Paine]

Not really; a test can be trained for, skill at tests skews results, ability to deal with pressure skews results, and so on. The level of accuracy is the same as with all tests: the main thing one is told is the ability to take tests. I note, by the by, that you don't try to deal with the reason for this quantification need.

[Tom Paine]

And yet we do try to quantify wisdom, despite the impossibility; its a flawed drive to quantify the universe. I think I better make a new topic on this one.

[Ummon]

The drive to quantify aspects of the universe is called science, and it is a quite useful thing.