Talk:Wisdom

message: the judaism section is confusing and dumb. there are two paragraphs talking about horns, surely a fringe topic when considering the volumes of quotables judaism has to say about wisdom. please, i am begging, somebody rewrite it.
~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.49.58 (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Judaism section

message: Philosophy and wisdom are not the same thing. Philosophy is formal and rigorous thought, whereas wisdom has been construed as a character trait, and is at the very least nowhere
near the level of formality connoted by the term "philosophy." You would say someone has
wisdom, but you wouldn't say someone has philosophy. Verditer 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding the suggested merger 

message: I wanted to attempt to carefully define "wisdom."
I respect that my definition was removed, and have not wanted to force it back in, though I profoundly believe in the concept I tried to express. I invite all to consider the concept/definition.
Though it may seem like a strange place, the discussion I offer is below, in the "Copyedits" section, since the editor that removed my definition did so with an invitation to discuss the wording in there. Feel free to reflect, and offer words that might help the "prose," but that do express the defining and distinguishing aspects of wisdom. -- Dr. Richard Carter rscarter@microconetics.com
Thank you all.
Andrea/ibiji
Passaggio 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of the Wisdom Entry 

message: I came across this article while I was working on DIKW... it appears to have slowly accreted over time without ever having an overall plan. I've giving it some structure, an improved first paragraph. I did remove a bit of stuff because it seemed like opinion or advice. It might be worthwhile to have a look at the other languages - for example fr:Sagesse seems to have a solid cover on the Greek philosophy of wisdom. Sbwoodside 07:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be "deluded", wouldn't it?
Interesting... wouldn't that be more appropriate for Wikiquote:Wisdom though? Sbwoodside 18:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older Commentary 

message: Moved this paragraph here. Interesting opinion but requires attributation / references before inclusion in article text ?
Johnmarkh 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed opinion ? 

message: I removed the link to left brain-right brain from the opening section. There was also an unsupported statement that wisdom is particularly rare in American Society in the same sentance; which I also removed. Furthermore I separated the teachings of religion as they apply to Wisdom from those defined by philosophy. I also added some information regarding Buddhist definitions of wisdom from the Dhammapada. It would be good to have some explicit definitions of wisdom from different religions or philosophers as at present the term is nebulously defined.
MacShimi 21:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Edit 

message: I doubt that the additions under the scientific perspective should be classified as scientific in a sense distinct from philosophical. There is a branch of philosophy that deals with science as a system of thought, and these additions seem related to that area of philosophy. A counterargument may be that ideas about scientific wisdom are being advanced by scientists and therefore should be classified and identified as the scientific perspective. My objection to that claim is that scholarly endeavors are usually classified by what they are rather than who performs them. For example, a biologist who puts forward a theory of the origins of the universe is doing cosmology not biology. The so-called scientific perspective on wisdom is not scientific because it (apparently) neither collects nor analyses data. Nesbit 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced that text with a link. --Ancheta Wis 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Stevenson-Perez, the concepts in this section have been covered in other articles; literally hundreds of editors have added their wisdom to those articles. Perhaps a few more links to the other articles in the encyclopedia are in order. --Ancheta Wis 15:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The content formerly placed in this section by Stevenson-Perez has apparently migrated to other pages of the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "Cunning, competitiveness, career," as content for this section? - 12.226.24.151 (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific perspective

message: The section on Erikson should be reduced to focus only on the last stage of his theory, which is relevant to this article. The whole stage theory should be, and probably is, covered elsewhere. Agree? Nesbit 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a good summary of the newer and more developed research in the New York Times Magazine for May 7, 2007: .  I've included a couple items from it, including a mention of Baltes, but there's much more that could be mined for the expansion of this article. JamesMLane t c 08:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychological perspective

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Statistic (role-playing games) links to wisdom as an attribute, even though there is no mention of that function in this article.  Is Wisdom as a D&D stat notable enough for mention here?  If not, should the link in the Stats article be removed? Reyemile (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roleplaying Game Attributes 

message: Should that section really be here? I think it would be more appropriate on a certain sister project of ours.--Supernerd 10 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the Quotes section to Wikiquotes, as per your suggestion. --Dr.enh (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: The following reference in the Notes section seems doubtful:
Freduci Philomathis, "What is this thing called wisdom?", Journal Behind the State of the Art, Maybell, Colorado, 2006, p.1.
The title of the article looked intriguing, so I searched Google for the author and article title.  All these searches resulted only in the wikipedia article or other sites using wikipedia data.  I also couldn't find the journal, which is published in Maybell, CO -- a tiny town in northwest Colorado.
The change was made here (last year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisdom&diff=217838075&oldid=215751533
I'm not an expert, so I didn't delete the reference, but this doesn't seem right to me... 137.104.94.205 (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valid reference? 

message: This needs more work - I don't really have time to do it. I've tried to make a start by at least having a ref-ed defintion. Any suggestions as to a workplan? NBeale (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current state of the article 

message: People came from near and far to hear Solomon's wisdom; it is not merely a biblical assertion that he was the wisest man ever to have lived (the biblical assertion is that he is the wisest there ever will be). For some reason, your page on wisdom does not reflect this..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.115.54 (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solomon: the wisest man 

message: While the article describes wisdom in very lovely wordy terms, it does not mention two obvious facts about wisdom that would help the would-be learner to discern what wisdom is:
1. Wisdom is the opposite of simplicity - before you have wisdom you are simply simple (sic).
2. Wisdom is opposed by foolishness - when you rebel against wisdom you are a fool, since you have not been able to identify your simplicity for what it is.
These two facts in the opening description of wisdom would go a long way to helping people to learn what wisdom is, but also, to help them value it (which is more important).
The approach of providing opposites and counterpoints is standard practice in dictionaries...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.115.54 (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious facts about wisdom not yet included 

message: I cannot accept an image of a bald old man with unbalanced eyes as a personification of wisdom. At the very least his gaze should be clear and focussed. Michelangelo, for one at least, understood this. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  top image 

message: Where is the etymology of the word : "wisdom" ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wiktionary's etymology --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 02:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't that be original research, or something?  ekips39 02:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the etymology of the word : "wisdom" ? 

message: Wisdom or sapience is the ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight,
especially in a mature or utilitarian manner. 
Please revise. 
Suggested edit place period after insight. Remove (especially in a mature or utilitarian manner.)
The utilitarian link brought me to a utilitarianism which is an -ism not Wisdom. Wisdom has nothing to do with maturity or utilitarian. 
I have met children wiser than old men. some of the least mature acting people are the wisest because they are wise enough to realize that maturity in humans can be an act. 
Utilitarian definition is  designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive. Wisdom is the most attractive thing in existence. 
please correct this. 
Thank You 
Tommy Grafstrom  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.136 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the source says nothing about maturity or utilitarianism. While we're at it, the phrase 'There appears to be consensus that' in the next sentence should be whittled down somehow as well. TeraTIX 01:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Done. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of utilitarian in the description of wisdom isn't necessary.  

message: Would appreciate advice from other editors on whether edits give undue weight. TeraTIX 13:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Sgbpryan]] 

message: philosopher Slavoj Žižek criticize the (use of the) word "wisdom" as stupidity, and used by opportunistic people here:
youtu.be/tEQgAajHLcQ?t=434 -- contribution by user:Medelalami 20:36, 10 December 2018‎ 
:see Slavoj_Žižek#Chomsky for Noam Chomsky's take on Professor Žižek. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 23:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This is a specifically East Asian view (as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy) points out as well) and not really part of a general definition of wisdom.
Therefore rephrased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.233.156 (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-attachement doesn't really fit here 

message: Common sense and wisdom are almost the same thing.
Best Wishes,
184.22.249.124 (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Distinction Between Common Sense and Wisdom is Not Sharp 

message: The "Christian theology" section has a number of citations referenced at the beginning of each paragraph, which is at any rate an unusual practice. Do they belong at the ends of the preceding paragraphs or at the ends of the paragraphs where they currently appear at the beginning? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in "Christian theology" section 

message: Wtf is psycanics? Why does this article mention psycanics and its view of wisdom? It seems like a very esoteric cult with absolutely no relevance 2601:192:100:3BB0:411B:37CC:7DAA:911F (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding “psycanics”

message: Under the section "Chinese religion" there is a quote that states in Doctrine of the Mean by Confucius he says "Love of learning is akin to wisdom. To practice with vigor is akin to humanity. To know to be shameful is akin to courage (zhi, ren, yong.. three of Mengzi's sprouts of virtue)." When I looked through multiple versions of the test I was unable to find anything directly stating it. The most I found was a user review on a book here  which states it word by word. However, according to multiple translated copies, he does say something close to that which would be better "To be fond of learning is to be near to knowledge. To practice with vigor is to be near to magnanimity. To possess the feeling of shame is to be near to energy. He who knows these three things knows how to cultivate his own character."  -- • Apollo468•  02:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote