wisdom essay introduction

Essay on Wisdom

Students are often asked to write an essay on Wisdom in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Wisdom

Understanding wisdom.

Wisdom is a special kind of knowledge. It’s not just about knowing facts, but understanding life. Wisdom helps us make good choices and learn from our experiences.

Wisdom and Age

People often link wisdom with age. As we grow older, we experience more, which can lead to greater wisdom. But age doesn’t guarantee wisdom. It’s about learning from experiences.

Wisdom and Education

Education can provide knowledge, but wisdom comes from applying that knowledge in real life. It’s about understanding, not just remembering facts.

Importance of Wisdom

Wisdom is important because it guides us in life. It helps us make good decisions, understand others, and live a meaningful life.

Also check:

10 Lines on Wisdom

250 Words Essay on Wisdom

Wisdom is often mistakenly conflated with intelligence or knowledge. However, it is a distinct concept, characterized by a deep understanding of life’s complexities, an ability to make sound judgments, and a capacity for empathy and compassion. Unlike intelligence, which is largely innate, wisdom is typically acquired through experience and introspection.

The Components of Wisdom

Wisdom can be broken down into three key components: cognitive, reflective, and affective. The cognitive component involves an understanding of life and its uncertainties. The reflective component pertains to the ability to look inward and understand one’s own behavior and motivations. The affective component is characterized by empathy and compassion for others.

Contrary to popular belief, wisdom is not necessarily tied to age. While age can bring experiences that contribute to wisdom, it is the quality of these experiences, and one’s reflection on them, that truly matters. Young individuals can be wise beyond their years, while some older individuals may lack wisdom.

The Value of Wisdom

In a rapidly changing world, wisdom has never been more valuable. It allows us to navigate life’s complexities with grace and resilience, fostering personal growth and societal progress. Wisdom also promotes empathy and understanding, vital for bridging divides in our increasingly interconnected world.

In conclusion, wisdom is a multifaceted concept that transcends mere intelligence or knowledge. It is a profound understanding of life and humanity, honed through experience and introspection. In a world fraught with uncertainty, the pursuit of wisdom is a worthy endeavor.

500 Words Essay on Wisdom

Introduction.

Wisdom, a term frequently used yet often misunderstood, encapsulates a profound understanding of life, its intricacies, and its interconnectedness. Unlike knowledge, which is the accumulation of facts and data, wisdom is an ability to apply knowledge in a meaningful and beneficial way. It transcends the boundaries of academia and delves into the realm of experiential learning and deep reflection.

The Nature of Wisdom

Wisdom is often associated with age, as it is perceived that life experiences contribute to its development. However, it is not merely a byproduct of time but rather a result of how one processes and learns from experiences. It is the ability to discern and judge which aspects of that knowledge are true, right, lasting, and applicable to one’s life.

Wisdom is also characterized by its universality. It transcends cultural, social, and geographical boundaries. The wisdom of understanding human emotions, for instance, is applicable across cultures and societies. It underlines the shared human experience and our collective struggle to make sense of the world.

Wisdom and Emotional Intelligence

The relationship between wisdom and emotional intelligence is profound. Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand, use, and manage our own emotions in positive ways, contributes significantly to wisdom. It allows us to empathize with others, overcome challenges, and defuse conflict, which are all hallmarks of wisdom.

Wisdom, in this context, is not just about intellectual understanding but also about emotional resilience. It involves the ability to navigate through the complexities of our emotions, to learn from our failures and to find meaning in our experiences.

Wisdom in the Digital Age

In the digital age, where information is readily available, the distinction between wisdom and knowledge becomes even more critical. The internet offers an abundance of information, but wisdom is required to sift through this vast sea of data and extract what is truly valuable.

The digital age also presents new challenges to wisdom. In an era dominated by short-term gratification and superficial engagement, wisdom calls for deep reflection, long-term thinking, and genuine connection. It encourages us to question, to seek understanding, and to engage with the world in a meaningful way.

In conclusion, wisdom is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses deep understanding, emotional intelligence, and the ability to apply knowledge in a meaningful way. It is a critical skill in our modern world, helping us navigate through an abundance of information and make sense of our experiences. Wisdom is not just about knowing; it’s about understanding. It is not just about facts; it’s about meaning. It is not just about information; it’s about insight. In essence, wisdom is the compass that guides us through the labyrinth of life.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Winter
Essay on I Chose Teaching as a Profession
Essay on I Chose Nursing as a Profession

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Wisdom: Top 4 Essays on Wisdom

Essay on Wisdom

Essay on Relationship Between Wisdom and Knowledge

Essay on wisdom is power, essay on true wisdom come from experience.

Wisdom is one of the highest forms of human characteristics. Through wisdom, virtues can be brought to life. The beauty of wisdom is that it is not dependent on the theories that are written in books, or the curriculum in the schools and colleges. It is not something that can be transferred just by talking about it. Wisdom is how life shapes us. It is about the impacts that we have upon our soul while going through all sorts of pleasant and unpleasant experiences of life.

Various Versions But One

Many philosophers, religious institutions, and educationalists have defined wisdom in their own definite ways. Some try to relate it to the right way of living, some say that wisdom is acknowledging and being answerable to God for all the deeds. It has also been known to associate with decision-making between right and wrong, habits like speaking truth, following the moral values.

Intelligence is Not Always Wisdom

Although, on a more spiritual note, or a generic note, as we may say, wisdom is not confined to some rules or paths. A collection of experiences and virtues shape our wisdom. One may have a wide range and depth of knowledge but that doesn’t necessarily make her/him wise.

Illustrations

There are so many beautiful illustrations reflecting light on the uniqueness and significance of wisdom. It is very simple and possible for almost anybody to learn to fire a gun. But not everybody is capable of making the right decision about when to and when not to fire the gun. This decision-making requires wisdom.

The Importance of Wisdom

But why so much fuss about wisdom? How does it make our life different or change it? Well, wisdom takes us above the loop of feelings, emotions, and the whirlpools of envy, restlessness, and anger. It brings peace to the heart and to the mind as well. It is only through wisdom, that one may realize that forgiving others bad deeds, ignoring their faults, and being kind and accepting to all is the highest and truest virtues of all human beings.

Wisdom is the germination of the seeds of empathy, compassion, and kindness. It is the eruption of unconditional love toward every soul, whether human beings, animals, or trees. Wisdom gives us the ability to see the beauty and real power of nature. In true words, this is the real way of being close to God.

It is only through wisdom that one understands and realizes that religions, rules of worshipping, and confining God to being a particular person or version are nothing but just a human way of interpretation of the power of nature. To a wise person, they look mere concepts to him and he/she is able to go beyond these things. The definition of God, the right path, the understanding of the whole universe changes to him. Wisdom gets us out of the chains of the societal norms and allows us to look past them. It shows us the real purpose of life and gifts us with the power to attain and live with that true purpose.

Many of us may get confused when asked about the difference or relationship between wisdom and knowledge. On the surface level, both look similar, if not the same. But the thing is, wisdom is more abstract in nature and knowledge is somewhat technical.

Knowledge comes from reading, exploring, learning, and educating oneself. In order to increase the knowledge, one can turn toward reading more books or learning and specializing in a skill. In other words, it is measurable up to a certain extent.

Wisdom is what life and its experiences teach us. Being wise is not the same as being intelligent. It is about much more than just the skills and mastery of a subject. In fact, wisdom is about human virtues, that makes us different from other animal species. These virtues are developing empathy, having compassion and kindness, becoming more self-aware of our thoughts, emotions, and feelings.

Wisdom and Knowledge

The difference between the two is very subtle. However, if put into simpler words, it is not that difficult to understand either. One can gain knowledge and know what is right and wrong, what is healthy and what is unhealthy, how to perform a task, how to drive, how to cook. All these things can be learned and specialized in. But, the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, the capacity to choose the right and skip the wrong, comes from wisdom.

In another way, the ability to use the learned knowledge in the best and most ethical way is called wisdom. Knowing how to use the knowledge is wisdom. Knowledge can be given but wisdom cannot. Knowledge can be learned but wisdom can only be attained.

An example would be the best way to understand the concepts deeply. So, for instance, all kinds of thoughts, whether positive or negative, healthy or toxic, happy or sad come to our mind. We feel them and know that these feelings are a very natural part of human beings. This is knowledge. But understanding, observing, and staying aware and detached of these thoughts requires wisdom. Wisdom takes us to a much higher level and answers the riddle of why we are feeling in a particular way and whether we should act on those feelings or not. That judgment call depends on our wisdom.

There have been many philosophical, religious, and educational versions and definitions of wisdom and knowledge. Nonetheless, all lead to the same conclusion. Everybody knows and has been taught about the right way of living but not all can do it really. That is where a fine demarcation comes between knowledge and wisdom. To be able to apply the knowledge, to be able to think, and acknowledge why things are the way they are, makes us wise.

Thus, it is only through wisdom that we begin to behave beyond the petty attributes like self-obsession, jealousy, anger and instead, learn to grow as a human being filled with compassion, empathy, acceptance, and love for all.

The human race has wondered and marveled for a long time for its distinguished ability to behave and think differently than other animal species. We have highly evolved emotional, mental, and social etiquette. But is that the end of the list? Of course not. There is something very peculiar about us which makes us stand out as a species, which transforms us from Homo Sapiens into human beings. And that is called wisdom.

Seeking Wisdom

There is a reason why people do not find peace in spite of being surrounded by all kinds of materialistic pleasures. There is also a reason why many people living a highly comfortable and rich life, leave it just like that and set out to explore something that is still unknown to them.

In India, such ways of life are not new to us. We have always been surrounded bys saints and celibates. The culture in India has long been enriching. It has always focused less on physical pleasures and more on the seeking nature within us. After a certain point, we all begin to realize that the worldly amusements can only satisfy us on a superficial level but cannot quench our soul. For our spiritual growth, something deeper is needed.

What is not Wisdom

All around us, we see the world burning with feelings of competition, unsparing greed, unforgiveness, jealousy, anger, and what not. And this is not the story of those who lack basic amenities to a dignified life. This is the case of people who have everything in abundance but peace and gratitude.

Wisdom takes us from this path of uncertainty and shallowness and brightens up with the light of truth. And that same truth would liberate us. This is the power of wisdom. Wisdom is not restricted to listening to some discourses or following the religious rites and rituals. It is about realizing the darkness of greed, that the constant need for competing with each other is nothing but just a bottomless pit. A whirlpool of desires.

Wisdom is Empowering

Through our experiences comes a realization that the peace of our mind is in our hands. This is the most empowering thing that can happen to us and no book can teach this to us. It is like reaching and activating the seeds and portals of consciousness which were dormant within us till now. The whole phenomenon enriches us at a much deeper level and calms down the inside chaos. After which, we start to see the beauty in everything and learn to accept life the way it is. Our heart is filled with forgiveness and compassion.

Wisdom frees us from the chains of a limited mind so that we do not remain the slaves of our own desires. Books can teach us what is just and what is unjust. But the power of standing and walking down that just path is provided by our wisdom. This spiritual and emotional advancement is irreplaceable and can only become possible through wisdom.

They say that life changes you and shapes you like nothing else can. That there is a great difference between knowing something and living it. Well, it is quite true in the case of wisdom. True wisdom comes only from experience.

What the Life Phases Teach Us

Let us recall how we felt when we were just a kid. Life looked so uncomplicated and manageable at that time. Then, came teenage. Our own definition of life was metamorphosed a bit. We realized that after all, life is not that simple. It is not confined to having your favorite meals and dresses.

When we crossed teenage and entered into adulthood, even the young age years looked dreamy and we again felt that life is more than just having a relationship. It is more about making yourself independent, taking care of ourselves and our loved ones. Being responsible and accountable for our decisions and choices topped the list of our way of living.

How Experience Shapes Us

We all travel different paths of life. The ups and downs of our lives are unique. It is interesting to observe that same event or experience can be perceived in a completely non-identical way by two different persons. The impacts and effects of a trauma, a joy, or any other major change of events may not be the same for both of them. This is the reason, even after going through the same phases and stages of living in this world, we may end up having dissimilar perceptions of life.

Wisdom is Independent

There is no specific set of rules to becoming wise. What’s more intriguing is that having the same age, gender, or ethnicity does not make two people wise in the same way. Wisdom is independent of these factors. A person may attain wisdom at the age of 20, that doesn’t in any way mean that another person of age 40 would be double wise.

True Wisdom

Truth is, true wisdom can only be attained through experiencing life and that means having experienced it in its fullest form. Understanding that life is not always about being happy, satisfaction, or running for temptations. In fact, sorrow, pain, tragedy, self-restraint are a part of it. True wisdom teaches us that if life has to be embraced, then, the only way to do that is through acceptance, self-observation, and with full consciousness.

With practice, wisdom takes us above the basic instincts. It doesn’t let us be reduced to mere puppets in the hands of our instant gratification. Wisdom gives our mind the power to differentiate between justified and unjustified and act accordingly. Experiencing the bright and dark, both faces of life, are we filled with love, kindness, compassion, and non-judgment toward others and also ourselves. And there is no shortcut to that. Every event in the life has a purpose. It is trying to teach us something. Opening our mind and soul to it fully is what wisdom teaches us.

Get FREE Work-at-Home Job Leads Delivered Weekly!

Join more than 50,000 subscribers receiving regular updates! Plus, get a FREE copy of How to Make Money Blogging!

Message from Sophia!

No related posts.

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Billionaires

Donald Trump
Warren Buffett
Email Address
Free Stock Photos
Keyword Research Tools
URL Shortener Tools
WordPress Theme

Book Summaries

How To Win Friends
Rich Dad Poor Dad
The Code of the Extraordinary Mind
The Luck Factor
The Millionaire Fastlane
The ONE Thing
Think and Grow Rich
100 Million Dollar Business
Business Ideas

Digital Marketing

Mobile Addiction
Social Media Addiction
Computer Addiction
Drug Addiction
Internet Addiction
TV Addiction
Healthy Habits
Morning Rituals
Wake up Early
Cholesterol
Reducing Cholesterol
Fat Loss Diet Plan
Reducing Hair Fall
Sleep Apnea
Weight Loss

Internet Marketing

Email Marketing

Law of Attraction

Subconscious Mind
Vision Board
Visualization

Law of Vibration

Professional Life

Motivational Speakers

Bob Proctor
Robert Kiyosaki
Vivek Bindra
Inner Peace

Productivity

Not To-do List
Project Management Software
Negative Energies

Relationship

Getting Back Your Ex

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Self-improvement.

Body Language
Complainers
Emotional Intelligence
Personality

Social Media

Project Management
Anik Singal
Baba Ramdev
Dwayne Johnson
Jackie Chan
Leonardo DiCaprio
Narendra Modi
Nikola Tesla
Sachin Tendulkar
Sandeep Maheshwari
Shaqir Hussyin

Website Development

Wisdom post, worlds most.

Expensive Cars

Our Portals: Gulf Canada USA Italy Gulf UK

Privacy Overview

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

What is wisdom? Philosophers, psychologists, spiritual leaders, poets, novelists, life coaches, and a variety of other important thinkers have tried to understand the concept of wisdom. This entry will provide a brief and general overview, and analysis of, several philosophical views on the topic of wisdom. It is not intended to capture the many interesting and important approaches to wisdom found in other fields of inquiry. Moreover, this entry will focus on several major ideas in the Western philosophical tradition. In particular, it will focus on five general approaches to understanding what it takes to be wise: (1) wisdom as epistemic humility, (2) wisdom as epistemic accuracy, (3) wisdom as knowledge, (4) a hybrid theory of wisdom, and (5) wisdom as rationality.

1. Wisdom as Epistemic Humility

2. wisdom as epistemic accuracy, 3. wisdom as knowledge, 4. hybrid theory, 5. wisdom as rationality, other internet resources, related entries.

Socrates’ view of wisdom, as expressed by Plato in The Apology (20e-23c), is sometimes interpreted as an example of a humility theory of wisdom (see, for example, Ryan 1996 and Whitcomb, 2010). In Plato’s Apology , Socrates and his friend Chaerephon visit the oracle at Delphi. As the story goes, Chaerephon asks the oracle whether anyone is wiser than Socrates. The oracle’s answer is that Socrates is the wisest person. Socrates reports that he is puzzled by this answer since so many other people in the community are well known for their extensive knowledge and wisdom, and yet Socrates claims that he lacks knowledge and wisdom. Socrates does an investigation to get to the bottom of this puzzle. He interrogates a series of politicians, poets, and craftsmen. As one would expect, Socrates’ investigation reveals that those who claim to have knowledge either do not really know any of the things they claim to know, or else know far less than they proclaim to know. The most knowledgeable of the bunch, the craftsmen, know about their craft, but they claim to know things far beyond the scope of their expertise. Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know things he does not know, nor the vice of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom. In this revelation, we have a potential resolution to the wisdom puzzle in The Apology .

Although the story may initially appear to deliver a clear theory of wisdom, it is actually quite difficult to capture a textually accurate and plausible theory here. One interpretation is that Socrates is wise because he, unlike the others, believes he is not wise, whereas the poets, politicians, and craftsmen arrogantly and falsely believe they are wise. This theory, which will be labeled Humility Theory 1 (H1), is simply (see, for example, Lehrer & Smith 1996, 3):

Humility Theory 1 (H1) : S is wise iff S believes s/he is not wise.

This is a tempting and popular interpretation because Socrates certainly thinks he has shown that the epistemically arrogant poets, politicians, and craftsmen lack wisdom. Moreover, Socrates claims that he is not wise, and yet, if we trust the oracle, Socrates is actually wise.

Upon careful inspection, (H1) is not a reasonable interpretation of Socrates’ view. Although Socrates does not boast of his own wisdom, he does believe the oracle. If he was convinced that he was not wise, he would have rejected the oracle and gone about his business because he would not find any puzzle to unravel. Clearly, he believes, on some level, that he is wise. The mystery is: what is wisdom if he has it and the others lack it? Socrates nowhere suggests that he has become unwise after believing the oracle. Thus, (H1) is not an acceptable interpretation of Socrates’ view.

Moreover, (H1) is false. Many people are clear counterexamples to (H1). Many people who believe they are not wise are correct in their self-assessment. Thus, the belief that one is not wise is not a sufficient condition for wisdom. Furthermore, it seems that the belief that one is not wise is not necessary for wisdom. It seems plausible to think that a wise person could be wise enough to realize that she is wise. Too much modesty might get in the way of making good decisions and sharing what one knows. If one thinks Socrates was a wise person, and if one accepts that Socrates did, in fact, accept that he was wise, then Socrates himself is a counterexample to (H1). The belief that one is wise could be a perfectly well justified belief for a wise person. Having the belief that one is wise does not, in itself, eliminate the possibility that the person is wise. Nor does it guarantee the vice of arrogance. We should hope that a wise person would have a healthy dose of epistemic self-confidence, appreciate that she is wise, and share her understanding of reality with the rest of us who could benefit from her wisdom. Thus, the belief that one is not wise is not required for wisdom.

(H1) focused on believing one is not wise. Another version of the humility theory is worth considering. When Socrates demonstrates that a person is not wise, he does so by showing that the person lacks some knowledge that he or she claims to possess. Thus, one might think that Socrates’ view could be better captured by focusing on the idea that wise people believe they lack knowledge (rather than lacking wisdom). That is, one might consider the following view:

Humility Theory 2 (H2): S is wise iff S believes S does not know anything.

Unfortunately, this interpretation is not any better than (H1). It falls prey to problems similar to those that refuted (H1) both as an interpretation of Socrates, and as an acceptable account of wisdom. Moreover, remember that Socrates admits that the craftsmen do have some knowledge. Socrates might have considered them to be wise if they had restricted their confidence and claims to knowledge to what they actually did know about their craft. Their problem was that they professed to have knowledge beyond their area of expertise. The problem was not that they claimed to have knowledge.

Before turning to alternative approaches to wisdom, it is worth mentioning another interpretation of Socrates that fits with the general spirit of epistemic humility. One might think that what Socrates is establishing is that his wisdom is found in his realization that human wisdom is not a particularly valuable kind of wisdom. Only the gods possess the kind of wisdom that is truly valuable. This is clearly one of Socrates’ insights, but it does not provide us with an understanding of the nature of wisdom. It tells us only of its comparative value. Merely understanding this evaluative insight would not, for reasons similar to those discussed with (HP1) and (HP2), make one wise.

Humility theories of wisdom are not promising, but they do, perhaps, provide us with some important character traits associated with wise people. Wise people, one might argue, possess epistemic self-confidence, yet lack epistemic arrogance. Wise people tend to acknowledge their fallibility, and wise people are reflective, introspective, and tolerant of uncertainty. Any acceptable theory of wisdom ought to be compatible with such traits. However, those traits are not, in and of themselves, definitive of wisdom.

Socrates can be interpreted as providing an epistemic accuracy, rather than an epistemic humility, theory of wisdom. The poets, politicians, and craftsmen all believe they have knowledge about topics on which they are considerably ignorant. Socrates, one might argue, believes he has knowledge when, and only when, he really does have knowledge. Perhaps wise people restrict their confidence to propositions for which they have knowledge or, at least, to propositions for which they have excellent justification. Perhaps Socrates is better interpreted as having held an Epistemic Accuracy Theory such as:

Epistemic Accuracy Theory 1 (EA1) : S is wise iff for all p , ( S believes S knows p iff S knows p .)

According to (EA1), a wise person is accurate about what she knows and what she does not know. If she really knows p , she believes she knows p . And, if she believes she knows p , then she really does know p . (EA1) is consistent with the idea that Socrates accepts that he is wise and with the idea that Socrates does have some knowledge. (EA1) is a plausible interpretation of the view Socrates endorses, but it is not a plausible answer in the search for an understanding of wisdom. Wise people can make mistakes about what they know. Socrates, Maimonides, King Solomon, Einstein, Goethe, Gandhi, and every other candidate for the honor of wisdom have held false beliefs about what they did and did not know. It is easy to imagine a wise person being justified in believing she possesses knowledge about some claim, and also easy to imagine that she could be shown to be mistaken, perhaps long after her death. If (EA1) is true, then just because a person believes she has knowledge when she does not, she is not wise. That seems wrong. It is hard to imagine that anyone at all is, or ever has been, wise if (EA1) is correct.

We could revise the Epistemic Accuracy Theory to get around this problem. We might only require that a wise person’s belief is highly justified when she believes she has knowledge. That excuses people with bad epistemic luck.

Epistemic Accuracy 2 (EA2) : S is wise iff for all p , ( S believes S knows p iff S ’s belief in p is highly justified.)

(EA2) gets around the problem with (EA1). The Socratic Method challenges one to produce reasons for one’s view. When Socrates’ interlocutor is left dumbfounded, or reduced to absurdity, Socrates rests his case. One might argue that through his questioning, Socrates reveals not that his opponents lack knowledge because their beliefs are false, but he demonstrates that his opponents are not justified in holding the views they profess to know. Since the craftsmen, poets, and politicians questioned by Socrates all fail his interrogation, they were shown, one might argue, to have claimed to have knowledge when their beliefs were not even justified.

Many philosophers would hesitate to endorse this interpretation of what is going on in The Apology . They would argue that a failure to defend one’s beliefs from Socrates’ relentless questioning does not show that a person is not justified in believing a proposition. Many philosophers would argue that having very good evidence, or forming a belief via a reliable process, would be sufficient for justification.

Proving, or demonstrating to an interrogator, that one is justified is another matter, and not necessary for simply being justified. Socrates, some might argue, shows only that the craftsmen, poets, and politicians cannot defend themselves from his questions. He does not show, one might argue, that the poets, politicians, and craftsmen have unjustified beliefs. Since we gain very little insight into the details of the conversation in this dialogue, it would be unfair to dismiss this interpretation on these grounds. Perhaps Socrates did show, through his intense questioning, that the craftsmen, poets, and politicians formed and held their beliefs without adequate evidence or formed and held them through unreliable belief forming processes. Socrates only reports that they did not know all that they professed to know. Since we do not get to witness the actual questioning as we do in Plato’s other dialogues, we should not reject (EA2) as an interpretation of Socrates’ view of wisdom in The Apology .

Regardless of whether (EA2) is Socrates’ view, there are problems for (EA2) as an account of what it means to be wise. Even if (EA2) is exactly what Socrates meant, some philosophers would argue that one could be justified in believing a proposition, but not realize that she is justified. If that is a possible situation for a wise person to be in, then she might be justified, but fail to believe she has knowledge. Could a wise person be in such a situation, or is it necessary that a wise person would always recognize the epistemic value of what he or she believes? [ 1 ] If this situation is impossible, then this criticism could be avoided. There is no need to resolve this issue here because (EA1) and (EA2) fall prey to another, much less philosophically thorny and controversial problem.

(EA1) and (EA2) suffer from a similar, and very serious, problem. Imagine a person who has very little knowledge. Suppose further, that the few things she does know are of little or no importance. She could be the sort of person that nobody would ever go to for information or advice. Such a person could be very cautious and believe that she knows only what she actually knows. Although she would have accurate beliefs about what she does and does not know, she would not be wise. This shows that (EA1) is flawed. As for (EA2), imagine that she believes she knows only what she is actually justified in believing. She is still not wise. It should be noted, however, that although accuracy theories do not provide an adequate account of wisdom, they reveal an important insight. Perhaps a necessary condition for being wise is that wise people think they have knowledge only when their beliefs are highly justified. Or, even more simply, perhaps wise people have epistemically justified, or rational, beliefs.

An alternative approach to wisdom focuses on the more positive idea that wise people are very knowledgeable people. There are many views in the historical and contemporary philosophical literature on wisdom that have knowledge, as opposed to humility or accuracy, as at least a necessary condition of wisdom. Aristotle ( Nichomachean Ethics VI, ch. 7), Descartes ( Principles of Philosophy ), Richard Garrett (1996), John Kekes (1983), Keith Lehrer & Nicholas Smith (1996), Robert Nozick (1989), Plato ( The Republic ), Sharon Ryan (1996, 1999), Valerie Tiberius (2008), Dennis Whitcomb (2010) and Linda Zagzebski (1996) for example, have all defended theories of wisdom that require a wise person to have knowledge of some sort. All of these views very clearly distinguish knowledge from expertise on a particular subject. Moreover, all of these views maintain that wise people know “what is important.” The views differ, for the most part, over what it is important for a wise person to know, and on whether there is any behavior, action, or way of living, that is required for wisdom.

Aristotle distinguished between two different kinds of wisdom, theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom is, according to Aristotle, “scientific knowledge, combined with intuitive reason, of the things that are highest by nature” ( Nicomachean Ethics , VI, 1141b). For Aristotle, theoretical wisdom involves knowledge of necessary, scientific, first principles and propositions that can be logically deduced from them. Aristotle’s idea that scientific knowledge is knowledge of necessary truths and their logical consequences is no longer a widely accepted view. Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, I will consider a theory that reflects the spirit of Aristotle’s view on theoretical wisdom, but without the controversy about the necessary or contingent nature of scientific knowledge. Moreover, it will combine scientific knowledge with other kinds of factual knowledge, including knowledge about history, philosophy, music, literature, mathematics, etc. Consider the following, knowledge based, theory of wisdom:

Wisdom as Extensive Factual Knowledge (WFK) : S is wise iff S has extensive factual knowledge about science, history, philosophy, literature, music, etc.

According to (WFK), a wise person is a person who knows a lot about the universe and our place in it. She would have extensive knowledge about the standard academic subjects. There are many positive things to say about (WFK). (WFK) nicely distinguishes between narrow expertise and knowledge of the mundane, from the important, broad, and general kind of knowledge possessed by wise people. As Aristotle puts it, “…we think that some people are wise in general, not in some particular field or in any other limited respect…” ( Nicomachean Ethics , Book 6, 1141a).

The main problem for (WFK) is that some of the most knowledgeable people are not wise. Although they have an abundance of very important factual knowledge, they lack the kind of practical know-how that is a mark of a wise person. Wise people know how to get on in the world in all kinds of situations and with all kinds of people. Extensive factual knowledge is not enough to give us what a wise person knows. As Robert Nozick points out, “Wisdom is not just knowing fundamental truths, if these are unconnected with the guidance of life or with a perspective on its meaning” (1989, 269). There is more to wisdom than intelligence and knowledge of science and philosophy or any other subject matter. Aristotle is well aware of the limitations of what he calls theoretical wisdom. However, rather than making improvements to something like (WFK), Aristotle distinguishes it as one kind of wisdom. Other philosophers would be willing to abandon (WFK), that is, claim that it provides insufficient conditions for wisdom, and add on what is missing.

Aristotle has a concept of practical wisdom that makes up for what is missing in theoretical wisdom. In Book VI of the Nicomachean Ethics , he claims, “This is why we say Anaxagoras, Thales, and men like them have philosophic but not practical wisdom, when we see them ignorant of what is to their own advantage, and why we say that they know things that are remarkable, admirable, difficult, and divine, but useless; viz. because it is not human goods they seek” (1141a). Knowledge of contingent facts that are useful to living well is required in Aristotle’s practical wisdom. According to Aristotle, “Now it is thought to be the mark of a man of practical wisdom to be able to deliberate well about what is good and expedient for himself, not in some particular respect, e.g. about what sorts of thing conduce to health or to strength, but about what sorts of thing conduce to the good life in general” ( Nichomachean Ethics , VI, 1140a–1140b). Thus, for Aristotle, practical wisdom requires knowing, in general, how to live well. Many philosophers agree with Aristotle on this point. However, many would not be satisfied with the conclusion that theoretical wisdom is one kind of wisdom and practical wisdom another. Other philosophers, including Linda Zagzebski (1996), agree that there are these two types of wisdom that ought to be distinguished.

Let’s proceed, without argument, on the assumption that it is possible to have a theory of one, general, kind of wisdom. Wisdom, in general, many philosophers would argue, requires practical knowledge about living. What Aristotle calls theoretical wisdom, many would contend, is not wisdom at all. Aristotle’s theoretical wisdom is merely extensive knowledge or deep understanding. Nicholas Maxwell (1984), in his argument to revolutionize education, argues that we should be teaching for wisdom, which he sharply distinguishes from standard academic knowledge. Similar points are raised by Robert Sternberg (2001) and Andrew Norman (1996). Robert Nozick holds a view very similar to Aristotle’s theory of practical wisdom, but Nozick is trying to capture the essence of wisdom, period. He is not trying to define one, alternative, kind of wisdom. Nozick claims, “Wisdom is what you need to understand in order to live well and cope with the central problems and avoid the dangers in the predicaments human beings find themselves in” (1989, 267). And, John Kekes maintains that, “What a wise man knows, therefore, is how to construct a pattern that, given the human situation, is likely to lead to a good life” (1983, 280). More recently, Valerie Tiberius (2008) has developed a practical view that connects wisdom with well being, requiring, among other things, that a wise person live the sort of life that he or she could sincerely endorse upon reflection. Such practical views of wisdom could be expressed, generally, as follows.

Wisdom as Knowing How To Live Well (KLW) : S is wise iff S knows how to live well.

This view captures Aristotle’s basic idea of practical wisdom. It also captures an important aspect of views defended by Nozick, Plato, Garrett, Kekes, Maxwell, Ryan, and Tiberius. Although giving an account of what it means to know how to live well may prove as difficult a topic as providing an account of wisdom, Nozick provides a very illuminating start.

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 real motives are; how to cope and deal with the major tragedies and dilemmas of life, and with the major good things too. (1989, 269)

With Nozick’s explanation of what one must know in order to live well, we have an interesting and quite attractive, albeit somewhat rough, theory of wisdom. As noted above, many philosophers, including Aristotle and Zagzebski would, however, reject (KLW) as the full story on wisdom. Aristotle and Zagzebski would obviously reject (KLW) as the full story because they believe theoretical wisdom is another kind of wisdom, and are unwilling to accept that there is a conception of one, general, kind of wisdom. Kekes claims, “The possession of wisdom shows itself in reliable, sound, reasonable, in a word, good judgment. In good judgment, a person brings his knowledge to bear on his actions. To understand wisdom, we have to understand its connection with knowledge, action, and judgment” (1983, 277). Kekes adds, “Wisdom ought also to show in the man who has it” (1983, 281). Many philosophers, therefore, think that wisdom is not restricted even to knowledge about how to live well. Tiberius thinks the wise person’s actions reflect their basic values. These philosophers believe that being wise also includes action. A person could satisfy the conditions of any of the principles we have considered thus far and nevertheless behave in a wildly reckless manner. Wildly reckless people are, even if very knowledgeable about life, not wise.

Philosophers who are attracted to the idea that knowing how to live well is a necessary condition for wisdom might want to simply tack on a success condition to (KLW) to get around cases in which a person knows all about living well, yet fails to put this knowledge into practice. Something along the lines of the following theory would capture this idea.

Wisdom as Knowing How To, and Succeeding at, Living Well (KLS) : S is wise iff (i) S knows how to live well, and (ii) S is successful at living well.

The idea of the success condition is that one puts one’s knowledge into practice. Or, rather than using the terminology of success, one might require that a wise person’s beliefs and values cohere with one’s actions (Tiberius, 2008). The main idea is that one’s actions are reflective of one’s understanding of what it means to live well. A view along the lines of (KLS) would be embraced by Aristotle and Zagzebski (for practical wisdom), and by Kekes, Nozick, and Tiberius. (KLS) would not be universally embraced, however (see Ryan 1999, for further criticisms). One criticism of (KLS) is that one might think that all the factual knowledge required by (WFK) is missing from this theory. One might argue that (WFK), the view that a wise person has extensive factual knowledge, was rejected only because it did not provide sufficient conditions for wisdom. Many philosophers would claim that (WFK) does provide a necessary condition for wisdom. A wise person, such a critic would argue, needs to know how to live well (as described by Nozick), but she also needs to have some deep and far-reaching theoretical, or factual, knowledge that may have very little impact on her daily life, practical decisions, or well being. In the preface of his Principles of Philosophy , Descartes insisted upon factual knowledge as an important component of wisdom. Descartes wrote, “It is really only God alone who has Perfect Wisdom, that is to say, who has a complete knowledge of the truth of all things; but it may be said that men have more wisdom or less according as they have more or less knowledge of the most important truths” ( Principles , 204). Of course, among those important truths, one might claim, are truths about living well, as well as knowledge in the basic academic subject areas.

Moreover, one might complain that the insight left standing from Epistemic Accuracy theories is also missing from (KLS). One might think that a wise person not only knows a lot, and succeeds at living well, she also confines her claims to knowledge (or belief that she has knowledge) to those propositions that she is justified in believing.

One way to try to accommodate the various insights from the theories considered thus far is in the form of a hybrid theory. One such idea is:

S is wise iff S has extensive factual and theoretical knowledge. S knows how to live well. S is successful at living well. S has very few unjustified beliefs.

Although this Hybrid Theory has a lot going for it, there are a number of important criticisms to consider. Dennis Whitcomb (2010) objects to all theories of wisdom that include a living well condition, or an appreciation of living well condition. He gives several interesting objections against such views. Whitcomb thinks that a person who is deeply depressed and totally devoid of any ambition for living well could nevertheless be wise. As long as such a person is deeply knowledgeable about academic subjects and knows how to live well, that person would have all they need for wisdom. With respect to a very knowledgeable and deeply depressed person with no ambition but to stay in his room, he claims, “If I ran across such a person, I would take his advice to heart, wish him a return to health, and leave the continuing search for sages to his less grateful advisees. And I would think he was wise despite his depression-induced failure to value or desire the good life. So I think that wisdom does not require valuing or desiring the good life.”

In response to Whitcomb’s penetrating criticism, one could argue that a deeply depressed person who is wise, would still live as well as she can, and would still value living well, even if she falls far short of perfection. Such a person would attempt to get help to deal with her depression. If she really does not care at all, she may be very knowledgeable, but she is not wise. There is something irrational about knowing how to live well and refusing to try to do so. Such irrationality is not compatible with wisdom. A person with this internal conflict may be extremely clever and shrewd, one to listen to on many issues, one to trust on many issues, and may even win a Nobel Prize for her intellectual greatness, but she is not admirable enough, and rationally consistent enough, to be wise. Wisdom is a virtue and a way of living, and it requires more than smart ideas and knowledge.

Aristotle held that “it is evident that it is impossible to be practically wise without being good” ( Nicomachean Ethics , 1144a, 36–37). Most of the philosophers mentioned thus far would include moral virtue in their understanding of what it means to live well. However, Whitcomb challenges any theory of wisdom that requires moral virtue. Whitcomb contends that a deeply evil person could nevertheless be wise.

Again, it is important to contrast being wise from being clever and intelligent. If we think of wisdom as the highest, or among the highest, of human virtues, then it seems incompatible with a deeply evil personality.

There is, however, a very serious problem with the Hybrid Theory. Since so much of what was long ago considered knowledge has been abandoned, or has evolved, a theory that requires truth (through a knowledge condition) would exclude almost all people who are now long dead, including Hypatia, Socrates, Confucius, Aristotle, Homer, Lao Tzu, etc. from the list of the wise. Bad epistemic luck, and having lived in the past, should not count against being wise. But, since truth is a necessary condition for knowledge, bad epistemic luck is sufficient to undermine a claim to knowledge. What matters, as far as being wise goes, is not that a wise person has knowledge, but that she has highly justified and rational beliefs about a wide variety of subjects, including how to live well, science, philosophy, mathematics, history, geography, art, literature, psychology, and so on. And the wider the variety of interesting topics, the better. Another way of developing this same point is to imagine a person with highly justified beliefs about a wide variety of subjects, but who is unaware that she is trapped in the Matrix, or some other skeptical scenario. Such a person could be wise even if she is sorely lacking knowledge. A theory of wisdom that focuses on having rational or epistemically justified beliefs, rather than the higher standard of actually having knowledge, would be more promising. Moreover, such a theory would incorporate much of what is attractive about epistemic humility, and epistemic accuracy, theories.

The final theory to be considered here is an attempt to capture all that is good, while avoiding all the serious problems of the other theories discussed thus far. Perhaps wisdom is a deep and comprehensive kind of rationality (Ryan, 2012).

Deep Rationality Theory (DRT): S is wise iff S has a wide variety of epistemically justified beliefs on a wide variety of valuable academic subjects. S has a wide variety of justified beliefs on how to live rationally (epistemically, morally, and practically). S is committed to living rationally. S has very few unjustified beliefs and is sensitive to her limitations.

In condition (1), DRT takes account of what is attractive about some knowledge theories by requiring epistemically justified beliefs about a wide variety of standard academic subjects. Condition (2) takes account of what is attractive about theories that require knowledge about how to live well. For example, having justified beliefs about how to live in a practically rational way would include having a well-reasoned strategy for dealing with the practical aspects of life. Having a rational plan does not require perfect success. It requires having good reasons behind one’s actions, responding appropriately to, and learning from, one’s mistakes, and having a rational plan for all sorts of situations and problems. Having justified beliefs about how to live in a morally rational way would not involve being a moral saint, but would require that one has good reasons supporting her beliefs about what is morally right and wrong, and about what one morally ought and ought not do in a wide variety of circumstances. Having justified beliefs about living in an emotionally rational way would involve, not dispassion, but having justified beliefs about what is, and what is not, an emotionally rational response to a situation. For example, it is appropriate to feel deeply sad when dealing with the loss of a loved one. But, ordinarily, feeling deeply sad or extremely angry is not an appropriate emotion to spilled milk. A wise person would have rational beliefs about the emotional needs and behaviors of other people.

Condition (3) ensures that the wise person live a life that reflects what she or he is justified in believing is a rational way to live. In condition (4), DRT respects epistemic humility. Condition (4) requires that a wise person not believe things without epistemic justification. The Deep Rationality Theory rules out all of the unwise poets, politicians, and craftsmen that were ruled out by Socrates. Wise people do not think they know when they lack sufficient evidence. Moreover, wise people are not epistemically arrogant.

The Deep Rationality Theory does not require knowledge or perfection. But it does require rationality, and it accommodates degrees of wisdom. It is a promising theory of wisdom.

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics , in The Basic Works of Aristotle , Richard McKeon, New York: Random House, 1941, pp. 935–1112.
Garrett, R., 1996, “Three Definitions of Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 221–232.
Descartes, R., Meditations on First Philosophy , in The Philosophical Works of Descartes , Volume 1, E. Haldane and G. Ross (trans. and eds.), London: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 131–199
Descartes, R., Principles of Philosophy , in Philosophical Works , E. Haldane and G. Ross (trans. and eds.), London: Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 201–302.
Kekes, J., 1983, “Wisdom,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 20(3): 277–286.
Lehrer, Keith, B. Jeannie Lum, Beverly A. Slichta, and Nicholas D. Smith (eds.), 1996, Knowledge, Teaching, and Wisdom , Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Lehrer, K., and N. Smith, 1996, “Introduction,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 3–17.
Maxwell, N., 1984, From Knowledge to Wisdom , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Norman, A., 1996, “Teaching Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 253–265.
Nozick, R., 1989, “What is Wisdom and Why Do Philosophers Love it So?” in The Examined Life , New York: Touchstone Press, pp. 267–278.
Plato, The Apology , in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 3–26.
Plato, The Republic , in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978, pp. 575–844.
Ryan, S., 1996, “Wisdom,” in Lehrer et al . 1996, pp. 233–242.
–––, 1999, “What is Wisdom?” Philosophical Studies , 93: 119–139.
–––, 2012, “Wisdom, Knowledge, and Rationality,” Acta Analytica , 27(2): 99–112.
Sternberg, R., 2001, “Why Schools Should Teach for Wisdom: The Balance Theory of Wisdom in Educational Settings,” Educational Psychologist , 36(4): 227–245.
Tiberius, V., 2008, The Reflective Life: Living Wisely With Our Limits , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitcomb, D., 2010, “Wisdom,” in Routledge Companion to Epistemology , S. Bernecker and D. Pritchard (eds.), London: Routledge.
Zagzebski, L., 1996, Virtues of the Mind , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

The Wisdom Page http://www.wisdompage.com/

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Words of Wisdom: Intro to Philosophy

(5 reviews)

Jody Ondich, Lake Superior College, Duluth, Minnesota

Publisher: Jody Ondich

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Charles Bolyard, Professor of Philosophy, James Madison University on 7/31/23

Positives: a. Coverage of Medieval period is pretty good, though the author lumps in Machiavelli, who is a Renaissance thinker for some reason. b. The index is easy to navigate. Negatives: a. There is no glossary. b. Some of the... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

Positives: a. Coverage of Medieval period is pretty good, though the author lumps in Machiavelli, who is a Renaissance thinker for some reason. b. The index is easy to navigate.

Negatives: a. There is no glossary. b. Some of the author’s introductions to texts have inaccuracies. E.g, in the section on Abelard and Heloise, the author writes “Abelard, although known at the time as a leader and philosopher, is only survived by his letters.” This is false, since we have many of his philosophical/theological texts as well. Also, the author misconstrues Anselm’s definition of God a bit: it is “that than which” nothing greater can be thought/conceived, not “that which…” c. The author should clearly indicate when a text is complete or incomplete, and should include clear references to which sections are included if it is incomplete. d. More primary texts make for a more useable textbook, since this allows professors more freedom to pick the particular things they want to use. In the Ancient section, for instance, the complete text of the Apology and Crito, along with the death scene from the end of the Phaedo, would be good. Perhaps some selections from Epicurus would be worthwhile as well. In the Early Modern section, including the complete text of Descartes’ Meditations, selections from Locke on primary/secondary qualities and sensation, and Berkeley’s complete Three Dialogues would round things out nicely. In the Late Modern section, a longer selection from Bentham and a complete verions of Mill’s Utilitarianism would be good. In the Modern section, complete articles, instead of very short excerpts, would be better, as would including a greater array of articles from which to choose.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

No significant problems with the content included.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 3

The present-day materials (videos, etc.) are a nice touch, and make this more accessible to beginning students. The content is up-to-date as far as it goes, but it needs a greater array of primary texts and articles.

Clarity rating: 5

The author’s introductions to the readings are clearly written and accessible.

Consistency rating: 3

N/A, since this includes readings from many thinkers from many traditions, and consistency across all of them is impossible to achieve.

Modularity rating: 4

The presentation is good overall, but numbering paragraphs would make the parts of the text easier to discuss and assign since there are no page numbers.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

This organization is historical, which is easy to understand.

Interface rating: 5

The navigation was straightforward. No issues.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

The textbook is clearly and grammatically written. No issues.

Cultural Relevance rating: 4

It’s impossible to avoid offending some groups when dealing with controversial topics (e.g., whether God exists), but this text does a good job of including different perspectives on things so that a conscientious student will realize that these are texts that are open for critique.

It's good as far as it goes, but it would be more usable with a greater array of (complete) primary texts from which to choose.

Reviewed by Sujung Kim, Associate Professor, DePauw University on 12/2/20

It certainly covers an extremely wide range of areas and ideas. While there are some non-Western examples (Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Rumi, etc.) sporadically, in terms of its cultural representation, the book could have been more comprehensive. read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

Content Accuracy rating: 3

I can only comment on the sections regarding eastern philosophy as my area of expertise is Buddhism. Taking the Dalai Lama chapter as an example, what is written is not inaccurate, but also a lot of crucial information--what he represents, why he promotes peace (political tensions between China and Tibet), and what Vajrayana philosophy is--is largely missing.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

Including YouTube links and comments on Tweeter makes the book quite relevant and relatable to students. But some bibliographies are quite outdated.

Clarity rating: 4

Highly accessible language is perhaps the strength of this book. I, however, wished that the book could have brought more academic rigor and complex cultural context around major thinkers.

Consistency rating: 4

The chronological organization brings a clear structure and consistency. One minor issue that I had is the inconsistency of the "key takeaway" section. Some have while some have not.

Modularity rating: 5

Another strength of this book is it is readily divisible and digestible. I definitely recommend using this book as a module.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 3

Some topics are more clearly organized than others. In terms of the overall organization, I don't think this isn't the most logical way of presenting such a wide range of philosophical traditions. But I also recognize that it would be an extremely difficult job to combine all of these contents in a logical, clear fashion.

Interface rating: 3

It took a while for me to get the hang of how to interact with the interface. I wish there was a clear button to go to the next/previous page.

I didn't find any.

As I stated above, the weakest side of this book is too heavy on the Western tradition. I wish there were more presence of the female voices/ideas in Buddhism-related sections.

Reviewed by Bruce Meyer, Adjunct Faculty, Humanities, Middlesex Community College on 6/25/20

Comprehensiveness rating: 5 see less

The book ranges widely, very widely, from Aesop to Weisel, or as I prefer, from Anscombe to Nietzsche. There is attention given to more legitimate sources of ethical deliberation than most other introductory texts. In addition, the book makes plain its orientation to online enhancements from linked sources, which is a good combination. It provides a vetted list of all time greats joined by outsider work, with room for the instructor to add links to study valuable lines of thought (as shown by class interest or the instructor's discretion).

Content Accuracy rating: 5

This is an introductory text, an anthology of primary sources. There is very little commentary. The introductions are usually short and summary. If there is any room left to judge for accuracy, it would have to be on the editorial choices of what to leave in, what to leave out. On that count, she succeeds. Fortunately for all concerned, the author's choices match closely the choices of the whole field of introductory ethics courses, which makes the book acceptable for an introduction to the prospective philosopher; and where the whole field of academic philosophy fails by excluding the outsider, such as Rumi, Kierkegaard, Pascal, and Native Americans, the reader can at least read enough to know that the outsider-sources are worth learning.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

Content is up to date in that the book is a collection of canonical philosophy excerpts and links, which make up about two-thirds of the whole. The canonical readings will be relevant to any serious introduction to philosophical ethics. The remaining one-third of the readings are mostly substantive and in my judgment will be resilient and robust, serving well for some time to come. One expects that with each year, a new edition will rotate through much of the newest content, especially in Part VII (Links to Additional Great Resources)--Ashley Judd, Stephen Colbert, TED talks-- and to a lesser extent Part VI (Modern Wisdom). The reviewer wishes that the author had included Anscombe's complete essay, "Modern Moral Philosophy" which explains the dearth of good 20th Century essays.

The writing is clear, deliberate, as complex as necessary and no more.

Consistency rating: 5

As an edited anthology, the sources are all over the map, but the author brings a consistent tone to her selections. If anything, her treatment may lead the reader to think that there is more agreement between contemporaries and the ancients, or the East and the West, than actually exists. For an introductory reader, it is very good in writing tone.

The modularity of the book is, in my opinion, the most advantageous part. The book does allow for a timeline and geographic approach, but little if anything would be lost if the instructor rearranged the readings or selected out parts for special attention. Modularity is not, in itself, a self-evident good, but in this case the modular approach is helpful.

The book takes a chronological approach to the development of ethical thought, which serves the nature of philosophical ethics well. This is because ethics rises from questions that are asked, then answered, then the questions change in part, so the answers change in part, and so forth. The subject really is a Long Conversation, and the organization serves that underlying approach well.

Interface rating: 4

With both Kindle and Apple's Books, version 1.19, there is nothing amiss. It was very easy to go from the table of contents to any point in the text, move a few pages left or right, and jump back to the start. The layout was very attractive as well.

Please avoid trying to read this as a PDF, which was not fun.

I found no grammar issues.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

There is a serious attempt at opening up the Long Conversation of philosophical ethics to the academic outsiders, including ancient moralists, medieval religion's greats, and a broad sweep of those who are usually neglected.

I think it might have been good for the author to write longer original introductions to each section and each reading. Yet, even so, it's hard to find fault with the links she provides. My suggestion is that the author, or the instructor, would link an introduction from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to each reading.

Reviewed by George Zamzow, English Instructor, Portland Community College on 6/23/20

The book is a comprehensive survey of western philosophy, and it includes several texts from other world cultures. read more

The book is a comprehensive survey of western philosophy, and it includes several texts from other world cultures.

I’m not a specialist in philosophy, but I didn't notice anything that was inaccurate

It includes up-to-date authors, including recent texts in diverse genres, including videos.

This is a truly impressive aspect of this text. In presenting some fairly difficult texts, Ondich includes explanations of terminology and context that, in a short space, go a long way toward helping readers understand. The introductions and in-text explanations are elegant, lucid, and quite accessible.

The text is internally consistent in terms of terminology and framework.

I will be using this text as modules, and I think the text can be quite useful to instructors in disciplines other than philosophy. Each chapter can be used as-is, as a standalone module.

I thought the structure was helpful and clear.

Reading the book online, it's beautifully formatted. I haven't checked the downloadable versions.

The prose appears error-free.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

As a white man, I don’t feel I have standing or lived experience to declare whether this text could be culturally insensitive or offensive with any authority. That said, I will offer my thoughts here, for what they’re worth. The book does include perspectives from many different cultures. Considering this text as an intro to western philosophy (in the introduction of this text, Ondich describes it as such), it is quite inclusive. However, the title and premise of the book suggest that it’s a book concerned with wisdom. I think this could be offensive, that a survey of western philosophy is being presented as a compendium of “Wisdom.” Looking at the title of the book, then at the table of contents dominated by western thinkers, I believe the framing of the book (not necessarily the content) is offensive. Again, if we look at this as an intro to western philosophy, I think the author does an admirable job of being inclusive. But looking at it as a compendium of “Wisdom,” I find it offensive. This speaks to broader problems and questions in the discipline of philosophy. For instructors using this book, this issue of framing would be fairly straightforward to address, and the content itself appears to me to be culturally sensitive.

Aside from the issue of the title, introduction, and framing of the book as “Wisdom,” rather than ‘western philosophy,’ this is a beautifully written and compiled text. It’s humbling to see a teacher/author presenting difficult content in a way that’s so very accessible and clear. As an English instructor, I will be using some of the chapters as modules in my courses. Oftentimes, if I use another instructor’s materials, I like to change or replace introductions, explanations, definitions, etc. But Ondich’s writing is so strong, I’ll be able to use these modules as-is, which I’m very grateful for. Thank you to the author for helping me improve my own course without having to do too much work adapting the materials.

Reviewed by Stephen Nelson, Instructor, Northland Community and Technical College on 11/25/19

The scope of this textbook is definitely broad enough for a typical Intro to Philosophy class. It may not be as comprehensive as the average anthology textbook, but those books include way more content than could possibly be covered in a semester. This book contains an appropriate amount of material from a wide enough variety of sources and time periods for it to work as a stand-alone textbook for an Intro course. There is no index or glossary, but the Table of Contents is thorough and intuitive, and throughout the text, dictionary definitions are occasionally included for key terms.

Much of this textbook consists of excerpts of primary readings drawn from reputable translations and sources. The content written by the textbook author is also accurate and objective, grounded in good sources and documentation.

By many respects, the content is relevant and up-to-date, but there are two aspects of this category that are worth noting for instructors considering this text. One is that there are a considerable amount of links embedded in the text, linking to youtube videos and other websites. This supplementary content fills out the content of many sections in ways that would leave them a bit thin if the links went dead, or if students had only the pdf without internet access. It’s very useful to have all of these videos and other resources collected together and integrated into this book, but it will also be a big project to maintain and update all of the links. Another point is that many of the classic texts excerpted here make use of public domain translations that are a bit outdated. These may be classic translations in some respects, and in some cases, they may be the best available openly licensed translations, but with many of the texts, there are more recent CC-licensed translations that may be more approachable to the typical student.

The content written by the textbook author is clear and accessible. Some of the excerpts make use of translations that are not necessarily as accessible to students as other alternatives that could have been used (see my comment on “relevance”).

The content sections throughout the book are organized consistently, the framework of the book is clear and consistent throughout, and key terms are used consistently (both internally and with respect to the field in general).

This textbook appears to have been designed natively for the web, and the individual pages/subsections are nice-sized reading sections. The larger sections are arranged chronologically, and they would be easy to assign in different orders, or used a la carte as modules for other courses (for example, the section on Medieval Materials could be used as a reading packet for a course on Medieval Philosophy alongside other texts). Navigation through the modules is easy and intuitive with the web and epub versions.

This text is very well organized, and the Table of Contents makes it very easy to find sections and topics.

This text appears to be primarily designed for the web, and the interface on the web version is quite good. The design is simple and consistent. The epub and pdf versions appear to be ported from the web version, which works pretty well in the epub version, but it is a bit unwieldy in the pdf version, with occasional breaks across the page of images and graphics. The printable pdf ends up being 513 pages, which is about 4 or 5 times as long as it would need to be if it were reformatted with printing in mind.

I didn’t notice any grammatical errors. The majority of content is excerpted from primary sources, but the content written by the textbook is also well-written.

This text does a good job of including a diverse selection of readings from and information about philosophers of various races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. The Introduction includes a statement of the intention to include perspectives that have not traditionally been represented as part of the canon of Western Philosophy, and this is accomplished in a way that seems natural and intuitive.

Front Matter
I. Classics
II. Medieval Materials
III. Spiritual Philosophy and Tales from the World
IV. Early Modern Wisdom 1500-1750
V. Late Modern Wisdom 1750-1950 CE
VI. Modern Wisdom
VII. Links to Additional Great Resources
Back Matter

Ancillary Material

Ancillary materials are available by contacting the author or publisher .

About the Book

Words of Wisdom can come from anyone. In this text we discuss topics ranging from "Are Humans good by nature?" to "Is there a God?" to "Do I have the right to my own opinion?" Philosophy is the study of wisdom, and can emerge in our conversations in social media, in school, around the family dinner table, and even in the car. The text uses materials that are 2,500 years old, and materials that were in the news this year. Wise people come in all shapes and types, and from every culture on earth. We have poetry and folktales, sacred writings and letters. Dialogues and interviews, news columns, Ted Talks, You Tube recordings and even comedy are all a part of the content in this text.You will be most successful reading this on line. The formatting in the downloadable versions is not wonderful. There is work being done by the software, but in the meantime, you will want to use it by clicking here on "read book:".

About the Contributors

Jody Ondich , Lake Superior College, Duluth, Minnesota

Contribute to this Page

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base
How to write an essay introduction | 4 steps & examples

How to Write an Essay Introduction | 4 Steps & Examples

Published on February 4, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 23, 2023.

A good introduction paragraph is an essential part of any academic essay . It sets up your argument and tells the reader what to expect.

The main goals of an introduction are to:

Catch your reader’s attention.
Give background on your topic.
Present your thesis statement —the central point of your essay.

This introduction example is taken from our interactive essay example on the history of Braille.

The invention of Braille was a major turning point in the history of disability. The writing system of raised dots used by visually impaired people was developed by Louis Braille in nineteenth-century France. In a society that did not value disabled people in general, blindness was particularly stigmatized, and lack of access to reading and writing was a significant barrier to social participation. The idea of tactile reading was not entirely new, but existing methods based on sighted systems were difficult to learn and use. As the first writing system designed for blind people’s needs, Braille was a groundbreaking new accessibility tool. It not only provided practical benefits, but also helped change the cultural status of blindness. This essay begins by discussing the situation of blind people in nineteenth-century Europe. It then describes the invention of Braille and the gradual process of its acceptance within blind education. Subsequently, it explores the wide-ranging effects of this invention on blind people’s social and cultural lives.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Step 1: hook your reader, step 2: give background information, step 3: present your thesis statement, step 4: map your essay’s structure, step 5: check and revise, more examples of essay introductions, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about the essay introduction.

Your first sentence sets the tone for the whole essay, so spend some time on writing an effective hook.

Avoid long, dense sentences—start with something clear, concise and catchy that will spark your reader’s curiosity.

The hook should lead the reader into your essay, giving a sense of the topic you’re writing about and why it’s interesting. Avoid overly broad claims or plain statements of fact.

Examples: Writing a good hook

Take a look at these examples of weak hooks and learn how to improve them.

Braille was an extremely important invention.
The invention of Braille was a major turning point in the history of disability.

The first sentence is a dry fact; the second sentence is more interesting, making a bold claim about exactly why the topic is important.

The internet is defined as “a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities.”
The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education.

Avoid using a dictionary definition as your hook, especially if it’s an obvious term that everyone knows. The improved example here is still broad, but it gives us a much clearer sense of what the essay will be about.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is a famous book from the nineteenth century.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is often read as a crude cautionary tale about the dangers of scientific advancement.

Instead of just stating a fact that the reader already knows, the improved hook here tells us about the mainstream interpretation of the book, implying that this essay will offer a different interpretation.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Next, give your reader the context they need to understand your topic and argument. Depending on the subject of your essay, this might include:

Historical, geographical, or social context
An outline of the debate you’re addressing
A summary of relevant theories or research about the topic
Definitions of key terms

The information here should be broad but clearly focused and relevant to your argument. Don’t give too much detail—you can mention points that you will return to later, but save your evidence and interpretation for the main body of the essay.

How much space you need for background depends on your topic and the scope of your essay. In our Braille example, we take a few sentences to introduce the topic and sketch the social context that the essay will address:

Now it’s time to narrow your focus and show exactly what you want to say about the topic. This is your thesis statement —a sentence or two that sums up your overall argument.

This is the most important part of your introduction. A good thesis isn’t just a statement of fact, but a claim that requires evidence and explanation.

The goal is to clearly convey your own position in a debate or your central point about a topic.

Particularly in longer essays, it’s helpful to end the introduction by signposting what will be covered in each part. Keep it concise and give your reader a clear sense of the direction your argument will take.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

As you research and write, your argument might change focus or direction as you learn more.

For this reason, it’s often a good idea to wait until later in the writing process before you write the introduction paragraph—it can even be the very last thing you write.

When you’ve finished writing the essay body and conclusion , you should return to the introduction and check that it matches the content of the essay.

It’s especially important to make sure your thesis statement accurately represents what you do in the essay. If your argument has gone in a different direction than planned, tweak your thesis statement to match what you actually say.

To polish your writing, you can use something like a paraphrasing tool .

You can use the checklist below to make sure your introduction does everything it’s supposed to.

Checklist: Essay introduction

My first sentence is engaging and relevant.

I have introduced the topic with necessary background information.

I have defined any important terms.

My thesis statement clearly presents my main point or argument.

Everything in the introduction is relevant to the main body of the essay.

You have a strong introduction - now make sure the rest of your essay is just as good.

Argumentative
Literary analysis

This introduction to an argumentative essay sets up the debate about the internet and education, and then clearly states the position the essay will argue for.

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts is on the rise, and its role in learning is hotly debated. For many teachers who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its critical benefits for students and educators—as a uniquely comprehensive and accessible information source; a means of exposure to and engagement with different perspectives; and a highly flexible learning environment.

This introduction to a short expository essay leads into the topic (the invention of the printing press) and states the main point the essay will explain (the effect of this invention on European society).

In many ways, the invention of the printing press marked the end of the Middle Ages. The medieval period in Europe is often remembered as a time of intellectual and political stagnation. Prior to the Renaissance, the average person had very limited access to books and was unlikely to be literate. The invention of the printing press in the 15th century allowed for much less restricted circulation of information in Europe, paving the way for the Reformation.

This introduction to a literary analysis essay , about Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein , starts by describing a simplistic popular view of the story, and then states how the author will give a more complex analysis of the text’s literary devices.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is often read as a crude cautionary tale. Arguably the first science fiction novel, its plot can be read as a warning about the dangers of scientific advancement unrestrained by ethical considerations. In this reading, and in popular culture representations of the character as a “mad scientist”, Victor Frankenstein represents the callous, arrogant ambition of modern science. However, far from providing a stable image of the character, Shelley uses shifting narrative perspectives to gradually transform our impression of Frankenstein, portraying him in an increasingly negative light as the novel goes on. While he initially appears to be a naive but sympathetic idealist, after the creature’s narrative Frankenstein begins to resemble—even in his own telling—the thoughtlessly cruel figure the creature represents him as.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Ad hominem fallacy
Post hoc fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy
False cause fallacy
Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

Choosing Essay Topic
Write a College Essay
Write a Diversity Essay
College Essay Format & Structure
Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

(AI) Tools

Grammar Checker
Paraphrasing Tool
Text Summarizer
AI Detector
Plagiarism Checker
Citation Generator

Your essay introduction should include three main things, in this order:

An opening hook to catch the reader’s attention.
Relevant background information that the reader needs to know.
A thesis statement that presents your main point or argument.

The length of each part depends on the length and complexity of your essay .

The “hook” is the first sentence of your essay introduction . It should lead the reader into your essay, giving a sense of why it’s interesting.

To write a good hook, avoid overly broad statements or long, dense sentences. Try to start with something clear, concise and catchy that will spark your reader’s curiosity.

A thesis statement is a sentence that sums up the central point of your paper or essay . Everything else you write should relate to this key idea.

The thesis statement is essential in any academic essay or research paper for two main reasons:

It gives your writing direction and focus.
It gives the reader a concise summary of your main point.

Without a clear thesis statement, an essay can end up rambling and unfocused, leaving your reader unsure of exactly what you want to say.

The structure of an essay is divided into an introduction that presents your topic and thesis statement , a body containing your in-depth analysis and arguments, and a conclusion wrapping up your ideas.

The structure of the body is flexible, but you should always spend some time thinking about how you can organize your essay to best serve your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Essay Introduction | 4 Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 11, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/introduction/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, academic paragraph structure | step-by-step guide & examples, how to conclude an essay | interactive example, what is your plagiarism score.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Does Wisdom Really Come from Experience?

By Rachel Syme

In March of 1995, Mitch Albom, a sportswriter for the Detroit Free Press , was up late channel surfing when he saw a familiar face on the screen. Morris (Morrie) Schwartz, his Brandeis sociology professor, was suffering from A.L.S., and talking sagely on “Nightline” about his impending death. Albom, who had promised Schwartz that he would keep in touch but hadn’t written to him in sixteen years, saw this as a cosmic sign—or a journalistic opportunity—and visited Schwartz more than a dozen times in the next few months. He recorded their conversations about life and love, hoping to sell the transcript and pay off Schwartz’s medical bills, but he struggled to find a buyer, and Schwartz died a few weeks after Doubleday agreed to take the project. The rest is the stuff of book-business legend: “Tuesdays with Morrie,” which came out in 1997, became one of the best-selling memoirs of all time, moving more than fifteen million copies in more than forty-one languages.

What made the thoughts of this seventy-eight-year-old so popular? Schwartz’s axioms—such as “Love each other or perish” and “Money is not a substitute for tenderness”—were not particularly revelatory. It was his proximity to death, and his nearly eight decades of experience, that turned his platitudes into a pop-cultural phenomenon. Eager not to waste our lives, we tend to devour lessons from people approaching the end of theirs. There’s something macabre about this appetite, the way it turns an aging mind into a consumable product. It can feel especially rapacious given the otherwise blithe dismissal of the elderly in the U.S., where millions of people are aging without savings, safety nets, or affordable care options. When it comes to senior citizens, most people are happy to engage with a seasoned mind; it is the body, breaking down and beginning to wither, that becomes inconvenient.

I’ve wondered, then, how the genre of old-people wisdom might translate to podcasting, a form that specializes in the disembodied voice. A few shows have tried to capture the “Morrie” magic over the years, but none has done so more thoroughly—or more successfully—than “70 Over 70,” a Pineapple Street Studios series, hosted by Max Linsky and produced by Jess Hackel. The show began in May, with the aim, as its name implies, of featuring seventy people who had passed their seventieth birthday. Most episodes are divided into two parts: a monologue from an elderly person who isn’t famous, and Linsky’s conversation with one who is. The final installment, featuring Linsky’s eighty-one-year-old father, aired earlier this month.

Linsky is a warm and gifted interviewer. For the past decade, he’s been one of the hosts of the “Longform” podcast, which features dense, process-heavy talks with authors and journalists about their craft. (I was a guest on the podcast in 2015, though I spoke with Linsky’s co-host Aaron Lammer.) But “70 Over 70,” which Linsky developed after visiting his father in the hospital, following a heart surgery, is a very different show, one that requires unique interlocutory verve. Linsky shines on “Longform” because he’s as wonky as his subjects, obsessed with journalistic ethics, backroom media lore, and magazine gossip. In “70 Over 70,” he has to be more of a generalist, one whose animating questions are necessarily broad: How do you live well? or How well are you prepared to die? Such questions can yield illuminating answers, but their vagueness risks playing into the old-people-must-be-enlightened trap. It’s a fine line, and Linsky wobbles on top of it like a tightrope artist.

As with any interview show, the strength of each episode depends on the guest. It’s not enough that someone is simply long in the tooth; he or she must also be self-aware about what being “old” means, attuned to the delicate interplay between aging and regret, mortality and joy, irrelevance and freedom. The long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad, who is seventy-two, is remarkably frank about physical decline. “You don’t know this yet, because you’re so young,” she says, but time “actually speeds up as you get older. It speeds up exponentially every month, every day, every hour.” Dolores Huerta, the ninety-one-year-old activist who worked with Cesar Chavez, recounts organizing the fruit boycott for farmworkers’ rights in the sixties: “The American public gave up eating grapes, and that is what brought the growers to the table. One simple little thing: Don’t eat grapes.” And the news anchor Dan Rather, now ninety years old, talks about how his wife, Jean, pushed him toward humility. “Several times,” he says, she “just took me aside and said, ‘Dan, you are becoming a version of the sun-powered, perpetual-motion, all-American bullshit machine.’ ”

Perhaps the strongest episode features André De Shields, the veteran Broadway actor who won his first Tony Award in 2019, at the age of seventy-three, for playing the messenger god Hermes in “Hadestown.” De Shields discusses his viral acceptance speech for the award, in which he offered up three pieces of advice to live by, describing them, a bit sarcastically, as his “wisdom bomb.” (“Surround yourself with people whose eyes light up when they see you coming”; “Slowly is the fastest way to get to where you want to be”; “The top of one mountain is the bottom of the next, so keep climbing.”) At first, Linsky seems to want De Shields to be a font of such aphorisms, and he asks the actor when he last listened to the speech. “I spoke it,” De Shields says in a gravelly tone. “I know what it was . You think I sit at home and eat chocolates and listen to myself?” When Linsky asks De Shields how he has gained “clarity about living with purpose,” you can hear the sigh in De Shields’s response. “I’ve always been a Black man,” he says. “Come on, let’s tell the truth. I come to this thing called life from a different perspective.” De Shields insists on being comprehended without the gauzy scrim of reverence or fame, and he keeps asserting that he’s a vessel, not an oracle. “The ego is a virus, and there is no inoculation against it,” he says. “However, it does have an opponent that can take it down. And that is the small voice that lives at the core of our being. There is a small voice that lives there. And, by small, I don’t mean ineffectual.”

About ten minutes into each interview, Linsky and his subjects tend to loosen up, relieved of the burden of representing their respective generations. Linsky starts to treat his company less like museum curios, and the guests begin to trust that they have something to offer beyond comforting mantras from the edge of existence. When the conversations reach escape velocity, it’s not because the guests start spouting wisdom; it’s because they’re being, for lack of a more eloquent term, total weirdos, or endearingly awkward. The singer-songwriter David Crosby calls himself “one of the luckiest motherfuckers alive” after gingerly asking if he can swear on a podcast. Nyad emphatically declares, “I am an atheist, and I don’t even have hopes of going to Heaven!” The children’s entertainer Raffi staunchly refuses to fall into cynicism about how many times he’s had to sing “Baby Beluga,” his big hit. “You don’t know the feeling onstage when two thousand people join you,” he says, in a moony reverie. “You launch into it and there’s just such a strong feeling of love, joy, delight, and there you are, immersed in it. How beautiful .”

Such moments conjure up a remarkable portrait, with the elderly appearing just as petty, reckless, lusty, zealous, difficult, vulnerable, and, perhaps most of all, scared to grow up as anyone else. (In fact, they have more of these feelings to draw on, deeper chasms of hurt and strangeness and wild enthusiasm.) And yet age remains a cultural threshold. It changes how people are seen, and what they have to do in order to remain visible. In an episode featuring the seventy-two-year-old illustrator Maira Kalman, who drew the show’s logo and who often contributes to this magazine, Linsky suggests that aging is like being moved from the dance floor of life to the balcony. Kalman agrees: “You can be so out of it. You can feel so excluded. . . . You’re not just on the balcony, you’re on the roof. You’re in a different building completely.” If there’s a whiff of “Morrie” to the show, it’s because these conversations, despite their intentions, can never be fully equitable. One person is young, and one is old, and each needs something from the other. In focussing on aging voices—and, tacitly, on the idea that if you hear enough of them you might be transformed—“70 Over 70” subtly reëmphasizes the gaps between the young and the elderly, even as it strains to ignore or invert them.

Listening to the show, I found myself thinking of another podcast, now in its second season, called “The Last Bohemians,” in which the British journalist Kate Hutchinson speaks to women who’ve lived chaotic lives: band groupies, outsider artists, club mavens, psychedelic activists, erotic novelists. There’s little risk of these subjects being milked for maxims; the women refuse to look back or summarize, or even to make sense. In one episode, Molly Parkin, an eighty-seven-year-old Welsh painter and fashion editor, explains how she had “three constant lovers” through the years, but learned to masturbate only after they died, when she read an article about how a woman’s clitoris remains sensitive until her death. “For a chapel girl, you know, to touch what’s inside your knickers was absolutely out of order,” she says. Now, we’re told, her orgasms have a “spiritual quality.” She’s not telling us how to live—most listeners, we can assume, aren’t chapel girls—but she is telling us that we’re all works in progress, up to the very last moment. That, in the end, may be what we really want to hear. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

Why facts don’t change our minds .

The tricks rich people use to avoid taxes .

The man who spent forty-two years at the Beverly Hills Hotel pool .

How did polyamory get so popular ?

The ghostwriter who regrets working for Donald Trump .

Snoozers are, in fact, losers .

Fiction by Jamaica Kincaid: “Girl”

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Kyle Chayka

By Anthony Lane

By Justin Taylor

Life in a Luxury Hotel for New Moms and Babies

By Clarissa Wei

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons
Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Words of Wisdom - Introduction to Philosophy (Ondich)

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 15263

Jody Ondich
Lake Superior College

Thumbnail: The Death of Socrates (1787) by Jacques-Louis David (Public Domain).

From Knowledge to Wisdom

The Key to Wisdom

Nicholas Maxwell University College London

Section 1 of " Arguing for Wisdom in the University: An Intellectual Autobiography ", Philosophia , vol 40, no. 4, 2012. Nearly forty years ago I discovered a profoundly significant idea - or so I believe. Since then, I have expounded and developed the idea in six books [1] and countless articles published in academic journals and other books. [2] I have talked about the idea in universities and at conferences all over the UK, in Europe, the USA and Canada. And yet, alas, despite all this effort, few indeed are those who have even heard of the idea. I have not even managed to communicate the idea to my fellow philosophers. What did I discover? Quite simply: the key to wisdom. For over two and a half thousand years, philosophy (which means "love of wisdom") has sought in vain to discover how humanity might learn to become wise - how we might learn to create an enlightened world. For the ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates, Plato and the rest, discovering how to become wise was the fundamental task for philosophy. In the modern period, this central, ancient quest has been laid somewhat to rest, not because it is no longer thought important, but rather because the quest is seen as unattainable. The record of savagery and horror of the last century is so extreme and terrible that the search for wisdom, more important than ever, has come to seem hopeless, a quixotic fantasy. Nevertheless, it is this ancient, fundamental problem, lying at the heart of philosophy, at the heart, indeed, of all of thought, morality, politics and life, that I have solved. Or so I believe. When I say I have discovered the key to wisdom, I should say, more precisely, that I have discovered the methodological key to wisdom. Or perhaps, more modestly, I should say that I have discovered that science contains, locked up in its astounding success in acquiring knowledge and understanding of the universe, the methodological key to wisdom. I have discovered a recipe for creating a kind of organized inquiry rationally designed and devoted to helping humanity learn wisdom, learn to create a more enlightened world. What we have is a long tradition of inquiry - extraordinarily successful in its own terms - devoted to acquiring knowledge and technological know-how. It is this that has created the modern world, or at least made it possible. But scientific knowledge and technological know-how are ambiguous blessings, as more and more people, these days, are beginning to recognize. They do not guarantee happiness. Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act. In endless ways, this vast increase in our power to act has been used for the public good - in health, agriculture, transport, communications, and countless other ways. But equally, this enhanced power to act can be used to cause human harm, whether unintentionally, as in environmental damage (at least initially), or intentionally, as in war. It is hardly too much to say that all our current global problems have come about because of science and technology. The appalling destructiveness of modern warfare and terrorism, vast inequalities in wealth and standards of living between first and third worlds, rapid population growth, environmental damage - destruction of tropical rain forests, rapid extinction of species, global warming, pollution of sea, earth and air, depletion of finite natural resources - all only exist today because of modern science and technology. Science and technology lead to modern industry and agriculture, to modern medicine and hygiene, and thus in turn to population growth, to modern armaments, conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear, to destruction of natural habitats, extinction of species, pollution, and to immense inequalities of wealth across the globe. Science without wisdom, we might say, is a menace. It is the crisis behind all the others. When we lacked our modern, terrifying powers to act, before the advent of science, lack of wisdom did not matter too much: we were bereft of the power to inflict too much damage on ourselves and the planet. Now that we have modern science, and the unprecedented powers to act that it has bequeathed to us, wisdom has become, not a private luxury, but a public necessity. If we do not rapidly learn to become wiser, we are doomed to repeat in the 21st century all the disasters and horrors of the 20th: the horrifyingly destructive wars, the dislocation and death of millions, the degradation of the world we live in. Only this time round it may all be much worse, as the population goes up, the planet becomes ever more crowded, oil and other resources vital to our way of life run out, weapons of mass destruction become more and more widely available for use, and deserts and desolation spread. The ancient quest for wisdom has become a matter of desperate urgency. It is hardly too much to say that the future of the world is at stake. But how can such a quest possibly meet with success? Wisdom, surely, is not something that we can learn and teach, as a part of our normal education, in schools and universities? This is my great discovery! Wisdom can be learnt and taught in schools and universities. It must be so learnt and taught. Wisdom is indeed the proper fundamental objective for the whole of the academic enterprise: to help humanity learn how to nurture and create a wiser world. But how do we go about creating a kind of education, research and scholarship that really will help us learn wisdom? Would not any such attempt destroy what is of value in what we have at present, and just produce hot air, hypocrisy, vanity and nonsense? Or worse, dogma and religious fundamentalism? What, in any case, is wisdom? Is not all this just an abstract philosophical fantasy? The answer, as I have already said, lies locked away in what may seem a highly improbably place: science! This will seem especially improbable to many of those most aware of environmental issues, and most suspicious of the role of modern science and technology in modern life. How can science contain the methodological key to wisdom when it is precisely this science that is behind so many of our current troubles? But a crucial point must be noted. Modern scientific and technological research has met with absolutely astonishing, unprecedented success, as long as this success is interpreted narrowly, in terms of the production of expert knowledge and technological know-how. Doubts may be expressed about whether humanity as a whole has made progress towards well being or happiness during the last century or so. But there can be no serious doubt whatsoever that science has made staggering intellectual progress in increasing expert knowledge and know-how, during such a period. It is this astonishing intellectual progress that makes science such a powerful but double-edged tool, for good and for bad. At once the question arises: Can we learn from the incredible intellectual progress of science how to achieve progress in other fields of human endeavour? Is scientific progress exportable, as it were, to other areas of life? More precisely, can the progress-achieving methods of science be generalized so that they become fruitful for other worthwhile, problematic human endeavours, in particular the supremely worthwhile, supremely problematic endeavour of creating a good and wise world? My great idea - that this can indeed be done - is not entirely new (as I was to learn after making my discovery). It goes back to the 18th century Enlightenment. This was indeed the key idea of the Enlightenment, especially the French Enlightenment: to learn from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world. And the philosophes of the Enlightenment, men such as Voltaire, Diderot and Condorcet, did what they could to put this magnificent, profound idea into practice in their lives. They fought dictatorial power, superstition, and injustice with weapons no more lethal than those of argument and wit. They gave their support to the virtues of tolerance, openness to doubt, readiness to learn from criticism and from experience. Courageously and energetically they laboured to promote reason and enlightenment in personal and social life. Unfortunately, in developing the Enlightenment idea intellectually, the philosophes blundered. They botched the job. They developed the Enlightenment idea in a profoundly defective form, and it is this immensely influential, defective version of the idea, inherited from the 18th century, which may be called the "traditional" Enlightenment, that is built into early 21st century institutions of inquiry. Our current traditions and institutions of learning, when judged from the standpoint of helping us learn how to become more enlightened, are defective and irrational in a wholesale and structural way, and it is this which, in the long term, sabotages our efforts to create a more civilized world, and prevents us from avoiding the kind of horrors we have been exposed to during the last century. The task before us is thus not that of creating a kind of inquiry devoted to improving wisdom out of the blue, as it were, with nothing to guide us except two and a half thousand years of failed philosophical discussion. Rather, the task is the much more straightforward, practical and well-defined one of correcting the structural blunders built into academic inquiry inherited from the Enlightenment. We already have a kind of academic inquiry designed to help us learn wisdom. The problem is that the design is lousy. It is, as I have said, a botched job. It is like a piece of engineering that kills people because of faulty design - a bridge that collapses, or an aeroplane that falls out of the sky. A quite specific task lies before us: to diagnose the blunders we have inherited from the Enlightenment, and put them right. So here, briefly, is the diagnosis. The philosophes of the 18th century assumed, understandably enough, that the proper way to implement the Enlightenment programme was to develop social science alongside natural science. Francis Bacon had already stressed the importance of improving knowledge of the natural world in order to achieve social progress. The philosophes generalized this, holding that it is just as important to improve knowledge of the social world. Thus the philosophes set about creating the social sciences: history, anthropology, political economy, psychology, sociology. This had an immense impact. Throughout the 19th century the diverse social sciences were developed, often by non-academics, in accordance with the Enlightenment idea. Gradually, universities took notice of these developments until, by the mid 20th century, all the diverse branches of the social sciences, as conceived of by the Enlightenment, were built into the institutional structure of universities as recognized academic disciplines. The outcome is what we have today, knowledge-inquiry as we may call it, a kind of inquiry devoted in the first instance to the pursuit of knowledge. But, from the standpoint of creating a kind of inquiry designed to help humanity learn how to become enlightened and civilized, which was the original idea, all this amounts to a series of monumental blunders. In order to implement properly the basic Enlightenment idea of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards a civilized world, it is essential to get the following three things right. 1. The progress-achieving methods of science need to be correctly identified. 2. These methods need to be correctly generalized so that they become fruitfully applicable to any worthwhile, problematic human endeavour, whatever the aims may be, and not just applicable to the one endeavour of acquiring knowledge. 3. The correctly generalized progress-achieving methods then need to be exploited correctly in the great human endeavour of trying to make social progress towards an enlightened, civilized world. Unfortunately, the philosophes of the Enlightenment got all three points wrong. They failed to capture correctly the progress-achieving methods of natural science; they failed to generalize these methods properly; and, most disastrously of all, they failed to apply them properly so that humanity might learn how to become civilized by rational means. Instead of seeking to apply the progress-achieving methods of science, after having been appropriately generalized, to the task of creating a better world, the philosophes applied scientific method to the task of creating social science. Instead of trying to make social progress towards an enlightened world, they set about making scientific progress in knowledge of social phenomena. That the philosophes made these blunders in the 18th century is forgivable; what is unforgivable is that these blunders still remain unrecognized and uncorrected today, over two centuries later. Instead of correcting the blunders, we have allowed our institutions of learning to be shaped by them as they have developed throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, so that now the blunders are an all-pervasive feature of our world. The Enlightenment, and what it led to, has long been criticized, by the Romantic movement, by what Isaiah Berlin has called 'the counter-Enlightenment', and more recently by the Frankfurt school, by postmodernists and others. But these standard objections are, from my point of view, entirely missing the point. In particular, my idea is the very opposite of all those anti-rationalist, romantic and postmodernist views which object to the way the Enlightenment gives far too great an importance to natural science and to scientific rationality. My discovery is that what is wrong with the traditional Enlightenment, and the kind of academic inquiry we now possess derived from it - knowledge-inquiry - is not too much 'scientific rationality' but, on the contrary, not enough. It is the glaring, wholesale irrationality of contemporary academic inquiry, when judged from the standpoint of helping humanity learn how to become more civilized, that is the problem. But, the cry will go up, wisdom has nothing to do with reason. And reason has nothing to do with wisdom. On the contrary! It is just such an item of conventional 'wisdom' that my great idea turns on its head. Once both reason and wisdom have been rightly understood, and the irrationality of academic inquiry as it exists at present has been appreciated, it becomes obvious that it is precisely reason that we need to put into practice in our personal, social, institutional and global lives if our lives, at all these levels, are to become imbued with a bit more wisdom. We need, in short, a new, more rigorous kind of inquiry which has, as its basic task, to seek and promote wisdom. We may call this new kind of inquiry wisdom-inquiry. But what is wisdom? This is how I define it in From Knowledge to Wisdom, a book published some years ago now, in 1984, in which I set out my 'great idea' in some detail: "[wisdom is] the desire, the active endeavour, and the capacity to discover and achieve what is desirable and of value in life, both for oneself and for others. Wisdom includes knowledge and understanding but goes beyond them in also including: the desire and active striving for what is of value, the ability to see what is of value, actually and potentially, in the circumstances of life, the ability to experience value, the capacity to use and develop knowledge, technology and understanding as needed for the realization of value. Wisdom, like knowledge, can be conceived of, not only personal terms, but also in institutional or social terms. We can thus interpret [wisdom-inquiry] as asserting: the basic task of rational inquiry is to help us develop wiser ways of living, wiser institutions, customs and social relations, a wiser world." (From Knowledge to Wisdom, p. 66.) What, then, are the three blunders of the Enlightenment, still built into the intellectual/institutional structure of academia? First, the philosophes failed to capture correctly the progress-achieving methods of natural science. From D'Alembert in the 18th century to Karl Popper in the 20th, the widely held view, amongst both scientists and philosophers, has been (and continues to be) that science proceeds by assessing theories impartially in the light of evidence, no permanent assumption being accepted by science about the universe independently of evidence. Preference may be given to simple, unified or explanatory theories, but not in such a way that nature herself is, in effect, assumed to be simple, unified or comprehensible. This orthodox view, which I call standard empiricism is, however, untenable. If taken literally, it would instantly bring science to a standstill. For, given any accepted fundamental theory of physics, T, Newtonian theory say, or quantum theory, endlessly many empirically more successful rivals can be concocted which agree with T about observed phenomena but disagree arbitrarily about some unobserved phenomena, and successfully predict phenomena, in an ad hoc way, that T makes false predictions about, or no predictions. Physics would be drowned in an ocean of such empirically more successful rival theories. In practice, these rivals are excluded because they are disastrously disunified. Two considerations govern acceptance of theories in physics: empirical success and unity. In demanding unity, we demand of a fundamental physical theory that it ascribes the same dynamical laws to the phenomena to which the theory applies. But in persistently accepting unified theories, to the extent of rejecting disunified rivals that are just as, or even more, empirically successful, physics makes a big persistent assumption about the universe. The universe is such that all disunified theories are false. It has some kind of unified dynamic structure. It is physically comprehensible in the sense that explanations for phenomena exist to be discovered. But this untestable (and thus metaphysical) assumption that the universe is physically comprehensible is profoundly problematic. Science is obliged to assume, but does not know, that the universe is comprehensible. Much less does it know that the universe is comprehensible in this or that way. A glance at the history of physics reveals that ideas have changed dramatically over time. In the 17th century there was the idea that the universe consists of corpuscles, minute billiard balls, which interact only by contact. This gave way to the idea that the universe consists of point-particles surrounded by rigid, spherically symmetrical fields of force, which in turn gave way to the idea that there is one unified self-interacting field, varying smoothly throughout space and time. Nowadays we have the idea that everything is made up of minute quantum strings embedded in ten or eleven dimensions of space-time. Some kind of assumption along these lines must be made but, given the historical record, and given that any such assumption concerns the ultimate nature of the universe, that of which we are most ignorant, it is only reasonable to conclude that it is almost bound to be false. The way to overcome this fundamental dilemma inherent in the scientific enterprise is to construe physics as making a hierarchy of metaphysical assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe, these assumptions asserting less and less as one goes up the hierarchy, and thus becoming more and more likely to be true, and more nearly such that their truth is required for science, or the pursuit of knowledge, to be possible at all. In this way a framework of relatively insubstantial, unproblematic, fixed assumptions and associated methods is created within which much more substantial and problematic assumptions and associated methods can be changed, and indeed improved, as scientific knowledge improves. Put another way, a framework of relatively unspecific, unproblematic, fixed aims and methods is created within which much more specific and problematic aims and methods evolve as scientific knowledge evolves. There is positive feedback between improving knowledge, and improving aims-and-methods, improving knowledge-about-how-to-improve-knowledge. This is the nub of scientific rationality, the methodological key to the unprecedented success of science. Science adapts its nature to what it discovers about the nature of the universe. This hierarchical conception of physics, which I call aim-oriented empiricism, can readily be generalized to take into account problematic assumptions associated with the aims of science having to with values, and the social uses or applications of science. It can be generalized so as to apply to the different branches of natural science. Different sciences have different specific aims, and so different specific methods although, throughout natural science there is the common meta-methodology of aim-oriented empiricism. So much for the first blunder of the traditional Enlightenment, and how to put it right. [3] Second, having failed to identify the methods of science correctly, the philosophes naturally failed to generalize these methods properly. They failed to appreciate that the idea of representing the problematic aims (and associated methods) of science in the form of a hierarchy can be generalized and applied fruitfully to other worthwhile enterprises besides science. Many other enterprises have problematic aims - problematic because aims conflict, and because what we seek may be unrealizable, undesirable, or both. Such enterprises, with problematic aims, would benefit from employing a hierarchical methodology, generalized from that of science, thus making it possible to improve aims and methods as the enterprise proceeds. There is the hope that, as a result of exploiting in life methods generalized from those employed with such success in science, some of the astonishing success of science might be exported into other worthwhile human endeavours, with problematic aims quite different from those of science. Third, and most disastrously of all, the philosophes failed completely to try to apply such generalized, hierarchical progress-achieving methods to the immense, and profoundly problematic enterprise of making social progress towards an enlightened, wise world. The aim of such an enterprise is notoriously problematic. For all sorts of reasons, what constitutes a good world, an enlightened, wise or civilized world, attainable and genuinely desirable, must be inherently and permanently problematic. Here, above all, it is essential to employ the generalized version of the hierarchical, progress-achieving methods of science, designed specifically to facilitate progress when basic aims are problematic. It is just this that the philosophes failed to do. Instead of applying the hierarchical methodology to social life, the philosophes sought to apply a seriously defective conception of scientific method to social science, to the task of making progress towards, not a better world, but to better knowledge of social phenomena. And this ancient blunder, developed throughout the 19th century by J.S. Mill, Karl Marx and many others, and built into academia in the early 20th century with the creation of the diverse branches of the social sciences in universities all over the world, is still built into the institutional and intellectual structure of academia today, inherent in the current character of social science. Properly implemented, in short, the Enlightenment idea of learning from scientific progress how to achieve social progress towards an enlightened world would involve developing social inquiry, not primarily as social science, but rather as social methodology, or social philosophy. A basic task would be to get into personal and social life, and into other institutions besides that of science - into government, industry, agriculture, commerce, the media, law, education, international relations - hierarchical, progress-achieving methods (designed to improve problematic aims) arrived at by generalizing the methods of science. A basic task for academic inquiry as a whole would be to help humanity learn how to resolve its conflicts and problems of living in more just, cooperatively rational ways than at present. The fundamental intellectual and humanitarian aim of inquiry would be to help humanity acquire wisdom - wisdom being, as I have already indicated, the capacity to realize (apprehend and create) what is of value in life, for oneself and others. One outcome of getting into social and institutional life the kind of aim-evolving, hierarchical methodology indicated above, generalized from science, is that it becomes possible for us to develop and assess rival philosophies of life as a part of social life, somewhat as theories are developed and assessed within science. Such a hierarchical methodology provides a framework within which competing views about what our aims and methods in life should be - competing religious, political and moral views - may be cooperatively assessed and tested against broadly agreed, unspecific aims (high up in the hierarchy of aims) and the experience of personal and social life. There is the possibility of cooperatively and progressively improving such philosophies of life (views about what is of value in life and how it is to be achieved) much as theories are cooperatively and progressively improved in science. Wisdom-inquiry, because of its greater rigour, has intellectual standards that are, in important respects, different from those of knowledge-inquiry. Whereas knowledge-inquiry demands that emotions and desires, values, human ideals and aspirations, philosophies of life be excluded from the intellectual domain of inquiry, wisdom-inquiry requires that they be included. In order to discover what is of value in life it is essential that we attend to our feelings and desires. But not everything we desire is desirable, and not everything that feels good is good. Feelings, desires and values need to be subjected to critical scrutiny. And of course feelings, desires and values must not be permitted to influence judgements of factual truth and falsity. Wisdom-inquiry embodies a synthesis of traditional Rationalism and Romanticism. It includes elements from both, and it improves on both. It incorporates Romantic ideals of integrity, having to do with motivational and emotional honesty, honesty about desires and aims; and at the same time it incorporates traditional Rationalist ideals of integrity, having to do with respect for objective fact, knowledge, and valid argument. Traditional Rationalism takes its inspiration from science and method; Romanticism takes its inspiration from art, from imagination, and from passion. Wisdom-inquiry holds art to have a fundamental rational role in inquiry, in revealing what is of value, and unmasking false values; but science, too, is of fundamental importance. What we need, for wisdom, is an interplay of sceptical rationality and emotion, an interplay of mind and heart, so that we may develop mindful hearts and heartfelt minds (as I put it in my first book What's Wrong With Science?). It is time we healed the great rift in our culture, so graphically depicted by C. P. Snow. The revolution we require - intellectual, institutional and cultural - if it ever comes about, will be comparable in its long-term impact to that of the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, or the Enlightenment. The outcome will be traditions and institutions of learning rationally designed to help us realize what is of value in life. There are a few scattered signs that this intellectual revolution, from knowledge to wisdom, is already under way. It will need, however, much wider cooperative support - from scientists, scholars, students, research councils, university administrators, vice chancellors, teachers, the media and the general public - if it is to become anything more than what it is at present, a fragmentary and often impotent movement of protest and opposition, often at odds with itself, exercising little influence on the main body of academic work. I can hardly imagine any more important work for anyone associated with academia than, in teaching, learning and research, to help promote this revolution. Notes [1] What's Wrong With Science? (Bran's Head Books, 1976), From Knowledge to Wisdom (Blackwell, 1984; 2nd edition, Pentire Press, 2007), The Comprehensibility of the Universe (Oxford University Press, 1998, paperback 2003), and The Human World in the Physical Universe: Consciousness, Free Will and Evolution (Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), Is Science Neurotic? (Imperial College Press, 2004), Cutting God in Half - And Putting the Pieces Together Again (Pentire Press, 2010). For critical discussion see L. McHenry, ed., Science and the Pursuit of Wisdom: Studies in the Philosophy of Nicholas Maxwell (Ontos Verlag, 2009).

Back to text

[2] See, for example, "Science, Reason, Knowledge and Wisdom: A Critique of Specialism", Inquiry 23, 1980, pp. 19-81; "What Kind of Inquiry Can Best Help Us Create a Good World?", Science, Technology and Human Values 17, 1992, pp. 205-227; "What the Task of Creating Civilization has to Learn from the Success of Modern Science: Towards a New Enlightenment", Reflections on Higher Education 4, 1992, pp. 139-157; "Can Humanity Learn to Become Civilized? The Crisis of Science without Civilization", Journal of Applied Philosophy 17, 2000, pp. 29-44; "A new conception of science", Physics World 13, no. 8, 2000, pp. 17-18; "From Knowledge to Wisdom: The Need for an Academic Revolution", London Review of Education, 5, 2007, pp. 97-115, reprinted in. R. Barnett and N. Maxwell, eds., Wisdom in the University (Routledge, 2008, pp. 1-19) "Do We Need a Scientific Revolution?", Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, vol. 8, no. 3, September 2008, pp. 95-105. All my articles are available online here .

[3] For further details see my The Comprehensibility of the Universe: A New Conception of Science, Oxford University Press, 1998; Is Science Neurotic?, Imperial College Press, 2004; and From Knowledge to Wisdom, especially chs. 5, 9, and 2nd ed., ch. 14. Back to text

Join Friends of Wisdom

This is an association of people sympathetic to the idea that academic inquiry should help humanity acquire more wisdom by rational means. Wisdom is taken to be the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others. It includes knowledge, understanding and technological know-how, and much else besides. Friends of Wisdom try to encourage universities and schools actively to seek and promote wisdom by educational and intellectual means. At present, Friends of Wisdom communicate with one another in the main by email (JISCMAIL).

If you wish to join, click on the link below, and then click on "Subscribe" under "Options" on the LHS of the screen, and join:

or email: nick [at] knowledgetowisdom.org

Friends of Wisdom Website .

Link to facebook
Link to linkedin
Link to twitter
Link to youtube
Writing Tips

How to Write an Excellent Essay Introduction

3-minute read

27th September 2022

Love it or hate it, essay writing is a big part of student life. Writing a great essay might seem like a daunting task, especially when you’re staring at a blank document, but there are formulas you can follow to make sure your paper hits the mark.

When you plan your essays , don’t neglect your introduction! It might seem like a trivial part of the paper, but it can make it or break it. A badly written introduction can leave your reader feeling confused about the topic and what to expect from your essay.

To help your writing reach its full potential, we’ve put together a guide to writing an excellent essay introduction.

How to Write an Essay Introduction

An essay introduction has four main steps:

● Hook your reader

● Provide context

● Present your thesis statement

● Map your essay

Hook Your Reader

The first part of your introduction should be the hook. This is where you introduce the reader to the topic of the essay. A great hook should be clear, concise, and catchy. It doesn’t need to be long; a hook can be just one sentence.

Provide Context

In this section, introduce your reader to key definitions, ideas, and background information to help them understand your argument.

Present Your Thesis Statement

A thesis statement tells the reader the main point or argument of the essay. This can be just one sentence, or it can be a few sentences.

Map Your Essay

Before you wrap up your essay introduction, map it! This means signposting sections of your essay. The key here is to be concise. The purpose of this part of the introduction is to give your reader a sense of direction.

Here’s an example of an essay introduction:

Hook: Suspense is key for dramatic stories, and Shakespeare is well-known and celebrated for writing suspenseful plays.

Context: While there are many ways in which Shakespeare created suspension for his viewers, two techniques he used effectively were foreshadowing and dramatic irony. Foreshadowing is a literary device that hints at an event or situation that is yet to happen. Dramatic irony is a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions is clear to the audience or reader, although it is unknown to the character.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Thesis statement: Foreshadowing and dramatic irony are two powerful techniques that Shakespeare used to create suspense in literature. These methods have been used to keep the reader intrigued, excited, or nervous about what is to come in many of his celebrated works.

Essay mapping: In this essay, I will be detailing how Shakespeare uses foreshadowing and dramatic irony to create suspense, with examples from Romeo and Juliet and Othello.

Pro tip: Essays take twists and turns. We recommend changing your introduction as necessary while you write the main text to make sure it fully aligns with your final draft.

Proofread and Editing

Proofreading is an essential part of delivering a great essay. We offer a proofreading and editing service for students and academics that will provide you with expert editors to check your work for any issues with:

● Grammar

● Spelling

● Formatting

● Tone

● Audience

● Consistency

● Accuracy

● Clarity

Want 500 words of your work proofread completely free of charge?

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

What is a content editor.

Are you interested in learning more about the role of a content editor and the...

4-minute read

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

Proofreading is important to ensure your writing is clear and concise for your readers. Whether...

2-minute read

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

Creating presentations can be time-consuming and frustrating. Trying to construct a visually appealing and informative...

What Is Market Research?

No matter your industry, conducting market research helps you keep up to date with shifting...

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

In a world where you need to stand out, press releases are key to being...

How to Get a Patent

In the United States, the US Patent and Trademarks Office issues patents. In the United...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

41 Bertrand Russell–two essays

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell , 1872 – 1970 CE, was a British philosopher, writer, social critic and political activist. In the early 20th century, Russell led the British “revolt against idealism”. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy. Russell was an anti-war activist and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. He did conclude that the war against Adolf Hitler was a necessary “lesser of two evils” He won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 “”in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.”

In “Reflections on My Eightieth Birthday” (“Postscript” in his Autobiography ), Russell wrote: “I have lived in the pursuit of a vision, both personal and social.

Personal: to care for what is noble, for what is beautiful, for what is gentle; to allow moments of insight to give wisdom at more mundane times.

Social: to see in imagination the society that is to be created, where individuals grow freely, and where hate and greed and envy die because there is nothing to nourish them. These things I believe, and the world, for all its horrors, has left me unshaken”.

You might find it interesting to see the two things that he believed he would like to say to a future generation. It takes less than 2 minutes, but in 1959, this is what Bertrand Russell had to say:

Message to Future Generations

From Bertrand Russell’s: The Problems of Philosophy: Chapter XV: The Value of Philosophy

This is a short interview with Woodrow Wyatt in 1960, when Russell was 87 years old.

Mankind’s Future and Philosophy

The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests : family and friends may be included, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins.

Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleaguered fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.

One way of escape is by philosophic contemplation. Philosophic contemplation does not, in its widest survey, divide the universe into two hostile camps—friends and foes, helpful and hostile, good and bad—it views the whole impartially. Philosophic contemplation, when it is unalloyed, does not aim at proving that the rest of the universe is akin to man. All acquisition of knowledge is an enlargement of the Self, but this enlargement is best attained when it is not directly sought. It is obtained when the desire for knowledge is alone operative, by a study which does not wish in advance that its objects should have this or that character, but adapts the Self to the characters which it finds in its objects. This enlargement of Self is not obtained when, taking the Self as it is, we try to show that the world is so similar to this Self that knowledge of it is possible without any admission of what seems alien. The desire to prove this is a form of self-assertion and, like all self-assertion, it is an obstacle to the growth of Self which it desires, and of which the Self knows that it is capable. Self-assertion, in philosophic speculation as elsewhere, views the world as a means to its own ends; thus it makes the world of less account than Self, and the Self sets bounds to the greatness of its goods. In contemplation, on the contrary, we start from the not-Self, and through its greatness the boundaries of Self are enlarged; through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity.

Bertrand Russell lecturing at the University California, Los Angeles where he had taken up a three-year appointment as Professor of Philosophy in March 1939.

The true philosophic contemplation, on the contrary, finds its satisfaction in every enlargement of the not-Self, in everything that magnifies the objects contemplated, and thereby the subject contemplating. Everything, in contemplation, that is personal or private, everything that depends upon habit, self-interest, or desire, distorts the object, and hence impairs the union which the intellect seeks. By thus making a barrier between subject and object, such personal and private things become a prison to the intellect. The free intellect will see as God might see, without a here and now, without hopes and fears, without the trammels of customary beliefs and traditional prejudices, calmly, dispassionately, in the sole and exclusive desire of knowledge—knowledge as impersonal, as purely contemplative, as it is possible for man to attain. Hence also the free intellect will value more the abstract and universal knowledge into which the accidents of private history do not enter, than the knowledge brought by the senses, and dependent, as such knowledge must be, upon an exclusive and personal point of view and a body whose sense organs distort as much as they reveal.

The mind which has become accustomed to the freedom and impartiality of philosophic contemplation will preserve something of the same freedom and impartiality in the world of action and emotion. It will view its purposes and desires as parts of the whole, with the absence of insistence that results from seeing them as infinitesimal fragments in a world of which all the rest is unaffected by any one man’s deeds. The impartiality which, in contemplation, is the unalloyed desire for truth, is the very same quality of mind which, in action, is justice, and in emotion is that universal love which can be given to all, and not only to those who are judged useful or admirable. Thus contemplation enlarges not only the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affections: it makes us citizens of the universe, not only of one walled city at war with all the rest. In this citizenship of the universe consists man’s true freedom, and his liberation from the thralldom of narrow hopes and fears.

Key Takeaway

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied , not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN CONWAY MEMORIAL LECTURE

FREE THOUGHT AND OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA

Delivered at south place institute on march 24, 1922, by the hon. bertrand russell, m.a., f.r.s., (professor graham wallas in the chair), watts & co., johnson’s court, fleet street, e.c.4 1922.

Moncure Conway, in whose honor we are assembled to-day, devoted his life to two great objects: freedom of thought and freedom of the individual.

“In regard to both these objects, something has been gained since his time, but something also has been lost. New dangers, somewhat different in form from those of past ages, threaten both kinds of freedom, and unless a vigorous and vigilant public opinion can be aroused in defense of them, there will be much less of both a hundred years hence than there is now. My purpose in this address is to emphasize the new dangers and to consider how they can be met.

Let us begin by trying to be clear as to what we mean by “free thought.” This expression has two senses.

In its narrower sense it means thought which does not accept the dogmas of traditional religion. In this sense a man is a “free thinker” if he is not a Christian or a Mussulman or a Buddhist or a Shintoist or a member of any of the other bodies of men who accept some inherited orthodoxy. In Christian countries a man is called a “free thinker” if he does not decidedly believe in God, though this would not suffice to make a man a “free thinker” in a Buddhist country.

I do not wish to minimize the importance of free thought in this sense. I am myself a dissenter from all known religions, and I hope that every kind of religious belief will die out. I do not believe that, on the balance, religious belief has been a force for good. Although I am prepared to admit that in certain times and places it has had some good effects, I regard it as belonging to the infancy of human reason, and to a stage of development which we are now outgrowing.

But there is also a wider sense of “free thought,” which I regard as of still greater importance. Indeed, the harm done by traditional religions seems chiefly traceable to the fact that they have prevented free thought in this wider sense. The wider sense is not so easy to define as the narrower, and it will be well to spend some little time in trying to arrive at its essence.

To begin with the most obvious. Thought is not “free” when legal penalties are incurred by the holding or not holding of certain opinions, or by giving expression to one’s belief or lack of belief on certain matters. Very few countries in the world have as yet even this elementary kind of freedom.

In England, under the Blasphemy Laws , it is illegal to express disbelief in the Christian religion, though in practice the law is not set in motion against the well-to-do. It is also illegal to teach what Christ taught on the subject of non-resistance. Therefore, whoever wishes to avoid becoming a criminal must profess to agree with Christ’s teaching, but must avoid saying what that teaching was.

In America no one can enter the country without first solemnly declaring that he disbelieves in anarchism and polygamy; and, once inside, he must also disbelieve in communism.

In Japan it is illegal to express disbelief in the divinity of the Mikado . It will thus be seen that a voyage round the world is a perilous adventure.

A Mohammedan, a Tolstoyan, a Bolshevik, or a Christian cannot undertake it without at some point becoming a criminal, or holding his tongue about what he considers important truths. This, of course, applies only to steerage passengers; saloon passengers are allowed to believe whatever they please, provided they avoid offensive obtrusiveness.

Legal penalties are, however, in the modern world, the least of the obstacles to freedom of thoughts . The two great obstacles are economic penalties and distortion of evidence. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living. It is clear also that thought is not free if all the arguments on one side of a controversy are perpetually presented as attractively as possible, while the arguments on the other side can only be discovered by diligent search. Both these obstacles exist in every large country known to me, except China, which is the last refuge of freedom. It is these obstacles with which I shall be concerned—their present magnitude, the likelihood of their increase, and the possibility of their diminution.

We may say that thought is free when it is exposed to free competition among beliefs —i.e., when all beliefs are able to state their case, and no legal or pecuniary advantages or disadvantages attach to beliefs. This is an ideal which, for various reasons, can never be fully attained. But it is possible to approach very much nearer to it than we do at present.

Three incidents in my own life will serve to show how, in modern England, the scales are weighted in favor of Christianity. My reason for mentioning them is that many people do not at all realize the disadvantages to which avowed Agnosticism still exposes people.

The first incident belongs to a very early stage in my life. My father was a Freethinker, but died when I was only three years old. Wishing me to be brought up without superstition, he appointed two Freethinkers as my guardians. The Courts, however, set aside his will, and had me educated in the Christian faith. I am afraid the result was disappointing, but that was not the fault of the law. If he had directed that I should be educated as a Christadelphian or a Muggletonian or a Seventh-Day Adventist, the Courts would not have dreamed of objecting. A parent has a right to ordain that any imaginable superstition shall be instilled into his children after his death, but has not the right to say that they shall be kept free from superstition if possible.
The second incident occurred in the year 1910 . I had at that time a desire to stand for Parliament as a Liberal, and the Whips recommended me to a certain constituency. I addressed the Liberal Association, who expressed themselves favorably, and my adoption seemed certain. But, on being questioned by a small inner caucus, I admitted that I was an Agnostic. They asked whether the fact would come out, and I said it probably would. They asked whether I should be willing to go to church occasionally, and I replied that I should not. Consequently, they selected another candidate, who was duly elected, has been in Parliament ever since, and is a member of the present Government.
The third incident occurred immediately afterwards. I was invited by Trinity College, Cambridge, to become a lecturer, but not a Fellow. The difference is not pecuniary; it is that a Fellow has a voice in the government of the College, and cannot be dispossessed during the term of his Fellowship except for grave immorality. The chief reason for not offering me a Fellowship was that the clerical party did not wish to add to the anti-clerical vote. The result was that they were able to dismiss me in 1916, when they disliked my views on the War. If I had been dependent on my lectureship, I should have starved.

These three incidents illustrate different kinds of disadvantages attaching to avowed freethinking even in modern England. Any other avowed Freethinker could supply similar incidents from his personal experience, often of a far more serious character. The net result is that people who are not well-to-do dare not be frank about their religious beliefs.

It is not, of course, only or even chiefly in regard to religion that there is lack of freedom. Belief in communism or free love handicaps a man much more than Agnosticism. Not only is it a disadvantage to hold those views, but it is very much more difficult to obtain publicity for the arguments in their favor. On the other hand, in Russia the advantages and disadvantages are exactly reversed: comfort and power are achieved by professing Atheism, communism, and free love, and no opportunity exists for propaganda against these opinions. The result is that in Russia one set of fanatics feels absolute certainty about one set of doubtful propositions, while in the rest of the world another set of fanatics feels equal certainty about a diametrically opposite set of equally doubtful propositions. From such a situation war, bitterness, and persecution inevitably result on both sides.

Russell was an atheist. He has specific reasons for this. Listen to it in his own words:

Bertrand Russell on Religion

William James used to preach the “will to believe.” For my part, I should wish to preach the “will to doubt.” None of our beliefs are quite true; all have at least a penumbra of vagueness and error. The methods of increasing the degree of truth in our beliefs are well known; they consist in hearing all sides, trying to ascertain all the relevant facts, controlling our own bias by discussion with people who have the opposite bias, and cultivating a readiness to discard any hypothesis which has proved inadequate. These methods are practiced in science, and have built up the body of scientific knowledge.

Every man of science whose outlook is truly scientific is ready to admit that what passes for scientific knowledge at the moment is sure to require correction with the progress of discovery; nevertheless, it is near enough to the truth to serve for most practical purposes, though not for all. In science, where alone something approximating to genuine knowledge is to be found, men’s attitude is tentative and full of doubt.

In religion and politics, on the contrary, though there is as yet nothing approaching scientific knowledge , everybody considers it de rigueur to have a dogmatic opinion, to be backed up by inflicting starvation, prison, and war, and to be carefully guarded from argumentative competition with any different opinion. If only men could be brought into a tentatively agnostic frame of mind about these matters, nine-tenths of the evils of the modern world would be cured. War would become impossible, because each side would realize that both sides must be in the wrong. Persecution would cease. Education would aim at expanding the mind, not at narrowing it. Men would be chosen for jobs on account of fitness to do the work, not because they flattered the irrational dogmas of those in power. Thus rational doubt alone, if it could be generated, would suffice to introduce the millennium.

We have had in recent years a brilliant example of the scientific temper of mind in the theory of relativity and its reception by the world. Einstein, a German-Swiss-Jew pacifist, was appointed to a research professorship by the German Government in the early days of the War; his predictions were verified by an English expedition which observed the eclipse of 1919, very soon after the Armistice. His theory upsets the whole theoretical framework of traditional physics; it is almost as damaging to orthodox dynamics as Darwin was to Genesis . Yet physicists everywhere have shown complete readiness to accept his theory as soon as it appeared that the evidence was in its favor. But none of them, least of all Einstein himself, would claim that he has said the last word. He has not built a monument of infallible dogma to stand for all time. There are difficulties he cannot solve; his doctrines will have to be modified in their turn as they have modified Newton’s. This critical un-dogmatic receptiveness is the true attitude of science.

Albert Einstein during a lecture in Vienna in 1921 by Ferdinand Schmutzer [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is its exact opposite.

If it is admitted that a condition of rational doubt would be desirable , it becomes important to inquire how it comes about that there is so much irrational certainty in the world. A great deal of this is due to the inherent irrationality and credulity of average human nature. But this seed of intellectual original sin is nourished and fostered by other agencies, among which three play the chief part—namely, education, propaganda, and economic pressure .

Let us consider these in turn.

The committee which framed these laws, as quoted by the New Republic , laid it down that the teacher who “does not approve of the present social system……must surrender his office,” and that “no person who is not eager to combat the theories of social change should be entrusted with the task of fitting the young and old for the responsibilities of citizenship.”

Thus, according to the law of the State of New York, Christ and George Washington were too degraded morally to be fit for the education of the young . If Christ were to go to New York and say, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” the President of the New York School Board would reply: “Sir, I see no evidence that you are eager to combat theories of social change. Indeed, I have heard it said that you advocate what you call the kingdom of heaven, whereas this country, thank God, is a republic. It is clear that the Government of your kingdom of heaven would differ materially from that of New York State, therefore no children will be allowed access to you.” If he failed to make this reply, he would not be doing his duty as a functionary entrusted with the administration of the law.

The effect of such laws is very serious. Let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that the government and the social system in the State of New York are the best that have ever existed on this planet; yet even then both would presumably be capable of improvement. Any person who admits this obvious proposition is by law incapable of teaching in a State school. Thus the law decrees that the teachers shall all be either hypocrites or fools.

Bust of Bertrand Russell by Marcelle Quinton (1980) in Red Lion Square Camden/London

Religious toleration, to a certain extent, has been won because people have ceased to consider religion so important as it was once thought to be. But in politics and economics, which have taken the place formerly occupied by religion, there is a growing tendency to persecution, which is not by any means confined to one party. The persecution of opinion in Russia is more severe than in any capitalist country. I met in Petrograd an eminent Russian poet, Alexander Block, who has since died as the result of privations. The Bolsheviks allowed him to teach æsthetics, but he complained that they insisted on his teaching the subject “from a Marxian point of view.” He had been at a loss to discover how the theory of rhythmics was connected with Marxism, although, to avoid starvation, he had done his best to find out. Of course, it has been impossible in Russia ever since the Bolsheviks came into power to print anything critical of the dogmas upon which their regime is founded.

The examples of America and Russia illustrate the conclusion to which we seem to be driven—namely, that so long as men continue to have the present fanatical belief in the importance of politics free thought on political matters will be impossible, and there is only too much danger that the lack of freedom will spread to all other matters, as it has done in Russia. Only some degree of political skepticism can save us from this misfortune.

It must not be supposed that the officials in charge of education desire the young to become educated. On the contrary, their problem is to impart information without imparting intelligence. Education should have two objects: first, to give definite knowledge—reading and writing, languages and mathematics, and so on; secondly, to create those mental habits which will enable people to acquire knowledge and form sound judgments for themselves. The first of these we may call information, the second intelligence. The utility of information is admitted practically as well as theoretically; without a literate population a modern State is impossible. But the utility of intelligence is admitted only theoretically, not practically; it is not desired that ordinary people should think for themselves, because it is felt that people who think for themselves are awkward to manage and cause administrative difficulties. Only the guardians, in Plato’s language, are to think; the rest are to obey, or to follow leaders like a herd of sheep. This doctrine, often unconsciously, has survived the introduction of political democracy, and has radically vitiated all national systems of education.

This Mikado's Empire, His Imperial Japanese Majesty, Mutsuhito, Emperor of Japan, and the 123d Mikado of the By Internet Archive Book Images [No restrictions], via Wikimedia Commons.,

Definite mis-statements of fact can be legitimately objected to, but they are by no means necessary. The mere words “Pear’s Soap,” which affirm nothing, cause people to buy that article. If, wherever these words appear, they were replaced by the words “The Labour Party,” millions of people would be led to vote for the Labour Party, although the advertisements had claimed no merit for it whatever. But if both sides in a controversy were confined by law to statements which a committee of eminent logicians considered relevant and valid, the main evil of propaganda, as at present conducted, would remain.

Suppose, under such a law, two parties with an equally good case, one of whom had a million pounds to spend on propaganda, while the other had only a hundred thousand . It is obvious that the arguments in favor of the richer party would become more widely known than those in favor of the poorer party, and therefore the richer party would win. This situation is, of course, intensified when one party is the Government. In Russia the Government has an almost complete monopoly of propaganda, but that is not necessary. The advantages which it possesses over its opponents will generally be sufficient to give it the victory, unless it has an exceptionally bad case.

There are two simple principles which, if they were adopted, would solve almost all social problems.

The first is that education should have for one of its aims to teach people only to believe propositions when there is some reason to think that they are true.

The second is that jobs should be given solely for fitness to do the work.

To take the second point first . The habit of considering a man’s religious, moral, and political opinions before appointing him to a post or giving him a job is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the Inquisition ever was. The old liberties can be legally retained without being of the slightest use. If, in practice, certain opinions lead a man to starve, it is poor comfort to him to know that his opinions are not punishable by law. There is a certain public feeling against starving men for not belonging to the Church of England, or for holding slightly unorthodox opinions in politics. But there is hardly any feeling against the rejection of Atheists or Mormons, extreme communists, or men who advocate free love. Such men are thought to be wicked, and it is considered only natural to refuse to employ them. People have hardly yet waked up to the fact that this refusal, in a highly industrial State, amounts to a very rigorous form of persecution.

If this danger were adequately realized, it would be possible to rouse public opinion , and to secure that a man’s beliefs should not be considered in appointing him to a post. The protection of minorities is vitally important; and even the most orthodox of us may find himself in a minority some day, so that we all have an interest in restraining the tyranny of majorities. Nothing except public opinion can solve this problem. Socialism would make it somewhat more acute, since it would eliminate the opportunities that now arise through exceptional employers. Every increase in the size of industrial undertakings makes it worse, since it diminishes the number of independent employers.

The battle must be fought exactly as the battle of religious toleration was fought. And as in that case, so in this, a decay in the intensity of belief is likely to prove the decisive factor. While men were convinced of the absolute truth of Catholicism or Protestantism, as the case might be, they were willing to persecute on account of them. While men are quite certain of their modern creeds, they will persecute on their behalf. Some element of doubt is essential to the practice, though not to the theory, of toleration.

And this brings me to my other point, which concerns the aims of education. If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true.

By Hilo Tribune, March 21, 1905 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

History should be taught in the same way. Napoleon’s campaigns of 1813 and 1814, for instance, might be studied in the Moniteur , leading up to the surprise which Parisians felt when they saw the Allies arriving under the walls of Paris after they had (according to the official bulletins) been beaten by Napoleon in every battle. In the more advanced classes, students should be encouraged to count the number of times that Lenin has been assassinated by Trotsky, in order to learn contempt for death. Finally, they should be given a school history approved by the Government, and asked to infer what a French school history would say about our wars with France. All this would be a far better training in citizenship than the trite moral maxims by which some people believe that civic duty can be inculcated.

If I am asked how the world is to be induced to adopt these two maxims—namely

(1) that jobs should be given to people on account of their fitness to perform them;

(2) that one aim of education should be to cure people of the habit of believing propositions for which there is no evidence—

I can only say that it must be done by generating an enlightened public opinion . And an enlightened public opinion can only be generated by the efforts of those who desire that it should exist. I do not believe that the economic changes advocated by Socialists will, of themselves, do anything towards curing the evils we have been considering. I think that, whatever happens in politics, the trend of economic development will make the preservation of mental freedom increasingly difficult, unless public opinion insists that the employer shall control nothing in the life of the employee except his work.

Freedom in education could easily be secured, if it were desired , by limiting the function of the State to inspection and payment, and confining inspection rigidly to the definite instruction. But that, as things stand, would leave education in the hands of the Churches, because, unfortunately, they are more anxious to teach their beliefs than Freethinkers are to teach their doubts. It would, however, give a free field, and would make it possible for a liberal education to be given if it were really desired. More than that ought not to be asked of the law.

My plea throughout this address has been for the spread of the scientific temper , which is an altogether different thing from the knowledge of scientific results. The scientific temper is capable of regenerating mankind and providing an issue for all our troubles. The results of science, in the form of mechanism, poison gas, and the yellow press, bid fair to lead to the total downfall of our civilization. It is a curious antithesis, which a Martian might contemplate with amused detachment. But for us it is a matter of life and death. Upon its issue depends the question whether our grandchildren are to live in a happier world, or are to exterminate each other by scientific methods, leaving perhaps to Negroes and Papuans the future destinies of mankind.

If you would like to hear a more thorough interview with Russell, you can find it here at:

Face to Face Interview with the BBC

Project Gutenberg’s The Problems of Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: The Problems of Philosophy

Author: Bertrand Russell

Release Date: May 2, 2009 [EBook #5827]

Last Updated: February 7, 2013 Language: English

Project Gutenberg’s Free Thought and Official Propaganda, by Bertrand Russell

Title: Free Thought and Official Propaganda

Release Date: February 16, 2014 [EBook #44932]

Language: English

Share This Book

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Wisdom and Literature: An Introduction

We're Hiring!
Help Center
Find new research papers in:
Health Sciences
Earth Sciences
Cognitive Science
Mathematics
Computer Science
Academia ©2024

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Feature of Character / Wisdom

Wisdom Essay Examples

There is a wisdom of head and there is a wisdom of heart.

When Charles Dickens said this line in his novel ‘Hard Times’: “There is a wisdom of head and there is a wisdom of heart “. The only thing he brought in here was that he has solved the conflict between the Heart and the head....

Factors that Contribute to Generational Differences in Intelligence and Age Differences in Wisdom

The millennials are smarter than the previous generation firstly with the widely available knowledge that is free and open to access for any one on the internet who chooses to access it. The education system is more advanced and this has an effect on the...

Theories of Wisdom and My Opinion on It

Socrates’ teachings on wisdom are enormously valuable regardless if one agrees with them or not. Because Socrates’ ideas were very specific, they left room for intelligent discussions that can expand upon his definitions. Socrates’ ideas primarily aligned with two of the five theories: wisdom as...

Socrates’ Way of the Pursuit of Wisdom

In philosophy, providing an exact definition of not only philosophy itself but many other concepts as well, can be rather challenging. With human knowledge constantly expanding, and humans having different outlooks on things, philosophy and its branches can all be seen differently. To continue, philosophy...

The Concept of the Living Force

The living force itself is everlasting, and the universe continues through all of infinity. The reason that the universe is able to endure and continue the way it has been, is because it does not actually live for itself. The same is true of the...

Contentment is Natural Wealth. Luxury is Artificial Poverty

I once asked granny "how come you kept giving birth year after year until you had a dozen of them?" "Allah makes you forget the all the pain and all you are left with is mere reflection of it", she replied. I was perplexed so...

Socrates’ Theory of Wisdom in Relation to the Downfall of Oedipus

Wisdom is defined as the ability to think and make good judgment. In other words, wisdom is the quality of being wise. Wisdom is a great thing, always resulting in awareness. Genuine astuteness originates from knowing the enormous aspect of things throughout everyday life. To...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

Essay on Wisdom

100 Words Essay on Wisdom

Wisdom and Age

Wisdom and Education

Importance of Wisdom

250 Words Essay on Wisdom

The Components of Wisdom

The Value of Wisdom

500 Words Essay on Wisdom

The Nature of Wisdom

Wisdom and Emotional Intelligence

Wisdom in the Digital Age

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Business Management Ideas

Essay on Wisdom: Top 4 Essays on Wisdom

Essay on Relationship Between Wisdom and Knowledge

No comments yet.

Billionaires

Book Summaries

Digital Marketing

Internet Marketing

Law of Attraction

Law of Vibration

Motivational Speakers

Productivity

Relationship

Self-help 21 and 14 Days Course

Social Media

Website Development

Privacy Overview

Bibliography

1. Wisdom as Epistemic Humility

Support SEP

Words of Wisdom: Intro to Philosophy

Formats Available

Table of Contents

Ancillary Material

About the Book

About the Contributors

Contribute to this Page

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write an Essay Introduction | 4 Steps & Examples

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Examples: Writing a good hook

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Checklist: Essay introduction

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Does Wisdom Really Come from Experience?

New Yorker Favorites

Words of Wisdom - Introduction to Philosophy (Ondich)

The Key to Wisdom

How to Write an Excellent Essay Introduction

How to Write an Essay Introduction

Hook Your Reader

Provide Context

Present Your Thesis Statement

Map Your Essay

Find this useful?

Proofread and Editing

Share this article:

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

The Benefits of Using an Online Proofreading Service

6 Online AI Presentation Maker Tools

What Is Market Research?

8 Press Release Distribution Services for Your Business

How to Get a Patent

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

41 Bertrand Russell–two essays

From Bertrand Russell’s: The Problems of Philosophy: Chapter XV: The Value of Philosophy

Key Takeaway

FREE THOUGHT AND OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA

Share This Book

Wisdom and Literature: An Introduction

Wisdom Essay Examples

Factors that Contribute to Generational Differences in Intelligence and Age Differences in Wisdom

Theories of Wisdom and My Opinion on It