what is the central idea of the essay knowledge and wisdom

Summary of ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ by Bertrand Russell

Ramji Acharya
2021, Dec-28

Main Summary [Brief]

In this essay, Russell differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to him, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

Major Word Meanings of this Essay

proportion (n.): a part or share of a whole

absorb (v.): to take, draw or suck something in

distorting (v.): pull or twist out of shape

inculcate (v.): inplant, infuse, instil

bound up (v.): to limit something

fanatical (adj.): a person who is too enthusiastic about something

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his championing of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of Gottlob Frege’s predicate calculus (which still forms the basis of most contemporary systems of logic), his defense of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance which is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions, logical atomism and logical types.

Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom

“Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.”

– Sandra Carey

Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to Russell, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

A sense of proportion is very much necessary for wisdom. By inventing medicine, a scientist may reduce the infant death-rate. Apparently, it leads to population explosion and shortage of food. The standard of life comes down. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead human to destruction by manufacturing nuclear weapon.

Knowledge without wisdom can be harmful. Even complete knowledge is not enough. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary, therefore to combine knowledge with feelings.

We need wisdom both in public and private life. We need wisdom to decide the goal of our life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. Wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may remain enemies because of their prejudice. If they can be told that we all have flaws then they may become friends.

Question Answer of Knowledge & Wisdom

a. What are the factors that contribute to wisdom?

Ans : – In the essay “Knowledge and Wisdom”, Bertrand Russell talks about several factors that contribute to wisdom. According to him, the factors that contribute to wisdom are :

i) a sense of proportion,

ii) comprehensiveness with broad feeling,

iii) emancipation from personal prejudices and tyranny of sensory perception,

iv) impartiality and

v) awareness of human needs and understanding.

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the examples of technicians?

Ans : – Russell has given some examples of technicians to convey the message that the lone technical knowledge can be harmful to humankind if that knowledge is applied without wisdom. They can’t find out how their knowledge in one field can be harmful in another field. For example, the discovery of medicine to decrease the infant mortality rate can cause population growth and food scarcity. Similarly, the knowledge of atomic theory can be misused in making atom bombs.

c. Which leaders does Russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly?

Ans : – According to Russell, Queen Elizabeth I in England, Henry IV in France and Abraham Lincoln can mix knowledge and wisdom soundly. Queen Elizabeth I and Henry IV remained free from the errors of their time being Global Trade Starts Here Alibaba.com unaffected by the conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics. Similarly, Abraham Lincoln conducted a great war without ever departing from wisdom.

d. Why is wisdom needed not only in public ways but in private life equally?

Ans : – Wisdom is not only needed in public ways but also used in private life equally. It is needed in the choice of ends to be pursued and in emancipation from personal prejudice. In the lack of wisdom, we may fail in choosing the target of our life and we may not have sufficient patience and sufficient persuasiveness in convincing people.

e. What, according to Russell, the true aim of education?

Ans : – The true aim of education, according to Russell, is installing wisdom in people. It is wisdom that makes us utilize our knowledge in practical life purposefully without making any harm to humankind. Along with knowledge, people must have the wisdom to be good citizens.

f. Can wisdom be taught? If so, how?

Ans : – Yes, wisdom can be taught. The teaching of wisdom should have a larger intellectual element more than moral instruction. The disastrous results of hatred and narrow mindedness to those who feel them can be pointed out incidentally in the course of giving knowledge. For example, while teaching the composition of an atom, the disastrous results of it must be taught to eliminate its misuse such as making an atom bomb. Reference to the Context Answer the following questions.

a. According to Russell, “The Pursuit of Knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement.

Ans : – Humans are curious creatures and they always want to learn new things. Most people have spent their whole lives in pursuit of knowledge. Some pieces of knowledge are noble and beneficial for humans whereas some pieces of knowledge are harmful to us. The knowledge which is combined with wisdom is useful for us because it addresses the total needs of mankind. The knowledge of atomic composition has become harmful to mankind because it is used in making bombs.

Similarly, Hegal, though he had great knowledge about history, made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to the great disastrous wars. So, it is necessary to combine knowledge with the feeling of humanity. We need it an event to decide the aim of our life. It makes us free from personal prejudices. Even noble things are applied unwisely in the lack of wisdom

b. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence?

Ans : – According to Russell, the essence of wisdom is emancipation from the tyranny of being partiality. It makes our thoughts and feeling less personal and less concerned with our physical states. It is wisdom that makes us care and love the entire human race, it takes us into the higher stage of spirituality. It makes us be able to make the right decision, install a broad vision and unbiasedness in our minds. We can acquire the very essence by breaking the chain of the egoism of our sense, understanding the ends of human life, applying our knowledge wisely for the benefit of humans, finding noble and attainable goals of our life, controlling our sensory perceptions, being impartial gradually and loving others.

Reference Beyond the Text

a. Why is wisdom necessary in education? Discuss. Ans : It is wisdom that makes our mind broad and unbiased. When we gain wisdom, our thoughts and feelings become less personal. It makes us use our knowledge wisely. It helps us to utilize our knowledge for the benefit of humankind. When we have wisdom we love even our enemy, we completely get rid of ego, we don’t have any kind of prejudices.

If education/knowledge is one part of human life then wisdom is another part. If one compasses these both parts appropriately, then s/he become a perfect being. The goal of education is not only imparting knowledge but also creating good citizens. People may misuse the acquired knowledge if they don’t have wisdom and it doesn’t come automatically, it must be taught. It must be one of the goals of education and must be taught in schools. It must be planted and nursed in one’s mind with practical examples.

Understanding the Text

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the example of technicians?

c. Which leaders does Russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly?

d. Why is wisdom needed not only in public ways, but in private life equally?

e. What, according to Russell, is the true aim of education?

g. Why does the world need more wisdom in the future? Reference to the context

a. According to Russel, “The pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement.

b. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence?

Reference beyond the text

a. Why is wisdom necessary in education? Discuss.

b. How can you become wise? Do you think what you are doing in college contributes to wisdom?

Examining Interpretivism in Social Science Research

February 15, 2024

Theoretical Foundations of Teaching And Learning

January 30, 2024

Book Review of International Perspectives on Critical Pedagogies in ELT

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell [Summary, analysis, Main Ideas]

In his essay "Knowledge and Wisdom," Bertrand Russell emphasizes the importance of wisdom and adds that, in the absence of it, knowledge can be dangerous. Russell advocates that wisdom and knowledge should go hand in hand to use knowledge rationally. Wisdom, according to the essayist, allows us to put our knowledge to good use in the real world without causing harm to others.

{getToc} $title={Table of Contents}

Knowledge and Wisdom Bertrand Russell [Summary, analysis, Main Ideas]

In the essay, Russell lists many methods for obtaining wisdom and bemoans the fact that, despite tremendous information, there has been no equivalent rise in wisdom. Bertrand Russell discusses several factors that contribute to wisdom in his essay "Knowledge and Wisdom." According to him, a sense of proportion, comprehensiveness with broad feeling, emancipation from personal prejudices and the tyranny of sensory perception, impartiality, and awareness of human needs and understanding are all factors that contribute to wisdom. Wisdom is gained when a person’s thoughts and feelings become less personal.

The key to wisdom is being able to detach ourselves from the control of our sense organs. Our ego grows as a result of our senses. Once we can control our sense organs, we start to think about other people’s convenience. As a result, we stop thinking of ourselves as individuals. We become wise when we begin to think about other people. We give up our egoism. It’s tough to eliminate selfishness, yet we can think about things that aren’t in our immediate vicinity. Wisdom emerges when we begin to value things that do not directly affect us. When we love people, we gain wisdom. The writer urges people not to hate anyone.

In the essay, Russell mentioned how knowledge without wisdom can be dangerous, giving the example of scientists and historians. Scientists develop novel drugs but have no idea how these medicines will affect people’s lives. Drugs may help lower the infant mortality rate. However, it may result in a rise in population, and the world is sure to face the consequences of the rise in population. Once, Hegel, the greatest historian, wrote with historical knowledge and made the Germans believe they were a master race, and this false sense of pride drove them to war. When an intellectual uses his knowledge to demonstrate his theory or principles without considering the feelings or outcomes of such ideas, he may do more harm than good.

The author is assured that wisdom must be an integral part of education because a person can be well educated but lack the wisdom to understand the true meaning of life. Wisdom is required in education because knowledge alone leads to its misuse. After all, one cannot see the true purpose of life. Wisdom, according to Russell, should be taught as a goal of education.

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell [Main ideas]

➤Wisdom is lacking in men who have knowledge but no sentiments.

➤ Wisdom should be coupled with humanity’s overall needs.

➤ Wisdom should be linked to a basic understanding of life’s purpose.

➤ Wisdom is required in both public and private life.

➤ Wisdom is required in personal life to avoid dislike for one another.

➤ The key to wisdom is being able to detach ourselves from the control of our sense organs.

➤ Wisdom appears when we begin to value things that do not directly affect us.

➤ Knowledge without wisdom has the potential to be dangerous and harmful to humans.

➤ The essence of wisdom is to free oneself from the captivity of the physical and emotional worlds and look beyond.

➤ Wisdom can be learnt by loving others and letting go of selfishness.

➤ Knowledge and wisdom can be combined in an educational scheme.

➤ Wisdom must be an integral part of education because a man or person can be well-educated but lack the wisdom to understand the true meaning of life.

➤ Wisdom should be taught in school alongside knowledge

➤ Lone technical knowledge can be harmful to humans if applied without caution.

➤ Knowledge combined with wisdom is beneficial to people because it addresses all of humanity’s needs .

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell Class 12 Exercise and Question Answer

Understanding the text

Answer the following questions.

Reference to the context

Difference between Knowledge and Wisdom

Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom

“Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.”

– Sandra Carey

Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to Russell , knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

A sense of proportion is very much necessary for wisdom . By inventing medicine, a scientist may reduce the infant death-rate. Apparently, it leads to population explosion and shortage of food. The standard of life comes down. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead human to destruction by manufacturing nuclear weapon.

Knowledge without wisdom can be harmful. Even complete knowledge is not enough. For example, Hegel wrote with great

what is the central idea of the essay knowledge and wisdom

knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary, therefore to combine knowledge with feelings.

Russell’s View on World Government in his Essay The Future of Mankind

So, ‘Hate Hatred’ should be our slogan. Wisdom lies in freeing ourselves from the control of our sense organs. Our ego develops through our senses. We cannot be free from the sense of sight, sound and touch. We know the world primarily through our senses. As we grow we discover that there are other things also. We start recognizing them. Thus we give up thinking of ourselves alone. We start thinking of other people and grow wiser. We give up on our ego. Wisdom comes when we start loving others.

Russell feels that wisdom can be taught as a goal of education. Even though we are born unwise which we cannot help, we can cultivate wisdom. Queen Elizabeth I, Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln, are some impressive personalities who fused vigour with wisdom and fought the evil.

Russell’s View on World Government in his Essay The Future of Mankind
Indian English Poetry and Poets: An Essay
Character Analysis of Sir Roger de Coverley in Addison’s Essay
Bertrand Russell as a Prose Writer
Summary of E. V. Lucas’ Essay The Town Week

8 thoughts on “Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom”

Great article with excellent idea!Thank you for such a valuable article. I really appreciate for this great information.. quora

Really nice and well informative article wrote in a very concise and beautiful manner

thank you for a great post. กาแฟออแกนิค

Critical analysis plz post

An examination essay dissects the likenesses and contrasts between two items or thoughts. Correlation essays may incorporate an assessment, if the realities show that on item or thought is better than another. narrative essay outline

A doctor may invent medicine which reduces infant mortality rate. Consequently, it may lead to population explosion and shortage of food. That shows a lack of KNOWLEDGE itself. Not knowing the consequences rather than “Wisdom” stuff that Russell talks about here

I am satisfied with the arrangement of your post. You are really a talented person I have ever seen.

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.

A Horseman in the Sky by Ambrose Bierce: Bed First Year English

The spanish church: bed first summary and questions, leaving by m.g vassanji: class 12 optional english.

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell: Summary and Theme/Class 12 Compulsory English

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell Summary and Theme/Class 12 Compulsory English

Knowledge and wisdom aren’t same. Knowledge helps people to make living but wisdom makes our life. They are different to each other. Knowledge is related with acquisition of data. But wisdom is practical use of knowledge in our life. Wisdom helps to create value. We can gain knowledge from memorization but we need practical experience to achieve wisdom. A sense of proportion is needed to acquire wisdom. Knowledge can be misused to destroy human life.

In fact, knowledge and wisdom are necessary for completion of life. One is incomplete without another. Wisdom is necessary in public as well as private life. Wisdom directs our life goals. It keeps away us from personal prejudices created by knowledge. Wisdom can change enemies into friends. If we are free from control of our sense organs then we can feel wisdom inside us. We need to love other people too. We should think beyond our lives. We must start loving and caring other people to venture on the journey of wisdom.

Russell thinks that wisdom should be used as a goal of education. We are unwise at the beginning of our life. But we can achieve wisdom in our life by cultivating it. Abraham Lincoln, Queen Elizabeth,etc removed evil from their life to welcome wisdom in their life. The current age is knowledge age but we need to teach value of wisdom to make people wise.

Knowledge is increasing but not wisdom. Study, experience and research help to gain knowledge. But wisdom teaches us to do better for humanity. Knowledge functions as an engine and wisdom as driver.

Action is related with knowledge. But wisdom is related with results of actions. So, comprehensive vision is linked with wisdom. Knowledge helps to reduce death rate by supplying medicines. But it doesn’t analyze the result of increasing population. Increase in population brings the problem of scarcity of food. Wisdom helps us to see the negative sides of such research and medicine. So, knowledge should be driven by wisdom. Both are inter-related to each other.

Facing death by august strindberg: class 12 english note: summary and theme, a matter of husbands: one act play by ferenc molnar :summary and theme, humility: essay by yuval noah harari: summary and theme (class 12 english note).

Wow, awesome blog format! How lengthy have you been blogging for? you make running a blog glance easy. The full glance of your site is magnificent, as well as the content! You can see similar here najlepszy sklep

Hi there! Do you know if they make any plugins to assist with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.

If you know of any please share. Kudos! I saw similar text here: Scrapebox AA List

Hi there, I wish for to subscribe for this website to take hottest updates, thus where can i do it please help out.

Also visit my homepage; vpn special coupon code 2024

The other day, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and tested to see if it can survive a thirty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

my website – vpn 2024

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

No thanks, I’m not interested.

Knowledge and Wisdom Exercise : Summary and Question Answers

Share this article, knowledge and wisdom.

You can download our android app using below button to get offline access to the notes directly from your phone.

Understanding the text

Answer the following questions., a. what are the factors that contribute to wisdom, b. what message does the writer try to convey with the example of technicians, c. which leaders does russell say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly, d. why is wisdom needed not only in public ways, but in private life equally, e. what, according to russell, is the true aim of education, f. can wisdom be taught if so, how, g. why does the world need more wisdom in the future, reference to the context, a. according to russel, “the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” justify this statement., b. what, according to russell, is the essence of wisdom and how can one acquire the very essence, reference beyond the text, a. why is wisdom necessary in education discuss., b. how can you become wise do you think what you are doing in college contributes to wisdom, don't miss our nepali guide.

Moreover, If you have any doubt, suggestions or feedback about our services, then please feel free to contact us. You can contact us from the Contact Page . We will be happy to read your feedback and suggestions.

Additionally, You can also check our Privacy Policy page if you want to know how we may use your data generated from visiting this website.

_Grade VIII
_ _Social Studies
_ _(Grade XI- New Course)
_ _ _Language Development
_ _ _Literary Studies
_ _ _ _Short Stories
_ _ _ _Poems
_ _(Grade XII- New Course)
_Basic Level
Moral Stories
General Knowledge
Information

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Summary of Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell | Essay | Class XII English Note (Exercise)

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell

In the essay, Russel distinguishes knowledge from wisdom. Knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information, whereas wisdom as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is achieved through learning and practical experience. His lamentation is that though vast knowledge has been acquired, there has been no corresponding increase in wisdom.

Russell thinks several factors contribute to wisdom. He puts first a sense of proportion. It is the capacity to consider all important factors in a problem carefully. Specialization makes it difficult. For example, scientists discover new medicines but they do not know what effect they will have on people’s life. The medicines may reduce the infant death rate. But it may lead to increased population. In poor countries it may lead to starvation. If there are more people, it may decrease the standard of life. The knowledge of the composition of the atom could be misused by a lunatic to destroy the world. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead humans to destruction by producing nuclear weapons.

Russel stresses on comprehensiveness an important factor that constitutes wisdom. As human knowledge becomes more specialized, one who is engrossed in the study of his specific field may fail to predict the outcome of the knowledge he is pursuing. Knowledge should be combined with the total needs of mankind. Even complete knowledge is not enough. It should be associated with certain awareness of the ends of human life. The study of history can prove it. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary therefore to combine knowledge with feelings. The men who have knowledge and have no feelings lack wisdom.

Wisdom is needed both in public and private life. People require wisdom to decide the objective of their life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. We may follow even a novel thing unwisely if it is too big to achieve. People may attempt to achieve the impossible, and harm themselves in the process. In personal life, says Russell, wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may become enemies because of their prejudice. One may dislike the other for imaginary faults. If they can be told that we all have flaws, then they may become friends.

Wisdom exists when we free ourselves from the control of our sense organs. Our ego develops through our senses. One cannot be free from the sense of sight, sound and touch. The world is primarily recognized through our senses. Thus, we stop thinking of ourselves alone. We start thinking of other people and grow wiser. It is difficult to completely to make us free from selfishness, but we can think of things beyond our immediate surroundings. Wisdom gets birth when we start loving others.

Russell feels that wisdom can be taught as an aim of education. The message in the parable of the Good Samaritan is that we ought to love our neighbor whether friend or enemy. Many times we miss the message in this parable because we fail to love those who cause harm to the society. The author draws out examples from the history of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln, who were free from the errors committed by other important people in the past.

The risk of hatred and narrow-mindedness can be identified in the course of giving knowledge. Russell feels knowledge and wisdom can be amalgamated in the arrangement of education. People should be educated to perceive things in relation to other things of the world. They should be encouraged to think of themselves as world citizens.

Understanding the text

a. What are the factors that contribute to wisdom?

The factors that contribute to wisdom are:

- a sense of proportion

- comprehensiveness

- choice of ends to pursue

- emancipation from personal prejudice

b. What message does the writer try to convey with the example of technicians?

He tries to tell us knowledge itself cannot save the world. Knowledge without wisdom will not be beneficial to the world and in some cases will even seriously threaten humanity. So, a wise person should have a sense of comprehensiveness.

c. Which leaders does Russel say were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly?

Queen Elizabeth I, Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln were the leaders who were able to mix knowledge and wisdom soundly.

d. Why is wisdom needed not only in public ways but in private life equally?

Wisdom is needed not only in public ways but in private life equally to get rid of personal prejudice. As our thoughts and feelings become less personal, we may gain wisdom.

e. What, according to Russel, is the true aim of education?

According to Russel, the true aim of education is wisdom.

f. Can wisdom be taught? If so, how?

Wisdom can be taught loving our neighbors whether friends or foes.

g. Why does the world need more wisdom in the future?

With every increase of knowledge and skill, our purposes may be unwise. This can be a threat to the world, and the world will need wisdom in the future.

Reference to the context

a. According to Russel, “The pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom.” Justify this statement.

As human knowledge becomes more specialized, one who is engrossed in the study of his specific field may fail to predict the outcome of the knowledge he is pursuing. Knowledge should be combined with the total needs of mankind. Even complete knowledge is not enough. It should be associated with certain awareness of the ends of human life. The study of history can prove it. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary therefore to combine knowledge with feelings. The men who have knowledge and have no feelings lack wisdom.

a. What, according to Russell, is the essence of wisdom? And how can one acquire the very essence?

According to Russell, the essence of wisdom is emancipation. It lies in impartiality, the ability to defy the physical world. The essayist believes the process of growing wise is that of tearing oneself away from the physical and emotional world and moving into a higher stage, the spiritual world. The process of impartiality constitutes in wisdom.

No comments:

Subscribe Our Youtube Channel

Total pageviews.

Privacy Policy
Terms and conditions

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 .

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

Preeti to unicode
Keshav Sir's Site
Rupindra Sir's Site
OPT ENGLISH XI
OPT ENGLISH XII
Comp. ENGLISH XI
Comp. ENGLISH XII

TB, TG, Curri. and Ques.
_Curriculum
_Specification Grids
_Teacher's Guide
_QUESTION BANK
_Questions and Reference Materials
_Guided Writing
_Free Writing
_Movie Review
_Grammar Rules
_Grammar Exercises
_Grammar Quiz
Grade 11/12
_Grammar 11
_Guided and Free Writing
__Guided Writing
__Free Writing
__Questions
_Grade 12 (Literature Part)
_Grade 11 (Literature Part)
TSC Materials
__Secondary
__Basic (6-8)
_Free Competition (KHULLA)
__Basic (1-5)
_INTERNAL 25 percent (Badhuwa)

Knowledge and Wisdom (Essay) Summary

Knowledge and Wisdom

by Bertrand Arthur William Russell

About the author

The essay ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ is written by a British essayist Bertrand Arthur William Russell. In this essay, Russell differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom are different things. According to him, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information whereas wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization.

According to Russel, knowledge is defined as the acquisition of data and information. It is like a generating theory. while wisdom is defined as the practical application and use of the knowledge to create value. Wisdom is gained through learning and practical experience, not just memorization. A sense of proportion is very much necessary for wisdom . By inventing medicine, a scientist may reduce the infant death-rate. Apparently, it leads to population explosion and shortage of food. The standard of life comes down. If misused, knowledge of atom can lead human to destruction by manufacturing nuclear weapon. Knowledge and Wisdom have the relation like theory and practice.

In this essay the essayist talks about several factors that contribute to wisdom. According to him, the factors that contribute to wisdom are:

i) a sense of proportion,

ii) aware comprehensiveness and feeling

iii) emancipation from personal prejudices

iv) impartiality and

v) intellectual element

Only Knowledge or Wisdom can’t be sufficient. Both are equally important. Knowledge without wisdom can be harmful. Even complete knowledge is not enough. For example, Hegel wrote with great knowledge about history, but made the Germans believe that they were a master race. It led to war. It is necessary, therefore to combine knowledge with feelings. We need wisdom both in public and private life. We need wisdom to decide the goal of our life. We need it to free ourselves from personal prejudices. Wisdom is needed to avoid dislike for one another. Two persons may remain enemies because of their prejudice. If they can be told that we all have flaws then they may become friends.

In this essay, Russell defines what wisdom is in the first part and in the second part he talks about how it can be attained. Without knowledge, wisdom cannot go forward. He says that wisdom and knowledge must go ahead simultaneously. Thus, knowledge and wisdom are remarkable gifts of the clear exposition of Russel. It shows Russel as a great master of lucid style. His intellect is brilliant and his vision is comprehensive.

For exercise CLICK HERE.

For ‘Humility’ CLICK HERE.

For all content CLICK HERE .

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Subscribe (youtube), date and time.

Facebook Page

Action Research
Audio Materials
Free Writing
Grammar Exercises
Grammar Quiz
Grammar Rules
Grammar test Class 9/10
Guided Writing
License Basic (6-8)
License Secondary
Literature Part Grade 11
LIVE WORKSHEETS
Optional English (Grade 11)
Optional English (Grade 12)
Please give me feedback too.
Question Bank
Reference Materials
Result sheets
Specification Grid
Teachers' Guide
शिक्षक सेवा आयोग सामग्री

Report Abuse

Total pageviews, contributors.

रुपिन्द्र प्रभावी

Social Plugin

All Materials of Grade 10 (New Book 2080)

All Units of Class Nine

Unit 1 Current Affairs and Issues (Grade 10) Reading II

Important sites for english.

British Council
Education World
Live Work Sheets
MCQ TIMES for all subjects
Road to Grammar
Work Sheet Place

Important Blogs

About the blogger.

Dev Prasad Pandit

Khairahani-4, Chainpur, Chitwan

Email: [email protected]

Mobile: 9845054921

Youtube and Other Links

Khan Academy
NCED Virtual Class
Khullakitab
Lesson Plan
Sikai Chautari
Social Studies (Rajan Neupane Sir)

Menu Footer Widget

Introductory Essay Knowledge, Teaching and Wisdom

Cite this chapter.

Keith Lehrer &
Nicholas D. Smith

Part of the book series: Philosophical Studies Series ((PSSP,volume 67))

240 Accesses

2 Citations

This book arose out of a Summer Institute on Knowledge, Teaching, and Wisdom supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The principal idea behind the institute was to combine historical and systematic investigation of knowledge and wisdom with a concern for pedagogical application. The institute activity was intense and the participants put in long hours presenting their own work and interacting with each other and a large number of distinguished lecturers. This book contains some of the fruits of their inquiries. It is especially pleasing for us to present this diverse current group of philosophers undertaking the project of bringing together historical and systematic investigation, which was characteristic of the great historical figures of the past from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell, and which runs against the current of present day specialization. Before we turn to their thoughts, however, we will present, in this introduction, some of our own conceptions of the interconnections, of the web of history, analysis, knowledge and value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

For discussion of all that this involves, see T. C. Brickhouse and N.D. Smith, Plato’s Socrates (Oxford UP, 1994 ), pp. 30–60.

Google Scholar

On “acceptance,” as opposed to “belief,” see Keith Lehrer, Theory of Knowledge (Boulder, CO and San Francisco: Westview Press, 1990), 10–11. In this essay, we will often describe the relevant cognitive processes as those of judgment, but we do not consider this to be a substantive departure from Lehrer’s earlier uses of “acceptance.” We find “judgment” more useful, in this essay, given its application to both cognitive and affective states and processes, to judgments about beliefs and judgments about desires, which we will call “acceptance” and “preference,” respectively. We regard these processes as linked in important ways, as will become apparent later in this essay.

See Alvin Plantings, Warrant and Proper Function ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1993 ).

Book Google Scholar

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

Keith Lehrer

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA

B. Jeannie Lum

Erie Community College, Orchard Park, USA

Beverly A. Slichta

Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

Nicholas D. Smith

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Lehrer, K., Smith, N.D. (1996). Introductory Essay Knowledge, Teaching and Wisdom. In: Lehrer, K., Lum, B.J., Slichta, B.A., Smith, N.D. (eds) Knowledge, Teaching and Wisdom. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 67. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2022-9_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2022-9_1

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-90-481-4684-0

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-2022-9

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Press ESC to close

Or check our popular categories..., summary of knowledge and wisdom by bertrand russell | class 12 english.

About the Author:

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, essayist and social critic best known for his work in mathematical logic and analytic philosophy. His most influential contributions include his championing of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some important sense reducible to logic), his refining of Gottlob Frege’s predicate calculus (which still forms the basis of most contemporary systems of logic), his defence of neutral monism (the view that the world consists of just one type of substance which is neither exclusively mental nor exclusively physical), and his theories of definite descriptions, logical atomism and logical types.

Russell distinguishes between knowledge and wisdom in this essay. Wisdom and knowledge are not the same things. Russell defines wisdom and lists many methods for attaining it. He laments the fact that, despite tremendous information, there has been no equivalent rise in wisdom. He defines knowledge as the gathering of data and information, whereas wisdom is the practical application and use of knowledge to produce value. Not simply memory, but also study and actual experience, leads to wisdom.

Russel defines wisdom by describing things that contribute to wisdom. The first is a sense of proportion. It is the ability to carefully analyze all relevant variables in a problem. Specialization makes it difficult. For example, scientists discover new drugs but have no idea what influence these medicines will have on people’s lives. The medications may lower the newborn mortality rate. However, it may result in a rise in population. Food shortages may occur in poorer countries. More population may result in a worse standard of living. A maniac could use knowledge of the atom’s composition to destroy the world. Without wisdom, knowledge can be dangerous.

Knowledge should be linked with humanity’s overall requirements. Even comprehensive knowledge is insufficient. It should be associated with a specific understanding of life’s purpose. The study of history can help to demonstrate this. For example, Hegel wrote about history with great historical knowledge, yet he encouraged the Germans to feel that they were a superior race. It resulted in the war. As a result, it is vital to blend information with feelings. Men who have information but no sentiments are illiterate.

We require wisdom in both public and private life. We require wisdom to determine our life’s purpose. We require it to be free of personal preconceptions. We may inappropriately pursue a fresh idea if it is too large to achieve. People have sacrificed their lives in search of the “philosopher’s Stone,” also known as the “elixir of life.” They were not practical. They were looking for simple solutions to humanity’s complicated challenges. A man may endeavour to accomplish the impossible, but he may endanger himself in the process.

Similarly, wisdom is required in personal life to avoid hatred for one another. Because of their prejudice, two people may remain enemies. One may hate the other because of imagined flaws. They may become buddies if they are told that we all have flaws. Russel argues that we can avoid hatred by reasoned argument. The path to wisdom is to release ourselves from the grip of our sense organs. Our ego grows as a result of our senses. We cannot live without our senses of sight, sound, and touch. Our senses are the primary means by which we see the world. We learn as we develop that there are other things. We begin to recognize them. As a result, we stop thinking of ourselves as individuals. When we start thinking about other people, we become wise. We let go of our egoism. It is difficult to eliminate selfishness totally, yet we may think beyond our local circumstances. Wisdom emerges when we begin to place value on things that do not directly affect us. When we begin to love people, we begin to gain wisdom.

Wisdom, according to Russell, can be taught as an aim of education. The tale of the Good Samaritan teaches us to love our neighbour, whether friend or enemy. Many times, we misunderstand the point of this tale because we stop loving those who cause harm to society. Understanding, not hatred, is the only way out. In a nutshell, Russel advises us not to hate anyone. The author uses historical examples of Queen Elizabeth I, Henry the IV, and Abraham Lincoln who were free of the mistakes made by other notable persons in the past. In the course of imparting knowledge, the hazards of hatred and narrow-mindedness might be highlighted. Russel believes that knowledge and values can be blended into an educational plan. People should be educated to see things in context with other aspects of the world. They should be encouraged to consider themselves global citizens.

In conclusion, the author lists five factors that lead to wisdom. They are as follows: comprehensiveness, proportionality, emancipation, impartiality, awareness of human needs and understanding. As our knowledge grows, so does our ability to do evil. We would need more and more wisdom to make appropriate use of our knowledge. To make excellent use of our growing knowledge, we need more wisdom. Only then can we realize our life’s purpose and fulfil our goals.

Wow! very meaningfully you have summarised this essay. And you have done great justice on its view.

Brilliant!Thank you bruh..

how long summary

The SR Zone

Class 11 English Notes
Class 11 Nepali Notes
Books PDF Download
Class 12 English Notes
Class 12 Nepali Notes
English Grammar Notes
Class 11 Questions
Class 12 Questions
Android Apps

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell Summary

Summary of Knowledge and Wisdom Bertrand Russell PDF

Summary of Knowledge and Wisdom Writer, Bertrand Russell PDF Free Download

Exercise of Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell

Main Summary

In this article, the author discusses numerous aspects of wisdom. His definition of wisdom includes:

i) sense of proportion

ii) awareness and feeling

iii) freedom from bias

iv) objectivity

v) mental component

Russell defines wisdom in the first half of this article, and then discusses how to get it in the second. Wisdom cannot progress without information. He claims that wisdom and knowledge must both be pursued at the same time. As a result, Russel's precise explanations are wonderful gifts of knowledge and wisdom. It demonstrates Russel's mastery of clear style. His brain is razor-sharp, and his perspective is expansive.

Only having knowledge or wisdom isn't enough. Both are equally valuable. Wisdom without knowledge may be dangerous. Even having all of the facts isn't enough. It is vital to blend information with wisdom. To choose our life's objective, we need intelligence. We need it in order to be free of personal biases. To prevent hate for one another, wisdom is required. For understanding each other, we require wisdom.

Russell distinguishes knowledge and wisdom in this essay. Wisdom is not knowledge. He defines knowledge as the gathering of facts and information, but wisdom is the application and use of knowledge to generate value. Wisdom comes from study and experience, not memorization.

Word Meanings of this essay

proportion (n.): a part or share of a whole

absorb (v.): to take, draw or suck something in

distorting (v.): pull or twist out of shape

inculcate (v.): inplant, infuse, instil

bound up (v.): to limit something

fanatical (adj.): a person who is too enthusiastic about something

Who is Knowledge and Wisdom writer, Bertrand Russell?

This PDF has been downloaded from www.thesrzone.com ! Subscribe The SR Zone on YouTube for NEB Notes and Summaries! Visit thesrzone.com for more PDFs !

Download App

Download The SR Zone App from Play Store ! - Notes of Class 12, 11 and 10 - All Summary and Exercise Solution - Offline App, works without internet

Features for Creative Writers
Features for Work
Features for Higher Education
Features for Teachers
Features for Non-Native Speakers
Learn Blog Grammar Guide Community Events FAQ
Grammar Guide

Central Idea in Literature: Definition, Meaning, and Examples

Krystal N. Craiker

In literature, there are many elements that work together to make a cohesive story. At the heart of each story is the central idea.

The central idea, also called the main idea, is a brief, overall summary of what the entire story is about. Typically, we explain the central idea in one sentence.

The central idea is different from the theme and the message. It’s the backbone of a story’s plot. Let’s take a closer look at what the central idea means in literature.

Central Idea Definition: What Is It in a Story?

Central idea meaning: what does it mean, the importance of a central idea in a story, tips on using central ideas in your story, examples of the central idea of a story, conclusion on central ideas in a story.

The definition of the central idea is a statement that explains the main scenario of a story. All plot lines, supporting details, and conflicts support the central idea.

You can think of the central idea as a very brief summary of a story. In other words, if someone asks what the story is about, the central idea is what you would tell them.

Fairy tales are a great way to understand literary elements. Let’s use Goldilocks and the Three Bears as an example.

The central idea of this story is:

A girl named Goldilocks enters a house in the woods, helps herself to porridge, and breaks furniture, not knowing the house belongs to three bears.

We don’t explore every individual event of the story or even dive into the themes. We briefly summarize the plot and hint that there will be consequences to Goldilocks’ actions. The central idea doesn’t give away “spoilers” by revealing what happens in the story’s climax when the bears come home.

People often confuse the central idea with a story’s theme. These two literary elements are closely related but distinct.

The central idea addresses the main ideas of the plot. The theme, on the other hand, is the unifying element or elements weaved into a story. A literary theme is a generic truth found in many stories. Themes often have a message for readers from the author.

Examples of literary themes include courage, friendship, revenge, and power.

Central ideas are not generic. They are specific to an individual story.

Let’s return to our example of Goldilocks and the Three Bears . The theme is the effect of selfishness on others. There’s a message or moral there too: Be considerate of other people.

You can see how these differ from the central idea statement, which dealt with the story’s main character and plot.

The theme and message all come from the central idea. You can’t have a cohesive story without the central idea as a starting point.

Imagine writing a story is like building a house. When you have a clear central idea for your story, you have laid the foundation. This foundation supports every other part of the story.

The floors and walls of your story are the external conflict, internal conflict, characters, plot elements, setting, and more. The theme is like the electrical system that runs throughout the entire building.

You can’t have a sturdy house without a solid foundation. Likewise, you can’t have a strong story without a clear central idea.

In the Goldilocks story, the plot events, characters, and theme all relate back to our central idea. Imagine if the theme of Goldilocks and the Three Bears was forbidden love overcoming all. That doesn’t fit the story at all! The fable would sound very strange.

Here are a few tips on the most effective ways to use central ideas in your writing.

Write a Strong Central Idea Statement

The stronger your foundation, the sturdier your house. The same goes with a central idea.

You can get the point across with a poorly written central idea statement. In fact, a poorly written central idea is a great starting point.

But spend some time honing your central idea. A well-written central idea will explore not just the main plotline but also touch on underlying themes.

Let’s improve our Goldilocks central idea statement:

A young girl suffers the consequences of her selfish actions after breaking and entering and destroying property in a home owned by three bears.

This central idea still tells us the gist of the story and introduces the main characters, while also touching on the theme of selfishness.

Match the Theme to the Story

Like we discussed above, throwing in a theme about forbidden love to the classic Goldilocks tale won’t fit the story. The themes of a story must be relevant to the central idea.

Most novels or other long-form work have more than one theme expressed in the story. Spend some time figuring out which themes fit your central idea. Then you can plan character arcs , conflicts, or other elements to help you explore that theme.

Start Big, Narrow Down

It’s difficult to sum up an entire story in one or two brief sentences. Start with a big overview then whittle it down to find your central idea.

You can start by writing a synopsis, which is a roughly two-page plot summary. Then try to narrow that down into a paragraph by focusing on the main events and key characters.

Writing a central idea statement from a paragraph is much easier. Keep it short: one or two sentences max.

As an added bonus, you can then use your central idea as your elevator pitch to quickly introduce people to your book.

Your book is likely more complicated than a fairy tale. Let’s look at some examples of central ideas in other works.

Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare

Two young, star-crossed lovers cause a deadly war between opposing families when they hastily marry.

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

In the 1920s, Jay Gatsby has achieved great wealth through unsavory means in an attempt to impress the love of his life, Daisy Buchanan. Regardless, they are still divided by their differences in social status, rampant materialism, and Daisy’s abusive husband.

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

A lonely miser named Ebenezer Scrooge is haunted by the spirits of Christmas Past, Present, and Future to confront his life choices and learn about love and compassion.

Finding the central idea of a story will help you understand how the plot and themes work together. Discovering your own story’s central idea will guide your writing process and help you develop a cohesive story.

Do you want to know how to build a world your readers won’t forget? Download this free book now:

World-Building 101: How to Construct an Unforgettable World for your Fantasy or Sci-Fi Story!

This guide is for all the writers out there who want to construct an unforgettable world that your readers can't help but get lost in, learn how to invent species, gods, monsters and more in our immersive guide..

Be confident about grammar

Check every email, essay, or story for grammar mistakes. Fix them before you press send.

Krystal N. Craiker is the Writing Pirate, an indie romance author and blog manager at ProWritingAid. She sails the seven internet seas, breaking tropes and bending genres. She has a background in anthropology and education, which brings fresh perspectives to her romance novels. When she’s not daydreaming about her next book or article, you can find her cooking gourmet gluten-free cuisine, laughing at memes, and playing board games. Krystal lives in Dallas, Texas with her husband, child, and basset hound.

Get started with ProWritingAid

Drop us a line or let's stay in touch via :

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell: Summary | Questions and Answers | Class 12 English

About the writer, about the text.

CLICK HERE 👇 TO READ

ALL ESSAYS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS' SOLUTION PACK

MAIN SUMMARY

Thanks for Visiting my Website: Suraj Bhatt

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

what is the central idea of the essay knowledge and wisdom

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Summary of ‘Knowledge and Wisdom’ by Bertrand Russell

Main Summary [Brief]

Major Word Meanings of this Essay

Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom

Question Answer of Knowledge & Wisdom

Reference Beyond the Text

Understanding the Text

Reference beyond the text

Recommended Articles:

Examining Interpretivism in Social Science Research

Theoretical Foundations of Teaching And Learning

Book Review of International Perspectives on Critical Pedagogies in ELT

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell [Summary, analysis, Main Ideas]

Knowledge and Wisdom Bertrand Russell [Summary, analysis, Main Ideas]

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell [Main ideas]

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell Class 12 Exercise and Question Answer

Difference between Knowledge and Wisdom

Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom

Related posts:

8 thoughts on “Summary of Russell’s Essay, Knowledge and Wisdom”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Subscribe to Updates

A Horseman in the Sky by Ambrose Bierce: Bed First Year English

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell: Summary and Theme/Class 12 Compulsory English

Related Posts

Leave A Reply

Knowledge and Wisdom Exercise : Summary and Question Answers

Understanding the text

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Summary of Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell | Essay | Class XII English Note (Exercise)

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell

Understanding the text

Reference to the context

No comments:

Subscribe Our Youtube Channel

Popular Posts

The Key to Wisdom

Bibliography

1. Wisdom as Epistemic Humility

Support SEP

Knowledge and Wisdom (Essay) Summary

You may like these posts

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Facebook Page

Report Abuse

Social Plugin

All Materials of Grade 10 (New Book 2080)

All Units of Class Nine

Unit 1 Current Affairs and Issues (Grade 10) Reading II

Important Common Sites

Important Blogs

Youtube and Other Links

Menu Footer Widget

Introductory Essay Knowledge, Teaching and Wisdom

Access this chapter

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Press ESC to close

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The SR Zone

Knowledge and Wisdom by Bertrand Russell Summary

Main Summary

Word Meanings of this essay

Who is Knowledge and Wisdom writer, Bertrand Russell?

Download App

Central Idea in Literature: Definition, Meaning, and Examples

Krystal N. Craiker

Central Idea Definition: What Is It in a Story?

Write a Strong Central Idea Statement

Match the Theme to the Story

Start Big, Narrow Down

Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

Do you want to know how to build a world your readers won’t forget? Download this free book now:

World-Building 101: How to Construct an Unforgettable World for your Fantasy or Sci-Fi Story!