'What is Wisdom?\r'

'I. Has your view of acquaintance changed since the beginning of the anatomy? Explain how and why. Since the beginning of the course, my view of refreshingness remained the analogous. However, I was able to enrich my agnizeledge because of the definitions and discussion on the subject by the different philosophers whose ideas of comprehension greatly shaped the word. After taking the course I was able to come up with the terminal that firmness washbasin be defined differently correspond to observations of a somebody towards how firmness is beingness apply or misused. Interestingly, notwithstanding scholars and the learned have their single sets of definition for wisdom.\r\nHowever, it will motionlessness be unvarnished that in the bottom line, wisdom will still be angiotensin converting enzyme thing and this is how a individual uses the capability of his capitulum to create or wee decisions. There argon things in my preliminary examine which I questioned throu gh surface the course. One example is the nonion that wisdom is the use of intellect. There were times in the course of study where wisdom is discussed in term of emotion, or the heart. This made me wonder whether wisdom is rigorously the mind’s work, and assessing the different definitions I came into the conclusion that my preliminary thoughts were genuine.\r\nStill, there ar parts in my former definition of wisdom that changed. I pointed out early on that wisdom amongst children and the jr. adults whitethorn be lacking due to being inexperienced which I now shewd new(prenominal) keen-witted. As Thoreau points out, the ripened a wise mortal becomes the less his wisdom becomes signifi plundert because of late things and developments that occur everyday. Thus, there are certain aspects where a child or a young adult may know to a greater extent than while an honest-to- peachyness, more than(prenominal) experienced soul know less or nonhing about. In the sam e way, old knowledge may be more familiar to an older somebody when compared to a younger one.\r\n but I still remain sheep pen to the fact that the definitions pertinent to wisdom are numerous, as I pointed out in my preliminary essay. erudition abide be identified with the current pre-occupation of the person defining itâ€whereas a scientist may define wisdom in a scientific way, a instructor may define it in an instructive way, and a student may define it in a learner’s way. The possibilities in which wisdom may be defined are endless. II. Whose view (Socrates, Thoreau, Huxley, Piper, or Frankl) seems to be most credible? Why?\r\nOf the views discussed in class, Thoreau’s is the most signifi sewert. He stated that a man’s wisdom and ignorance are results of his time, citing the getting even of people to superstition of their time as an example. (Creating Minds, 2007) This is particularly true even to this day and age. A person may be wise for his ag e, exclusively smart studies, inventions, and scholarly developments can tend to outdate his wisdom and in the process introduce different people who can seem wiser an fuller because their knowledge is far more updated that the wise people ahead of them.\r\nIn hindsight, this is why a person would never cease learning, because at once he does his wisdom will definitely deteriorate. Mencken states that the older he grows he realized that wisdom does non come of age. This is ratified by Van Buren, who likened wisdom coming from age with wine saying it a person will only be wise with age like wine if the grapes are good enough to begin with. (Moncur, 2007) True enough, knowledge does not come of age. Wisdom is brought about by a never-ending free-flow of knowledge despite age.\r\nChildren and young adults can get a deep hearty of wisdom if they are motivated to learn, and adults will also meliorate on their wisdom if they do not level learning. Continuous learning is an importa nt aspect of sustaining wisdom, whereby new information consistently is being added up to one’s well of knowledge which he can process and use to make sound and wise decisions. To be wholly wise, it is important that a person gets out of his somfort zone and try things that are not normally done by someone his age, or someone whose occupation is similar to him.\r\nWhen a person is not open to learn new things, even if he has the age capability to learn them, he will be outdated with information and his well of wisdom gets short of this additional information. III. Whose view (Socrates, Thoreau, Huxley, Piper, or Frankl) seems to be the least reasonable? Why? Of the views discussed in class, Frankl’s is the least reasonable. To begin with, he insists that wisdom comes from the heart and that this can make wisdom more sensible than the wisdom wrought from the mind.\r\nGiven that this is real in its deepest sense, wisdom still goes back to being a function of the mind. Q uestioning everything, Lichtenberg said, is the first mensuration to wisdomâ€and altogether accepting that everything is the last metre to wisdom. (Moncur, 2007) Therefore, it is difficult to accept that wisdom from the heart, though claimed more sensible, is the real essence of wisdom. It is true that wisdom can be affected by what the heart feels, but the capability to be wise is exclusively spawned by the mind. There may be contentions to this.\r\nA kindliness worker, for example, may prove it wise to day that true wisdom comes from the heart because the nature of the work he is in touches more in emotion. On the other hand, a scholar whose preoccupation is more on knowledge and improving this knowledge will prove this otherwise. Again, definitions will vary according to who is defining the word. Yet it is still improbable to say that this is reasonable as compared to wisdom’s other definitions by other scholars and philosophers, especially those whose ideas were dis cussed in class.\r\nThis sums up how the work of the mind breeds wisdom. It is not the heart which is wise. Emotions bred by the heart are also not acceptable, as scientifically it has been storied that it is the hypothalamus and not the heart that is capable of telling a person how to respond through emotions. In summation, this says that Frankl’s definition of wisdom can be misinterpreted in a lot of ways, and thus it is the least reasonable as compared to the definitions by other philosophers whose definitions were discussed in class.\r\n'