Wisdom? The Study of Philosophy in General

¶ … Wisdom? The study of philosophy in general is often thought of as the gaining of knowledge. At least, so it is for many philosophy students embarking upon a college course that attempts to introduce them to the cannon of Western thought and to give them the basis for asking the right questions about their daily lives and their daily getting of wisdom, in class and outside of class.

After reading the philosopher Socrates, who stands at the beginning of the Western tradition of thought relating to wisdom, one might be tempted to equate wisdom with simply getting a clear and unbiased or 'truthful' view of the world and human nature. Unvarnished truth, in all of its ugliness ultimately gives one the greatest access to a true form of happiness and thusly, to true wisdom.

This is why, according to Socrates, it is better to face death in a logically coherent fashion than it is to live a life of lies. It would be a lie, he tells his friends, not to drink hemlock and to escape Athens, after profiting from the societal structure of freedom and democracy for all of his life, that enabled him to teach.

Thus Socrates will espouse his teachings, accept the verdict of his Athenian peers, accept the wisdom that was the focus of his life, and die rather than attempt to escape and live a life of lies. Aldous Huxley, writing many years later than the Classic Greek philosopher, creates a satirical picture of a false world that like Socrates equates truth with wisdom. But Huxley creates a society that, unlike democratic Athens, does not seem to be undergoing a temporary madness in condemning a man for speaking freely.

Society in Huxley's science fictional vision is entirely mad in the way it even biologically reproduces, much less educates its young. In the Brave New World of Huxley, truth and happiness are incommensurate, and thus wisdom of any real and lasting kind is untenable with joy. Similarly, in the earlier writings of Thoreau, the American writer attempted to leave his society to find out the answer to the question what is wisdom.

Unlike the 1940's British author, rather than entering a world of self-generated satiric fiction of the mind, Thoreau actually attempted to change his physical, life circumstances by going into the woods and seeking wisdom through simplicity -- the simplicity of hard work he hoped would ultimately produce wisdom.

The implication of both Huxley and Thoreau is that free time, or leisure, is a kind of soma, or a fruitless activity that leads humanity into a state of mindless satiation or pleasure that is the antithesis of wisdom, taking them out of the true source of satisfaction of life. This satisfaction, or wisdom, is hard-won because it comes with difficulty but struggle is source of the getting of wisdom.

In contrast, however, the Catholic Josef Pieper's text upon leisure as The Basis of Culture poses a quite different subtext, namely that leisure or the conveniences of modern life frees us from the daily grind and toil so valued by Thoreau. For Pieper, leisure gives human beings the ability to use their minds for the getting of wisdom, rather than the getting of sustenance. In Huxley, excess leisure begets a focus on satiating the lower appetites, the physical appetites for food, drink, soma, and sex.

For Pieper, looking back upon human history, only when the average individual has some access to leisure and his or her hierarchy of physical needs can be somewhat assured of being satisfied on a regular basis, does he or she have time to actively pursue the getting of wisdom, thus achieving the true form of happiness, as discussed by Socrates. The central question asked by these four authors is thus: does work or rather does leisure begat wisdom, which is always equated with truth? Work gives us experience, hard won.

Yet experience can be interpreted in very unwise ways -- a life of hard, young work can simply teach someone that life is bitter and one should drink, eat, and be merry because life is short -- happiness yes, but wisdom and a complete truth, no. But pure leisure can also result in a life that is so limited and soft, there is no exposure to anything else.

If infinite time to philosophize were all one needed, then a twenty-something philosophy student would be as wise as such a student who had all the same philosophy training, but had also lived in the real world, and experienced life with his or her hands in the raw and roughness of the physical, economic world of struggle before returning back to the academy.

Perhaps the most potent answer to how best to gain wisdom is provided by an individual who has both grappled with the lived world of experience and the more abstract getting of wisdom through ideas. Man's Search for Meaning chronicles the chilling yet inspirational story of Viktor Frankl, a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps.

Frankl was trained as a psychiatrist and interpreted the horrors of his experience, not as simple evidence of humanity's evil or insanity, but in light of his own drive to find meaning in a sea of apparently meaningless and often intense personal suffering. Unlike Socrates, there were no friends giving Frankl an easy out of his life and suffering -- Frankl was forced to contend with a society gone mad and live through the experience. His work was not chosen, like Thoreau's.

He had no time to leisurely contemplate life, with his needs satisfied, although in deference to Pieper's view, Frankl had access to leisure and education before his ordeal, giving him mental sustenance that not only made it more bearable, but productive of wisdom in a way that it was not for some other, fellow suffers. Ultimately, Frankl provides the most instructive example of what wisdom is. The getting.