KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM

In this write-up, I'd like to draw some points of difference between knowledge and wisdom.  What is meant by being knowledgeable?  What is meant by being wise?  Is a knowledgeable person wise?  Or, is a wise man knowledgeable?


To begin, let me give some examples of cases where a person claims he knows or has knowledge, as follows: (1) a scientist finds out that “there is water in Mars;” (2) a geologist finds out that “the core of the earth is extremely hot;” (3) a farmer knows the best of soil for planting rice; (4) a fisherman knows the best time of the day to catch fish; (5) a nursing mother knows the best time to give milk to her infant.  The first two examples are considered scientific knowledge.  These are forms of knowledge which help mankind understand the physical world and how to deal with it.  The last three examples, on the other hand, are considered “technical knowledge” necessary for one’s survival.  Take note: any form of knowledge is expressed in a form of a proposition, such as “There is water in Mars,” or “The core of the earth is extremely hot.”  Each of these propositions contains a truth-value –that is, whether a proposition is true or false.  Again, the proposition, “There is water in Mars,” can be true or false.”  Since a proposition can be true or false, it can also be contested or refuted.  But, we come to a very important question when we claim we know: “What are the criteria of knowledge?”  In other words, how do we know that what we claim is true?  To answer this question, let’s have Plato’s definition of knowledge.


Knowledge is defined by Plato --ancient Greek philosopher, as a “justified true belief.”  It’s a belief because it signifies a firm conviction or personal assent to a truth-claim.  For example, if one claims that there are other forms of life that exist on Mars and his claim is justified and really true, then he must have a firm conviction of it.  Otherwise, he might easily give up when other persons challenge or refute his claim.  Thus, belief implies a conversion of mind and heart to give assent to a propositional claim, which is really true and founded on sufficient rational grounds/justification.  Though it logically follows that if one is justified in his claim, then he sticks to it with firm conviction --even shed his blood for it, but of course, this is not always the case or true to all knowers.  There are some knowers who just simply give up what they know in that they are afraid to hold onto it, or fear for their lives if they hold it on.  Cowardice is what makes knowers shun to share what they know.  Courage is what makes them spread what they know.

Now, what about wisdom?  To understand more about wisdom, let me cite the idea of wisdom espoused by Socrates, ancient Greek philosopher, known today as "Socratic wisdom."  Socrates is known as the wisest person ever lived.  His wisdom lies in his claim that "he knows of only one thing with certainty --that is, he doesn't know."  He does not pretend he knows everything that there is to know.  However, he humbly accepts that he can't know everything.  Socratic wisdom, then, is characterized with humility.  It doesn't mean that one has to give up his desire to know or one has to give up knowledge and end up in skepticism.  Yet, to be wise like Socrates is to engage in dialogue with other seekers for truth.

So, what is the answer to the question, "What is the difference between the knowledgeable and wise person?"  A knowledgeable person is one who makes truth-claims about the world but he is not necessarily wise because he has the tendency to never admit mistakes.  A wise person is a knowledgeable one yet he has the attitude of humility to accept that he can commit mistakes and to admit the fact that he can't know everything.

Related articles: 
1)  What is Real Knowledge? [click] 
2)  Research-based Knowledge is Falsifiable [click]
3)  Scientific Knowledge is Falsifiable [click]

Legal Battle

When having a class in Sociology, I tried to open the minds of my students that Sociology is born as a distinct social science because of social changes tremendously impacting the lives of people.  These social changes were spawned by invention of technologies like compass, telescope, machines, etc.  The great social thinkers like Karl Marx have struggled to understand the changes that were happening in society during their times.  

The time of Karl Marx, for example, was characterized by changes spawned by industrial revolution.  Because of industrialization, the landscape of a city changed enormously so as the society in general –from agricultural to industrial or commercial district.  To recall, before the industrial revolution, much of Europe was agricultural –technically known as feudalistic society.  A certain agricultural land was ruled by a feudal lord; his substituents were the tenants.  Tenants tilled the land and paid tributes to the lord.  In return, the lord gave protection to the tenants in times of war against intruders.  During the Spanish colonial administration, Philippines was under the “encomienda system” –more or less akin to the feudalism in Europe.  Under this system, an “hacienda” was owned by a Spanish settler by virtue of a Royal Decree and all of its original inhabitants became tenants of the “haciendero.”  What was significant of encomienda system in the Philippines is that, perhaps, it was the first kind of land grabbing in the islands.  

Industrial age marked the end of feudalism.  Industries mushroomed in cities.  Cities were turned into industrial and/or commercial districts, which enticed people to look for better opportunities like jobs rather than work in haciendas.  Cities, then, shone like a jewel to the eyes of workers, and investors alike.  On the part of the workers, cities are places where they could find work, earn a living and support their families.  On the part of the investors, cities are good avenues for them to invest and gain more profit.  Eventually, cities became centers of material wealth and pride of those people living in the city.  However, there were negative faces of industrial cities, which puzzled social thinkers, sociologists in particular.  Poverty is one of the evils of industrialization.  Karl Marx theorized that poverty was caused by social injustice.  Social institutions, economic and government institutions in particular, were unjust which ensued to a big gap existing between the capitalists and workers.  The workers who were working in unfavourable conditions were given less share of the total income of the company; the owners enjoyed the bigger share.  Marx noted that these practices made the rich richer and the poor poorer.  And, it’s blatantly unjust!

Social injustice makes thinkers find ways to effect change in the existing status quo of the society.  If a class of people is abused or exploited by the other class, or say, “by the influential or the rich,” then it’s unjust.  If these unjust practices and structures are prevalent, then there is a need to change its current status quo to a more just one.  For Marx, bloody revolution is a favourable means to change bourgeois society.  Many dictators in different parts of the world adapted Marxism and took bloody revolution to effect drastic changes in their particular nations.  Many of them, if not all, were successful in taking over the government yet, in other side of coin, it was a failure because human abuses got worst.  Marxism as an ideology has helped shape modern societies with negative and positive features, which become lessons in the continuing formation or transformation of societies today.  One positive effect, maybe, of Marxism as witnessed in some communist European countries is that the collapse of communism proves that democracy is better than communism.  Most communist countries are dictatorial or authoritarian and totalitarian.  Citizens shall work for the good of the state.  The state, in return, is duty-bound to give what is good for its citizens.  Of course, this is what is ideal in communism.  It turns out, however, that only dictators enjoy the wealth of their patrimony but their citizens suffer suppression from them.  

In modern times, democracy is at its best as a form of government and a way of life.  History proves that democracy is best for all people to attain a certain sense of self-realization in life.  Democracy as a form of government promises equal opportunities for all people to be voted in public offices.  Democracy as a way life promises equal opportunities for each and every citizen to grow professionally or be happy in life.  However, democratic society does not promise all values necessary for one’s social life.  There are still a number of cases of injustices and human rights abuses in any democratic society.  For example, illegal activities like drug trade and use are still rampant in democratic countries like in the Philippines.  Government pursuing policies to end illegal drug trade and use may violate human rights in the process like again “allegedly” happening in the Philippines.  Many other more telling stories reveal how democracy as an ideology creates public spaces where social injustice still is happening.

Because of this, social transformation is sought for –a transformation of society into a better one.  If pressed what is meant by a “better society,” it’s a kind of society with less cases of social injustice and human rights abuses.  A better way to do this is through a “legal battle.”  It’s a battle without any use of arms as in bloody revolution or rebellion.  It’s a battle which takes place in the public arena, which at present, refers to the arena of legislation.  In the Philippine politics, it is in the arena of Congress and Senate.  To effect changes in society starts its promulgation in either house, House of Congress or House of Senate.  After its thorough deliberation among members of Houses, it will come out in a form of a bill.  Then, the executive will, or will not, sign it into law of the land.  Once signed by the executive, it’s ready for implementation.  The scope and extent of this law will take gradual changes in the lives of the people under the jurisdiction of the state.

A legal battle takes a long process.  But, it’s the only way through which social transformation is rationalized and not done in a drastic way.