JM Smith, an occasional reader and commenter here, has a fine short post up over at The Orthosphere, in which he considers an assertion by Eugene William Newman that “wisdom is the gift of nature” — as opposed to knowledge, which “comes from books”.
Professor Smith is careful to distinguish between knowledge and wisdom, and points out also that knowledge can be acquired and organized intelligently or otherwise. (One can of course be a knowledgeable and intelligent fool, as experience amply confirms.)
It is also plainly true that wisdom itself isn’t a gift we’re born with, but something that must be acquired (and, I’ll add, like all things of value, must be paid for).
Clearly, most people, however intelligent and knowledgeable, never become truly wise. What, then, is the hidden variable? Is there some innate quality, some inborn talent, that is necessary, if not sufficient? Professor Smith suggests that it is, perhaps, a nose for ultimate ends — for seeking the path that leads to the highest good, without being fatally distracted by the glittering attractions along the way.
The remarkable Gurdjieff (more about him here) had a name for this gift: he called it “magnetic center“, and either you have the capacity for its development or you don’t. (If you do, then you have a chance.)
As I recall, P.D. Ouspensky had this to say about it, somewhere in his book In Search of the Miraculous:
“Without a magnetic centre a man can never find a permanent way, and if he finds something it is immediately lost.”
Smith’s essay is well worth your time. Read it here.
3 Comments
With all respect to “the nurture assumption,” perhaps parental relations is a key component in the development of Wisdom, or perhaps better the habit of moral integrity actively lived out. James Q. Wilson, the late political science and author of “The Moral Sense,” discussss those individuals who saved Jews during the Holocaust or joined African-Americans in civil disobedience during the Fifties and Sixties. These exemplars have been studied by psychologists – usually they were quite close to their mother and/or father, and had gleaned from their sovereigns mutual respect and a strong sense of virtue. Something to keep in mind during this turbulent era where moral and spiritual decency will become an increasingly valuable commodity.
Maybe better than parental relations in the first sentence is “child/ parent” mutual love and respect, which again – pace Judith Harris – may at least in certain instance be as significant (or even more important) as genetic and peer influences.
Thanks for the notice and encouraging words.