Perhaps one of the most elusive definitions of any word is that of wisdom. A quick Google search will revel 86 million pages where people attempt to define wisdom, but at least its origins are clear. According to the Perseus website, it is derived from Greek word ἄριστος meaning best, or most excellent. This could explain why the philosopher (one who seeks wisdom) was considered one of the noblest professions in Greece. The OED defines wisdom as “the quality or character of being wise.” Roughly that it is the “capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct; soundness of judgement in the choice of means and ends; sometimes, less strictly, sound sense, esp. in practical affairs.” The second definition in the same text is also worth the read. “Knowledge (esp. of a high or abstruse kind); enlightenment, learning, erudition; in early use often = philosophy. Also, practical knowledge or understanding, expertness in an art.”
In just the first two definitions of the OED, you can see that there seems to be several different types of wisdom. These different concepts can be traced back to Aristotle where wisdom a major focus of his Nicomachean Ethics, where he “divides the intellectual virtues into the practical and theoretical on the basis of whether they are concerned with what can, or what cannot, be otherwise” (Arnaud & LeBon) Basically, Aristotle separates wisdom into two different categories: practical wisdom and theoretical wisdom. Practical wisdom is knowing the right thing to do in a particular circumstance, while theoretical wisdom is the knowledge of those things that do not change. In the same work, Aristotle claims that “only the person who is morally virtuous will be able to be practically wise.”
The quest to define wisdom can also be seen in Plato’s dialogues. For example, in “Phaedrus” Socrates is speaking of Homer and other poetic writers that claim to base their work on truth, and argues that they should not only be called poets, orators, and legislators, but they are worthy of a higher name, befitting the serious pursuit of their life. Socrates continues saying they should not be called “wise” because that is “a great name which belongs to God alone. Lovers of wisdom or philosophers is their modest and befitting title.”
While Plato saw wisdom as only attainable by God, we use the term more casual today, often using it interchangeably with the term knowledge. Many contemporary definitions include knowledge in its definition, but add “and the ability to use it to its best means” to the end. If wisdom is the “traditional goal of philosophy” as the OD of Philosphy says, and the major aim of rhetoricians in Greece, then the field of rhetoric could benefit by evading the elusiveness of the word wisdom and agreeing on a common definition so that we can all understand what we are working towards.
Works Cited:
Perseus website
Oxford English Dictionary
Plato’s Phaedrus
Oxford Dictionary of Philosphy
Arnaud, D. & LeBon, T. ‘Practical and Theortical Wisdom” Practical Philosophy March 2000 Volume 3.1 Pages 6-9
2 comments:
I agree that we've made the term wisdom more casual and commonplace. I believe though, that we still reserve this term for people who are older than ourselves. We equate wisdom with experience. Plato was attempting to do the same in the Phaedrus, and our supposed "experience" with reality and the chariot.
I think your assertion that deciding within our discipline upon a commonly accepted definition for the term wisdom would ease understanding puts introduces an important idea. Wouldn't life be easier if everyone had the same conception of each rhetorical term? If we all had the same notion of kairos, enthymeme or exigence it might be easier to understand someone else's writing. However, I think this is contrary to the nature of rhetoric, which is in part to manage meaning. The fluidity of such words and concepts is what rhetorical scholars write about. Jarratt's entire book is based on redefining the term "sophist." There are numerous books and articles in our discipline (and others) with the word "redefining" in the title. Interpreting the translation of the ancient Greek rhetoricians' writing is just one place we find conflicting opinions on the meaning of words. If everyone had the same idea of what "terrorism" means there would be far less debate over the current war, and America's foreign policy in general. In the realm of rhetoric, perhaps unlike in other spheres, I think ambiguity or flexibility in a definition is advantageous.
So when Plato, in the Phaedrus, criticizes writing because it fixes the meaning of words, leaving less room for interpretation than the spoken word retains, maybe he has pinpointed the beginning of our difficulty with definitions, and the wide variety of them that we have for each word, if we look at this as a problem. If we didn't communicate all of our ideas about contemporary rhetoric through the written word, maybe we wouldn't spend so much time defining the terms we are writing about.
Post a Comment