Talk:Wisdom

Poem taken from "The Age of Poetry" by C.J. Williams:

"Soft, but square. Sturdy, yet fragile. Like the ocean, but a swimming pool of dreams that last forever - like all these things, but more, bound together in eternal piece of heart worth struggle and sacrifice to the death of the glorious struggle between life and the supernatural such as everything we want in this alienated world of despair that entangles our relations and ideals of the world as one perfect being which will never be but may eventuate with a little hope, have a little faith in me! Have a little faith in me.."

I removed the sentence about intuition and wisdom belonging to parts of the brain as non-scientific and not supported by modern Neuroscience. The link that supported this sentence was also to a non-scientific web page expressing non-scientific opinion.

why does this exist? please can I have some explanation? i don't really think this is necessary for a serious encyclopedia. can I just have some context as to why it is important enough to be here? 193.115.235.254 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A very good question, and I'm pleased to see that a few days after it was posted someone removed it. JBW (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I object to the recently added overview section. Wikipedia is not the Book of Proverbs. For this section to be useful would require two things:

1. The definitions and opinions should be clearly divided by field. Currently philosophical, psychological, religious, and educational views are simply jumbled together.
2. Each definition/opinion should be attributed. As it is, we now have a lot of "Wisdom is ..." statements made in Wikivoice, which is problematic.

A better approach might be to integrate these definitions and citations each into its proper section of the article. The lead section is supposed to be the overview, and a jumble like this is not a good replacement for it.

If this mess isn't resolved within a week or so, I'll be removing the section and replacing it a section more useful to the reader: Etymology and historical context. Skyerise (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It's listed with Chinese and Hebrew as a non-Indo-European example of a related concept, when this is not the case. GamerAJ1025 (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)