What truths would a wise person pursue?

[Son of the Damned]

Something to keep in mind is that Wisdom often entails knowing how little you truly know.
I would never call myself wise, but its a concept I like and agree with.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Kangol

Just to let you know, Victor, I'm not following you...

What Kangol! You are not following me?

You write to me from the other side of the world, and you are not following me?

Perhaps you should reconsider - just imagine, you could whisper into the soft ear of your cat," I am following Victor". And your cat would look at you with big round eyes.

Or you could tell your mother, and I am sure she would say, "Make sure he follows you too".

And you should always listen to your mother - surely it's the beginning of wisdom.

[simulatedworld]

Originally Posted by Athenian200

That's because the average person is lazy and stupid.

No, the average person is average.

Lazy and stupid people are lazier and stupider than the average person, by definition.

Don't be such a snob.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by simulatedworld

Don't be such a snob.

But I like being a snob.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Athenian200

But I like being a snob.

And in my more candid moments, I admit I am a snob but I feel guilty.

And although I feel guilty I also feel superior - so it kinda balances out.

And of course my snobbery has taken me to some interesting places from classical music to the University.

And as you know my country was founded by the aristocratic Enlightenment and we have democratized the aristocratic values so that we are all little aristocrats at heart.

So my snobbery finds fertile ground in my aristocratic heart.

[entropie]

Originally Posted by Nadir

The title was what attracted me but the content seems rather unrelated. Let me critique the title.
1. No one is born wise. It's usually an external and/or posthumous classification. That someone is described as "wise" does not have any effect on the pursuit of truth of that person.

2. The truth is the result of a philosophical framework, an argument of ontology (what are things and what is the nature of their existence?) and epistemology (how can we know that we know?). Philosophers strive to construct such frameworks based (primarily) on reason, and arrive at the truth utilizing these structures on the way. So the construction of these structures are actually of more importance than the truth itself -- if you manage to build them coherently, you'll more or less reach truth, or an interpretation of it. Far more important than an objective, "the only" sort of truth is the formation of a point of view, a perspective, a system of ideas.

By the way, (in response to the argument that brewed underneath) it's kind of unreasonable to suggest that intellectuals' accumulated knowledge should stay with the intellectuals. Modernity and progress, to give an example, are founded on not just intellectuals' own knowledge but also them passing, communicating that knowledge to the lower, more "average" parts of society in some way. Because that's how you change things, not with idealistic dreaming, not with futuristic documentaries or conspiracy theories, but passing ideas down to the majority. The average person might be just that, average, but that's a result of state policy and socioeconomics, not a mechanism in itself. If you're criticising that particular result, good luck arguing with windmills.

1. Everbody is born wise on its on kind of definition

2. The truth is what you make out of it

You talk like a manager