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.
