We've dedicated this list to babies who look more like grandpas and grandmas than newborn children. Some of them also have that look in their eye like they know more about life than we do. We tend to associate old age with wisdom, but why is that?
What is wisdom, after all? Let's dive into the theoretical. Philosophers have five approaches to understanding wisdom: epistemic humility, epistemic accuracy, wisdom as knowledge, hybrid theory and wisdom as rationality.
The famous quote from Socrates "The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing" can be the basis for epistemic humility. It goes like this: I am wise if I believe I am not wise. This theory revolves around a person's perception of being wise.
Philosophers call this a failed theory because a wise person should be confident in their wisdom. If a person is truly wise, they should know it and share their wisdom with others.
The second part of epistemic humility is about knowledge. It's the view that those who are arrogant and overly confident in their knowledge of the world have the least wisdom. In order to be wise, you have to believe you know nothing. But philosophers reject this one too for the same reasons the first one fails.
Humility theories do provide the characteristics of a wise person. They should be confident in their wisdom, but not too arrogant. They need the ability to reflect on their faults and admit that sometimes there might be uncertainties in life.
The second theory of wisdom is epistemic accuracy. That's when a person is aware of what he knows and what he does not know. However, because it is yet again based on the person's perception, it's too subjective to be a solid theory. I can believe I know what a thing is, but I can be wrong in my belief.
#13 I Came Across Some Old Photos Of A Weird Looking Baby Today At My Parent's House. Found Out It's Me At 4 Months. Thank God They Captured My Beauty Before I Grew Out Of It
A revision of the epistemic accuracy theory claims that if a person can justify their beliefs, then their wisdom is valid. You can believe you have knowledge about a thing, but if you can't provide the evidence for it – sorry, you're not that wise. There is a fault in this theory too: what if a person is right, but can't provide the argument for their claim?
Philosophers still have arguments against accuracy theories. A person is not wise even if they know what knowledge they have and lack. Even if they can provide evidence for what they know. They can then boast of knowing very few things or things that have very little importance. That's why philosophers say it's not wisdom.
