What is Wisdom? How Can We Achieve It?

Bagian dari tulisan Mochtar Buchori tentang Wisdom (Jakarta Post, April 1996)

What is ‘wisdom’, and how can we achieve it? In one of my dictionaries the word ‘wisdom’ is defined as “understanding of what is true, right, or lasting”. It is considered synonymous to “common sense, sagacity, or good judgment”. The stem of this word is ‘wise’, and it is defined as “having discernment for what is true, right, or lasting; judicious”.

Another definition of this word is “possessed of common sense; prudent; sensible”. It can also mean “having great learning; highly educated; erudite”. This dictionary also explains that the root of the word ‘wise’ is “weid-”, which means “to see”. In Latin this root comes up in the word “videre” which means “to see, to look” And from this word come later the English words “view, visa, vision, advise, previse, supervise, review”.

Thus “being wise” means in essence “being able to see” or “being able to know.” I found a very enlightening definition of ‘wisdom’ in a Dutch dictionary which defines it as “the most appropriate and highest form of knowledge which is founded on insight and life experiences.”  After looking for additional information in a French dictionary, I found that wisdom is a particular kind of knowing which is characterized by the following seven traits: (1) broad knowledge, (2) smartness, (3) common sense, (4) insight, (5) discreteness or prudence, (6) understanding of norms, and (7) a wealth of life experience.

It is to be noted in this connection that “smartness” is not identical to “being intelligent”. It is more than that. Being smart means in this case being intelligent coupled with being mature emotionally, being able to control one’s own emotions, and being able to generate empathy towards others. According to Daniel Goleman, a Harvard-educated Psychologist, “being smart” is the sum of IQ + EQ, I Q being the symbol for intelligence quotient, and EQ being the symbol for “emotional intelligence” ( and not emotional quotient).

According to Peter Salovey of Yale University and John Mayer of University of New Hampshire –two psychologists who have discovered this phenomenon and coined this term in 1990– “having emotional intelligence” means three things, i.e. ability to understand one’s own feelings; ability to generate empathy towards others, meaning being able to grasp the feelings of others; and ability to control and regulate one’s own emotions so that life becomes enjoyable. This last trait is what the French call “maitris de sois”, and it is considered one of the basic characteristics of wisdom or “sagesse”.

The essential sign of emotional intelligence is the ability to delay gratification. It is viewed as a master skill in life, a triumph of the reasoning brain over the impulsive one. Daniel Goleman, the psychologist who popularized this concept, maintained in his book that the concept of emotional intelligence is essential for understanding how human mind processes  feelings and emotions. This is a concept which will be very instrumental in every effort to restore civility in our society by reactivating concern and care among members of the society.

How can we come to this stage of mental development or mental maturity? Like any other kind of maturity, wisdom is the result of a growth process made possible by sustained and continuous efforts. Stated simply, all the steps leading toward wisdom are no more than efforts to find the meaning of life, from finding the meaning of small life phenomena up to finding the meaning of big events in life.

It can be seen that the process of achieving wisdom is a fairly long process which requires, among other things, maturity, i.e. the ability to catch the meaning of life experiences. There is thus just no such thing as “instant wisdom”. Wisdom will be reached only by those who constantly attempt to find the deeper meanings of things. By continuously accumulating information, continuously “digesting” those information, and continuously reflecting on the meaning of each newly-found insights, we will eventually arrive at this stage of mental awareness called wisdom.

Time and continuous effort are two essential elements in reaching wisdom. It is for this reason that before the age of books, radio, television and computer, wisdom was considered to be the monopoly of the elderly. Only those who have gone through a great amount of personal experiences and have the capability to find the meaning of each experience encountered in life will be able to gain wisdom. In this modern time, however, age is no  longer a determining factor. Wisdom does not depend only upon personal experiences, but on collective experiences as well. Thus it is quite possible that in this modern time a forty-year old man or woman exhibits greater wisdom than most sixty-year old people.

Wisdom is no longer a function of age. It is rather a function of digested experience and information.

In this era of information explosion and revolution of  knowledge it is thus no longer so arduous to become wise. To a certain extent, everybody can become wise in his or her personal life. The problem arises when it comes to wisdom in public life. To be wise in public life, personal wisdom alone will not suffice, although it remains an absolute prerequisite. To be wise in matters of public concern, a public servant or public personality must be able to show to the public that through him or her the institutional policy of  the office for which he or she works is well-informed, sympathetic to the public, and does not violate any basic norm of decency. These three characteristics constitute, I think, the essence of public criterion concerning the wisdom of a public institution. The problem in this regard is that many institutional policies regarding public issues are ill-informed, indifferent toward the welfare of the public, and do not take into account public norm concerning decency.

Sometime last year I gave a lecture to a group of young bureaucrats, discussing the problem of how to arrive at effective and wise way to execute the existing regulations. According to these young bureaucrats this is an impossible task, because the existing regulations do not seem to be designed to achieve an effective and wise implementation. It contradicts the basic professional rules in their profession, and do not exhibit the slightest understanding concerning the very people affected by these regulations. One participant said, “The way I see it, Sir, is that we are facing here a very big dilemma. If  I disregard any of the existing regulations , I am sure I will be axed. And I have a wife and two children. But if I continue to operate along the lines of the existing regulations, what will people say about my conscience? What will the next generation say about us? We don’t want to go down in history as a generation which does not have any understanding concerning professional conduct is in our field.”

This generated a very lively discussion. The line of reasoning I gave them was the following, “Don’t you allow yourself to become victims of the system. But don’t make things worse either. Try to improve the situation if you can. We don’t live in a perfect world, and I don’t think there is a perfect solution to your situation. So, find the best possible solution for the time!”

At the end of the discussion this young man said, “If I understand our discussion correctly, Sir, what we have to do in our situation is to negotiate every time with our conscience, to ask ourselves every time, if a particular scheme is indeed the best momentary solution to the problem we are facing. Next year may be another time, and we start looking again for a wiser solution. Am I correct, Sir?”

I said that is wisdom. I was really charmed by this young man, and felt very happy knowing that conscience still matters among this group of young bureaucrats. A week later I heard that this young man died in his office. I was shocked, and felt a great personal loss, despite the fact that I knew him only for two days.

May his soul rest in peace, and may his personal wisdom become institutionalized in his office.