When one is truly wise they not only know one side of an argument, but they must also know all sides, this should even mean the ignorant side. However, what if the ignorant side is simply being lived? Does this negate someone from truly being wise?
Early humans did not necessarily know why using a paddle with a floating object made it move forward…But were they any less wise for not knowing the Why’s of their actions?
While I wouldn’t say that an individual must know all sides of a given argument, it is important to be familiar with salient opposing views.
What I gather you are attempting to discuss is whether precise knowledge of the physics behind an invention or idea is needed to fully comprehend its function.
If so, this almost entirely unnecessary. The mere invention of something indicates some perception of the physics behind it. However, to maximize the productive nature of a given idea or object, deeper knowledge of the physics surrounding it is rather vital.
Ignorance is not the total antithesis of wisdom. I would volunteer that willful ignorance is. Ignorance is more a form of innocence. Given the opportunity to gain knowledge and summarily rejecting it is one of the true polar opposites of wisdom.
Personally, I feel that knowledge is another opposite of wisdom. Knowledge is mere data whereas wisdom involves technique and executive method, a much more advanced concept than any given discreet datum.
I don’t understand how there can be an ignorant side of an argument. Coming from ignorance implies there is no argument; e.g. “The French oppose this war because they hate America and want to embarass us.”
Definitions are important, so this is what the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition had to say at Dictionary.com:
So I’d have to answer "yes, they were less wise for not knowing the Why’s of their actions. I think definition 1. is important in this context. “Move paddle this way, boat go that way” doesn’t really imply an ability to judge the truth of anything; nor does it indicate what is right and lasting; nor does it suggest any insight. A good example of why this is so would be to take the example of a cartoon character in a boat, holding a fan to propel via the sail. Clearly this is flawed–but in no way that would be indicated by the notion of “wind comes that way, boat goes this way”.
Personally, I think that the common sense definition can be tossed out for purposes of discussion because common senes is a meaningless term. “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”
In the third sense, wisdom is applicable here since the ancients did do some very good work (along with some very poor work). It would be wise to apply geometry to solve a problem, or to utilize rhetoric to make the world a better place.
I disagree that knowledge is an opposite of wisdom. I can’t find a source for the quote, but I agree that “wisdom comes with knowledge, not with age.” Wisdom is kind of like knowledge in an ADD mind–pieces are connected to other pieces through the most unlikely paths, creating a matrix that can be applied to living. Compartmentalized knowledge isn’t wisdom; knowledge is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for wisdom. The Chinese had gun powder and the box bellows, yet they didn’t figure how to take an oppressor off a horse with a gun.
That’s my ramble, and I’m sticking to it–unless something better comes along.