Most people would agree that, although our age far surpasses all previous ages in knowledge, there has been no correlative increase in wisdom. But agreement ceases as soon as we attempt to define“wisdom”and consider means of promoting it. I want to ask first what wisdom is, and then what can we done to reach it.
There are, I think, several factors that contribute to wisdom. Of these I should put first a sense of proportion; the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem and to attach to each its due weight. This has become more difficult than it used to be owing to the extent and complexity of the specialized knowledge required of various kinds of technicians. Suppose, for example, that you are engaged in research in scientific medicine. The work is difficult and is likely to absorb the whole of your intellectual energy. You have no time to consider the effect which you discoveries or inventions may have outside the field of medicine. You succeed (let us say), as modern medicine has succeeded, in enormously lowering the infant death rate, not only in Europe and America, but also in Asia and Africa. This has the entirely unintended result of making the food supply inadequate and lowering the standard of life in the most populous parts of the world. To take an even more spectacular example, which is in everybodys mind at the present time: you study the composition of the atom from a disinterested desire for knowledge. And incidentally place in the hands of powerful lunatics the means of destroying the human race. In such ways the pursuit of knowledge may become harmful unless it is combined with wisdom; and wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge.
Comprehensiveness alone, however, is not enough to constitute wisdom. There must be, also, a certain awareness of the ends of human life. This maybe illustrated by the study of history. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because they viewed facts through the distorting medium of their own passions. Hegel had a philosophy of history which did not suffer from any lack of comprehensiveness. Since it started from the earliest times and continued into an indefinite future. But the chief lesson of history which he sought to inculcate was that from the year A.D.400 down to his own time Germany had been the most important nation and the standardbearer of progress in the world. Perhaps one could stretch the comprehensiveness that constitutes wisdom to include not only intellect but also feeling. It is by no means uncommon to find men whose knowledge is wide but whose feelings are narrow. Such men lack what I am calling wisdom.
1. According to the author, several factors mentioned in the text that contribute to “wisdom” EXCPET.
A. the capacity to take account of all the important factors in a problem
B. a good knowledge of history
C. comprehensive knowledge as well as wide feeling
D. the specialized knowledge
2. What does the underlined word “disinterested” mean in the sentence?
A. unbiased , not influenced by personal feeling or interests
B. not like
C. unwilling, reluctant
D. give a false appearance
3. By saying that “wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is not necessarily present in specialists in the pursuit of knowledge”, the author means that
A. every specialist in the pursuit of knowledge has the wisdom in the sense of comprehensive.
B. not every specialist in the pursuit of knowledge has the wisdom in the sense of comprehensive.
C. now specialists with the sense of comprehensive vision dont pursuit wisdom.
D. wisdom in the sense of comprehensive vision is a kind of knowledge.
4. Which of the following statement is NOT true?
A. The success of modern medicine incidentally results in the food shortage.
B. Some scientific researches may become harmful if they are in the hands of powerful lunatics.
C. Its very usual to find men whose knowledge is wide but whose feelings are narrow.
D. Many eminent historians have done more harm than good because of lack of comprehensiveness.
5. From the passage, it can be inferred that Hegel was a
