<p>I'm a bit rusty, so I apologize right away if anyone gets offended by my murderous attempt at sophisticated english writing. It's long because I have typed it, and I didn't even finish the essay. You can just skim through the sentences, which often are insipid (especially in the long first example)</p>
<p>Here's the prompt: Does knowledge automatically leads to wisdom?</p>
<p>Just as a computer can store enormous amount of knowledge, a human being can accumulate tremendous knowledge without being able to progress toward understanding, and ultimately, wisdom. Some might argue that knowledge promotes wisdom. This view is indeed true. But to argue that knowledge is wisdom is utter falacy. Wisdom is the ability to discern right from wrong, truth from ignorance, and the realistic from the unrealistic. Those are skills that knowledge, a dead entity without real isolated function, can be equated to.</p>
<p>One example that knowledge does not reflect wisdom is that of the an Ancient Greek King. As an ambitious and arrogant king, he sought to destroy the Persian empire. In the same way many kings before have sought advice from the oracle to make portentous decisions, he consulted the oracle, while offering sumptuous gift in the hope of a favorable prediction for his war. Ambiguously, the oracle told him: "A Great empire will be destroyed as a result of this war." Poised and optimistic, the latter interpreted as a premonition of his own victory. In reality, however, he suffered a crushing blow by the Persian. His defeat made him seek the oracle again, accusing her of having deceived him. Yet, did she really fool him? She indeed declared that a large empire will be destroyed, but did not specify which one. Through this ambiguous statement, the oracle demonstrated true wisdom. Instead of slighting the overambitious king with a premonition of defeat, she quickly adapted the situation by implying the defeat without having to explicitly saying it. In contrast, the king displayed an example of ignorance going in synergy with knowledge: his rashness corrupted his own knowledge and caused his downfall. If anyone has ever deceived him, it could only be himself. Clearly, knowledge is not a guarantee of wisdom. However, how we use this knowledge ultimately determines how wise we are. The oracle used that knowledge wisely; the king used it unwisely. Each case led to dramatically different outcomes.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the example of current technology also shows how knowledge can actually inhibit wisdom. In the age of the "information" revolution, people should become more cultivated, more informed, and inevitably more "wise" if Socrates' assumption is right. Yet, empirical evidence seems to prove the opposite. Too much information can undermine the spark of clear thinking as much as too little. In fact, the television, the internet, the mass media through advertisements literally bomb us with trash-quality information. People, instead of becoming wise, opt to absorb those information, because they are easy and omnipresent. Students who champions the novel "Great Expectations" over "People's Magazine" become increasingly rare. Similarly, the classics remain miserably neglected, despite the great moral lessons from which we can obtain. The "information revolution" clearly has its setbacks. Its indiscriminate body of knowledge ultimately led to a more lazy population. Quality of information is as important as quantity. When one champions quantity over quality, wisdom cannot be attained.</p>
<p>In conclusion, wisdom is an elusive condition that simple knowledge cannot equate to</p>
<p>I didn't manage to finish my conclusion (which is quite a remarkable feat, considering I have typed the essay!)<br>
Any comments, advices, corrections are more than welcome.</p>
<p>Thanks everyone for reading the essay!!</p>