My third and final question?

So if intelligence is having knowledge,

~~~ It isn't.

'Knowledge' is "that which is perceived!" (New critically updated definition!)

We don't 'have' knowledge, we 'are' knowledge!

'Intelligence' is the ability to get a particular job done.

and wisdom is using the knowledge.

~~~ Again, not necessarily! We don't 'use' who we are, what the Universe is; we perceive it!

I judge that since wisdom requires intelligence,

~~~ It doesn't.

Words of wisdom are perceived from all sorts of sources.. "Out of the mouths of babes!"

Unless you can perceive 'wisdom' (eye of the beholder thing) you can be talking with god itself and you wouldn't find anything more that that which you are capable of perceiving.

I have to use knowledge to judge something (correctly, as in empirical truth)

~~~ Actually, you judge with ego/thought, vanity.

Everything exists!

Thus everything is real, a feature of Reality.

Thus, everything is true!

It is ego that perceives subject/object distinction ('true and untrue' for instance).

Empirical means that which is perceived, by everyone!

and I need to judge something to reason from it.

~~~ No you don't. If, rather than 'judge', you found the context wherein that which you examine is 'true', understand that Perspective, you will gain a greater understanding of Reality.

Despite the historical errors of philosophical debate, consider this;

Two people stand around an elephant.

One can only see/touch.. perceive, the trunk. An elephant is like a snake. This is 'knowlwdge' to/for him.

The other can only see/touch.. perceive, the leg. An elephant is like a tree trunk. This is 'knowlwdge' to/for him.

One thing that they can do is to argue who is correct, as they both, obviously, cannot both be correct. There might even be one who out-argues the other, even gets the other to discredit his own knowledge.

In this scenario, one doesn't learn anything, and the other 'loses' what he knew, replacing it with the same truncated understanding the other has.

Either way it is a lose/lose scenario.

Another more philosophically sound scenario is if they both attempted to understand the other's 'knowledge', to understand the context where they are 'correct', and incorporate it into your own knowledge. Then you both would have a more complete understanding of 'elephant'.

Win/win!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Souls = Conscious Perspectives = us)

Every Perspective (us, fish, bacteria, galaxies...) is unique!

"The complete Universe can be defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

Am I correct? Then to "do" proper philosophy, you require all those traits? Since philosophy IS reason; correct?

~~~ Philosophy is 'critical thought' which involves logic/reason and intuition.

For some clarification, read what Bertrand Russell wrote about 'critical thought' here;

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

Isn't there a "blanket" term for someone who posses ALL of these traits then?

~~~ Philosopher.

I don't know weather to classify a person as intelligent, wise, smart, logical, reasonable, when they possess all these traits. Like a philosopher, but you don't call someone a philosopher. Do you?

~~~ I am a philosopher. (When I'm not being a fool, or a teacher, or... *__- )

Most of your terms are poorly defined and ambiguous.

(Note the critically updated and all inclusive definition of 'knowledge'!)

I don't walk up to a scientist and say "Your a philosopher."

~~~ Of course not, he is a scientist! *__-

Scientists seem to fear philosophers and philosophy. Many do not have the skills of 'critical thought', and the philosophers who do can damage or destroy the scientists favorite theories (or 'beliefs') without a telescope or a beaker!

Likewise many philosophers fear science for the same reasons; one simple experiment can invalidate dearly held ancient theories in the wink of an eye! (Such as 'time' and 'motion' and 'causality'...!)

Science informs philosophy. Philosophy can, likewise, inform science.

when something usually would be said is "Your intelligent" even though intelligent means possessing knowledge,

~~~ Like I said, that ain't necessarily so...

Being perceived to do a job (display of intelligence) has to do with that which is perceived (knowledge).

True, you need intelligence to be able to reason, but it is all subjective to what you are reasoning on,

Intelligence and wisdom do not go hand in hand obviously. there are plenty of 'smart' people that do stupid things, and there are also 'stupid' people who say/do wise things.

it all depends on the audience, one mans wisdom could be another's common sense.

EVERYONE has those traits, but in varying degrees.

example, my writing skills are terrible, i could appear to be an idiot because of my poor punctuation and grammar......but, i understand this about myself and know that what i lack in one area i make up for in another.

what are we being wise about?

Intelligence comes from experience, wisdom is understanding that experience on more than one level.

i think you have reason and judgment backwards,

you need to use reason to decide if you should judge something and arrive on that decision.

a fr as your blanket statement, I would use the word genius. usually it refers to a persons IQ. but, i think someone that possesses these qualities.....lol while i was typing this i got fired...so im not gonna finish im just gonna leave =P

I think that intelligence should be considered as merely the mind's ability to process information and that reason is a component of this processing power (intelligence is the processor, reason is the process). What is produced through this process are beliefs that arise when reason causes us to reach conclusions in regards to the inputs that our intelligence receive (i'm not going in to this - you know the rationalist/empiricist thing). Some of these judgements could be considered wise, others unwise: it is merely a matter of opinion.

I think it's important to consider the objective process (reason, intelligence --> judgements) in relation to the subjective notion of wisdom.

Proper philosophy is the act of constantly engaging the intellect and not being satisfied with unjustified conclusions (that is what it is to me anyway)

I'd say the blanket term is philosopher - after all the original philosophers of Greece were engaged in all areas of intellectual activity and the word itself means lover of knowledge in Greek.

Hope that helps (i doubt it does though!)

All 2:30PM USA Eastern time. I know you live in Canada, but there are also different time zones in Canada... edit : lol I'm in south florida too. The pregame show starts at 2:00pm, but the actual GAME starts at 2:30pm. edit2 : No, Alberta, Calgary is 2 hours behind my time, and Vancouver is 3 hours behind my time. So if it's 2:30pm my time, it'd be 12:30pm in Alberta, and 11:30am in Vancouver.

Call 'em smart. Smart implies a healthy store of information and the ability to make use of it.

I'm not sure, but Katy Perry has lovely breasts.