The writings of John Dewey (1859-1952) and Simone Weil (1909-1943) were
analyzed with a view to answering 3 main questions: What is wisdom? How is wisdom
connected to experience? How does one educate for a love of wisdom? Using a
dialectical method whereby Dewey (a pragmatist) was critiqued by Weil (a Christian
Platonist) and vice versa, commonalities and differences were identified and clarified.
For both, wisdom involved the application of thought to specific, concrete
problems in order to secure a better way of life. For Weil, wisdom was centered on a
love of truth that involved a certain way of applying one's attention to a concrete or
theoretical problem. Weil believed that nature was subject to a divine wisdom and that a
truly democratic society had supernatural roots. Dewey believed that any attempt to
move beyond nature would stunt the growth of wisdom. For him, wisdom could be
nourished only by natural streams-even if some ofthem were given a divine designation.
For both, wisdom emerged through the discipline of work understood as
intelligent activity, a coherent relationship between thinking and acting. Although Weil
and Dewey differed on how they distinguished these 2 activities, they both advocated a
type of education which involved practical experience and confronted concrete problems.
Whereas Dewey viewed each problem optimistically with the hope of solving it, Weil
saw wisdom in, contemplating insoluble contradictions. For both, educating for a love of
wisdom meant cultivating a student's desire to keep thinking in line with acting-wanting
to test ideas in action and striving to make sense of actions observed.
The writings of John Dewey (1859-1952) and Simone Weil (1909-1943) were
analyzed with a view to answering 3 main questions: What is wisdom? How is wisdom
connected to experience? How does one educate for a love of wisdom? Using a
dialectical method whereby Dewey (a pragmatist) was critiqued by Weil (a Christian
Platonist) and vice versa, commonalities and differences were identified and clarified.
For both, wisdom involved the application of thought to specific, concrete
problems in order to secure a better way of life. For Weil, wisdom was centered on a
love of truth that involved a certain way of applying one's attention to a concrete or
theoretical problem. Weil believed that nature was subject to a divine wisdom and that a
truly democratic society had supernatural roots. Dewey believed that any attempt to
move beyond nature would stunt the growth of wisdom. For him, wisdom could be
nourished only by natural streams-even if some ofthem were given a divine designation.
For both, wisdom emerged through the discipline of work understood as
intelligent activity, a coherent relationship between thinking and acting. Although Weil
and Dewey differed on how they distinguished these 2 activities, they both advocated a
type of education which involved practical experience and confronted concrete problems.
Whereas Dewey viewed each problem optimistically with the hope of solving it, Weil
saw wisdom in, contemplating insoluble contradictions. For both, educating for a love of
wisdom meant cultivating a student's desire to keep thinking in line with acting-wanting
to test ideas in action and striving to make sense of actions observed.
