Wisdom is often about recognizing and accepting ones limitations.

A good philosophy would not putting things as absolute values.

While philosophy is theoretically open to all to learn and include in their living, in practice only a relatively few seem called to its service. Whether this limit is desirable or not is moot.

Can wisdom be defined only by the "knowledge of philosophy," or are there other criteria? Might it not be that wisdom consists, for example, in the everyday use of philosophy as a guide for life?

Is philosophy more a process than a final body of knowledge that is capable of being known in its entirety? It might be argued that as more people learn philosophy, its contents will grow and deepen, expanding and encompassing more of the world's perspectives; or perhaps might it not be that philosophy (unlike science) continually renews itself in history and that philosophical "progress" (unlike technology) is a phantom?

Suppose (as I believe) it is settled that the necessary conditions of knowledge are justified true belief. Would that not be a case of philosophical progress. And, if it is, would it not be false that philosophical progress is a phantom? And, indeed, if we discover that these conditions are only necessary, but not sufficient conditions of knowledge, so that we have to find a further condition (as seems to be true) would that not also be philosophical progress?