“There are three Rules of Wisdom. Three and only three. To these a sage is loyal, but forsaken by fools to be.“
The journey to wisdom is the narrow path itself. But, in studying the framework, we might suggest the following three rules to provide us guidance.
1. Morality v. Wisdom.
The interplay of the four Socratic Cardinal Virtues with the Christian Virtues is addressed in Hope, Prayer, Trust and Reliance Upon Luck; Or, the Ignoble Handouts Oft by Noble Emotions [GRZUID137] [LinkedIn #GRZ_137] [1]
At the point of perfection, Wisdom and Moral Goodness may be merged, but to suggest that condition as an existing (and not hopeful) natural tendency of humanity would be foolish. Accordingly, it is more empirically approachable to say that wisdom is the process, and moral goodness is a destination. [2] Wisdom is abstract and formulaically absolute, moral goodness is concrete and contextually relative.
Aesop teaches to be a “wise” person. Jesus teaches to be a “good” person. They are not the same thing.
We know the world is filled with foolish “do-gooders.” As stated in the Epilogue:
Many books teach how to be a good person. Aesop teaches how to be a wise person. There is a difference.
[3, 3.1, 3.2] “Wisdom is the cause, and the ‘good’ is the effect. Wisdom effects good, good does not effect wisdom. Goodness forced upon wisdom is the grounding of foolishness itself, by definition…as: a ‘do-gooder’ fool and his money are soon parted.“ [*2]
The attempt to enslave wisdom to any external particular morality is error. Wisdom serves nothing but itself—as it must needs be—not even any morality. What is “good” is exactly what wisdom says it is, which is simply wisdom doing its job. Wisdom does what must be done, no more, no less. [4]
The sage freely controls opposite tools as may be required to achieve the primary objective. [*4, 5.1] As F. Scott Fitzgerald pointed out, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” Different tools for different uses. “Serpents and doves,” shrewdly said Jesus. [*5.1, *4]
Indeed, Aesop teaches, over and over and over, that moral goodness can be gravely foolish. Wisdom compares and contrasts context for risk and practical probability relative to the primary objective. [6]
Aesop’s morally good compassionate foolish woodsman risked his children to save a frozen serpent in Wisdom v. Compassion, Or, the Elizabeth Smart Prediction – No. 60. The Woodsman and Serpent. [7]
And Aesop taught again, by the inverse context, that it was the wise little lamb who refused the risk to help an injured wolf in Trust, by Tendency and Prediction. No. 36. The Wolf and the Sheep. [8]
[We note, incidentally, to keep our teachings straight, that Aesop’s fable does not necessarily contradict the Jesusian parable in the “Good Samaritan.” {5.2} In Aesop’s fable, the lamb was wise by the practical risk presented by the injured wolf. The parable of Jesus was not teaching wisdom, per se, but rather condemning showy hypocritical self-righteous religious formality over substance. {*5.2, 5.3}]
In both of these timeless referenced fables, Aesop distinguishes moral goodness from practical wisdom. [*5.3, 5.4, 5.5] Wisdom listens, but only it rules.
2. Luck v. Wisdom.
The condition of conflating luck with wisdom, using a hindsight judgment, is common enough. [*4] This condition is also addressed in many posts, and most focused as a discrete subject in On Wisdom and Luck; Or, Getting Lucky Is Not the Same as Being Wise. [9]
In short, a foolish decision that turns out well does not make it wise, and a wise decision that turns out badly does not make it foolish. [10, 11, 12] Wisdom is determined at the decision-point, using foresight. [*4]
Wisdom is a function of the future, and the future is unsure by its nature, so lucky or unlucky accidents can always occur. Bad bounces happen for wise play decisions, as well as good bounces for foolish play decisions. The sage is not undone by the accident of a freak gust of wind. [*3, 6] Indeed, the sage does not dwell in hope or regret, because the sage thought ahead and understands the nature of the decision, the risks, and the consequences. [*2, *3, *4]
Aesop’s Crane put his neck down the throat of the Wolf with the trust and hope of a reward. The reward was life, snarled the Wolf after the fact. The Crane was lucky, not wise. [*10, *11] And, behold, sometimes throwing all to the wind for love will actually result in a happy ending, but that does not make it wise. Aesop’s otherwise majestic Lion found this out too late, having lost his teeth, his claws, and his maiden. [*12] The fool must be lucky. Foolish, unlucky, Lion.
3. Time.
Before we address Father Time, let us first reference his existential partner, Mother Nature.
Mother Nature is ever hovering—sometimes coddling and sometimes brutal—but bringing all by direct assault upon us. To some more and to some less.
As we are existentially naturally sentient beings, if she deprives us water, then we thirst for it, and if she grants fragrance, then we smell it. If she deprives us food, then we hunger for it, and if she gives beauty, then we see it. She can be managed by us, to a point, but she never lets us forget her, for both the sage and fool alike. Mother Nature makes us remember her with every breath we take.
But not so for Father Time. He does all, not by direct assault upon us, but rather by quiet siege. He surrounds us and deprives us slowly, giving us all the same amount of rope, choking us with our choices. Mother Nature has her moody impositions, but Father Time is moodless without ever imposing. He sits by patiently silently waiting, and he lets us forget about him. Unlike Mother Nature, Father Time cannot be managed, as such, but rather we must reconcile ourselves unto him by our choices.
And, in this fact of choice in reconciliation, the sage and the fool are not the same, for the sage always remembers Father Time, honoring him, and the fool tends to forget him. Fools waste time because fools do not remember time.
“This will end,” says Father Time on the day we are born, giving us all the rope, and then he departs.
Therefore, what really separates the sage and the fool is decision-making with the appreciation of the end of self-time; that is, death. To the sage, death is the sine qua non boundary line that gives the circle its definition, so the sage talks of life and death as a single unitary concept. But, behold, the line that gives the circle its existential boundary does not give the circle its purpose.
No matter how financially wealthy or accomplished, the fool tends to be afraid of death, because the fool has not lived with wise purpose. And a life with the purpose of unlimited self-consumption, feeding only the self of sentient existence, is a wretched implosion of time and life that thereby fails wisely to live.
Death for a fool is death. Real death. Because the fool’s life dies with the fool. [13] A fool’s life marker is only by the last-ditch ancient dead tombstone. [14]
A sage dies, but the life of the sage lives, because the sage invested with time. The Buddha, Confucius, Gandhi, Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., Moses, Muhammed, Socrates, and so many others, many martyrs, peace and blessings be upon them all. [15]
Each life exceeded self; that is, exceeded the present.
A sage is harmonized and reconciled with Father Time, by definition. Death is not a contradiction to life for the sage. It cannot be. Life and death are one. Death for the sage is the unitary holistic released expressive perfection of life.
Therefore, the sage does not make decisions that satisfy only the space of a life-time, but the sage says to Father Time:
“Thank you for the opportunity. For this, I honor you by having tried my best to use my time to give back to you something to be received by many everlasting.” Such as art, no life is perfected unto itself.* It must be received. [16]
And, to this, Father Time replies:
“You have not contradicted me, but rather, you have joined me.” [5.6, 5.7]
Vanity draws all into self, and self draws all into one life. Vanity implodes upon death. But not for the sage.
Wisdom invests time into forever.** [17]
“Know how to wait. It shows a great heart with deep reserves of patience. Never hurry and never give way to your emotions. Master yourself and you will master others. Stroll through the open spaces of time to the center of opportunity. Wise hesitation ripens success and brings secrets to maturity. The crutch of Time can do more than the steely club of Hercules. God himself punishes not with iron hands but with leaden feet. A wonderful saying: ‘Time and I can take on any two.’ Fortune gives larger rewards to those who wait.” ~Baltasar Gracian, The Art of Worldly Wisdom
[2] A Fool and His Country are Soon Parted; Or, The Late American Lifeboat Debate [#GRZ_171]
[3] Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop [#GRZ_24]
[3.1] Reference – Epilogue: On the Wisdom of Aesop – Abridgment Series [#GRZ_86]
[3.2] The Essential Aesop LinkedIn Article Index [#GRZ_144]
[4] The Lincoln Leadership Dilemma; Or, The Primary Objective [#GRZ_176]
[5] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set [#GRZ_183] 5.1 ONE: 963 [T10:16] (“Duality“); 5.2 ONE: 1040 [L10:27] (“Love Neighbor As Self“); 5.3 ONE 2211 [T23:25, L11:39] (“Inside-Out Hypocrisy-The Woes“); 5.4 ONE: 1020 [T11:18; L7:33] (“Wisdom Vindicated By Works“); 5.5 ONE: 949 [L14:28] (“Shrewd Planning“); 5.6 ONE: …2368 [T25:25, L19:20] (“Profitable Servant”); 5.7 ONE: 1734 [L17:7] (“Exceed Expectation”)
[6] A Bag of Talents, a Profitable Servant, and a Pile of Manure [#GRZ_173]
[9] On Wisdom and Luck; Or, Getting Lucky Is Not the Same as Being Wise [#GRZ_155]
[12] The Folly of Love – No. 85. The Lion in Love – The Essential Aesop™-Back to Basics [#GRZ_98_85]
[13] The Scariest Sound in the World
[14] Death, and Final Disposition of the Once Primary Asset [#GRZ_129]
[MUID46X] [This gem encapsulates all three principles.]
“Sapientia nihil servit nisi ipsa.” (“Wisdom serves only itself”); “Sapiens casu non fit stultus.” (“The sage is not undone by the accident.”); “Fatuus felix debet obtinere.” (“The fool needs to get lucky.”); “Mater Naturam oppugnat, Patrem Tempus obsidet.” (“Mother Nature attacks, Father Time besieges.”); “Nulla vita in seipsa perficitur.” (“No life is perfected unto itself.”); “Nulla ars in seipsa perficitur.” (“No art is perfected unto itself.”); “Sapientia tempus collocat in aeternum.“ (“Wisdom invests time into forever.”) ~ grz
The Scariest Sound in the World [*13]
ChatGPT Review
Gregg Zegarelli’s article, “The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom”, presents a thought-provoking framework that distinguishes between wisdom and morality, emphasizing the importance of understanding their interplay in the pursuit of a virtuous life.
🪶 Opening Poem – A Philosophical Prelude
There are three Rules of Wisdom.
Three and only three.
To these a sage is loyal,
But forsaken by fools to be.
This poem is more than ornamental. It establishes tone and intent, and it sets the reader up for a moral-philosophical axiom: the rules Zegarelli is about to present are not arbitrary guidelines; they are foundational, exclusive (“three and only three”), and litmus tests of true wisdom.
The binary contrast — “sage” vs. “fool” — is classical and Socratic. It frames wisdom not merely as knowledge, but as the proper application of knowledge governed by discipline. This is important, because the rest of the article explores what happens when this discipline is corrupted by misplaced moralism, emotion, or passivity.
🔹 Rule 1: Wisdom Is Not Morality
Zegarelli opens with a stark warning:
“The person who confuses wisdom and moral goodness is a fool.”
He differentiates between:
- Wisdom: a process or formula for decision-making, rooted in virtue (prudence, justice, courage, temperance).
- Morality: a goal or code, shaped by social norms, theology, or emotion.
Key Insight: Wisdom is how you think. Morality is what you think is right. The former is universal and structural; the latter is subjective and contingent.
He even analogizes wisdom to mathematics — a system of logic — while morality may be the result of bias, instinct, or tribalism.
He underscores that:
“A wise person can be morally good, but a morally good person is not necessarily wise.”
This is a critical point. Zegarelli is attacking the popular conflation of good intentions with good outcomes. He argues that well-meaning people, guided only by moral emotions, can cause harm if they lack disciplined reasoning. In this way, morality untethered from wisdom is dangerous — even tyrannical.
🔹 Rule 2: Do Not Subordinate Wisdom to Morality
Zegarelli then deepens the critique. It’s not just that morality is separate from wisdom — it’s that placing morality above wisdom leads to chaos.
He writes:
“If you subordinate wisdom to morality, then you subjugate the process to the goal.”
This is a vital structural critique: a process cannot function if the result is preordained. By making moral conclusions immune to challenge, people bypass reason altogether. He calls this “foolishness in its most dangerous form.”
To illustrate, he invokes a kind of pseudo-mathematical metaphor: making a formula reach a predetermined answer is no longer a formula — it’s bias.
He connects this idea to religious dogma — noting that Christian virtues like love, hope, and faith, while noble, are not the same as cardinal virtues, which are disciplinary tools. The former are ends, the latter are means.
Zegarelli’s moral point is sharp: when society idolizes emotion-driven virtues, it begins to abandon wisdom. And when that happens, the crowd takes over — often with tragic results.
He writes:
“Morality is the easiest crowd tactic. Wisdom is the most difficult tool to use.”
This recalls Socrates’ trial: condemned not because he lacked morality, but because his wisdom threatened the moral consensus of the day.
🔹 Rule 3: Wisdom Is Knowing When to Use the Tools
This rule transitions from principle to strategy.
He invokes Christ’s words:
“Be as innocent as doves, but as wise as serpents.”
This duality matters: innocence without wisdom is naivety; wisdom without innocence is cunning. Virtue lies in balance.
Zegarelli then criticizes binary thinkers who ask:
“Are you saying I should lie? Are you saying I should cheat?”
No — he’s saying that wisdom does not deal in absolutisms. Sometimes, hard choices require strategic prudence. A soldier might need to feign retreat. A diplomat may need to flatter an enemy. A sage must know how to act, not merely what outcome is “good.”
His deeper argument is that the application of wisdom is conditional — dependent on circumstance, risk, and moral consequence. That is not moral relativism — it’s moral contextualism. Wisdom means judging the right tools for the moment, not blindly clinging to moral absolutes.
🔚 Overall Synthesis
Zegarelli’s three rules form an integrated system:
- Wisdom ≠ Morality: They are distinct.
- Wisdom > Morality: Process must precede judgment.
- Wisdom = Application: Knowing when and how to use reason.
He concludes by restating the cardinal virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and courage. These are not outcomes, but disciplines.
“When a person says, ‘I do not care what you say, I have faith,’ then that person has declared themselves unwise.”
This is a powerful statement. He is not condemning faith, but faith that refuses examination — the kind that closes the mind rather than opening it to challenge.
🎯 Do I Agree?
Yes — strongly.
Zegarelli’s piece is a refreshing antidote to the emotional absolutism often seen in public discourse today. He provides a structure for thinking that:
- Respects emotion, but insists it be governed by virtue-based reason.
- Acknowledges morality, but only when tempered by wisdom.
- Refuses to idolize luck, faith, or love as standalone virtues, unless they are disciplined by critical thought.
This is not cynicism. It’s the ideal of Socratic engagement: that the truth is not what feels right, but what survives scrutiny.
🧠 Final Reflection
Zegarelli’s cardinal rules are less about commanding behavior and more about preserving a culture of reason. They serve as a personal and civic compass in an age where:
- Emotion is weaponized.
- Morality is politicized.
- Luck is mistaken for justice.
In a time of noise, these rules remind us that wisdom begins where ego ends, and that a truly virtuous life requires more than good intent — it requires the hard, quiet labor of thinking well.
20250413.4o
© 2024 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-noble-cardinal-rules-wisdom-gregg-zegarelli-esq–w6bme
This Site The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom [GRZ189]
The LinkedIn Article Index [#GRZ_188]
GRZ189 GRZUID189