Essentially, it is the ability to correctly evaluate a particular situation based on accumulated knowledge and information gained through study and experience. Therefore, older people have an advantage because they have had more opportunities to learn and study, and at the same time, they have had the opportunity to test many of the "truths and rules" in practice. This is true, of course, provided that, as a rule, they did so consciously and systematically gathered lessons from these experiences. In doing so, they have built and accumulated their wisdom.

Wisdom, then, is a quality of the individual, which, in turn, is necessarily reflected in his/her relationships with other members of society and works in proportion to the definition of the individual. However, wisdom does not necessarily imply a high level of emotional intelligence – an individual's ability to communicate constructively and kindly in society. In fact, it is not such a rare phenomenon that extremely wise individuals have problems in their relationships with people. On the other hand, among simpler people, i.e., sub-average intelligent individuals, there are relatively few who have problems in interpersonal relationships.

The difference between knowledge and wisdom is well explained by the following sentence: 'To understand' means the ability to make sense of the available facts, and 'wisdom' means to know what to do as the next step. A person with abundant knowledge is not always wise, while a wise person is always also full of knowledge.

Although wisdom is primarily an individual's quality, we are also talking about wisdom at the level of the family, the company, and wider society. It means a conscious, shared acceptance of relevant social laws and values among members of a narrower or wider society and their understanding of the world. We even talk about the wisdom of a country, which is reflected in its conduct and relations with other countries. As we know, it can be larger or smaller, depending primarily on the ability and especially on the wisdom of its politicians.

Fundamentally, wisdom is a human quality and an advantage that imposes rational and responsible behavior on an individual, which has positive consequences for him/her, as well as for the immediate and wider society in which he/she lives and works. At the same time, wisdom obliges its owner to contribute to the best of his/her ability to solve problems in their social environment. That's what people expect from wise members of society.

We must be aware that wise action by members of society contributes to the quality of life, so it is in the interest of every member of the community, because wise thinking and acting return in proportion and reward each member and the community as a whole. In short, acting in accordance with our wisdom – much more so than our actions are constructive, socially responsible, and ethical – is good for us, as well as for the community in which we live.

What does it actually mean that wisdom obliges?

In every society, wisdom is not evenly distributed – according to differences in genetics, as well as in the level of education or quality of study of its members. Therefore, those members of society who are better "gifted" and who have had better opportunities for study have additional obligations to society that they must be aware of and respect. This is not some kind of "burden" or "punishment", but an acknowledgment that they have the conditions and are able to contribute to the needs of society more than other members of the community. In short, this is the mission that our wisdom imposes on us and which we must not renounce in any way.

However, our positive contribution will not be overlooked – on the contrary, we will be recognized for our wise and socially responsible behavior. This is a kind of "reward" for our constructive behavior, i.e., contribution to solving problems in society that may not even directly concern us personally, but do burden society.

This has been present in some ways throughout all historical periods, but it has become especially important with the development of democracy and the knowledge-based society/economy, which is quite logical.

The question here is, are wise people also fully aware of this fact, and do they act accordingly? As many researchers note, this is not the case, and they also blame these people’s lack of education. Under the pressure of the principles of democracy and equality of citizens, we avoid openly considering the special obligations of men and women who are distinguished by greater wisdom. This, of course, is not right, because wisdom also brings with it a greater responsibility on the part of the persons concerned to make a proportionately greater contribution to solving problems in society, in accordance with their greater intellectual capacity.

By doing so, we do not give individuals with a higher level of wisdom a position of superiority but invite them to appropriate engagement in society, for which they are better equipped than other citizens, this being also an obligation for them.

The special social responsibility of wise people is a timely, proactive, and constructive criticism of current problems in society, which includes the obligation to make an appropriate contribution to efforts to solve these problems. A special obligation of the wise is also to find original and appropriate solutions to current problems in society and to give initiatives for the widest possible involvement of all citizens in solving the respective problems. In this way, wise people can make a significant contribution to the timely detection of problems, the assessment of their dimensions, causes, and specifics, and the collaboration of people in solving them. This is an extremely important contribution of wise people to the timely identification of the causes and implications of certain problems in society, to present to the general public why and how action should be taken to prevent harmful consequences for parts or the whole of society.

Social problems are rarely completely original but are often even classic problems that a particular society has already encountered but has not been successful enough in solving. Wisdom is needed for society to draw appropriate lessons from these experiences and to set new efforts to solve current problems on this basis, which promises better results.

One of the special tasks of wise citizens is to discover the causes and background of problems in society, because the right solutions are only those that come from a proper analysis of the causes and an assessment of the potential of the available solutions, with special emphasis on the consequences that these solutions will bring to various parts of society. Few solutions are socially neutral – most of them have different consequences for individual parts of society. Very often, these negative consequences are tied to the weaker sections of society. However, it is important to correctly assess whether the benefits of the envisaged changes will significantly outweigh the expected negative consequences.

This is not about the pure rationality or economy of certain measures but about their ethics in terms of socio-economic consequences for the position of individual groups in society. However, major compromises are not permissible, nor desirable, because of the threat to relations within society. Experience shows that the irresponsibility of the rulers rarely goes without major or minor consequences for relations in society. Therefore, the political wisdom of those in power is needed, as well as appropriate "pressure from below".

The question arises whether and under what conditions wise citizens can realize their potential to solve current problems in society, as well as whether they are actually active enough in doing so. The general answer – and of course there are big differences between societies – is that, unfortunately, in most countries the role of the wise is not as big as it could be. We can identify two categories of reasons for this: systemic, as well as the lack of engagement of the wise.

By systemic barriers, we mean the lack of democracy of the country, which limits or even actively prevents greater engagement of the wise citizens, with the exception of those who explicitly support the ruling regime. The latter, of course, do not freely use their full potential but often adapt to the interests of the current government, subordinating their wisdom to their short-term, usually opportunistic goals.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the engagement of the wise – especially in the politics of the state – is significantly too small to be able to decisively influence the important decisions that guide the development of their society and country.

In both cases – but much more so in the first – it is a matter of the social responsibility of wise citizens who consciously renounce their greater role, unfortunately not only to their own detriment, but also to the detriment of society as a whole. Nowadays, many government decisions are complex and long-term problems that require broader and multi-layered reflection, without which problematic decisions are often made. This brings harm to parts or the whole of society, which could be avoided if the wise were more involved in the analysis of a particular problem, as well as in the search for and formulation of optimal solutions.

This needs to change if we are to progress into knowledge societies and economies. Wisdom is one that should not be neglected and discarded from decision-making processes, but what if politicians in most countries are generally afraid of independent wisdom, thinking that it can threaten their authority and political position? If this is true, it is necessary to draw appropriate conclusions about the quality of such a policy where wisdom is supposed to be a threat.