>>I thought the original post was pretty insightful, but disagree with some of the further discussion. <<

The original post argued, “our deepest truths and most passionate convictions cannot always be made to work together in ways we would prefer and indeed believe to be both rational and just.” I take this to mean that the ideals of an individual can not be consistent, not that, “people's interests will always be divergent.”

When I read “our deepest truths” I take that to mean- man’s place on Earth and Earth’s place in the universe. The reason I focused my comments on physics and evolutionary biology is because these two fields are best suited to answer these questions.

As far as Utilitarian philosophy, that strikes me as too rigid and without inspiration. Helping the most people is good, but truth is also important. I’m quite happy as an atheist who believes in empiricism.

>>Knowledge, gathered through the scientific method, can give us the most likely result of any given action. Therefore, if there is a place for what you call "wisdom" I think it has to be in determining what that perfect state is that we're trying to reach. The unfortunate thing (which is why I agreed with the initial post) is that people's interests will always be divergent.<<

This is very good. It is what I was getting at when saying wisdom is knowledge coupled with just judgment to action (sagacity).