I attended a lecture today about "techne" (knowledge of technical skills); "phronesis" (knowledge of realism); and "sophia" (deep thought...more than 'wisdom,' according to the speaker).

I hadn't heard of "sophia" before, and I could only find it in Wikepedia, meaning "wisdom." Does anyone here have a more in-dpeth knowledge of it? How common is it?

I wouldn't trust the argument of anyone using Greek words in English as if they captured some nice distinction English lacks. The ancient Greeks didn't talk about sophia, phronesis, and techne: they talked about wisdom, knowledge, skill, art, intelligence, and so on. Everyday, vague words with a host of meanings and overlapping, same as in any other language.

The distinction in question here was made by Aristotle, and though he was making new philosophical concepts he was using ordinary words to do it: as we might try to distinguish intelligence from wisdom, or art from craft, or skill from knowledge, and erect a psychological theory on it. There is no real, prior distinction in the words, there are only serried ranks of cases we use one word for, or the other, or could use both, and often cannot tell which is more appropriate.

Sophia was cleverness or skill in any art [according to Liddell & Scott's Lexicon]; cleverness, skill, wisdom in common things, prudence; also cunning, shrewdness, craft. Hardly an elevated concept. Only then do they move on to the philosophical sense: perfect scientific knowledge, wisdom, philosophy.

Phronesis: being minded (to do so and so), purpose, intention; high-mindedness, (and in bad sense) pride, presumption; thoughtfulness, good sense, practical wisdom, prudence. The corresponding verb phroneo covers having a mind to (do something), having something in mind, giving consideration to, to be like-minded, to take heed, etc. etc.

I agree with aput. These are the kinds of things people say in order to impress others with their learning. Or, as we more down-to-earth people say, "Never forget the BBB"*

If I wanted to talk about someone's technical knowledge I would use those simple, accurate and understandable terms. Why confuse when you can clarify unless it is a deliberate device?

* Bullshit Baffles Brains

Interesting, aput and Richard. This was a very high-level conference, where I was in awe most of the time. This particular speaker, in all fairness, acknowledged that some may think him arrogant for using those words. He was using them to make distinctions between medical students (with "techne"); residents (with "phronesis"); and attending physicians (with "sophia).

He gave these 3 examples:

Techne meets Mr. Jones (medical student)
~ CC, HPI, PMH, SH, FH, ROS, PE, Labs, x-rays, A&P
~ 70 yo man with history of previous MIs presents with worsening SOB, DOE, weight gain, and edimea with exam showing tachcardia, tacypnea, ralse, gallop, edema

(The above abbreviations aren't important; they just show the "technical" thinking)

Phronesis and Mr. Jones (resident)
~ CHF admission in the ER
~ want to get a tropnonin, CK, and chest x-ray in the ER, check EKG, get an oxygen saturation, see if sick enough for unit consult
~ admit to tele, rule out MI, schedule echo, diurese, cardiac consult, consider cath
~ after above, digoxin, ACE inhibitor, continue diuretics, discharge in 48 hours

(This resident is still thinking technically, though he is thinking more into the future.)

Sophia and Mr. Jones (attending physician)
~ Knows the need to work him up and discharge him rapidly
~ Wonders how the frail wife will cope and if the meds can be paid for
~ Knows the resident's plans are good, but not sure if the patient can comply
~ Expects that Mr. Jones will initially do well but wonders if he can live with his illness and change his life

(The master; thinking holistically)

By the end of the conference everyone was using "sophia" to mean the ultimate physician. Were they using the word wrong, then?

Quote "...Were they using the word wrong, then?..."

Maybe not wrongly but, to my mind, unecessarily. What's wrong with calling the attending physicion "The attending physician"? Why give him or her a confusing name - the more so when it could so easily be confused with "sophist".

Richard, the speaker wasn't trying to find a synonym for 'attending physician.' The point was to describe that physician (believe me, not all attendings are there!) who is of master quality. This physician is very wise and a deep thinker who considers the whole patient, the environment, and the social and political forces affecting the care. He or she who has 'sophia' is the ultimate physician, the one everyone tries to be. Yet, aput says this about sophia:

Sophia was cleverness or skill in any art [according to Liddell & Scott's Lexicon]; cleverness, skill, wisdom in common things, prudence; also cunning, shrewdness, craft. Hardly an elevated concept. Only then do they move on to the philosophical sense: perfect scientific knowledge, wisdom, philosophy.

I was struck by the "hardly an elevated concept." In the conference I attended, surely sophia was considered an 'elevated concept;' it was the ultimate in medicine.

They may be using the word wrong.

It seems to me, then, that are simply seeking a word to describe superiority or excellence. But I don't think the one they've chosen is the right one.

I thought I'd just chip in here because this is a phenomenon that afflicts all fields of academia especially my own field of education. It's what I call (well I would wouldn't I?) "the Humpty Dumpty syndrome". It isn't really meaningful to say that the word is being used wrongly as it has no specific correct meaning (in English) to get wrong. Rather the person who was using this - and the other words - was giving it his own specific meaning, which he defined for you. He was in effect coining a meaning for the word. (He may be borrowing an earlier use of the word from someone in his own specialised field, of course, but then that person would have coined it.) The meanings of those words in Greek and any other meanings that they may have been given from time to time in English are really quite irrelevant as he told you what he meant by them and then stuck to those definitions. The words are sufficiently obscure that adding a new meaning isn't likely to harm the language or indeed impact on the language or the general population at all.

"When I use a word it means what I want it to mean."

In my Cert Ed course I'm constantly coming across words - both English and otherwise -that have been given a new meaning or even entirely new words that have been coined specifically for whatever concept the author has in mind. It seems to be standard procedure with academics.

Well, Bob, you make a good point. However, it does make it difficult, doesn't it? How are you to know eveyone's coinages? I will say that often the various nurse theorists are almost incomprehensible because of their use of words. Here is an example of Parse's Human Becoming Theory (click "Human Becoming"). I found her use of the word "languaging" especially interesting. I used to teach with her...nice lady, but her theory of nursing hardly holds.

Now, for a bit of an OEDILF aside :

When you're sick and you cry "Mama Mia!",
The attendings, your doctors, will see ya.
They boss all the rest,
Though, I'll surely attest
That often they're lacking sophia.

Wow. What verbiage!

I see they're truly International - they are in far away Canada as well as the USA. Next step the world?

That is truly impressive.
Perhaps not for the reasons the author would have liked but truly impressive nonetheless.

Let's see if I've got this right...

Principle 1. Structuring meaning multidimensionally is cocreating reality through the languaging of valuing and imaging.

Principle 2. Cocreating rhythmical patterns of relating is living the paradoxical unity of revealing-concealing and enabling-limiting while connecting-separating.

Principle 3. Cotranscending with the possibles is powering unique ways of originating in the process of transforming.

... And this heals the sick, does it?

As I have said previously, BBB!

Let's see if I've got this right...

Actually, your summary of the theory is quite astute. It hardly gives any direction to the profession!