I know that cyanide kills but I have no experience with cyanide and not eating cyanide would be wise since it kills. Surely, I don’t have to experience the effects of cyanide to understand it kills and be wise enough to not eat it. :)

So, accepting knowledge by authority — which is not a priori knowledge — undermines the definitive meaning of “wisdom?”

Personally, I would put that into the “understanding” category because it is of the form: an authority that I trust told me that cyanide kills, so I shouldn’t eat it. Thus, since I understand that this is something that is true without self-verifying it, because it comes from an authoritative source — that I trust — I won’t eat cyanide.

But wisdom would be to know not to make cyanide in the first place because it serves no purpose other than to kill people.

This issue with definition may point to the larger problem of analytical and synthetic propositions having no definitive distinction between them unless other metaphysical concepts are brought into play.

There are always metaphysical concepts in play in human knowledge, even if one is in self-denial about that fact. Only God, by logical inference from the definition of God, can be metaphysics-free. The rest of us poor bastards are forever lost in samsara because we grasp onto ideas that come to us from authorities, rather than being based upon our own experience, knowledge, understanding, and perhaps even wisdom.

I personally think the argument also points to a problem with the definition of wisdom. I have never been fond of the word because it is too broad in its use and meaning.

I don’t find its meaning broad, but rather, very specific. However, I acknowledge that its use is undeniably promiscuous. But that’s the culture we live in today.