Wisdom and Foolishness

'Philosophy' means 'love of wisdom', but Wisdom seems a rare topic among 'Philosophers'.  Indeed, the closest to a popular image of a 'Philosopher' is not Plato, Kant, etc., but King Solomon, and very little of the output of these Philosophers has seemed classifiable as 'Wisdom'.  Instead, the primary interest of most Modern Philosophy has been Knowledge, the main objects of which have been Truth and Goodness, the studies of which are typically segregated on the basis of the traditional Theory-Practice duality.  In contrast, Wisdom combines both, and its privative correlate is neither Falsity nor Evil, but Foolishness.  A little more precisely, Wisdom consists in doing what is best on the basis of the most comprehensive grasp of circumstances as is possible.  Likewise, Foolishness is informed by a minimal grasp of circumstances, so, the Wisdom-Foolishness contrast is one of degree, not of kind.  Now, Spinoza does not characterize his doctrine in those terms.  But his Inadequate-Adequate contrast is one of degree, and maximum Adequacy is constituted by the 'Intuition of God', which, in his doctrine is equivalent to a comprehension of the Whole.  Thus, behavior on that basis can be classified as 'Wise', the progressive privation of which approaches 'Foolish'.  Now, one general distinction between Spinoza and Solomon as sources of Wisdom is that the former is systematic while the latter is not, a distinction which, by itself, might distinguish the 'Philosopher' from the 'Wise Person', e. g. Psalms seems to have no unifying theme.  But one implicit specific point of contrast is that Spinoza does not regard Monarchy as the wisest Political structure.