Wisdom consists not so much in knowing what to do in the ultimate as knowing what to do next.

The remark contrasts grand, long-range certainty (“what to do in the ultimate”) with practical judgment under real-world constraints (“what to do next”). It suggests that wisdom is less about possessing a complete blueprint for the future than about choosing the next sound step amid incomplete information, shifting conditions, and competing priorities. In political and administrative life—where outcomes depend on timing, feasibility, and coalition—this frames wisdom as incremental, action-guiding prudence rather than abstract foresight. The line also implies humility: ultimate ends may be contested or unknowable, but responsible decision-making can still proceed through careful, sequential choices that keep options open and reduce harm.