Did Socrates really “know nothing”?
Did Socrates really “know nothing”?
This is an issue that seems to crop up in discussions, so I thought it might be useful to have a thread on it in case anyone is interested, and where everyone can share their thoughts.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates says:
However, he also says:
And in Theages he says:
On the evidence of the dialogues, I think it must be accepted that Socrates did have things that constitute knowledge. In the first place he knew Greek and he knew how to speak, make speeches, and ask questions.
Furthermore, he had knowledge of married life as he was married to beautiful Xanthippe by whom he had three sons (Apol. 34d). In addition to family and friends, he knew many other people and had information about them as he liked to frequent the marketplace and engage in conversation. He had first-hand knowledge of military combat as he had distinguished himself in the Peloponnesian War (Symp. 220e). He knew midwifery which he learned from his mother (Theaet. 149a). As stated above, he knew all about “love-matters” (ta erotika). He had knowledge of politics, having been a member of the senate, and he claimed to be one of the few Athenians to practice the true art of statesmanship (Gorg. 521d). He had knowledge of philosophy, logic, geometry, astronomy, as well as poetry and mythology. He knew the distinction between knowledge and opinion, and between right opinion and wrong opinion (Rep. 477b ff.), etc.
If he really knew nothing, then he would also not know that he knows nothing.
However, far from knowing nothing, it turns out that he knew quite a lot.
The way I see it, it follows that his statement cannot be taken literally.
One explanation for it, which I tend to agree with, is that Socrates was being humble and making a point about the necessity of being aware of the limitations of our knowledge.
Other possible interpretations include:
It is a pedagogical device (A. E. Taylor, Socrates, 47-48).
It is an ignorance of specific definitions accompanied by knowledge of what a definition would be (R. Burger, “Belief, Knowledge, and Socratic Knowledge of Ignorance”).
An ignorance of certain philosophical truths that yet knows how to proceed elenctically and practically (G. Vlastos, “Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge”).
An ignorance where criteria for knowledge are supplied through some religious or similar source (T. C. Brickhouse & N. Smith, “The Paradox of Socratic Ignorance in Plato’s Apology”).
Some questions that may be considered:
1. How would you interpret Socrates’ statement and its implications?
2. Has Socrates’ alleged “lack of knowledge” been exaggerated?
Edit: Regarding Socrates’ concept of knowledge, it may be worth noting that he draws a clear distinction between opinion (doxa) and knowledge (noesis, gnosis). (Rep. 534a)
Knowledge is of two kinds:
Episteme or knowledge proper, acquired through insight or direct experience, and relating primarily to Ideas or Forms (Eide).
Dianoia or knowledge acquired through reason, e.g., mathematical objects.
Opinion is also of two kinds:
Pistis, belief or trust, relating to objects we accept on trust.
Eikasia, fancy, illusion, or conjecture, relating to objects we accept uncritically, e.g., when we look at the shadow or reflection of an object without appreciating that it is merely a shadow or reflection.
True belief is right opinion, orthe doxa, e.g., when we are told how to get from place A to place B by someone who knows the way. As such it constitutes a form of indirect, temporary knowledge that is replaced by actual knowledge once we have made the journey ourselves.
This is an issue that seems to crop up in discussions, so I thought it might be useful to have a thread on it in case anyone is interested, and where everyone can share their thoughts.
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates says:
I thought to myself, “I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either” (21d)
However, he also says:
But I do know that it is evil and disgraceful to do wrong and to disobey him who is better than I, whether he be god or man. So I shall never fear or avoid those things concerning which I do not know whether they are good or bad rather than those which I know are bad (29b)
And in Theages he says:
But what I always say, is that I am in the position of knowing practically nothing except one little subject, that of love-matters. In this subject, however, I claim to be skilled above anybody who has ever lived or is now living in the world (128b)
On the evidence of the dialogues, I think it must be accepted that Socrates did have things that constitute knowledge. In the first place he knew Greek and he knew how to speak, make speeches, and ask questions.
Furthermore, he had knowledge of married life as he was married to beautiful Xanthippe by whom he had three sons (Apol. 34d). In addition to family and friends, he knew many other people and had information about them as he liked to frequent the marketplace and engage in conversation. He had first-hand knowledge of military combat as he had distinguished himself in the Peloponnesian War (Symp. 220e). He knew midwifery which he learned from his mother (Theaet. 149a). As stated above, he knew all about “love-matters” (ta erotika). He had knowledge of politics, having been a member of the senate, and he claimed to be one of the few Athenians to practice the true art of statesmanship (Gorg. 521d). He had knowledge of philosophy, logic, geometry, astronomy, as well as poetry and mythology. He knew the distinction between knowledge and opinion, and between right opinion and wrong opinion (Rep. 477b ff.), etc.
If he really knew nothing, then he would also not know that he knows nothing.
However, far from knowing nothing, it turns out that he knew quite a lot.
The way I see it, it follows that his statement cannot be taken literally.
One explanation for it, which I tend to agree with, is that Socrates was being humble and making a point about the necessity of being aware of the limitations of our knowledge.
Other possible interpretations include:
It is a pedagogical device (A. E. Taylor, Socrates, 47-48).
It is an ignorance of specific definitions accompanied by knowledge of what a definition would be (R. Burger, “Belief, Knowledge, and Socratic Knowledge of Ignorance”).
An ignorance of certain philosophical truths that yet knows how to proceed elenctically and practically (G. Vlastos, “Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge”).
An ignorance where criteria for knowledge are supplied through some religious or similar source (T. C. Brickhouse & N. Smith, “The Paradox of Socratic Ignorance in Plato’s Apology”).
Some questions that may be considered:
1. How would you interpret Socrates’ statement and its implications?
2. Has Socrates’ alleged “lack of knowledge” been exaggerated?
Edit: Regarding Socrates’ concept of knowledge, it may be worth noting that he draws a clear distinction between opinion (doxa) and knowledge (noesis, gnosis). (Rep. 534a)
Knowledge is of two kinds:
Episteme or knowledge proper, acquired through insight or direct experience, and relating primarily to Ideas or Forms (Eide).
Dianoia or knowledge acquired through reason, e.g., mathematical objects.
Opinion is also of two kinds:
Pistis, belief or trust, relating to objects we accept on trust.
Eikasia, fancy, illusion, or conjecture, relating to objects we accept uncritically, e.g., when we look at the shadow or reflection of an object without appreciating that it is merely a shadow or reflection.
True belief is right opinion, orthe doxa, e.g., when we are told how to get from place A to place B by someone who knows the way. As such it constitutes a form of indirect, temporary knowledge that is replaced by actual knowledge once we have made the journey ourselves.
Comments (132)
What he means by that...? :smile:
I think the best way of his knowing that he doesnt know anything (which he obviously knows) is that he doesnt know the Nature of reality. From which to choose his one? The gods, Plato's ideal world? The reality of married life? The reality of being a man in power or that of an obedient slave? He doesnt know. And that he knows. Hes honest in not pretending to know though, but if he knows he speaks.
Cavell takes this as saying that Socrates is not claiming a better position than us. Socrates does not know anything that anyone else cannot see for themselves. The philosopher is not different than the ordinary person; we all have equal authority to make and accept claims. He has nothing better to tell than any other, such as an all-convincing explanation (with the authority of knowledge/logic/science); he is a barren midwife, unable to conceive. The point is that we must all see for ourselves whether a claim has merit; come to it ourselves. We reflect on our practices (remembering he will call it) and draw out the implications of examples (much as J.L. Austin and Wittgenstein did), and, in the process, we become aware of the terms and conditions upon which we speak and act, and, in the process, know ourselves better, are better people for it.
That's an interesting claim, isn't it? He is not simply knowledgeable about love-matters but "skilled above anybody else"!
I guess this in itself would disqualify him from being ignorant ... :smile:
That aside, as he appears to know a lot of things relating to everyday knowledge, perhaps more so than the average Athenian citizen, I can only think that he is referring to some form of special knowledge. This is possibly hinted at in the claim that he "knows nothing fine and good" in Apology.
I think this is very true in a general sense. However, Socrates is advocating the institution of philosopher-kings as a ruling class. So he seems to believe that the philosophical citizen is in some ways better qualified (and therefore entitled to authority) than the nonphilosophical.
I always saw The Republic not (at least, not just) about how a city should be put together and ruled, but as an analogy for us, individually. Socrates is helping us learn about our practices and ideals. He wants us to be a better person. So the book is about what we are made of, how we ought to rule ourselves (claim authority over our self), what virtuous conduct is in the search for wisdom.
I agree. Plato’s dialogues can be interpreted on different levels.
The method of multi-layered interpretation was widely practiced by Greek philosophers who identified several levels of meaning, (1) literal (logos), (2) moral (nomos, typos or doxa) and (3) allegorical (hyponoia) and often applied it to Homer and other poets.
Interestingly, in the Indian tradition we find a parallel to Plato’s Tripartite City in Tripura (literally, “Three Cities”) that can refer to a legendary tripartite city existing in the sky, air and on earth, as well as to the three states of consciousness, waking, dreaming, and deep sleep (or three aspects of the soul), etc.
Tripura Rahasya - Wikipedia
A little further on in Theages, you find the often-quoted statement:
According to McEvilly, The Shape of Ancient Thought Socrates and Plato both practice asceticism; there are various accounts of Socrates standing still in apparent trance for hours on end, oblivious to the jeers of those around him, listening to his daimon. The Phaedo, as has been discussed elsewhere, urges indifference towards sensual pleasures and overcoming attachment to the body. McEvilly compares many of these sections with corresponding passages in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and the Upani?ads, arguing that there was a kind of pan-cultura form of asceticism which is found in both Greek and Indian sources. He says that the accepted view is that in his later dialogues Plato moderates the asceticism of the Phaedo, but he gives examples of how it is a thread running through the later dialogues. In them, what is being sought is not knowledge of the arts and sciences, but liberation from the round of birth and death - nearer in meaning to the 'vidya' of the Upani?ads.
(I can't do justice to McEvilly's book, it is about 700 densely-footnoted pages, all based on primary texts, but worth knowing about.)
The idea of a sage as ignorant or a fool is a common one. Lao Tzu includes several instances in the Tao Te Ching:
Verse 19
[i]Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge,
People will be profited a hundredfold...
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood,
Reduce your sense of self (szu) and lessen your desires.[/i]
Verse 71
[i]From knowing to not knowing
This is superior.
From not knowing to knowing,
This is sickness.[/i]
Verse 81
[i]Truthful words (yen) are not beautiful,
Beautiful words are not truthful.
The good does not distinguish,
One who distinguishes is not good.
One who knows does not accumulate knowledge,
One who accumulates knowledge does not know.[/i]
Ellen Marie Chen translations.
Correct. There are definitely close parallels between Ancient Greek and Indic philosophical thought.
At any rate, Socrates does speak of the “loosing”, or “setting free” (lysis, apolysis) of the soul and this is intimately connected with knowledge or wisdom (phronesis) as in the Phaedo:
But I think that quite aside from liberation from the cycle of birth and death, Socrates' primary concern is liberation from ignorance.
The problem is that modern culture has no equivalent term for that kind of knowledge, and because of its association with religious modes of consciousness, it can only be treated as belief. This came up again and again in the thread on the Phaedo.
Good point. This reminds one of the court jesters of European aristocrats and kings.
I suppose in the old days you sometimes had no choice but to pretend to be a fool. When there were men armed with sharp swords around, one wrong word could cost you your head.
And, of course, there are times when the whole world seems to be mad and you are the only sane person around :smile:
As St Anthony the Great (251–356 AD) once said:
I totally agree. But Greeks were practical people. Socrates' main concern seems to be liberation from ignorance in this life, a bit like the Buddha or the jivanmukta, "liberated in life" of Hindu tradition.
If knowledge or wisdom liberates you from other things in the afterlife, should there be one, then even better. But the philosopher's aim is, as far as possible, to get that knowledge or wisdom now.
Yes, I think he knew human nature very well. Apparently, more than some people were comfortable with ....
JTB (knowledege)
S knows P IFF
1. P is true
2. P is justified
3. S believes P
So, Socrates claiming "I know nothing" means, for all propositions Q,
Q is false OR Q is unjustified OR Socrates doesn't believe Q.
4. Q is false: Violation of the law of contradiction as both a proposition and its negation are false. Non viable.
5. Q is unjustified: Agrippa's trilemma that there are no good justifications; self-contradictory. Non viable.
6. Socrates doesn't believe Q: When does someone not believe anything? When, inter alia, that person thinks everything is a lie but that takes us back to 4. Q is false and that all propositions are false, instantly violating the law of noncontradiction. Non viable.
"I know nothing" leads to contradictions! Thus, Socrates (highly likely that he's aware of this and is deliberately going round Jack Robinson's barn) means to say "I know something." Socrates knew that...??? :chin:
I guess Socrates wants to tell us that there are true propositions out there (see 4, 6) and that justification, logic, isn't self-refuting (see 5). That's what he knew! Deus ex machina to rescue us from skepticism and ironically, the statement that he makes, "I know nothing" is precisely the skeptic's advertising slogan. Odd!
Good point. I think that justified true belief certainly constitutes a form of knowledge for Socrates.
But what he tends to call knowledge as such is obtained through thought (dianoia) and insight (noesis) that result in episteme and gnosis, respectively.
He contrasts this with conjecture (eikasia) and belief (pistis) that amount collectively to opinion (doxa).
"Justified true belief" would be a form of temporarily right opinion (orthe doxa or pistis) that may serve as knowledge in the absence of higher forms of knowledge but is not quite the same as episteme and gnosis.
Fascinating, this is what I would like to call in the fake zone - when you can't get the original, make do with a fake!
Yep, it might even come cheaper and leave you some extra pocket money for other things .... :grin:
I could use some extra money right now but that's beside the point. Something is better than nothing attitude, eh? Why then is it that, to my reckoning, to misunderstand is worse than to not understand? Socrates: To know that I don't know is better than to think you know when you actually don't know. :chin:
I realized that there are two kinds of people:
1. Those who either speak the truth or say interesting things.
2. Those who either speak falsehoods are say uninteresting things.
True, we need to get it right but if that's a tall order, say something interesting. It's not always about finding the truth, it's also about making life exciting and colorful. If all goes well, the best-case-scenario is interesting truths but hey we can't have it all, can we?
Don't misinterpret the fool/ignorance theme. The fool really did see things others didn't because he wasn't tied to the accepted creed. Fools were often cripples who were looked down on and ridiculed. They were also the only ones who could dare to confront the King because no one respected them or their ideas and they were comedians. It is my understanding that being a fool was a dangerous profession.
The theme of ignorance in the Tao Te Ching sometimes described an active rejection or surrender of knowledge in order to see a deeper truth. I'm haven't read a lot of Greek philosophers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Socrates was talking about. After all, like some fools, he was put to death. Does that make sense in context:
It simply can't. Interesting?
:fire: As once I said, ideas enslave as much as they emancipate. Ideas/beliefs/philosophies/etc. are the proverbial gilded cage - it's luxurious, yes, but it's a prison and let's face it, prisons are sometimes spacious waiting rooms that open into the execution chamber.
Quoting T Clark
Spot on! Yet, some say, justifiably, things like, "he was too smart for his own good." What's up with that?
Quoting T Clark
So, Socrates was, in that sense - courting death with a passion matching Romeo's and Juliet's - the quintessential idiot!
Socrates cared about life, that's why wisdom mattered to him. Fortunately or not, to make wisdom a life goal meant he had to stop caring about crossing the river Styx but then, if he didn't mind a visit from the Grim Reaper, he didn't give jack shit about life. Thus, in a sense, life was of utmost importance to Socrates but also, it was not! Another Socratic paradox for you to mull over.
Very interesting, you seem to have turned the whole issue of human knowledge vis-à-vis Socrates into a rather unique though not-so-convincing argument for God. Frankly, I fail to see how God matters to epistemology unless your intention is to bring up the so-called God of the gaps idea or God's alleged omniscience and use that as a springboard to make an argument.
Go on...
I still didn't get it. There's merit wherever there's irony. Can you dumb down your argument from epistemic irony for God so that I too may see what you seem to have seen. Thanks in advance!
Just think about this. Einstein thought the universe is deterministic on the grounds that God dont play dice. So God matters.
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Apollodorus
These conflicting ideas: of the prohibition on ourself (our ego, which would urge us to act), by ourselves, that binds us, in chains, corrupted by our body (politic), or that traps us, in a cave, turned from our truth; and: of the freedom to act, but only if necessitated, from outside ourselves (beside ourselves Thoreau says; our next self Emerson echoes), as an attitude (a chosen position) to our expressions that keeps in mind the end (or death) of the passive reception of our open-ended intuition, because a word is a kind of violence, which kills (the other aspect) as much as it births, so we only speak if we must, if our duty requires it (that Arjuna kill his brother, that Emerson shun his mother and father). Wittgenstein, in the Tractatus, definitively makes statements, seemingly factually. But there is also a feeling of extreme restraint, as if he is reluctant to speak (too humble to say "I know") unless he is absolutely certain. Now our understanding from at least the Enlightenment has been that knowledge is that of which we are logically, rationally, validly, emperically certain, but what if our soul is voiced (made "I am!") only when we are certain of ourselves, confident that we have settled the terms of our act, not ignoring its implications, but fated to its consequences, willing to be held responsible, to appear foolish or arrogant or insane, resolved to answer for our need to act, even with our death.
Non sequitur!
Its very relevant to the discussion. If God cant create pure randomness then this has implications for QM.
Non sequitur because Cheshire was trying to use an irony, something that gets my juices flowing, in re epistemology, to prove God. What you said has no relevance to that unless...I'm mistaken and you have a card up your sleeve.
Show me the irony!
Does it get your adverse juices flowing? I guess yes. I cant see the irony in what I said. God didnt like pure chance. In fact he couldnt even imagine it! Thats why he created hidden variables.
No irony, no deal!
Now I WAS ironic!
Sorry, fail! No irony detected!
Dont you think this is ironic.
No, nothing surprising/out of the ordinary/counter-intuitive going on.
Then you have to admit that God HAS an influence on epistemology.
Why? That's what theists would do. I could be an atheist. Good day. I'm all out.
Nontheless it was a nice polemic. And eventough God and the gods are there I prefer not to gove a goddamne thing about them. Insofar Im concerned they are dead. I use him only for interpreting QM, which he or they created.
What would they do? Make you admit?
[quote=KDT]I'm fed up with your questions![/quote]
That's a compliment by the way.
I'm too tired to fight back! You win!
When you have regained strong awakeness you can return. I now understand.
Well, apparently, it continues to be a cause of consternation to some.
Who is KDT?
Correct.
However, what Socrates means by "right opinion" (orthe doxa) is, for example, if you knew the way to Larisa (the city where Meno was born) without yourself having traveled there, but from being told by someone who has personal knowledge of the way.
This kind of opinion would not be mere uninformed opinion but right opinion and may serve as right guidance (orthe hegesia) as a basis of right action (Meno 97b).
See also Knowledge and Opinion in Plato's Meno
Well thank you. Though it's not very analytic of me, all the imagery made me think along those lines. I'm happy to draw out or cite any of the analogy/metaphors.
Quoting Wayfarer
I was mirroring that sentiment in saying, roughly, we impose the criteria for certainty on knowledge, such as universality, predictability, predetermination, abstraction, etc. I feel as if interpreting Plato's forms as metaphysical lost Socrates method, ambition, and aspiration for virtue rather than our modern idea of knowledge.
Quoting Wayfarer
I would offer that the culprit is the desire for the outcome (certainty) that science provides, that the same outcome can be reached by anyone, so not only does it have nothing to do with our interests and commitments, but the process does nothing to make us a better person.
In a sense, that is the message of Taoism.
Socrates is a skeptic and fallibilist. "Know Thyself" implies 'to know that one does not know' with complete certainty and therefore always having to learn (especially when one is the teacher). I think Socrates functions only as an exemplar, but not an avatar (like e.g. Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus).
Expand a little please.
It isn't just fools that are put to death. But it does make sense. Obviously, we can only guess what really was going through his mind. In a way, it may be said that he was at once foolish and wise. Maybe a certain amount of "foolishness" or what appears to be such is needed in order to be truly wise.
It may well imply that. But I think there must be more to true self-knowledge than apparent absence of complete certainty.
Around 400 bc life was very different
It is more likely that survival came with many near death experiences.
Therefore recognition of eminent demise was his only true knowledge,
unless you question your own existence, which he did.
Of course the possibility is always there, at least theoretically. But presumably, increased self-knowledge is accompanied by greater certainty. Otherwise, "Know Thyself" remains an unattainable goal.
Or infinite task (i.e. the journey is the destination). A philosophos (seeker) is not a sophos (sage).
Well, according to Socrates, the only true sophos is God. But if the philosopher's goal is to become a sophos, then there must be greater self-knowledge and certainty along the way (at least in respect to some things). Otherwise, there is no progress.
The difference between an exemplar and an avatar..
Thanks.
The way I see it JTB is more like a Stoic idea and is not the best approach to understand Socrates and Plato.
We must not forget that for Plato true knowledge is not about some propositions, but about Ideas or Forms.
Does anyone still think that JTB is a useful way of thinking about knowledge?
Spot on! (I should mention this book, The Blind Spot, by William Byers. It is exactly about this point. I went and ferreted it out from an obscure branch of my University library some years ago, unfortunately I found it very hard to understand, but the abstract and summaries speak volumes.)
. Is that to say true knowledge is internalizing propositional truth into some refined state or knowledge is about a system/method/mode of thought?
Probably not too many. Certainly not Platonists.
Well, Socrates/Plato distinguishes between (1) discursive, propositional knowledge relating to thought (dianoia) and (2) nondiscursive, nonpropositional knowledge relating to intellect (nous).
(1) can be conveyed directly, through textual constructions that are addressed to and processed by discursive thought (dianoia).
In contrast, (2) nondiscursive, nonpropositional knowledge, is pre-predicative, i.e., logically prior to propositions and can only be conveyed indirectly, by means that address, and are processed by, our intuitive or contemplative faculty, viz., the nous.
Platonic knowledge proper (noesis or gnosis) has the Forms as its objects, therefore it is nonpropositional and is above JTB which is roughly at the level of Plato's right opinion (orthe doxa).
See also the end part of the OP.
There's a discussion of that in Theaetetus, under the heading of ''Knowledge is True Judgement with an Account" - you can find a summary here.
There are endless debates on this forum about justified true belief, sometimes it's hard to judge what makes it such an elusive topic. I think something to bear in mind is that Socrates is very much concerned with 'the human condition', or maybe even you could say 'the human predicament' - with very fundamental questions about truth, beauty, justice, courage, and so on, which by their very nature are much harder to pin down than detailed knowledge of some area of expertise.
I whine and complain about the needless tangle of words with which western philosophy ties up important philosophical issues. None is sillier or more misleading than justified true belief. I have been accused of being a pragmatist, someone who believes that philosophy has to reflect how people live their lives and make decisions. I also believe that epistemology has to be constrained by human nature. JTB ignores both of these principles completely.
Ok, ok. Sorry. I promised myself I wouldn't let my comments lead into a discussion of this issue, which isn't really relevant to the subject in the OP.
:clap: :100:
Just someone I overheard.
Catu?ko?i
[quote=Wikipedia]??nyat? (emptiness) is the ninth 'view' (Sanskrit: d???i), the viewless view, a superposition of the eight possible arrays of proposition P [and its 'inseparable contradistinction' (Sanskrit: apoha)].[/quote]
The idea is not to get trapped in system (of beliefs). Supposedly, this is the so-called madhyamaka (the middle path) in Buddhism. @Wayfarer might be able to clarify the matter further.
Speaking for myself, nec caput nec pedes! It's all Greek to me!
Why is what T Clark said worthy of :clap: :100: ?
:chin:
If you ask me, the JTB definition of knowledge is perfectly acceptable in the domain of abstract philosophy wherein you axiomatize. However, in the empirical domain, falsifiability is the right way to do one's business. What say you?
No thanks. After having read one book of him and his falsificationism I have grown up. All his books, I can say without actually having read them, will be a waste of my time. Now Im a big fan of wasting my time (I saw it written somewhere here that this is better than let time waste you). Or my time being wasted. But his three worlds combined with falsificationism I will not let again do that. The book tries to catch science in a pseudo scientific way. It offers a picture of how science should be and Popper's method of doing science rings true only in an artificial world. This world contains obedient slaves of Popper only and these slaves think and act in accordance with the great leader to construct and maintaining exactly the world he describes in his book. Science would die slowly. So the advice to read Popper is a bad one. Unless you are interested in his wicked ways and need an antropological subject matter...
Im not sure what merit(s) made him a "Sir" in the UK. I can think of something but that's quite inappropiate to mention on a philosophy site.
Quoting Prishon. :up:
Physicists on Popper:
There's a lot of literature on the possible influences between Madhyamaka and Pyrrho of Elis. There's quite a good wikipedia entry on it here.
The radical nature of this 'suspension of judgement' needs to be noticed, however. In later life, it was said of Pyrrho:
[quote=SEP, Pyrrho;https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pyrrho/#RepPyrDemLif]Diogenes (9.62) reports Antigonus as saying that Pyrrho’s lack of trust in his senses led him to ignore precipices, oncoming wagons and dangerous dogs, and that his friends had to follow him around to protect him from these various everyday hazards. But he then reports the dissenting verdict of Aenesidemus, according to which Pyrrho was perfectly capable of conducting himself in a sensible manner. ....Pyrrho is depicted as maintaining his calm and untroubled attitude no matter what happens to him. This extends even to extreme physical pain—he is reported not to have flinched when subjected to the horrific techniques of ancient surgery—but it also encompasses dangers such as being on a ship in a storm. (This is not to say that he did not avoid such troubles if he could, as suggested by the apocryphal stories mentioned in the previous paragraph; it is just to say that he did not lose his composure in the face of life’s inevitable hardships.) There is another aspect to this untroubled attitude as well. In numerous anecdotes Pyrrho is shown as unconcerned with adhering to the normal conventions of society; he wanders off for days on end by himself, and he performs tasks that would normally be left to social inferiors, such as housework and even washing a pig. Here, too, the suggestion is that he does not care about things that ordinary people do care about — in this case, the disapproval of others. [/quote]
Quoting 180 Proof
Hypotheses are falsifiable. Plato was concerned with what is truly knowable. His hesitancy about what ought to be regarded as knowledge, was due to hs conviction that the sensory domain lacked intrinsic reality. The Forms were the objects of perfect knowledge, because only they are perfectly intelligible. In fact, that sentiment is preserved in Galileo's 'book of nature being written in mathematics' - here he is basically referring back to the Platonic conviction of the superiority of dianoia (mathematical knowledge). However as a natural scientist, he also has to contend with the principles governing phenomena, which was not of as great a concern in Plato.
Popper's principle of falsifiability is only to distinguish theories which are theoretically empirical from those which are not, it's not in itself a statement about metaphysics. (Significant that even this principle is being questioned by some of those involved in the 'physics wars' over interpretation of string theory; see String theory vs The Popperazi, Massimo Piggliuci.)
:up:
Great video! I have watched some parts and will certainly watch the whole! I didn't know how Tegmark looked. I have always been against him. That is to say his level 1 multiverse. I am not against him anymore, but against his multiverse (at least the type 1 and 2) I am still. Popper is celebrated and off course they say nice things. But not really confirming. Its all about testability. If I were there the situation would have been different. I would offer them a possible TOE and speak against Popper... And put them to the test. For sure they must be testable. Like Popper himself.
I think they all agreed that testability is good, but that frequently comes late. It's certainly science prior to discovery of ways to test.
Yes. It takes some time to test a theory indeed. GR is still being tested. The first test was made by Edington I think. Maybe Mercury can be viewed as a test too. But thats more an observation. Testability plays a role. A huge role in fact. Who does not want his theories to be tested? I know I would! This can off course be contested. Again, great video. Im curious what that first guy has to say about the beginning (of the universe). Thanks again.
This is both funny and somber. Funny because no one in faer right mind would ignore danger like Pyrrho is said to have done and somber because here was a man who practiced what he preached.
Jokes aside, what do you make of a philosophy (Pyrrhonism) that can induce such a transformation in someone who takes the idea (that) seriously?
It appears that despite the similarities between Buddhism and Pyrrhonism, Buddhism is less radical than Pyrrhonism in its general attitude towards life and reality.
:up:
I can see where "making sense" has its origin now. "Sensible" just means to rely on your senses. Thw two remind me of Plato and Aristotle (also P&A).
Gotcha. No sense in troubling yourself with what apparently you don't or can't understand. (I recommended multiple thinkers to corroborate one another as well as to provide more than one source that someone might get hung-up on.) But hey, I won't waste anymore of your incorrigibly precious time. :roll:
Noooo! Not now! Pleaeaease. Im tired and need some sleeeep... :smile:
But I'll be back. To getcha
I don't know how exactly to phrase this but haven't you answered your own question?
I understand philosophy, not in the sense just the academic discipline but inclusive of all epistemologically charged discourse, whether self-reflective or otherwise, as a game but not merely as a game, that involves exploration from what is essentially uncertainty as encapsulated in the disjunction p v ~p, for any and all propositions p. This, I hold, is the skeptic's calling card.
Given this is so, justification is a cornerstone with belief being optional for knowledge.
However, you've stated a position that I'm, for better or worse, unfamiliar with. To remedy this rather disconcerting state of affairs, I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.
‘Radical’ means ‘from the root’. Both are radical philosophies. Buddhism was and is a radical philosophy, although it’s been thoroughly domesticated in some ways by thousands of years of acculturation. But in its original setting, it was a strictly renunciate movement - joining the Buddhist order meant literally giving away everything. And the Greek cynics and sceptics were also ascetic in that respect. Wasn’t it Diogenes the cynic who lived in an abandoned water tank on the outskirts of the town? Who, when approached by Alexander the Great, and asked what in the world he, Emperor, could offer him, got the reply ‘just stand to one side, you’re blocking my sun’?
As the article says, many of those anecdotes about Pyrrho are apocryphal, but ancient literature is like that. Stories are selected to make a rhetorical point. If they weren’t remarkable in some way, then they wouldn’t be remarked on. They’re illustrative.
I suppose, from a philosophical perspective, what is interesting about both of those sources, is that they put scepticism in a different perspective. They’re not sceptical in the sense that we understand the term, but sceptical about what we ourselves regard as the indubitable realities of our own experience. It’s actually pretty scary.
You can say that again!
It appears that few or no people ever practice what they preach because deep down they know their philosophies can't be tranlsated into deeds. Thoughts - go hog-wild; words - be careful; deeds - caution, danger! Isn't that somehow thought-provoking?
What question are you talking about? My previous post was in reply to you advocating "JTB", Fool, which I thiink does not apply to (formal, scientific or experiential-doxic forms of knowledge).
Read (don't skim) my previous post, it's there right smack in the middle spoon-feeding you the A, B, C's. Anything more, Fool, Google & wiki might be of some help (though no substitutes for studying e.g. Peirce & Dewey, Wittgenstein & Popper, Haack et al ... for starters).
I expect you to cut me some slack here because I can't make heads or tails of knowledge divorced from propositions that are justified and hence believed unless, of course, you mean to give the stamp of approval to mysticism and revelation both considered "knowledge" in some circles.
:lol: :ok:
Socrates demonstrated the merits of classical skepticism showing expectations of certainty aren't the products of wisdom; but for some reason people choose to struggle to establish certainty instead of critical inquiry of their own ideas. He was basically delivering Popper's critical rationalism thousands of years in advance but it was misinterpreted and dogmatically applied into absurdity. At least they let Popper live a while longer.
"'I know that I know nothing' is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. It is also called the Socratic paradox. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing
"Socrates never said this. This quote is never attributed to Socrates in any ancient sources. In fact, this quote actually comes from a source about as far from Socrates as you can possibly get; it originated in the United States in the late nineteenth century as an aphorism among evangelical Protestants."
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/07/16/fake-and-misattributed-ancient-quotes/
There are a lot of references in which this is claimed. But see, this statement-quote is supposed to be said 2,500 ago! Even if it has been actually said (e.g. we have found it in some ancient tablet or papyrus), we can't know really in which context and conditions it was said. Data from various references differ a lot between them.
However, besides all this, we must ask ourselves: "Is there some usefulness in trying to explaining this paradox-like, apparently incomprehensible statement-quote?", "Can it be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion or for explaining anything?" I, personally, can't find anything.
The Wikipedia article you are quoting explains, quite clearly in my view, that "I know that I know nothing" is a paraphrase of Socrates' original statement:
Of course it is entirely possible that Socrates and Plato never existed and never said anything. However, as far as I am aware, this is not disputed by historians or scholars.
Yes. Plato's main intention here seems to be to distinguish between different forms of thought, in particular, discursive thought (dianoia) that uses words and images, and a higher, nondiscursive form (nous) that has the ability to somehow directly grasp more abstract concepts and "metaphysical" realities.
In other words, he is trying to explain how individual human intellect can connect with a higher form of intelligence that is the source of all knowledge and all truth, i.e., "the Good".
Basically, we may identify four different aspects of intelligence:
1. Nous or "intellect" proper.
2. Logistikon, "intellectual" or "thinking" aspect.
3. Thymos or "emotional" aspect.
4. Epithymetikon or "sensual aspect".
(4) relates to sense-perceptions and basic bodily desires.
(3) relates to emotions and will-power.
(2) relates to rational thought and thinking in general.
(1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward.
(1), the nous, is that faculty of the soul by which it is supposed to contemplate and "see" the Forms. Which is why it is referred to as "the eye of the soul".
Very nicely put! I wouldnt stay unmoved, silent, and word free though. I would make contact. And shout it out! Let my thoughts give me a song.
It does take a bit of reflection, I'm afraid. But that's Plato for you :smile:
:up: :grin:
He didn't know how to walk. He didn't know how to rock and roll. He didn't know how to sleep. He didn't know how to look. He didn't know how to eat and drink. He didn't know how to love or fuck. He didn't know how to treat his mom and dad. Or his kids (if he had them). He didn't know how to kill himself. That's why that was arranged for him.
:up: I finally get it (parts of it at least). First things first, for the reason that empirical claims, being inductive logic at work and thus probabilistic, can never be proven. In other words, for a proposition p, p is impossible to demonstrate and so, Popper thought, the only reasonable course of action is to prove ~p (falsificationism). Realizing I can't know I'm right, at least let me find out if I'm wrong. A gold star for Popper for this amazing insight but, as you said, Socrates, in a way, preceded him. Socrates, to me, was and always will be the first wrecking ball in the history of epistemology, the dialectical method's sole purpose being to demolish rather than bolster belief systems.
That's all I have to say at the moment. Thinking is hard!
I mentioned two references from known and standard souces. I also added that this is too old and we can never really know if it has been said or not. This does not mean however that we have to dispute everything that prominent people have said.
I have read that too, of course. But it clearly says that this is a paraphrasing. Which is one more indication that Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing". Can't you see it?
Quoting Apollodorus
This is totally ?rrelevant with the case in hand. I hope you can realize this too, on a second thought.
Quoting Apollodorus
It has never been proved that it has been said either. But I also talked about that too: "... found it in some ancient tablet or papyrus".
Finally, I ended my comment with something that was more essential than the truth about the quote itself. But you ignored it.
After all this, I suspect that you heve not actually read my comment. Because what I can see here is just a reaction to the idea that this special paradox-like statement-quote might have never been said. That's all.
Anyway, thanks for repsonding to my comment as the originator of the topic.
As far as I know, Apollodorus is the only one to have suggested that such a personal inventory is what was meant. The OP uses that personal inventory to argue against the position he imagines others are taking.
I don't think I "ignored" it. I just had no objection to it.
If I understand your comment correctly, (1) you see no "usefulness in trying to explain Socrates' statement" and (2) you don't think it "can be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion".
As a matter of fact, I agree with that. Personally, I am not trying to explain Socrates' statement as I believe that it is not meant literally (as stated in the OP), and I never use it as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion. But others may do so, hence it can be discussed by those who take an interest in the topic.
I went too far, huh? Apologies! G'day.
Correct.
One more reason why Socrates wouldn't have ever said something like that is that his arguments were always very clear and his critical thinking almost impeccable.
Quoting Apollodorus
OK, I got that. And you are right. Things have to be put in the right perspective.
Yes, McEvilly seems to be an interesting author. I don’t know if he is a historian, but he does make some valid points about Socratic and Platonic asceticism, and in particular, about parallels between Vasubandhu and Platonism:
There is no doubt that in the Ancient Greek worldview going back to Homer and probably before, language calls things into being by naming them. The poets craft images of things by calling or naming them into existence. Poetry, poiesis comes from the verb poieo, “make”, “produce”, “cause”. Hence Plato calls the Maker or Creator of the Cosmos ho Poion (Timaeus 76c).
This suggests that consciousness generates or “calls into being” things by producing “name” (onoma) and “form” (eidos) or “sound” and “sight”. Eidos, translated as “Form”, literally means “the seen”, “that which is seen”. The image that a poet creates by naming things into existence is called eidolon which is nothing but the diminutive of eidos.
The poet is a creator who creates things at human level by bringing into existence entities that are heard as names and visualized as forms. The name (onoma) and the form (eidos) of a thing do not signify a preconceived or pre-existent entity, they literally make or impart being to the thing signified. The thing owes its very existence to having a name and a form.
And what human consciousness creates at individual level, the Universal Intelligence which is the source of the Forms (and their Names) creates at cosmic level.
The dialogue of Cratylus specifically addresses the matter. Unlike the presentation of the Timaeus, Socrates offers an opinion upon it.
Interestingly, McEvilly also says:
- The Shape of Ancient Thought, p. 10.
In the Preparatio Evangelica, Eusebius writes:
That there was contact between Greece and India seems indisputable. More difficult to discern is the direction in which influence flowed and I think it is safe to assume that the interchange was far from one-way. In addition, there were other influences such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia, and India was just as receptive to outside influence as Greece IMO.
Be that as it may, the parallels are undeniable.
Why couldn't my parents name me Xenophanes? Greek names give one the impression that whoever the name belongs to is going to either say/do something awesome!
[quote=Shakespeare]A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.[/quote]
Naaah!
Could make for some awkward juxtapositions depending on the kid; "Look, Spartacus got picked last for kickball again."
Hmmm. Never say never, Never say always but Spartacus wasn't Greek was he? He was Thracian. No need to answer that question.
Thats why "Sir" Popper's philosophy is as a monstrously one-sided one, like the monstrous one and only god of Xenophanes.
Xenophanes, dinner's ready. Xenophanes isnt moved. Hes the one and only.
Which side would that be? Not saying I disagree, but what's the other side?
There ARE no other sides.
We're drifting of now. So put on your safetybelt. The going is gonna be rough and bumpy. The esoteric coloring is perceived by the esoteric class. Only for those into it. But where one member of the esoteric class sees violet the other sees green ( metaphorically). The website might be European administered but still offers a way to make a difference in lifting it up. Or puting it under pressure. Making not earlier perceived colors visible can be accomodated. The educational public system is there for the public. Who knows what the public knows or is interested in? Which color esoteric water have drunk? They all can do say or make belief. They can drink new colors. Learn new colors. The administration just administers colorblindly. I might hope. What matters is the coloring oof and the being colored. In growing evolving forms on the verging brink of a Dadaist painting. As long as the administration lets colors be administered properly we wont fell into the hands of that single-sided Xenophanesian god. That sees color nor sounds. Only the objective existence of a hard solid black space. In fact with no sides at all.