Socratic Paradox
Socratic Paradox
This paradox, as per the wiki article, is contained in the pithy expression
There's some controversy re the Socractic link but let's set that aside for a moment.
What does the statement mean?
My interpretation:
There are two claims about knowledge in the statement:
1) I know
2) I know nothing
1 is an affirmation to some kind of knowledge and 2 is a denial of ALL knowledge.
1 and 2 contradict each other and so, the paradox.
Why would, Socrates, a wise man if history is to be believed, utter a contradiction? Strangely, this contradiction is the basis of his reputation as a wise man - the Delphic Oracle declares Socrates to be the wisest on these words.
Is this really a paradox?
A. Yes
B. No
Speaking for myself, I think the answer is B. When Socrates claims
When Socrates says
A good analogy would be using numbers to count numbers. For example, take the set {3, 8, 100}. We know the numbers 3, 8, 100 but we also know there are 3 numbers in the set - this is meta-counting.
To cut to chase, Socrates is not claiming ignorance. Rather he's claiming knowledge of his ignorance.
Your views???
This paradox, as per the wiki article, is contained in the pithy expression
I know that I know nothing.
There's some controversy re the Socractic link but let's set that aside for a moment.
What does the statement mean?
My interpretation:
There are two claims about knowledge in the statement:
1) I know
2) I know nothing
1 is an affirmation to some kind of knowledge and 2 is a denial of ALL knowledge.
1 and 2 contradict each other and so, the paradox.
Why would, Socrates, a wise man if history is to be believed, utter a contradiction? Strangely, this contradiction is the basis of his reputation as a wise man - the Delphic Oracle declares Socrates to be the wisest on these words.
Is this really a paradox?
A. Yes
B. No
Speaking for myself, I think the answer is B. When Socrates claims
I know nothinghe's referring to the domain of knowledge represented by both the mental and the physical. Things like the meaning of life, virtue, morality, justice, love, and the various phenomena that occur in nature. It's quite difficult for me to make the clear cut distinction I want but bear with me.
When Socrates says
I know, he's not making a claim about ALL knowledge. He's only referring to the type of knowledge I characterized above (perhaps poorly). He's simply saying that he doesn't have a good grasp on issues like justice, virtue, morality, physical phenomena, etc. This realization is, what I'd call, meta-knowledge.
A good analogy would be using numbers to count numbers. For example, take the set {3, 8, 100}. We know the numbers 3, 8, 100 but we also know there are 3 numbers in the set - this is meta-counting.
To cut to chase, Socrates is not claiming ignorance. Rather he's claiming knowledge of his ignorance.
Your views???
Comments (53)
But I think it also has to be considered that Plato, like other ancient philosophers, seriously entertains the possibility that existence is in some fundamental sense illusory, or not what it appears, and that, therefore, he continually questions what we think we know about what exists.
I am reading Katja Vogt's Belief and Truth (although not far into it yet.) The abstract conveys the gist of the idea, although it is obviously elaborated at great length in the book. The same author also wrote the article on Ancient Scepticism in the SEP, and is an expert in these subjects.
I think the point about these philosophers, is that they really are sceptics - not the kind of 'is this my hand' scepticism, but the possibility that we all labour under some manner of deep existential illusion.
For one, Socrates had an impish approach--"Don't ask me! You're going to tell me what the deal is (and then I'm going to pwn your nonsense and demonstrate what a lunkhead you are)."
You could also just take it as saying "I don't know anything of 'substance'," where "substance" can be taken mockingly or not, perhaps undermining common beliefs about what the world was like.
Strictly speaking, it is a paradox when translated from Greek into English and given a logical reading. On a more generous reading, however, the paradox is easily resolved.
I interpret the statement as a gesture of intellectual modesty and an admission that it is difficult if not impossible to possess a complete understanding of even simple matters that is free from all error. The wisdom of the statement is situated in its functional contrast with scholarly arrogance and the tendency of people to overstate their degree of understanding and knowledge.
Socrates could have just as well said: "I never stop learning" but then it may not have seemed so profound. It's a persistent problem with wordy philosophers and philosophies. My own preference is always for clarity in simplicity.
So it would be more precise for the saying to be "I know only that I know nothing else".
Sorry I lumped all of you together in my reply but my question is generic.
How far has philosophy progressed since Socrates? Does this paradox still have meaning in modern philosophy? Are philosophical subjects still as vague and unresolved as it was back then?
Is the problem related to the territory (philosophical issues) or the tool (logic) or both?
If the Socratic Paradox still has relevance now, all philosophical works - written and spoken - seem to amount to zero.
There's been progress in technology and physical knowledge, but I how would you gauge progress in respect of the kinds of questions that Socrates was asking?
So, not much progress. Why?
Territory (philosophical subjects) or tool (logic) or both?
I think the lack of progress in philosophy has more to do with the subject. They're too complex, can't be represented mathematically, can't be experimented upon, etc.
I think the reference is to the Apology:
" ...I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know..... At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom - therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was."
Although it's also worth pointing out that he seemed to be specifically talking about certain kinds of knowledge: "I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good" and "they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q
Is he claiming knowledge of his ignorance or is it rather the case that for him claiming that you know is incoherent in the absence of knowing that you know?
Knowing how is distinct from knowing that.
'Anything really beautiful and good' is what is the subject. Artisans, too, know their craft but are mistaken in believing that they know anything 'high and good' (as @Michael notes also).
What do we suppose Socrates knows that he doesn't know, which the others think they know, but don't?
The opposite of enlightened is something like deluded
What does it mean if a person claims to be deluded? 'Course if I say I'm not deluded... that's just the type of thing you'd expect a deluded person to say.
You have the paradox backwards; there is no contradiction in knowing of oneself that one is burdened with self, but only a contradiction in knowing of oneself that one is not so burdened. The opposite of enlightened is not deluded, but burdened.
In my community, enlightened means something like, having gained wisdom or knowledge, light being an obvious metaphor (I see!). "They had an unenlightened approach to healthcare." They obviously didn't know that.
As you probably know, in religious terminology, "enlightened" is a word from Christian mysticism, used to translate a Buddhist concept. My understanding is that the real Buddhist word literally translates to "awakened." So it makes sense that they would have picked "enlightened." The Chinese likewise used Taoist words to translate Buddhism.
Id rather be asleep through all that. Wake me up before you go go.
One with people chained to the wall watching shadows, and the other with people chained to the wall who know their watching shadows.
He knows his muse his daemon, his inspiration, is on automatic, suggesting it's not really under his control.
I gave it some thought and realized that the paradox isn't so easy to solve.
The concept of meta-knowledge doesn't cut it. Meta-knowledge is, in essence, knowledge. So, the realization of ignorace is knowledge and counts as knowing something. It still contradicts ''I know nothing''.
What do we suppose Socrates knows that he doesn't know, which the others think they know, but don't?
We don't need to speculate or suppose - we are told that it is the 'beautiful and good'. Being Plato's Socrates he isn't interested in particular examples, which are relative to context and not really knowable, but in beauty and goodness themselves, which are eternal and absolute and the only proper objects of knowledge. The ignorance that Socrates ironically professes is underpinned by an entire theory. It's not a theory that stands up to too much scrutiny. But this 'I don't know' stuff is more than a mere shrug of the shoulders. It's a threat to pin listeners to the spot and harangue them until they either admit the Theory of Forms or run away to get drunk. It's the ancient Greek equivalent of the cult enthusiast who invites you to meet his friends for coffee.
It could also mean, that "Socrates" did not know, how to not to know.
Interesting. You pressed a key there. I've been wondering for sometime how one can voluntarily commit things to memory but doing the opposite isn't possible. We can't wilfully forget, can we?
complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash_(computing)
Hi Vajk, good thought, but I think his daemon only guides him in conversations with others, in his relationship with others, in this sense it belongs to the conversation and it is not entirely his.
"And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.”
*The Greeks of Plato's time did not have a concept of Will separate from that of knowing. That only arrives on the scene with the Stoics.
I agree with this, the other part...so what?
"But
the most absurd thing of all is that one cannot even get to
know their names or say who they were-except perhaps
one who happens to be a comic playwright. * The ones who
have persuaded you by malicious slander, and also some
who persuade others because they have been persuaded
themselves, are all very hard to deal with: one cannot put
any of them on the stand here in court, or cross-examine
anybody, but [b]one must literally engage in a sort of shadowboxing
to defend oneself, and cross-examine without anyone
to answer[/b]."
That's unfair to the written word. I believe, in some way, it's all about information. It's not my idea but I read a book (sorry can't remember which) that information began as hard-coded in our DNA and then the brain evolved memory which, in turn, led to the evolution of computer memory. I think it's not that people don't want to remember. Rather they simply can't remember it all.
Another thing I want to say is you, knowingly(?), put up an EXIT sign outside the philosophy depatment. I call it anti-philosophy, a rejection, may be even disdain, for knowledge, reason and wisdom. Given that there's no meaning to life, in other words life lacks that essence we seek, there's no reason to turn one's back on philosophy - forget truths, reject rationality and become an idiot or even go insane.
Quoting Mitchell
Thank you so much for the clarification.
I told You, before I was born I have heard a voice:
It sad: Nem hihetsz semmiben. (Hungarian) it could mean that: I shall not belive in anything and it could also mean that I shall not belive in Nothing. And I started to laugh, and while I was laughing i have born, and still laughing.
I see "things" differently I see "points" that others not, like on that pointilist picture I linked before.
As a child, my mother used to call me Vajki, so when I started to think in Hungarian about who I realy am.I formed a question: Vaj ki lehetek?(hungarian) it means Who may I'll be?
I think you're on the right track. I wonder if we can paraphrase Socrates as saying, "I don't go around pretending to know things that I don't know."
Quoting anonymous66
It's so complex. My head hurts and I just want to give up the search for anything philosophy claims is worthwhile. I don't want to turn East and pray to Mecca. I want to go West, away from everything people say is valuable. Strangely, I know I'll end up in Mecca because the world is round.
I can relate. I was really enjoying philosophy until recently when I heard some lectures on the topic of truth. Now whenever I think about the various theories of truth my head starts to hurt.
I suspect I'll get over it. (I've had similar experiences with other topics).
Maybe you're trying to hard. Just go where you feel like going. Trust your intuition and your instincts.
(Y)
Does anybody have a citation for this quote? Which text it was claimed to have been said in?
Wikipedia
He comes very close to this formulation several times at the beginning of the Apology, ex: 21d.
Very interesting, thank you.
I guess it is a very similar sentiment, but the actual quote seems a bit more up for interpretation.
It seems to me if we want to reword it, a more accurate version would be "I do not believe that I know what I do not know." Which doesn't appear paradoxical to me.
It's possible there's more to consider in regards to what exactly he meant by "fancy", and comparing translations would likely help. I have two or three different translations of the Apology at home, but unfortunately I am away at the moment.
Either way, though, I think the original inaccurate quote is still a good sentiment. It does depend on one's thoughts about epistemology, though. Personally, I believe Descartes was right in his claim that the only thing i can be certain of is that I exist. Everything else requires varying degrees of faith, and so cannot be said to be "knowledge" in the true sense, because I believe knowledge implies certainty. And "the only thing i know is that I know nothing" is a poetic--if not paradoxical--way to express that.
No, not paradoxical, but I wonder if Plato/Socrates would agree. In his Meno Socrates talks about true belief, and he worries about the stability of its foundation. If you look at his geometrical proof with the slave boy, Socrates leads to boy to a correct understanding by showing the path and helping the boy to walk down it, enabling him to reason out to the correct answer. That 'reasoning out' I think is an example of anamnesis, active recollection of truths inside us, versus his myth of previous lives as passive mneme, memories.
Descartes accomplished an amazing epistemological feat but it seems to put us in a very difficult, dualistic position, one that we can't easily escape of if we maintain his position. His position entails that we can't know other minds, or anything outside our own minds with certainly.
It's been a while since I studied Meno, but I do believe the concept was that we all possess innate knowledge, not from a past life, but placed into our minds at our conception.
Quoting Cavacava
I agree that it puts us in a difficult position in that regard, but I still can't help but agree with him. I just don't see how we could possibly say we know anything else with certainty, and I've never seen a convincing enough argument to change my mind.