Socratic Paradox

TheMadFool

Socratic Paradox

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 nothing

he'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???

Wayfarer

I think you're on the right track. The point as I understand it is that throughout the Platonic dialogues, one of the major themes is the nature of knowledge, and how, or if, we really know what we think we know. A good number of the dialogues contain episodes where Socrates will challenge something that a person says they know, and show that really they don't know what they think they do. And also, as you say, many of the questions concern elusive qualities, such as virtue, justice, and courage, which are very hard to define, even for those who may possess some of them.

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.

Terrapin Station

The only problem is trying to parse it as a bit of formal logic. Philosophy frequently gets itself into a lot of trouble by at least pretending to be an Aspie (if indeed many philosophers haven't been Aspies).

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.

geospiza

I know that I know nothing

Is this really a paradox?

A. Yes

B. No — TheMadFool

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.

Rich

Words and sentences are strictly a string of symbols that may communicate an interesting new idea or not. A paradox of words does not necessarily communicate a paradox of experience. In this case we have a string of words that communicates nothing. The author should have offered more clarity. One lesson in life is that simply because some person had been elevated to some stature by some group of people doesn't mean that every sentence they offer must be cherished. Sometimes humans just love to create idols out of humans.

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.

Pierre-Normand

↪TheMadFool

Your solution is quite similar to Russell's way to deal with the analogous instance of the Liar Paradox (Russell's paradox) that arose from attempts to realize the logicist program in the foundations of set theory (and of arithmetic). He devised the theories of types in order to solve the problem. In that case, the proposed solutions seem somewhat arbitrary and artificial. But in the case of your own solution, it seems to be more to the point since it is such a natural reading of the intent of Socrates' assertion.

Michael

There's no record of Socrates ever saying that. The closest thing we have to that quote is Diogenes Laërtius saying that Socrates used to say "that he knew nothing except that he knew that very fact".

So it would be more precise for the saying to be "I know only that I know nothing else".

TheMadFool

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.

Wayfarer

How far has philosophy progressed since Socrates? Does this paradox still have meaning in modern philosophy? — TheMadFool

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?

TheMadFool

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? — Wayfarer

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.

Cuthbert

↪Michael

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."

Michael

↪Cuthbert

From that passage the closest we have to the quote "I know that I know nothing" is either "I neither know nor think that I know" or "I was conscious that I knew nothing at all". Which isn't really any different to saying "I don't know". Not a contradiction by any means.

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".

Vajk

↪TheMadFool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q

Janus

Apparently that quote does not appear in Plato's writings. In any case, it's not a paradox if it says 'there is only one thing I know, and that is that I know nothing apart from that one thing'.

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?

Vajk

Did he knew how to argue or not?! :)

Janus

↪Vajk

Knowing how is distinct from knowing that.

Vajk

Do I know if I argue or not?

Wayfarer

...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...

Socrates — Cuthbert

'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?

unenlightened

Doubt is knowledge the way atheism is a religion.

Mongrel

Notice the same paradox surrounds the handle of the previous poster.

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.

Rich

↪TheMadFool

There has been much evolution in understanding the nature of human existence, just not in the mainstream. It takes exploration outside of the common path to begin to understand how much had evolved. In a way, the ancients had it right but their ideas have been remolded and given different shape.

Cavacava

↪Mongrel

He did not identify ignorance with madness, but not to know oneself and to presume one knows what one doesn't know, he put next to madness. (Xenophon, Memories of Socrates iii, 9, 6, tr. Marchant)

unenlightened

Notice the same paradox surrounds the handle of the previous poster.

The opposite of enlightened is something like deluded — Mongrel

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.

Mongrel

↪unenlightened

If you say that's how people use the word in your language community, I'll just have to trust that. In that case, I'd guess there's never been a reasonable claim of enlightenment among your crowd. So... does anybody actually use that word in your community?

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.

Wosret

I am just normal. When i make claims of my specialness theyre hyperbolic on purpose, to mock that attitude. Slaves and tyrants make the lamest of companions, and are in constant competition and battle attempting to climb maintain or kick someone off of the ol pyramid of dominance. Theyre full of strategies, tactics, worries and fears. They blind themselves and others in the name of progress or the better way, and all that.

Id rather be asleep through all that. Wake me up before you go go.

Wosret

You know what was great? Osaka on azumanga daioh's dream. In japan dreaming of mount fugi, a crane, or an eggplant on new years signifies good luck. So it shows her with a cane in one hand, an eggplant in the other and mount fugi in the background and she says "awaken". Thats what im always reminded of when i think of that.

Cavacava

I think there are two caves.

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.

TheMadFool

@Wosret @Cavacava

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''.

Cuthbert

↪Wayfarer

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.

Vajk

↪TheMadFool

It could also mean, that "Socrates" did not know, how to not to know.

Oliver Purvis

Could it rephrased as a negation as per Korzybski? I'm thinking rather than the paradox of knowing/not knowing which seems like a semantic muddle, isn't the gist of the thought something like 'what I have is not knowledge'? As the semanticists say, what I say something is, is not. So I can't say 'this is knowledge' but I can meaningfully say it is not knowledge.

Socratic Paradox

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions