But what Socrates says there is not at all equivalent to "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing". The simple fact is that Socrates never said it.

Until this thread, I did not question the importance of studying past philosophers and getting a college's stamp of approval validating we are philosophers. While participating in the thread I have come to wonder if a lot of that past philosophy taught in college classes has relevance to us today? We have serious global problems and what value does philosophy have if it does not help us resolve those problems? But perhaps we need to ask new questions that are relevant to today? What are the best economic choices we can make? What political choices should we make about working with the rest of the world? Should we mind our business when people are being killed or should we get involved? If we should get involved, how should we get involved? What are the best philosophers we can read to answer today's questions? — Athena

Simone Weil Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.

The opinions concerning the economic situation are all well known and part of cave life. The value of real philosophy is exposing the human condition for what it is and opening one to the possibility for leaving the cave.

But what Socrates says there is not at all equivalent to "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing". The simple fact is that Socrates never said it. — Bartricks

Would you be so kind as to draw a distinction with a relevant difference between what Nickolas said and that which is attributed to Socrates which apparently he never said? How are the two "not at all equivalent"? Thanks.

The only thing in your post I have experience with is developing public policy. The year I took public policy classes was the most depressing year of my life. The focus on being cost-effective is of course a government concern, but I did not see how it included the cost of ignoring problems, such as ignoring the drug problem as long as it stayed in the racially created ghettos. And then there is the problem of social research. By the time a problem is narrowed down enough to become a question that can be studied, the result symbols reality as much as a plastic-wrapped steak resembles the animal it came from. Like so much was missing that I lost hope of government fixing anything.

Then came the realization only those properly processed through college education would get a bureaucratic job or sit in the seats of power. Their vision of the world is their college education and that education was so lacking it wasn't teaching them about life. Or it could have just my professor who would only accept information that came from the abstracts in the last ten years.

I have to run- bottom line, I saw a lot wrong with education and the preparation of students. Your book sounds very interesting!

Well, for one thing he does not claim to know nothing. His point is that knowing that you do not know a particular thing makes one wiser than someone who does not realize that they do not know it. Why? Well, because that view is true.
By contrast someone who believes they know they know nothing has a false view. For if they 'know' that they know nothing then they know something, not nothing.
So only someone lacking in wisdom but loving of maxims would say "the only true wisdom is knowing one knows nothing". And that's not Socrates.

Anyway, the ultimate concern for me is to lay out a better way of figuring out what to do, especially in matters that affect all of us, than what we currently have; in precisely the same way that modern physical sciences are evidently better ways to tell what the world is actually like than religion was. — Pfhorrest

Since philosophy concerns generalities – "how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term" (Sellars) – I find 'how we (ought to) do' more adequate to philosophical inquiry than 'what we (ought to) do', but maybe your project will break new ground.

His point is that knowing that you do not know a particular thing makes one wiser than someone who does not realize that they do not know it. — Bartricks

So when you say "The simple fact is that Socrates never said it", what you really meant to say is that we have no evidence that he said it, nor would he have said it if he were wise.

Would one not be be wiser to admit they don't know that Socrates didn't say something?

No, it is a fact that that 'quote' is not a quote from Socrates. It's just made up.
I believe Socrates never uttered those words. I am very well justified in that belief. And if - as it is - it is also true that he never said them, then I know that he never said them. If I thought I knew that I didn't know whether he said them or not I would be unwise, not wise. It is not wise to disbelieve something under circumstances where believing it would give you knowledge.

In my opinion, you run afoul of the admonition that you agree is wise. You said "His point is that knowing that you do not know a particular thing makes one wiser than someone who does not realize that they do not know it." Yet you claim to know what you do not know. You jump from that which you allege to be a fact, to an admission that it is merely your belief, and that you think your belief is well founded. Then you jump back to the truth of it as proof that he never said it.

If I thought I knew that I didn't know whether he said them or not I would be unwise, not wise. It is not wise to disbelieve something under circumstances where believing it would give you knowledge. — Bartricks

I believe you would be very wise to know that you do not know what Socrates did not say. It's not a matter of you knowing that you don't know. It's that you don't know. You weren't there and you have not kept a record of every word uttered by Socrates. You have not received knowledge by claiming you know something you do not know. Quite the contrary. It is unwise to do so.

To assume you know Socrates never said something when you have no proof that he did not, makes your "belief" no better than a lover of maxims. It is assumed Socrates was wise. That does not mean he didn't say something that you don't know he did not say.

Question begging. And like so many others you confuse Socrates' position with that of a radical sceptic.
Again, "to disbelieve something under circumstances where believing it would give you knowledge is the opposite of wise" (Bartricks).

What about this 'quote' from Socrates: "Where the hell is my iPhone?!"
Am I wise if I think I do not know whether he said that or not?

I think it might be wise to let you have the last word.

I do see 'standing around doing nothing' while the ship sinks as one of the dangers of the current philosophers. Also, saying we don't know anything, as discussed by a few people here, whether Socrates said it or not, doesn't seem particularly helpful. All this would seem like dismissing the philosophical quest. It seems better to try to put ideas together systematically, as you are doing.

Yes, because the answer to my question is that no, it would not be wise to think such a thing. I can and do know that "where the hell is my iphone" is not something Socrates said, even though he was perfectly able to say such a thing. And it would not be wise to think one could not know this.
The same is true in respect of "The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing". It's not something Socrates said. It's something people who have not read the Apology think he said because that's what youtube and wikipedia have told them. It's an incredibly stupid saying - it doesn't make sense - and that's sufficient to make it incredibly unreasonable to think Socrates said it. That and the fact it was just made up.

Yes, I think that it is unlikely that Socrates said that we can't know anything. Of course, we cannot know everything, but to settle for just saying that we don't know anything would seem to defeat the whole purpose of philosophy. However, our knowledge is limited and life is unpredictable.

I didn’t mean that I aim for philosophy itself to come up with answers about specifically what to do, but rather to provide a better general means of figuring out what such specific answers are. The exercise of those means would be an activity outside philosophy, just like the physical sciences are outside of philosophy but employ means that depends on philosophical conclusions about epistemology, ontology, etc.

:up: Thanks :cool:

:up: Understood.

And what about the lived (existential) implications for e.g. 'well being' or 'agency' of those philosophical relationships? (Asking for a friend. :smirk:) — 180 Proof

It is a good question and one that I find difficult to answer, because I have a rather deductive mind. For me, understanding the assumptions (theory) might lead to increased well being in practice. Is that reasonable, I do not know, but I do think that there is some sort of equivocation at play in the word philosophy. On the one hand ones own growth spriitual growth or, maybe more apt edification and the other the first principles aka metaphysics. They are linked, but just as theory and practice are linked and they are in common parlance separated. I consider that the question of existential implications belong to 'prudentia', practical wisdom. Of course prudencia and scientia are related, but at least to me, not the same thing. I feel philosophy belngs to the realm of scientia and for instance my work as a lawyer to prudentia. even though I try to take just decisions.

Of course prudencia and scientia are related, but at least to me, not the same thing. — Tobias

I very much agree. A question, I suppose, is which is the independent value and which dependent – the priority of the relation? I say "prudencia" before (with, of course, positive feedback from) "scientia". What say you?

The answer to that last question might depend on everyone's education. Ideally, in a democracy we argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, this is because, not only can it be the best way to get the best reasoning, but it is also how to get everyone to buy into that reasoning. However, the pilgrims on the MayFlower were not sailors. They were land people totally dependent on others for a safe Atlantic crossing. Under such conditions, everyone participating in the decisions is not desirable. In fact, if they had better information they probably would have refused the late-in-the-year passage to the new land. In hindsight, anyone could see the chances of their survival were made much worse by the delay in the passage. To make good decisions people need to be well informed and that is why mass education is essential to democracy. (and that is not education for technology making the young to be useful products for the industry).

Philosophy was written before mass education or it was based on the Bible and the earlier philosophies and it did not include women. I am so accustomed to males saying my posts have no value I just ignore them. It would be wonderful to replay history, with women always having equality and being as respected as males. :lol: I am sure when speaking of philosopher-kings, people are thinking of strong males who do not listen to those foolish women. I am quite sure that sends my alarms off much more than a man would be alarmed by the notion of philosopher-kings. Maybe a hundred years from now men will find value in what a woman says? It is a cultural thing. Not all cultures are so patriarchal.

.

I very much agree. A question, I suppose, is which is the independent value and which dependent – the priority of the relation? I say "prudencia" before (with, of course, positive feedback from) "scientia". What say you? — 180 Proof

Lately I have been immersed much more in the social sciences and in law than in philosophy and you see the same dichotomy over and over again. I keep holding on to the same thing here as I have in the past. The relation is dialectical, i.e. mutually constitutive. I do not see a primacy over prudentia because it might give you the right outcome but not tell you why it is the right outcome and the same goes for scientia, it might give you rules (or structures, or whatever universal) but what is a rule if there is no-one to apply it? It is a chicken and egg question. What came first? Well the process through which chickens and eggs were created. in Hegelian terms ; the movement of the concept ;) (Incidentally I now work wihat a prof who does not allow the G.W.F.' s name to be spoken aloud...)

:up: You're Kant-Hegel to my Spinoza-Camus.

What do you make of Žižek's Lacanization of Hegelian Marxism? (Sorry :yikes: ...well, not really :smirk:)

I highly recommend

Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot. — 180 Proof

Some notes on Hadot from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing. To cultivate philosophical discourse or writing without connection to such a transformed ethical comportment was, for the ancients, to be as a rhetorician or a sophist, not a philosopher. However, according to Hadot, with the advent of the Christian era and the eventual outlawing, in 529 C.E., of the ancient philosophical schools, philosophy conceived of as a bios largely disappeared from the West. Its spiritual practices were integrated into, and adapted by, forms of Christian monasticism. The philosophers’ dialectical techniques and metaphysical views were integrated into, and subordinated, first to revealed theology and then, later, to the modern natural sciences. ....

.... According to Hadot, one became an ancient Platonist, Aristotelian, or Stoic in a manner more comparable to the twenty-first century understanding of religious conversion, rather than the way an undergraduate or graduate student chooses to accept and promote, for example, the theoretical perspectives of Nietzsche, Badiou, Davidson, or Quine.

....For Hadot, famously, the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84).

https://iep.utm.edu/hadot/

Agree with the opening line. I think analytical philosophy, typical of the English-speaking universities, is devoid of many truly philosophical insights, having reduced philosophy to a formulaic discipline of 'positions' which are almost entirely intended for an audience of specialist peers. There's a few breakout philosophers who succeed in writing for a non-specialist audience, like Alain De Bouton, Jules Evans, Mary Midgely (recently deceased), Raymond Tallis, and Thomas Nagel. And I guess Žižek has to be included because he's well-known outside academia. Can't think of many others.

The last paragraph, about the 'practices of self-mastery', is a lot like what is sometimes taught, and what should be taught, by Buddhist teaching centres, as their conception of practice amounts to something very like 'philosophy as a way of life'.

I do think that it is debatable how much thinking is good for us. One model which I think is useful is Jung's one on the four functions: feeling, sensation, intuition and thinking. He sees the development of these as being varied in individuals, with most people having one more dominant and one or more less developed. He suggests that the ideal is to have all four developed. I do believe that my most developed function is thinking and Jung suggests that it is often that if that is dominant, feeling is the less developed. I am aware that I am more likely to say 'I think' rather than 'I feel.' But, I do try to work on my emotional side and have read a few books on emotional intelligence with this aim in mind.

I imagine that people who are drawn to philosophy are probably the thinking type. I know some people who don't enjoy thinking at all, and engaging in conversations which is analytical is not something they wish to do. I find thinking enjoyable, but sometimes find it hard to switch off and I am inclined to overthink at times. I also often find it hard to get off to sleep because I can't switch off my thoughts and worries. So, it is probably about getting balance. I listen to music and, try to meditate sometimes, to try to switch off thoughts. I do think that meditation is particularly helpful, but I don't do it as often as I probably need to do it. I tend to put it off and have not really incorporated it into my regular routine. — Jack Cummins

I like the four aspects offered by Jung. Self-awareness seems very important to me and thinking of the four aspects can help us develop self-awareness. You appear to be emotionally calm and I am not sure why you would need to work your emotions? Now if you were excitable that could be something you would want to change. But contemplative and calm is a good thing.

Meditation is something we might all benefit from because our brains chatter so much and can be very fickle! But it can be hard for me to be still and meditate so I like walking or swimming while meditating. I have also found doing math helps settle my brain down and helps me focus. Sometimes I get too excited while reading and that is when turning to math is most helpful. I might go back and further between math and reading.

Personally, I use college lectures and other audio explanations of life to calm my mind and fall asleep. It has to be something interesting enough to hold my attention, especially if I am upset about something. Also, the quality of the speaker's voice is very important. I have heard so many professors who are bad speakers, that I think voice training should be mandatory for professors. I really want to know what they have to say but if their voices are irritating I can not listen for long. Long ago, a sociology professor put me to sleep every day in his class. I really wanted to hear what he had to say, so I was totally focused on his words, but his voice was so monotone it was hypnotic and I could not stay awake. :rofl: That is why I use lectures for falling asleep.

The opinions concerning the economic situation are all well known and part of cave life. The value of real philosophy is exposing the human condition for what it is and opening one to the possibility for leaving the cave. — Nikolas

Now that would be worthy of a great civilization! Poverty does not have to mean ignorance. With libraries and other resources, we can educate ourselves for free and with relatively little money we can get even more. If I am traveling, I like to read about the history of the place I will be visiting. It is really fun if the traveling is done by train and takes a few days giving me time for the reading broken with the experience of the adventure.

It is appalling that the US stopped funding public broadcasting and the stations must beg for money. This has resulted in many hours of cooking shows instead of programs that could be more worthy of our time. The mass ignorance in the US is inexcusable. I am sure we could do better. Living in the sunshine has to be better than living in the cave. Wanting to be enlightened is better than wanting to remain ignorant.

The answer to that last question might depend on everyone's education. — Athena

I agree completely, and it's no mere coincidence that my political philosophy is modeled on my philosophy of academics, and in both I treat governance as analogous to education. In my view, governance properly understood is basically a form of moral education, and it therefore needs to be founded in a properly conducted form of moral research; and in contrast, states declaring by fiat (even majoritarian fiat, i.e. democracy) that something must be just because they say so and don't you dare question it, is as backward a way of doing things as religion. States and religions both operate on the principle of "because ___ says so", and that's no way to do anything; yet we still need governance and education. We've mostly solved the question of how to educate without ever falling back on "because ___ says so"; and my project is to come up with a way to govern likewise.

I agree completely, and it's no mere coincidence that my political philosophy is modeled on my philosophy of academics, and in both I treat governance as analogous to education. In my view, governance properly understood is basically a form of moral education, and it therefore needs to be founded in a properly conducted form of moral research; and in contrast, states declaring by fiat (even majoritarian fiat, i.e. democracy) that something must be just because they say so and don't you dare question it, is as backward a way of doing things as religion. States and religions both operate on the principle of "because ___ says so", and that's no way to do anything; yet we still need governance and education. We've mostly solved the question of how to educate without ever falling back on "because ___ says so"; and my project is to come up with a way to govern likewise. — Pfhorrest

As I understand, the US modeled its education after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth. It prepared everyone for good moral judgment and for civic and political leadership. This education relied strongly on literature, the Greek and Roman classics, and hero stories from around the world. It was called a liberal education or classical education. My examination of a small selection of old textbooks indicates the classical education was Americanized. For sure American heroes replaced Greek and Roman heroes. We created an American mythology for the purpose of preparing the young, and their immigrant parents, to be good citizens. In 1958 this was replaced with the German model of education for technology, and some have seen a similarity between the past 4 years and Germany's period of the Nazi, with Hitler in power. For sure we now have the reactionary politics that Germany had and we are no longer united.

Some of us find the result of education for a technological society with unknown values; destroying the American heroes and mythology; leaving moral education to the church, very damaging to democracy in the US. So I really want to know what you are up to and what you are thinking about.

I am impressed that we are thinking of ourselves as powerful nations that have international responsibility. This demands a new philosophy because it is not equal to the personal drive for morality and personal concern for entering heaven. Our abundance today is demanding government provide us with a higher morality and we want to know our international moral role.

Science brought us into a new age. Now the power of technology and our abundance is pushing us to enter another new age.

There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people, or culture. It is only through education for a civil culture that we can have liberty.

:up: Thanks.

Online summaries often don't do justice to philosophers but that one captures Hadot's main points adequately. My own stance, or project (as I've been discussing a bit with @Pfhorrest), attempts to bring the modern analytic and existential "tools" to a (spiritual? I prefer ecstatic ...) praxis of unlearning misery (i.e. folly, stupidity) which is both a congenital species defect and, in many forms, a socialized-internalized norm. 'Academic philosophy', in the main, is a historicist and scientistic / literary slog – without exemplifying a singular way of life, or well-being – that merely catalogues specimens of reason-in-amber (or formaldehyde) at the expense of excluding, or deracinating, adjacent (e.g. non-inferential, intuitive) traditions & practices of well-being. This is where I'm confident you, Hadot & I overlap, Wayf ...

:up: (I too don’t much like the word ‘spiritual’ but there’s not many equivalents in the lexicon, I suppose ‘ecstatic’ is actually a pretty good candidate.)

So I really want to know what you are up to and what you are thinking about. — Athena

I've been doing a long series of threads about it here for over a year now, following the list of topics from my aforementioned book (which is really more a series of essays, link in my profile). The basic (abbreviated) outline of the project is:

- An overview of the definition, aims, methods, faculties, practitioners, and usefulness of philosophy, that then necessitates...

- Pragmatic arguments to adopt general principles that could be summed up as saying that there are correct answers to be had for all meaningful questions, both about reality and about morality, and that we can in principle differentiate those correct answers from the incorrect ones; and that those correct answers are not correct simply because someone decreed them so, but rather, they are independent of anyone's particular opinions, and grounded instead in our common experience.

- A groundwork philosophy of language, as well as specific aspects of its structure (math/logic) and presentation (art/rhetoric), that enable everything else that's going to come to make literal sense.

- An account of the criteria by which to judge something as real, that boils down to satisfying all sensations (observations).
- An account of the mind that has those sensations and does the judging of them.
- An account of the methods by which to apply those criteria to attain knowledge.
- An account of the social institutes to apply those methods and spread that knowledge, i.e. education.

- An account of the criteria by which to judge something as moral, that boils down to satisfying all appetites (pain/pleasure, enjoyment/suffering, etc).
- An account of the will that has those appetites and does the judging of them.
(This is where am right now on the series of threads here, though the rest are prepared already).
- An account of the methods by which to apply those criteria to attain justice.
- An account of the social institutes to apply those methods and spread that justice, i.e. governance.

- An end-cap account of how to inspire curiosity and understanding ("enlightenment") so that people will use those methods of knowledge and establish and support those educational institutions, how to inspire courage and acceptance ("empowerment") so that people will use those methods of justice and establish and support those governmental institutions, and how knowledge and justice combine to guide action in all aspects of life, and how such enlightenment and empowerment can enable us to find meaning in that life and overcome doubts and fears in the face of the apparent futility of learning or achieving anything.