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)
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)
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)
. In this subject, however, I claim to be skilled above anybody who has ever lived or is now living in the world
What he means by that ... ? — Prishon
The philosopher is not different than the ordinary person; we all have equal authority to make and accept claims. — Antony Nickles
I think [that philosophers are no different than the ordinary person] 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. — Apollodorus
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. — Antony Nickles
There is something spiritual which, by a divine dispensation, has accompanied me from my childhood up. It is a voice that, when it occurs, always indicates to me a prohibition of something I may be about to do, but never urges me on to anything; and if one of my friends consults me and the voice occurs, the same thing happens: it prohibits, and does not allow him to act.
Did Socrates really “know nothing”? — Apollodorus
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 Upaniṣads. — Wayfarer
And while we live, we shall, I think, be nearest to knowledge when we avoid, so far as possible, intercourse and communion with the body, except what is absolutely necessary, and are not filled with its nature, but keep ourselves pure from it until God himself sets us free. And in this way, freeing ourselves from the foolishness of the body and being pure, we shall, I think, be with the pure and shall know of ourselves all that is pure (67a)
The idea of a sage as ignorant or a fool is a common one. — T Clark
A time is coming when men will go mad. And when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, “You are mad, you are not like us
But ignorance is what binds you to the cycle of re-birth, so liberation from that, and liberation from ignorance, amounts to the same. — Wayfarer
I read somewhere that justified, true, belief (JTB) as knowledge originated with him — TheMadFool
serve as knowledge in the absence of higher forms of knowledge — Apollodorus
Yep, it might even come cheaper and leave you some extra pocket money for other things .... :grin: — Apollodorus
It's a little more than misunderstand I believe. I suppose knowing wrongly in the classical sense implies something to over come prior or during getting it right. There's no knee jerk reaction to guarding or defending ignorance of something. But, a well entrenched mistake can have a lifetime warranty.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: — TheMadFool
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:
— TheMadFool
It's a little more than misunderstand I believe. I suppose knowing wrongly in the classical sense implies something to over come prior or during getting it right. There's no knee jerk reaction to guarding or defending ignorance of something. But, a well entrenched mistake can have a lifetime warranty. — Cheshire
Good point. This reminds one of the court jesters of European aristocrats and kings. — Apollodorus
It's interesting because it's contrary to a JTB approach to knowledge. The same person saying it's best to avoid being wrong by not defending or owning a position is also defining knowledge as something absolute or rather something defensible with justification and belief. While casually over looking neither have a bearing on the T requirement. Justify and believe all you like but T isn't implied. Yet, credence is given for never assuming T, compared to not assuming it. The man defines knowledge as something unattainable, promotes claims of ignorance and 2000+ years of intuitional learning is spent on attaining absolute truth. How is that type of Irony able to exist in a world without a God?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?
an hour ago — TheMadFool
The fool really did see things others didn't because he wasn't tied to the accepted creed. — T Clark
being a fool was a dangerous profession. — T Clark
like some fools, he was put to death. — T Clark
It's interesting because it's contrary to a JTB approach to knowledge. The same person saying it's best to avoid being wrong by not defending or owning a position is also defining knowledge as something absolute or rather something defensible with justification and belief. While casually over looking neither have a bearing on the T requirement. Justify and believe all you like but T isn't implied. Yet, credence is given for never assuming T, compared to not assuming it. The man defines knowledge as something unattainable, promotes claims of ignorance and 2000+ years of intuitional learning is spent on attaining absolute truth. How is that type of Irony able to exist in a world without a God?
It simply can't. Interesting? — Cheshire
Testing the limits of extrapolation for the sake of public interest. The boat has indeed run ashore. — Cheshire
Frankly, I fail to see how God matters to epistemology — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.