Did Socrates really “know nothing”?

Apollodorus

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:

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.

Prishon

. 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...? :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.

Antony Nickles

Stanley Cavell makes an interesting case that Socrates is not claiming to have a special or different kind of knowledge. The Apology begins, not with a boast (claim) of Socrates, but that “ 'not mine is the story' that I will tell; rather, I will refer it to a speaker trustworthy to you. Of my wisdom, if indeed it is wisdom of any kind, and what sort of thing it is, I will offer for you as witness the god in Delphi.... Chaerephon... asked [the oracle] whether there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythia replied that no one was wiser."

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.

Apollodorus

What he means by that ... ? — Prishon

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.

Apollodorus

The philosopher is not different than the ordinary person; we all have equal authority to make and accept claims. — Antony Nickles

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.

theRiddler

I think he said he knew nothing to elevate the self-esteem of the people he spoke with. He would allow them to pontificate to "a fool" so that they themselves better understood what they DID know. And thereby he did understand love well.

Antony Nickles

↪Apollodorus

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

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.

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

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

Wayfarer

↪Apollodorus

Plato's dialogues set a very high bar for what constitutes knowledge. The Theaetetus ends in aporia, with no accepted account of what constitutes knowledge.

A little further on in Theages, you find the often-quoted statement:

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.

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 Upaniṣads, 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 Upaniṣads.

(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.)

T Clark

Did Socrates really “know nothing”? — Apollodorus

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

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.

Verse 71

From knowing to not knowing
This is superior.
From not knowing to knowing,
This is sickness.

Verse 81

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.

Ellen Marie Chen translations.

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

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:

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)

But I think that quite aside from liberation from the cycle of birth and death, Socrates' primary concern is liberation from ignorance.

Wayfarer

↪Apollodorus

But ignorance is what binds you to the cycle of re-birth, so liberation from that, and liberation from ignorance, amounts to the same.

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.

Apollodorus

The idea of a sage as ignorant or a fool is a common one. — T Clark

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:

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

Apollodorus

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 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.

Apollodorus

↪theRiddler

Yes, I think he knew human nature very well. Apparently, more than some people were comfortable with ....

TheMadFool

It all depends on what Socrates' definition of knowledge was. I read somewhere that justified, true, belief (JTB) as knowledge originated with him. So, let's run with that.

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!

Cheshire

It's seems like a comparison of two perspectives in order to make a point. Thinking you know something and being wrong about it is two mistakes. Socrates at worst just didn't know anything. It's meant to show the value of a classic skeptical position relative to over confidence or unawareness of ignorance. It is illustrative and obviously not a personal inventory of Socrates knowledge. Has this really been confusing people?

Apollodorus

I read somewhere that justified, true, belief (JTB) as knowledge originated with him — TheMadFool

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.

TheMadFool

serve as knowledge in the absence of higher forms of knowledge — Apollodorus

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!

Apollodorus

↪TheMadFool

Yep, it might even come cheaper and leave you some extra pocket money for other things .... :grin:

TheMadFool

Yep, it might even come cheaper and leave you some extra pocket money for other things .... :grin: — Apollodorus

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:

Cheshire

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.

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

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?

T Clark

Good point. This reminds one of the court jesters of European aristocrats and kings. — Apollodorus

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:

Cheshire

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

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?

TheMadFool

The fool really did see things others didn't because he wasn't tied to the accepted creed. — T Clark

: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.

being a fool was a dangerous profession. — T Clark

Spot on! Yet, some say, justifiably, things like, "he was too smart for his own good." What's up with that?

like some fools, he was put to death. — 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.

Prishon

So his knowledge about love affairs with women wasnt true knowledge? Or did he know that in fact he knew nothing about them (which I can imagine...)?

TheMadFool

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

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...

Cheshire

↪TheMadFool

Testing the limits of extrapolation for the sake of public interest. The boat has indeed run ashore.

TheMadFool

Testing the limits of extrapolation for the sake of public interest. The boat has indeed run ashore. — Cheshire

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!

Prishon

Frankly, I fail to see how God matters to epistemology — TheMadFool

Just think about this. Einstein thought the universe is deterministic on the grounds that God dont play dice. So God matters.

Did Socrates really “know nothing”?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions