Gotcha. No sense in troubling yourself with what apparently you don't or can't understand. (I recommended multiple thinkers to corroborate one another as well as to provide more than one source that someone might get hung-up on.) But hey, I won't waste anymore of your incorrigibly precious time. :roll:No thanks. After having read one book of [Popper] and his falsificationism I have grown up. All his books, I can say without actually having read them, will be a waste of my time. — Prishon
If that works for you, run with it, Fool. As I understand it, however, philosophy proposes definitions, descriptions, interpretations, criteria, methods/systems and speculations (i.e. thought-experiments, intuition pumps, etc) – noncognitive ideas – but does not determine knowledge (i.e. (A) indefeasible axiomatic systems of object / expression substitution rulesets or (B) testable explanatory models of physical transformations / regularities or (C) consistent, coherent webs of defeasible beliefs) so I don't see how "JTB" applies to philosophical discourse (pace Plato et al). In other words, knowledge denotes solutions to well-defined problems (cognitivity, theoretical); philosophy does not 'solve well-defined problems' but rather only raises (unbegged) questions – makes relevant ignorance visible – by which problems might become (at least) conceptually well-defined (noncognitivity, performative) and, therefore, solvable (knowable). — 180 Proof
Jokes aside, what do you make of a philosophy (Pyrrhonism) that can induce such a transformation in someone who takes the idea (that) seriously?
It appears that despite the similarities between Buddhism and Pyrrhonism, Buddhism is less radical than Pyrrhonism in its general attitude towards life and reality. — TheMadFool
It’s actually pretty scary. — Wayfarer
What question are you talking about? My previous post was in reply to you advocating "JTB", Fool, which I thiink does not apply to (formal, scientific or experiential-doxic forms of knowledge).I don't know how exactly to phrase this but haven't you answered your own question? — TheMadFool
Read (don't skim) my previous post, it's there right smack in the middle spoon-feeding you the A, B, C's. Anything more, Fool, Google & wiki might be of some help (though no substitutes for studying e.g. Peirce & Dewey, Wittgenstein & Popper, Haack et al ... for starters).I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.
What question are you talking about? My previous post was in reply to you advocating "JTB", Fool, which I thiink does not apply to (formal, scientific or experiential-doxic forms of knowledge).
I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.
Read (don't skim) my previous post, it's there right smack in the middle spoon-feeding you the A, B, C's. Anything more, Fool, Google & wiki might be of some help (though no substitutes for studying e.g. Peirce, & Dewey, Wittgenstein & Popper, Haack et al ... for starters). — 180 Proof
Socrates demonstrated the merits of classical skepticism showing expectations of certainty aren't the products of wisdom; but for some reason people choose to struggle to establish certainty instead of critical inquiry of their own ideas. He was basically delivering Popper's critical rationalism thousands of years in advance but it was misinterpreted and dogmatically applied into absurdity. At least they let Popper live a while longer.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! — TheMadFool
This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know" (in Plato, Apology 21d).
It sounds like giving labels to the different species of thought. — Cheshire
Interesting; I would describe this as psychology if I didn't know the context. I need to roll this around a little. Thanks again.(1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward. — Apollodorus
1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward. — Apollodorus
I need to roll this around a little. — Cheshire
I wouldnt stay unmoved, silent, and word free though. I would make contact. And shout it out! Let my thoughts give me a song. — Prishon
Socrates demonstrated the merits of classical skepticism showing expectations of certainty aren't the products of wisdom; but for some reason people choose to struggle to establish certainty instead of critical inquiry of their own ideas. He was basically delivering Popper's critical rationalism thousands of years in advance but it was misinterpreted and dogmatically applied into absurdity. At least they let Popper live a while longer. — Cheshire
I have read that too, of course. But it clearly says that this is a paraphrasing. Which is one more indication that Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing". Can't you see it?This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know"
This is totally ιrrelevant with the case in hand. I hope you can realize this too, on a second thought.Of course it is entirely possible that Socrates and Plato never existed and never said anything. — Apollodorus
It has never been proved that it has been said either. But I also talked about that too: "... found it in some ancient tablet or papyrus".However, as far as I am aware, this is not disputed by historians or scholars. — Apollodorus
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? — Cheshire
Finally, I ended my comment with something that was more essential than the truth about the quote itself. But you ignored it. — Alkis Piskas
Correct.If I understand your comment correctly, (1) you see no "usefulness in trying to explain Socrates' statement" and (2) you don't think it "can be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion". — Apollodorus
OK, I got that. And you are right. Things have to be put in the right perspective.Personally, I am not trying to explain Socrates' statement as I believe that it is not meant literally (as stated in the OP), and I never use it as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion. But others may do so, hence it can be discussed by those who take an interest in the topic. — Apollodorus
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.