In conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things. — Echogem222
We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222
Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — Echogem222
I agree that Socrates was wise in many ways, — Echogem222
So, how then do we believe we know anything? It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence. We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222
Yes, limitations, he thought he knew that he knew nothing in certain areas, not that he thought he had faith that he knew nothing in certain areas. I'm not an idiot, — Echogem222
I do not believe I gained awareness of logic and other things through free will, since I don't believe in free will, so now, after being exposed to such things, I feel influenced to believe such things are true because I have no influence swaying me to think differently, and I see no benefit in doing differently. So, I believe I started out my beliefs with zero certainty because I lacked the free will to do differently, and since my faith in anything was originally started out with zero certainty, everything I have faith in is founded on faith of zero certainty, disproving your reasoning. — Echogem222
You say you are not an idiot - are you certain? Is that faith based? — Tom Storm
I'm unclear, what is it you are certain you are uncertain about? — Tom Storm
We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222
But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. — Echogem222
Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. — Echogem222
So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility — Echogem222
Make this conclusion stronger its important You have good stuff here it ought to go somewhere make the reach set that scope with purpose in mind perhaps even though your passion is evident to meIn conclusion, for those who have faith in logic, my argument is that Socrates did not know that he knew nothing; he had faith that he knew nothing, whereas I have faith that he actually knew at least some things. — Echogem222
↪Echogem222
Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. — Philosophim
Its right where it needs to be, at least you acknowledge a path at all.↪Echogem222
Once again I think you're misreading the intent and going down a path no one else is taking. — Philosophim
While im at it, I couldnt help but notice that even though faith is heavily discussed here you used an interesting angle...using Socrates, and free will is smart and to slide in these questions about faith and certainty without religion. — Kizzy
I was kinda getting at this here with the delight of, Vaskane....https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/887319 — Kizzy
Socrates famously proclaimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — Echogem222
This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates’ statement, “I neither know nor think that I know” (in Plato, Apology 21d). The paraphrased saying, though widely attributed to Plato’s Socrates in both ancient and modern times, actually occurs nowhere in Plato’s works in precisely the form “I know that I know nothing.”[5] Two prominent Plato scholars have recently argued that the claim should not be attributed to Plato’s Socrates.[6]
Evidence that Socrates does not actually claim to know nothing can be found at Apology 29b-c, where he claims twice to know something. See also Apology 29d, where Socrates indicates that he is so confident in his claim to knowledge at 29b-c that he is willing to die for it. — https://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/11/03/socrates-i-know-that-i-know-nothing/
If you want a really good ancient treatment of the skepticism that grew out of Plato and its relation to faith, St. Augustine's Contra Academicos is quite good and includes a version of Descartes famous "cognito ergo sum." — Count Timothy von Icarus
"If he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wants to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he doesn't know; if he doubts, he thinks that he shouldn't agree rashly. Even if you doubt other things, you shouldn't doubt that you doubt. Since if it didn't exist, it would be impossible to doubt anything," — Saint Augustine
But why do we have faith in anything if our faith in logic is correct? If we began with uncertainty, not knowing anything or even nothing at all (requiring faith), we could not have reached this point if we had free will. Having free will would imply knowing (though faith) that knowing things is important before knowing anything... which contradicts logic. Therefore, we must have been influenced to learn things not by our own will, in other words, to gain faith in things without free will. So, how then would we conclude that it makes sense that we have free will when we didn't initially use free will to learn anything? It doesn't. The logic does not follow such a possibility. Of course, I assume that those of you reading this believe that logic exists through faith, since if that is not the case, then I guess I wouldn't be right within your faith (whatever that is).
He used also to say that the daemon foretold the future to him;[21]
and that to begin well was not a trifling thing, but yet not far from
a trifling thing; and that he knew nothing, except the fact of his
ignorance. Another saying of his was, that those who bought things out of
season, at an extravagant price, expected never to live till the proper
season for them. Once, when he was asked what was the virtue of a young
man, he said, “To avoid excess in everything.” And he used to say, that
it was necessary to learn geometry only so far as might enable a man to
measure land for the purposes of buying and selling. — C. D. Yonge translation
He used to say that his supernatural sign warned him beforehand of the future; that to make a good start was no trifling advantage, but a trifle turned the scale; and that he knew nothing except just the fact of his ignorance. He said that, when people paid a high price for fruit which had ripened early, they must despair of seeing the fruit ripen at the proper season. And, being once asked in what consisted the virtue of a young man, he said, "In doing nothing to excess." He held that geometry should be studied to the point at which a man is able to measure the land which he acquires or parts with. — R. D. Hicks translation
I have not fully studied the historiography of Socrates (anyone here?) — Lionino
he knew nothing except just the fact of his ignorance.
(177d)I know nothing other than matters of eros ...
nowing what choice you should make, also requires knowledge, but if we gain knowledge, not because of our free will, then our "choice" is already set in stone, because we know through faith which choice is the choice we will make.
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.