There's a legend in western philosophy, one version of which has Socrates asking Pythia, the high priestess at Delphi, who the wisest person was. 'No one is wiser than Socrates' came the answer. 'Really?' says Socrates, 'But I know that I don't know anything.' 'Exactly.' says the priestess.
So...
One for the loons.
Re: One for the loons.
If a medical doctor tells you he knows nothing, find another doctor.
Too bad for you if the health care system doesn't allow that for you, but does allow it for the rule-makers.
If your doctor is knowledgeable and some loony reforming politician promises that under his uber-plan you can keep your doctor, period, then beware.
Too bad for you if the health care system doesn't allow that for you, but does allow it for the rule-makers.
If your doctor is knowledgeable and some loony reforming politician promises that under his uber-plan you can keep your doctor, period, then beware.
Re: One for the loons.
Socrates was wise enough to know what he didn't know. Very few philosophers are so wise.
Re: One for the loons.
I'd say he knew more than he was letting on.uwot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:07 pm There's a legend in western philosophy, one version of which has Socrates asking Pythia, the high priestess at Delphi, who the wisest person was. 'No one is wiser than Socrates' came the answer. 'Really?' says Socrates, 'But I know that I don't know anything.' 'Exactly.' says the priestess.
So...
Re: One for the loons.
Well, in Socrates's day, Athens was awash with sophists peddling their various flavours of philosophical snake oil. Socrates's schtick was to be a "gadfly", chasing these charlatans down and showing them up for the nincompoops they generally were.
First rule of philosophy: nobody else knows anything.
In Plato's Apology, basically the last words of Socrates after he'd drunk the hemlock, he more or less admitted that he couldn't be sure of anything he believed about his philosophy. But he knew he was 70 and that the best he could hope for in this world was a gradual decline into infirmity ending in death. Not fancying that, he thought he'd take a punt on his belief in eternal life, so instead of pleading for mercy after the guilty verdict at his trial, he wound the jury up so much that more people demanded the death penalty than had found him guilty.
Second rule of philosophy: you don't know anything for certain either.
Last edited by uwot on Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: One for the loons.
I haven't read the Last Days of Socrates yet. If I read it, would I know something I don't know at the moment?uwot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:25 pmBut he knew he was 70 and that the best he could hope for in this world was a gradual decline into infirmity ending in death. Not fancying that, he thought he'd take a punt on his belief in eternal life, so instead of pleading for mercy after the guilty verdict at his trial, he wound the jury up so much that more people demanded the death penalty than had found him guilty.
Socrates seemed to know:
- His own age
- His unavoidable exposure to mortality
- How to wind people up, so that they'd do what he wanted
Re: One for the loons.
Well yeah, we all have a working knowledge, what yer had for breakfast, whether you brushed your teeth, stuff like that. Granted it's probably true, but it's not the sort of things you bother to have philosophical debates about. The point is that anyone who says they know there is a god, the universe is non-dual, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics obtains and so on, is a loony.
Bit harsh given that he didn't write anything himself.
Re: One for the loons.
Not really. I presume you think most people would make some such claim to knowledge. Maybe you're right, but you'd have to ask a lot of people to find out. My guess is that many people would concede that they have belief or faith, which is fair enough, and that only the real headbangers can't cope with not 'knowing'. Loads of that sort of nutter on this forum, which might be skewing your data.
Re: One for the loons.
I'd guess that too, but I'd wonder at the practical gap between belief and knowing.
If someone is acting on the belief, it suggests a fair degree of certainty that its a valid belief. I'd suspect that conceding "its just my belief" might sometimes avoid a profitless discussion with a nutter.
Re: One for the loons.
This is a famous paradox. If someone knows they know nothing, then they don't know they know nothing. This not knowing leaves open the possibility that they may have knowledge, without their knowledge of having that knowledge.uwot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:07 pm There's a legend in western philosophy, one version of which has Socrates asking Pythia, the high priestess at Delphi, who the wisest person was. 'No one is wiser than Socrates' came the answer. 'Really?' says Socrates, 'But I know that I don't know anything.' 'Exactly.' says the priestess.
So...
It's all in my book.
Re: One for the loons.
Hey. It's not harsh. I'm an attention-whore, and I can't get anything published. Same as if I wrote nothing.
You don't have to be famous, known, writing, or even possessing knowledge to be a fully-phledged attention-whore. Being an attention-whore is independent of all other human inclinations.
Socrates was an attention-whore, and he revelled in winning arguments. Even at a cost of putting forth fallacious ones.
Re: One for the loons.
It's a bit like Muhammad Ali being the Greatest. One fought with gloves, smarts and emotional manipulation; the other fought with smarts and emotional manipulation.
I really would have liked to see an Ali-Socrates fight. Twelve rounds, 10-ounce gloves, mandatory ten-count, three knockdowns in a single round is a win, and the bell not saving the count, except in the final round.
My money would ride on Socrates KOing Ali in the first half of the sixth round.