One for the loons.

[uwot]

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...

Im positive that his didn't happen because Socrates despised religion and would never make the huge trip to Delphi.

It's just what the legend has become in western Philosophy. The actual story is in Plato's Apology, which you can read in full here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
Here's the bit where Socrates gives the official version:
"I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom - whether I have any, and of what sort - and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether - as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt - he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser."
Which puzzled Socrates:
"When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great."
So he spends the next few years trying to find someone wiser, to prove Pythia wrong:
"After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me - the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! - for I must tell you the truth - the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better."

Anybody who has been taught philosophy and was paying attention will have learnt the two Socratic rules:
1. I don't know anything.
2. Nor does anyone else.

Also it is obviously a contradiction "I know that I know nothing" - like "this statement is false".

Yes, but trying to impose strict logical rules on the vernacular is a doomed project. Natural language simply doesn't work like that. Most people understand what it means perfectly well in context, and it's a lot snappier than, 'I only know one thing and that is I don't know anything else.'

[barbarianhorde]

"I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom - whether I have any, and of what sort - and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether - as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt - he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser."
Which puzzled Socrates:
"When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great."
So he spends the next few years trying to find someone wiser, to prove Pythia wrong:
"After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me - the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! - for I must tell you the truth - the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better."

And no one could deny Socrates his world-championship in pedantry (not to mention pederasty).
For:

Anybody who has been taught philosophy and was paying attention will have learnt the two Socratic rules:
1. I don't know anything.

Except of course the endless string of value-judgments and logical techniques used in the Dialogues, which is plenty to guarantee he knew that he was being very much pedantic here, paling however in comparison however to the Popperian extrapolation of this pedantry into outright grotesque silliness:

2. Nor does anyone else.

at the same time claiming to a) have no knowledge and b) possess intimate knowledge of billions of individual minds or of some Grand Universal Human Knowledge Prohibiting Principle... kablooie.

Also it is obviously a contradiction "I know that I know nothing" - like "this statement is false".

Yes, but trying to impose strict logical rules on the vernacular is a doomed project. Natural language simply doesn't work like that. Most people understand what it means perfectly well in context, and it's a lot snappier than, 'I only know one thing and that is I don't know anything else.'

Yes this remark only adds another juicy layer of irony over the already all too ironic case. Was it not Socrates' one and single method to impose strict logical rules on his opponents all-too-human vernaculars?

[uwot]

And no one could deny Socrates his world-championship in pedantry (not to mention pederasty).

Blimey, you really don't like Socrates, do ya? Pedant? Well, if you say so. There's not much evidence that Socrates was into pederasty. In fact it was his general contempt for sexual and in its widest sense physical preoccupations that morphed into Platonic relationships.

...the endless string of value-judgments and logical techniques used in the Dialogues, which is plenty to guarantee he knew that he was being very much pedantic here, paling however in comparison however to the Popperian extrapolation of this pedantry into outright grotesque silliness:

Well the value judgements is kinda the point. Socrates made it clear that anyone who claims to know the truth about some philosophical issue, is ultimately just expressing their opinion.
You don't think much of Popper either then. All he did was point out that the problem of induction means that no scientific hypothesis can be proven true. You can't prove, for instance, that there is any such thing as spacetime. All you can do is prove that any prediction based on that model is false. Which is true.

Was it not Socrates' one and single method to impose strict logical rules on his opponents all-too-human vernaculars?

No. All-too-human, eh? Well, at least there's one philosopher that doesn't provoke your ire.

[Skepdick]

You don't think much of Popper either then. All he did was point out that the problem of induction means that no scientific hypothesis can be proven true. You can't prove, for instance, that there is any such thing as spacetime. All you can do is prove that any prediction based on that model is false. Which is true.

It's even worse given Goodman's new riddle of induction.

Time-relative truth. A falsified hypothesis might resurrect at the same place, but in a different time.

It all smells like hermeneutics to me!

[uwot]

It's even worse given Goodman's new riddle of induction.

Time-relative truth. A falsified hypothesis might resurrect at the same place, but in a different time.

Well, grue is not a scientific hypothesis. If the conditions of the universe change in such a way, we'll just have to adapt.

It all smells like hermeneutics to me!

It always baffled me why anyone took Goodman seriously.

[Skepdick]

Well, grue is not a scientific hypothesis. If the conditions of the universe change in such a way, we'll just have to adapt.

Adaptation happened long before we had science. The implications are to science itself since forecasting is a scientific instrument. Otherwise known as 'prediction'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact,_Fic ... d_Forecast

It always baffled me why anyone took Goodman seriously.

Because he rises the very question of 'what is a law'?
If it's time-variant, is it really a law?
If it's scale-variant, is it really a law?

And so, in a way it's an attempt to formalize the demarcation problem

Personally, I think Knuth did a better job at it (but I may be biased).

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.

[barbarianhorde]

Blimey, you really don't like Socrates, do ya?

I really, really do not like him. Except as a comedian. He is very funny but his wit masquerades as philosophy and I can not stand that at all.

Pedant? Well, if you say so. There's not much evidence that Socrates was into pederasty. In fact it was his general contempt for sexual and in its widest sense physical preoccupations that morphed into Platonic relationships.

I believe this is a misreading of Plato's text. Or rather a failure to read content into given context and setting.

Well the value judgements is kinda the point. Socrates made it clear that anyone who claims to know the truth about some philosophical issue, is ultimately just expressing their opinion.

If you buy into his technique thats what he appears to be doing. But to me, he only shows his technique. Which operates a big toolbox of working knowledge of rhetorics and all kinds of logics as well as a load of sophistry. He knows much more than most of his partners in conversation. He invariably knows what the other person is trying to get at. All this is a vast array of knowledge that he all requires to make his points about supposedly being ignorant.

People I have held in highest esteem respect Socrates as the founder of western thought and individual conscience and more, but I simply do not see anything of the sort when I read him. I only see situational comedy; a lot of psychological insights into decadents (few men have been as witty as Soc), but no solid ideas.

What is knowledge? Socrates seems to have regarded only value judgments of the moral order as knowedge. But his mastery of the Greek language is surely a knowledge, and one which objectively works to communicate, understandings as well as misunderstandings, between those that speak the language. Same goes for basic logical habits of a class of intellectuals, etc.

But I feel these things are all too obvious and I should be missing some subtle point.

[Skepdick]

If you buy into his technique thats what he appears to be doing. But to me, he only shows his technique.

Which operates a big toolbox of working knowledge of rhetorics and all kinds of logics as well as a load of sophistry. He knows much more than most of his partners in conversation. He invariably knows what the other person is trying to get at. All this is a vast array of knowledge that he all requires to make his points about supposedly being ignorant.

People I have held in highest esteem respect Socrates as the founder of western thought and individual conscience and more, but I simply do not see anything of the sort when I read him. I only see situational comedy; a lot of psychological insights into decadents (few men have been as witty as Soc), but no solid ideas.

What is knowledge? Socrates seems to have regarded only value judgments of the moral order as knowedge. But his mastery of the Greek language is surely a knowledge, and one which objectively works to communicate, understandings as well as misunderstandings, between those that speak the language. Same goes for basic logical habits of a class of intellectuals, etc.

But I feel these things are all too obvious and I should be missing some subtle point.

What you are missing is the absence of a broadly accepted theory of knowledge. Epistemology.
What you are missing is that ALL epistemic theories we have in 2019 fails in exactly the same, predictable way - problem of criterion

What you are missing is the Munchhausen Trillema which is tantamount to the Pyrrhonism.

What Socrates would've said is "The mastery of the Greek language is the mastery of the Greek language. It's a trivial skill. What makes such trivialities knowledge? Turning lead into gold would be knowledge!"

All Philosophical debates are a form of Kobayashi Maru. There is no "right" answer by design. The purpose is to make you conceptually understand the problem.

If you are already arguing for knowledge - you have already assumed some epistemic theory or other. Coherentism or foundationalism?

[-1-]

To me, there is only one Mind, so there is NOT, in a sense, like minded people.

I like minded people. I don't much care for non-minded people.

[-1-]

Well the value judgements is kinda the point. Socrates made it clear that anyone who claims to know the truth about some philosophical issue, is ultimately just expressing their opinion.

You mean, Socrates is endorsing the wrongness of his entire philosophy, pending anyone's opinion? To me this is what it reads what you wrote. And this is certainly how "I don't know what I don't know that I don't know anything that is not or well known" reads, too, in the all-too-common language of the all-too-common man or woman.

What a revelation. Socrates opines his books written by Plato can be cast away and people can babble on nonsense, and take themselves seriously, as long as they believe their own nonsense, and as long as it's about a philosophical issue.

All of a sudden the theories and bullshit of JohnDoe, Skepdick, Nick_A, Dontaskme, Age, et al gain veritable validity.

All because of Socrates.

[-1-]

Well the value judgements is kinda the point. Socrates made it clear that anyone who claims to know the truth about some philosophical issue, is ultimately just expressing their opinion.

You mean, Socrates is endorsing the wrongness of his entire philosophy, pending anyone's opinion?

Does this general amnesty on stupidity and haphazard causational claims concerning philosophical topics issued by Plato or Socrates extend to those claims that contradict the law of the excluded middle, and other immovable laws of logic?

[barbarianhorde]

What you are missing is the absence of a broadly accepted theory of knowledge. Epistemology.
What you are missing is that ALL epistemic theories we have in 2019 fails in exactly the same, predictable way - problem of criterion

Nope, not missing any of that.

What you are missing is the Munchhausen Trillema which is tantamount to the Pyrrhonism.

Wrong, as the only real proof is empirical.

What Socrates would've said is "The mastery of the Greek language is the mastery of the Greek language. It's a trivial skill. What makes such trivialities knowledge? Turning lead into gold would be knowledge!"

That is like him yes. If it wasn't for Greek there would have been no philosophy or tragedy or science to speak of, worse -- Homer wouldn't exist. Ive always admired in Greece what Socrates looked down on.

All Philosophical debates are a form of Kobayashi Maru. There is no "right" answer by design. The purpose is to make you conceptually understand the problem.

Never was a Trekkie either.

If you are already arguing for knowledge - you have already assumed some epistemic theory or other. Coherentism or foundationalism?

I don't need to argue for knowledge, you are demonstrating yours very eloquently.

[uwot]

Adaptation happened long before we had science.

So when did we acquire science?

It always baffled me why anyone took Goodman seriously.

Because he rises the very question of 'what is a law'?
If it's time-variant, is it really a law?
If it's scale-variant, is it really a law?

Well, like most words, 'law' is context dependent and theory laden. For practical purposes, a law of physics is a mathematical model that describes observed behaviour very well. Newton's law of universal gravitation is still a law, even though time has shown that there are exceptions to the inverse square law he devised. Once again: what's in a name?

Personally, I think Knuth did a better job at it (but I may be biased).

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.

Yeah, yeah. We understand what happens, because we can see it and measure it and get computers to do the number crunching. If instrumentalism floats your boat, don't waste too much time on philosophy - shut up and calculate.

[barbarianhorde]

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.

Deceptively simple, efficient. Its apparent simplicity is seen as a facade when one brings to mind the monumental human achievement of engineering the computer. Such an empirical criterion for answering this tricky metaphysical question was not exactly given.

[Skepdick]

Wrong, as the only real proof is empirical.

Same sophistry argument as before. The empirical is the empirical. Why makes it 'proof' and what is it 'proving' exactly?

That is like him yes. If it wasn't for Greek there would have been no philosophy or tragedy or science to speak of, worse -- Homer wouldn't exist. Ive always admired in Greece what Socrates looked down on.

Ahhh, another philosopher with a Western bias. You are aware that science, logic and all those intellectual feats you admire (in Greece) were happening in the East too, yes? In some cases - way before such things were happening in Greece.

The only reason that you attribute this stuff to the Greeks is because the Roman empire happened to your ancestors.

I don't need to argue for knowledge, you are demonstrating yours very eloquently.

I thought I was just demonstrating experience? Does that 'prove knowledge'? I guess you have very low standards