What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Arising_uk]

Hi zinnat13 or sanjay,

...

Let me start from a recitation from Socrates that "I only know that I know nothing."

Just look at the words. He would have said simply that “I do not know anything” but he had chosen his words very carefully. If we put “still “or “yet” before the second “I”, the statement will reflect its true meaning.

In my opinion Socrates was trying to say that; in spite of that I know a lot according to me and as well as in comparison to the others, yet my acquired knowledge is so small comparing to the total sum of knowledge that it appears as I know nothing.

This is can not and should not be a statement of a philosopher in a true sense. Have you ever seen a modern philosopher so uncertain about his knowledge? Everyone wants to shout so loudly that only his voice could be heard. So, why Socrates is sounding so different? One can easily argue that it is his humbleness or limited knowledge but it is not the case. He is just stating what he felt.

As I never studied philosophy or read any book about it so I was not familiar with this statement but as I read it, words became vocal. The statement of Socrates is actually pointing towards the scope and the limits of philosophy. He is saying that his philosophy is not leading him further anymore and standing there, at the very end of his philosophy, he is having the glimpses of the entire unknown in its enormity and compelled to say that “I only know that I know nothing.”

So you're saying he means, "I only know nothing compared to all the knowledge we don't yet know or may discover" or "I only know nothing compared to all the knowledge that is currently known"? Either way I agree this is a fair interpretation.

This brings us to examine philosophy. I want to explain it as I understood.

In my opinion, philosophy is just an act of thinking but in its true sense. I do not think it requires more than these words to define but it is not as simple as it looks.

Let us take thinking first. The most common way of thinking is in first person. No need to in detail in front of such intellectuals as all of you. The second way is to look at the things from the other’s point of view and that is empathy or perceiving in second person. Till now, philosophy is not in the picture. As soon as we start thinking in third person, philosophy becomes alive.

As we all know thinking in third person means to look at the things in totality like a bird’s eye view and objectively too. Now the thinking must be free from all biases and even any predefined conclusions. This is essential as generally we tend to commit a mistake by finding arguments those support our personal assumptions instead of realty.
In broad sense, third person and thinking within is defined. But philosophy, in its true sense, starts from here. I used the world “objectively” and by that I mean freeing our mind not only from the assumptions but our personal emotions like anger, love, ego, affection, eagerness, hesitation, hate, sympathy and even empathy also as they all could influence our mind and we may not come up with correct finding. The only quality that can help philosophy is perhaps patience. This stage is difficult to achieve. We tend to get angry very easily whenever we face criticism and easily fall in the trap and immediately focus ourselves to proof the other one wrong. This causes us to manifest unwarranted arguments as the defeat would hurt our ego.

Can't disagree much with this, although third-person may not be a 'god-like' view but more, as you say, a dispassionate view from a 'third' party with no axe to grind in the situation. This reminds me of, and you may be interested in, the New Code NLP idea of using positions to think things through before communicating or acting. So in a situation of communication with another, before replying, acting, etc, you think in 1st position, i.e. how do I feel and think about the situation or communication I've just received or am going to communicate, then 2nd position, i.e. what do I think the other feels or thinks about it and what are they thinking or feeling about me, then 3rd position, imagine oneself standing and viewing both 1st and 2nd position and think about both the positions, i.e. the whole situation, note what is going-on in the relation so to speak, then think about suggestions you could make to 1st position that would assist the situation. Even better, swap 3rd and 1st and get 1st to 'watch' the suggestions in 'action' and decide which would be acceptable to it,keep doing this until an acceptable outcome is settled upon and then, and only then, swap back to 1st and reply, act, etc. There is another position that is the 'godlike' one and that's to add a 4th position, from 'above' so to speak that watches all 3 positions to check they are all 'playing' their correct roles. Sounds complicated but with practice it becomes second nature before one communicates or acts and I've met those who can do this and a very interesting happening it is. I also agree patience may be a virtue for the philosopher.

An argument is of no use neither for philosophy nor for philosopher if it is manifested only for the sake of argument. A true philosopher should not feel ashamed if he finds himself unable to proof his point because no matter who will lose, philosophy will stand as winner in the end.

I agree. What do you think of the role of questions? As Socrates is purported to have liked these as well.

We have an example of Einstein in front of us. Initially, when he gave the theory of special relativity, it was insufficient to explain gravitation. After some time he put the concept of “cosmological constant” forward to explain the gravitation but failed to convince the scientific community. And when he failed even to convince himself,then he publically accepted his failure by writing an article saying that he was wrong. How many philosophers have the courage to do that? Although my knowledge about philosophers is very limited but they look very rigid in their stance. That’s why I rate Einstein one of the greatest philosophers of all times.

We have our very own example in the PN magazine, Professor Joel Marks.
http://philosophynow.org/issue80/An_Amo ... sto_Part_I

Let me take one more example. We are witnessing many forums in Philosophy Now related to the difficulties of the people of US and European countries. It is evident that we all have sympathy with them and as a human being there is nothing wrong in it but, in my opinion, even if it looks inhuman, is not a true philosophical view. An approach of a bird’s eye view is missing here as we are not able to see things in totality.

If we place a true philosopher at the moon and ask him to look at the world from there and then about his analysis of the difficulties of the people, then instead of talking about the happening of Wall Street first, he would discuss the living standard of people living in Somalia, Uganda and likewise where people are dying, starving, and even not have enough and hygienic water to drink for years. But, we did not do that simply because they (people at the Wall Street) belonged to us so sympathy overshadowed the thinking. It is not the case that we do not know the condition of the people of Africa but it did not strike our mind when we saw people at Wall Street protesting in anger and disgust. We simply flew with our emotions.

Well, most of these posts are started by a member who profess not to have read much philosophy but considers himself to be a 'true philosopher' and to be fair he has also posted about starvation in other countries.

A philosopher should think like a judge sitting on the hot seat in the court. Hearing all arguments; giving a fair and enough chance to every thought before pronouncing a verdict. It is an established practice that if any relative of the judge or jury appears in the court for trial, then the concerned jury member or judge keeps himself away from the related trial because his opinion could be biased. The same is with philosophy. If we are not capable of keeping our personal assumptions and emotions away then we cannot come up with a right conclusion.

I agree, but is it possible to be so dispassionate? Can we avoid our cultural conditioning? Although I agree a study of Philosophy can help much in this respect.

So, we see philosophy is just thinking but in its true sense. As soon as we do anything more or else than thinking, philosophy takes a back seat immediately.

Maybe, but maybe its more a matter of having our thoughts, thinking and emotions all in congruence?

But, it is still not complete. Socrates is not talking about all this. When he says the aforesaid statement, he has taken all these stages for granted. He is talking beyond that. But, here at this juncture, we must understand that philosophy ends here. What happens beyond this has nothing to do with philosophy. The veil start from here and it is impossible to penetrate it with the tools of thinking only as it demands something more than that.

Ah! Is this what I mean?

To some extent, I am able to understand what he means simply not because am too intelligent but because of my personal experiences.

The phenomenon is something like that; When one became able to think in the third person regularly and for longer times like a few hours, doing nothing but thinking, over and over, the level of the concentration becomes very high. Mind itself becomes a thought. Then sometimes, one is able to see his thoughts as we do in third person; witnesses them to flow, coming in and out, manifesting and vanishing. This state distinguishes the seer from the seen. This is a similar state which one attains during a sincere meditation. There is no difference because the key is the concentration. Concentrated subject does not play any role in it. Even if we think of having sex, the result will be the same. The only condition is that the whole of our mind should involve in it.

Hmm... so applying the positions in communication with oneself?

This is the starting point of the journey to see the unseen. Reaching this stage one can starts to understand how mind works and how emotions take control of our mind. Books lost their relevance here. If one has enough patience and concentration, the veil starts fading and the unseen tends to unfold. But, I have to mention again that there is no instant way. The traveler has to go step by step. Socrates is taking about these stages as reaching there and even crossing many of them, he is still feeling that it is not going to end soon and he does not even know how much and what is left. So his words are stating his surrender to the ultimate.

Forgive me if I raise the philosophical problem with the idea of 'seeing the unseen'?

No one knows exactly how much is there and in which form is there. These are the stages talked by Buddha, Mohammad, Mahavira and Zen monks and many religions. There is no need to stretch the list.

Now we must go back to philosophy otherwise it may feel lonely.

Let's.

I feel that philosophy is an analysis so it must a sequel not a prequel. Analysis cannot be done before the event. If we try to analyze the event, without knowing exactly how it will unfold, then we will come up only with unrealistic assumptions. Though I feel that I am making a too generalized statement. There may be exceptions as I did not give it a deep thought.

Fair enough, I think I get your gist but could it still not be a prequel to action?

Before summing up I want to make one thing very clear that it is absolutely fine to have a faith. There is no harm in it. On the contrary, it benefits us numerous ways. So we should stick to our version but there is no other way of knowing the unseen instead of travel on it, all by oneself. It is such a phenomenon that should be experienced otherwise one could not believe it. It may be discussed but not before witnessing a glimpse of it.

Maybe but it depends upon what you mean by 'faith' here?

One more thing I want to say that; up to now from a philosophical point of view, Satyr clearly stands tall from others. I do not have any hesitation in saying that his writing skill is best on the board. It appears that writing is just a piece of cake for him. He must be born with a pencil holding in his hand but I do not subscribe to his perspective simply because he does not like to carry the rubber in the other hand. Absence or rubber forced him at the stage of standstill. But, having said that I must admit that he is extraordinarily intelligent and informed. He is absolutely right in his opinion that he derived from his observation but I know that the reality is beyond of that stage because i felt it in person. He has reached there where the intelligence can enable a person to the maximum. That is his compulsion and this is my compulsion.

I agree he's bright and a good writer. I think I understand what you mean by "Absence of rubber forced him at the stage of standstill" but maybe that points to him not being as knowing as he surely thinks he is. I also think much of his metaphysic is a rewrite of others, so it may well be that he's a good writer rather than an extrodinary metaphysician.

Though I am not competent enough to comment but it look to me that the assumption of SOB is not missing the target by much.

Is this the assumption that there must be 'absolute truth'? As, so far, whilst I agree there are true things I'm not sure if he means an absolute singular truth or just things that are absolutely true, e.g. the tautologies and contradictions, although the latter are only absolutely true in the sense that they are always false. But thenI've not been following the discussion to closely. I may have to take a closer read I think.

Sorry if I offend anyone.

Pretty hard to do that here.

Welcome to the forum.

[lancek4]

A little something my philosophy professor mentioned that I tracked down.

'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not; he is a fool - shun him,
He who knows not, and knows he knows not; he is simple - teach him,
He who knows and knows not he knows; he is asleep - wake him,
He who knows and knows he knows; he is wise - follow him. -- Arab Proverb

From The Life of Sir Richard F Burton, K.C.M.G., F.R.G.S

Of course my professor stated it this way, without the characterizations:

'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not
He who knows not, and knows he knows not
He who knows and knows not he knows
He who knows and knows he knows

I would say that I and 99.99% of the world are actually of the second assertion (tier 2) above. Socrates understood this!

I would say that their may be a few at the third tier.

I would say that 99.9% that think they are at tier four are actually at tier one and include, mass murderers, dictators, Serial killers, and anyone else of a malevolent nature.

If John Buck said that John Doe deserved to die. According to John Buck It would be the truth. At least if you believed in relative truth.

I see it thus. The absolute truth is that John Doe does not deserve to die, because how does any one qualify 'deserve to die.' Both John Doe and John Buck are children of the universe and as such absolutely deserve to exist. For John Buck to say that John Doe deserves to die is to say that he fully understands the universe and that John Doe is not in keeping with our universe. John Buck is thus deluded and has distorted the absolute truth; the universal truth. What he spouts as truth is actually only belief. He believes that John Doe deserves to die.

People that believe in a relative truth do so to feed their need of self righteousness, their own selfish needs above and beyond all others. It's a sickness. It's led to global warming, over population as well as other problems, can you say economy (money), and every indication is that it shall be our undoing.

I like it
So I ask: if the universe is the totality, functioning as it does, how are humans coming upon the implied progress of the "men are 4"? How are we separated enough to have such progress? What is progress?

[lancek4]

I object this line of questioning!

Consider: know thyself

And


I know that I do not know.

What is the role of the Oracle ?
Socrates takes the oracle's statement and attempts to disprove it. Which, we see, he does not. So if Socrates claims he knows that he doesn't know, and he is the wisest in Greece, how does he "know himself"?

I object! Again. Noted. I strenuously object! The court has noted your objection; now let's move on.

[SpheresOfBalance]

A little something my philosophy professor mentioned that I tracked down.

'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not; he is a fool - shun him,
He who knows not, and knows he knows not; he is simple - teach him,
He who knows and knows not he knows; he is asleep - wake him,
He who knows and knows he knows; he is wise - follow him. -- Arab Proverb

From The Life of Sir Richard F Burton, K.C.M.G., F.R.G.S

Of course my professor stated it this way, without the characterizations:

'Men are four.
He who knows not, and knows not he knows not
He who knows not, and knows he knows not
He who knows and knows not he knows
He who knows and knows he knows

I would say that I and 99.99% of the world are actually of the second assertion (tier 2) above. Socrates understood this!

I would say that their may be a few at the third tier.

I would say that 99.9% that think they are at tier four are actually at tier one and include, mass murderers, dictators, Serial killers, and anyone else of a malevolent nature.

If John Buck said that John Doe deserved to die. According to John Buck It would be the truth. At least if you believed in relative truth.

I see it thus. The absolute truth is that John Doe does not deserve to die, because how does any one qualify 'deserve to die.' Both John Doe and John Buck are children of the universe and as such absolutely deserve to exist. For John Buck to say that John Doe deserves to die is to say that he fully understands the universe and that John Doe is not in keeping with our universe. John Buck is thus deluded and has distorted the absolute truth; the universal truth. What he spouts as truth is actually only belief. He believes that John Doe deserves to die.

People that believe in a relative truth do so to feed their need of self righteousness, their own selfish needs above and beyond all others. It's a sickness. It's led to global warming, over population as well as other problems, can you say economy (money), and every indication is that it shall be our undoing.

I like it
So I ask: if the universe is the totality, functioning as it does, how are humans coming upon the implied progress of the "men are 4"? How are we separated enough to have such progress? What is progress?

The totality of what? All there is? As far as I know there is only 1 universe but like I said earlier there could be multiple universes. And who the hell ever said we can't progress. As a matter of fact I said that the reason we don't know is because we are young, Which also implies that we can make progress. look I know it's hard to keep track of everything I've said.

Seriously sometimes you kill me with these leaps in thought as if they're somehow immediately connected. What, humans separated from the universe? Our bodies are never separated from it, we are in it. What does being in the universe have to do with making progress?

I really don't understand why you don't look up these words yourself.

prog·ress /n. ˈprɒgrɛs, -rəs or, especially Brit., ˈproʊgrɛs; v. prəˈgrɛs/ [n. prog-res, -ruhs or, especially Brit., proh-gres; v. pruh-gres]
noun
1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree.
2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc., especially with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created.
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement: He shows progress in his muscular coordination.
5. the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.
6. Biology. increasing differentiation and perfection in the course of ontogeny or phylogeny.
7. forward or onward movement: the progress of the planets.
8. the forward course of action, events, time, etc.
9. an official journey or tour, as by a sovereign or dignitary.
verb (used without object) pro·gress
10. to go forward or onward in space or time: The wagon train progressed through the valley. As the play progressed, the leading man grew more inaudible.
11. to grow or develop, as in complexity, scope, or severity; advance: Are you progressing in your piano studies? The disease progressed slowly.
progress
Idiom
12. in progress, going on; under way; being done; happening: The meeting was already in progress.

Seriously, your questioning technique is not doing the job. You tell me what you think progress is.

I'd noticed earlier on that you believe you know and that you're trying to help me to know. I believe you're incorrect. Which does not mean I'm not listening, but I do believe that you can't hear me.

[SpheresOfBalance]

As we all know thinking in third person means to look at the things in totality like a bird’s eye view and objectively too. Now the thinking must be free from all biases and even any predefined conclusions. This is essential as generally we tend to commit a mistake by finding arguments those support our personal assumptions instead of realty.

"free as a bird"? is that true or do we need philosophy now? lets try: do birds seek food and partner or nest place and some materials to build nest? do they look intentionally any signs to get those or do they even have built in reflexes to scare some particular shapes, shapes looking like their enemies? (sorry my english.) are we humans also intentionally looking all the time and do brains and eyes make some filtering, also when we learn, memorize and use philosophical world structures, theory models, thinking tools? if you use hammer to wash your teeth you get very different result? so, who or what is absolute free or absolute objective?

to make false assumptions or decisions is not humans privilege.
It's funny that you should say this, because we've done it since the beginning of our time, and it would seem that we shall continue, unknowingly affecting, the end of our time.

sorry, i meant to write that it is not only humans privilege. nature seems to have endless war with endless arms race. new or better predators or competitors puts you in a situation where you need new camouflage or something other new tricks to fight back? like..

many butterflies have eyes on the back. big eyes! (O_O) scaring stupid predators away. flying safely straight to the carnivorous plant like a happy meal.
You and I shall die my friend, by what ever means, we shall die!

if you say so? so, why many butterflies have those large spots on the wings? have you heard fishes who go fishing? The spine is movable in all directions, and the esca can be wiggled so as to resemble a prey animal, and thus to act as bait to lure other predators close enough for the anglerfish to devour them whole.

and do you mean that before humans or any other stupid life form on earth, there was only true beliefs among those who were not there yet?
There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans.

if "There were no beliefs at all, as beliefs were born of humans" then was there "absolute truth" as true belief?

Like Lance has mentioned about he and I, you and I are not on the same page. Look don't use metaphors or analogies to make your point just simply state in in plain English. I shall bear with you, understanding that it is your second language.
When I said: "You and I shall die my friend, by what ever means, we shall die!" I was indicating that I believed that your message was predisposed with death. And I know that everyone fears it. That's why religion was born, so that one could believe they could live forever. i believe that some occupy their time with philosophy for the same reason.

[lancek4]

When someone is an alcoholic and their life is going to crap, everyone else can see it but the alcoholic does not. Neither is he merely be obstinate; it is exactly because he does not grasp the concpet that he could possibly to addicted to alcohol. This is called denial: it is not knowing that you don't know.

I would equate this to what you (SOB) call the human distortion compared to the Absoute truth.

I'm sure you can see by now our polemic; you are incapable of questioning that which you are in denial of. You see that your reasoning is consistent; you do not see where you resort back into what is true for you. You cannot question that which is true for you. You merely assert it over and over. In our investigation when we appraoched an aspect of your truth to question it, you immediately fell back into your truth and have not stopped reiterating it in different ways.
This is must figure is not because you do not want to investigate what may be true, but are incapable of it. As your truth becomesd questioned you begin to assert it.
I am not attempting to teach you anything; quite the opposite. I am searching for truth, testing what may be true by engaging with others.
So I saw this many pages ago, but still I do not believe it until it is beaten into the ground - which by now it surely is.

And truthfully: thank you. You have been, and I'm sure willl continue to be, instrumental in my learning.

[sideshow]

I suppose that seeing the truth requires that a person be capable of seeing the truth if it presented itself in an indubitable announcement. Not everyone can. But I'm willing to give all of us the benefit of perfect judgment. If there is truth, I can know that it is truth. Why not? That will leave us with only the truth problem.

That there is no truth at all can be easily eliminated by pointing to defined cases, or to ones that can be deduced from axioms in a systematic manner. Which immediately proves that there are many such defined truths. Anything that satifies the axioms is a truth. So much for the easy case.

The Socrates character of Plato claimed to know that he did not know. But what was what he did not know? That he also knew, as proven by his insistent probings. One cannot be a teacher, if one does not know what he teaches. Aside from the logical fallacy therein, he creates an interesting problem. If I don't know what Love is, can I be in love. If I don't know Justice, can I or a government be just? Most of us would say yes, it's just that we wouldn't know in which cases that were the fact. To Plato's Socrates, then we could not love or be just. Quite a high standard to meet. But modern physics is trapped in this Platonic dilemma. It does not know what ANY of its most basic constructs are, only that the formulas that relate them make uniformly dependable predictions. What's a neutrino, anyway? Momentum? Energy? Mass? So, Plato is not wrong. At least not entirely.

Now the Pupil is quite another story. If we carefully follow his logic, we'll see that he made truth impossible. Somewhere along the line he missed or just stubbornly rejected the Master's warnings. In particulars, there can be no truth. Only correlation.
~~~~

[lancek4]

A (maybe not so) comfortable truce then...

I have encountered assertions and logic deriving therefrom by individuals who do not understand the issue, and so derive 'their truth'. This is what I believe SOB indicates with his Absolute Truth: vs. opinion and 'distortions' of the truth.
Most recently I encountered in this thread someone reducing Darwin to 'survival of the fittest' as a means to critique or insult someone else. He obviously was misinformed of Dawin's idea of the natural selection of acquired traits.

Similarly with Plato's Socrates. If one reads or hears only 'sound bites' of his dialogues, it is easy to make all sorts of proclaimations and arguments for discussion. But the most correct one, the True interpretation, will be that one that accounts for all the facts. That interpretation which leaves loose ends, as "some say this, some that", or "it could be this, but.." Will have to be seen as weak if not entirely incorrect with reference to that interpretation that does not rely upon a 'good' interpretation which accounts for 'most of' the facts.

One should not mention Socrates in the same vein as the question and then opinion of what learning and teaching may be. The post prior to this one reflects a deep misapprehension of the issue.

Granted, there are more scholarly peoeple who study Plato, but often they are doing their job and not really 'seeking', they are more just 'doing'.

Furthermore, I do not attempt unguided analysis of things I do not feel educated on and definately do not make my case upon what 'simple minded' ideas I have of them . Math, computers, economics, TV production and more, find my assertions tenative and asking.

So I guess I am exemplfying SOB's point of Truth in that I am suggesting that there are people who believe they are educated but indeed are not.

[SpheresOfBalance]

When someone is an alcoholic and their life is going to crap, everyone else can see it but the alcoholic does not. Neither is he merely be obstinate; it is exactly because he does not grasp the concpet that he could possibly to addicted to alcohol. This is called denial: it is not knowing that you don't know.

I would equate this to what you (SOB) call the human distortion compared to the Absoute truth.

I'm sure you can see by now our polemic; you are incapable of questioning that which you are in denial of. You see that your reasoning is consistent; you do not see where you resort back into what is true for you. You cannot question that which is true for you. You merely assert it over and over. In our investigation when we appraoched an aspect of your truth to question it, you immediately fell back into your truth and have not stopped reiterating it in different ways.
This is must figure is not because you do not want to investigate what may be true, but are incapable of it. As your truth becomesd questioned you begin to assert it.
I am not attempting to teach you anything; quite the opposite. I am searching for truth, testing what may be true by engaging with others.
So I saw this many pages ago, but still I do not believe it until it is beaten into the ground - which by now it surely is.

And truthfully: thank you. You have been, and I'm sure willl continue to be, instrumental in my learning.

The exact same could be said about you. I have seen no proof otherwise. All you have provided is proof based upon presupposition. "I suppose this, and I suppose that, therefore it must be true and as soon as I tell SOB that it cannot be that way because of my supposition SOB denies my supposition. He is in denial of my supposition", and rightfully so! Oh I'm not saying that you realize that it's supposition. Like I said, sometimes you don't know what you don't know.

I've noticed that on several occasions you have contradicted your own assertions within the same message. You've done it so many times that it's obvious that you're either trying to deceive via slight of hand, or you truly don't understand what I've said or you've legitimately gotten turned around. Now I can go back, grab the quotes and prove it to you if you'd like.

That's the difference between you and I in the end here you've likened my understanding to be that of an addicted alcoholic, while I give you the benefit of the doubt. What does that say about you and I?

If you'd stop trying to impress me with your verbiage and speak in a manner I'm accustomed too there would be no problem. I believe that as you've said earlier that we're simply not on the same page with respect to formulating our arguments and it would seem that I'm incapable of putting them in your words and that you're incapable of putting them in mine.

And by the way I've checked the analysis of the Socrates quote against reference material and it would seem that you're putting words and meaning into his mouth. The reference material states:

In Apology, Plato relates that:

[…] οὖτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴμαι
— This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I - equally ignorant - do not believe [that I know anything].

"The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as "I know that I know nothing" stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things." Which is exactly how I've always taken it.

And as to your logic, it would seem that you get twisted around with all your verbiage and when mixed with the presupposition, boy what a mess!

At no point have I backed off for any other reason than because I thought your point wasn't necessarily so. As I said earlier it could simply be because we don't understand one another.

Thank You sir, regardless of the outcome I've enjoyed the tennis game. It's caused me to think more than usual and I feel more invigorated! Not to mention that my wife and I have been separated since Jan 2010 due to the economy, I have no job and have been living alone except for my dog that was poisoned last October three days after my birthday and it was a horrible death on my watch. Thus you have provided me with companionship in the face of disaster no matter how remote. I thank you sir. Have a good one!

[lancek4]

I am sorry for your bit of rough road.
Yes; absolutly I agree with your post.
I too am cought in denial of what I don't know.
In this spirit, since you offered, I would like a chance to clear up what you have seen of my contradictory-ness.
I absolutely value our exchange. Don't ever think I resent it or you. Such exchange is what I need and what I enjoy. Thank you.


If you will see, in the post from me just prior to yours, that I feel I have argued an example of your proposition. And I have said as much earlier, I understand what you are saying about Abolute Truth, and indeed, I use such 'position' to make arguments myself.

[lancek4]

Oh - and SOb, I did not intend to call you an alcoholic . Denial is often misunderstood, as so I was giving an example of what it is. Because I only somewhat recently came to understand what it actually is.

In that way: I too am 'addicted' to my truth.
This is what I mean when I say: I do not exclude myself from my propositions. Even if they appear accusatory, it is the nature of the dialectic. But, in truth, I am only working out a problem, with your (and others) help. In a way I am using you, but I should also realize that you are using me too - but not maliciously, just 'actually': this is the nature of the dialectic at base. I try to not point 'at' someone as if I am not that.

You are not my enemy; you are the 'antagonist' to my 'protagonist' in this act, this scene, in this play that I like to call life. The whole cast is invloved in the development of my character, as we contribute to the motion of the comedy-drama.

[lancek4]

... And SOB your quote of Plato: I submit that that phrase is also ironic, in the same manner as I have described some posts back.

I might suggest you revisit 'apology'. In my edition the 5-7 paragraphs, which has numbers 'pages' I suppose of the original Plato, which is 20-24.

Socrates: "I am better off that he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I niether know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him."

And what happens as Socrates proceeds in his way: " where upon I made another enemy of him, and many others besides him".

Can it be more plain yet somehow elusive?

[sideshow]

Subtlety is not my strength, I suppose. In my previous post, I praised and defended Plato in depth against Aristotle. Even though I am not a platonist, each reading makes me more aware of Plato's intuitive insight, even given the limitations and imperfections of ancient logic.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... And SOB your quote of Plato: I submit that that phrase is also ironic, in the same manner as I have described some posts back.

I might suggest you revisit 'apology'. In my edition the 5-7 paragraphs, which has numbers 'pages' I suppose of the original Plato, which is 20-24.

Socrates: "I am better off that he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I niether know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him."

And what happens as Socrates proceeds in his way: " where upon I made another enemy of him, and many others besides him".

Can it be more plain yet somehow elusive?

Look I'm not your enemy here but you're not being consistent. Originally you spoke of this quote "I only know that I know nothing," as being ironic and continued to put meaning in his words based upon your supposition of his meaning. Here is the quote:

When Socrates say "I know that i do not know" he is being ironic. In the first, he is using the first person reference in that "Socrates himself to himself" knows something which will be told subsequently; namely: "that he does not know"; this latter refering to the 'knowledge' which you, Sanjay, put in the realm of things to know, which comes down to opinion, which is why you argue that people should be more patient and less egoistic. Socrates was not saying anything about the relative world; he was saying that "he knows", but in reference to those who proclaim knowledge, such as Protagoras, and all the other philsophers with which he engages, Socrates begins from the position that he, himself, must not really know, since everyone else evendently does.

You cannot logically infer the purple from the red, clearly you are putting meaning (words) in his mouth. Who is anyone to take those 7 words that at face value do not necessarily mean anything of that sort and say that they do? Are you saying that you and Socrates were friends in a different life, or that you speak to the dead?
----------Forget this----------
Look at your green to his red, you even misquote him.
----------Through this---------
Because as it turns out it has been translated many different ways, such that no one can agree, i.e.:

Grube (1974) translates it as "... the result of our discussion for me is that I know nothing."
and
Jowett (1871) translates it as "... the result of the whole discussion has been that I know nothing at all."
and
The Wikipedia article about "I know that I know nothing" lists other "origins" that also do not say the same thing, but treats them as if they do.
and
Priscilla Sakezles, in "Socratic Skepticism,", eSkeptic (25 June 2008) identifies still more false origins, and discusses why this misrepresents Socrates.

And then one has to merely consider that hearsay, which is simply he said that he said, (Plato said that Socrates said, assumes that Plato understood Socrates meaning and did not misquote), is inadmissible in a court of law. And that's usually hearsay of this decade, not of over two millennia ago.

Such are the problems with ancient history. In the end, what can you take, from that which is impossible to authenticate, as "absolutely" true? It could be that in actuality, what you 'think' you 'absolutely know' about him, is merely what you 'absolutely believe' about him. It is in fact possible!

Now what was it that you were saying about knowledge?

I think this,"I only know that I know nothing,", being one of which he supposedly said, taken at face value, puts in into the proper perspective.

Just a few things to consider when one assumes (believes) they know!

Hey, I'm just saying. I actually love Socrates, not as his erômenos but because he's the father of Philosophy.

[zinnat13]

Dear friends,

Thanks for your valuable replies.

First of all I want to say sorry that I am not able to reply so promptly as others as I do not have much spare time; furthermore, I do not like to express myself in haste, unless and until, I am absolutely sure of anything. I have to convince myself prior to convince others. So, please bear with that but I will try.

To Lancek4-------

I am trying to reply what you posted up to now.
Yes lancek4, I do not have any idea of what Plato had said.

You said that my interpretation about his the statement is not with the accordance of the ideology of Socrates. So, before answering you, I tried to have a look at both, Socrates and Plato as well through the Wikipedia pages. I will discuss some of his quotes from the Wikipedia page of Plato those are in the context of our discussion.

1. Socrates floats the idea that knowledge is a matter of recollection, and not of learning, observation, or study.[33]
2. Socrates is often found arguing that knowledge is not empirical, and that it comes from divine insight.
3. More explicitly, Plato himself argues in the Timaeus that knowledge is always proportionate to the realm from which it is gained. In other words, if one derives one's account of something experientially, because the world of sense is in flux, the views therein attained will be mere opinions. And opinions are characterized by a lack of necessity and stability. On the other hand, if one derives one's account of something by way of the non-sensible forms, because these forms are unchanging, so too is the account derivm them. It is only in this sense that Plato uses the term "knowledge".
4. In other words, such people live without the divine inspiration that gives him, and people like him, access to higher insights about reality.
5. Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense. Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind

To my surprise and thankfully to you, by going through both pages, I sensed that Socrates is saying exactly as I understood.
The sense of both of them is very clear. They are saying that there are two types of knowledge.

One is about this physical world which we acquire through our physical organs. It goes to the mind routed through our physical brain. Then mind analyze it. This is thinking or, for our comfort, we can call it philosophy. They are categorically denying considering this as a true knowledge as it not eternal and changeable. The whole of this physical world is in a type of flux so we should not rely on it. If you remember, this was precisely the stance of Satyr. They are simply saying that, in real terms, knowledge is beyond this. This is exactly what I said that philosophy ends here.

Let me explain some of symbolic representations.
Recollection- he is pointing towards past incarnations and trying to reach his eternal consciousness as it has witness all of them.
Divine Light- this is a usual phenomenon which is witnessed by those are indulged in any form of spiritual practice.
Knowledge is always proportionate to the realm from which it is gained- it cannot be simpler than this. He is very clearly saying there are many spiritual realms and there are placed in some sort of order. The traveler has to go through them step by step and his knowledge tends to increase with each crossing step.
he who sees with his eyes is blind- this simply means that when he closes his eyes during the meditation, he is able to witness spiritual realms so it is like seeing with blind eyes.

Now about some of your points.-
It seems as if you are saying that philosophy is a process of one attempting to attain the 'ultimate'
No. On the contrary, you must read me as; spirituality or the journey to the ultimate begins from there, where philosophy ends. I clearly mentioned in my previous post that we need more tools besides thinking to advance further and those are all form of spiritual practices.
I am not totally sure of what you mean by 'analysis'. Or 'prequel' or 'sequel'. to what?
Let me put an imaginary situation first to clear myself.
Let us assume that we have invented time machine and during testing, accidentally, a human from past, say about 1000 years ago, transmitted here. Reaching here, even now in the machine, he sees one of us putting the light on as it was night. In the meantime, machine transmits him back to his time.
Now, let us try to visualize his explanation of light to his world. He will say that a man goes near the wall, a slight sound was heard by me and suddenly a child of SUN GOD appeared at the wall. My goodness, humans have enslaved Gods.
This is exactly happens when we try to predict phenomenon like ultimate. This is what I mean by prequel. We have to let the event happen first; first we have to experience, only then we will able to comment on the event in proper way. As we see, in our imaginary situation, that sometimes even experiences are not enough to draw a proper conclusion.
My intention was that there must be some distinction between imagination and philosophy. In my opinion, discussing about the ultimate is a bit like discussing the subjects of master’s degree in the class of bachelor’s. But perhaps, I may be wrong as philosophers are discussing these matters since ages.

Now let us take knowledge. I understood your point. You mean to say that common sense should not be considered as education or knowledge. I do not think you are right in your perception.

Any materialistic knowledge, no matter how advance and sophisticated it may be, is just an extension of common sense. This is the very way in which our science has been evolved. If there was any instant formula of knowledge then it would have been happened in a day. In my opinion, it is as simple as that. All types of complicated scientific knowledge were initiated from a simple idea. Then either the originator or someone else adds one more common sense to it. This process is go on and on and after many additions the sum of them became complex. But, still it is nothing more than the sum of some common sensed ideas. Though on the surface it may looks different.

To make issue clearer, I am quoting myself from the thread; artificial intelligence, as I saw it.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8041

There are two different phenomena; knowledge and information. I feel that sometimes we tend to overlap both of them. There are two types of knowledge; borrowed and earned. The former could be named as information. Information means that type of knowledge which is not learned by the owner. Owner receives it from any other source; other than himself. On the other hand knowledge has to be learned by the owner. It is all about the process. Process of learning is the phenomenon that distinguishes knowledge from the information. Process enables the owner of knowledge to feel and experience it. We generally rely on information in general as it easy attain.

I want to make this issue clearer by using very common and easy example. There are many cases in our daily life in which we experience knowledge even without noticing it. Let us take colors for instance. If we ask a five year child to explain the blue color, what will be his answer? We all know that he has the knowledge and understanding of blue color but he would not be able to explain it. The explanation of blue color is equally difficult for adults just because it needs to be seen or experienced. There is no other way of knowing it. Furthermore, it is one of those types of knowledge that do not have any counterpart in our world so one would not be able to explain it to anyone else through an example. This is what I would like to call knowledge. It is not transferable because words cannot describe it.

A blind man by birth cannot understand how blue color looks even if the wisest person in the world spends his whole life explaining because due to the lack of visibility, the blind man will only get information not knowledge. Knowledge is complete phenomenon while information is only an abstract of end result.

This is type of knowledge which is possessed by Socrates. His words are giving a mere glimpse of it. They are not the end result but only the byproduct of the process.

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon in our daily life. Without experiencing the whole process one can get only information and we generally misunderstand information with knowledge in day to day life. Books or the formal education are informative in general sense but, by no means, I am not saying that they are not useful as they carry the right information.

Let me take one more example. The great Einstein formulated general theory of relativity first but he was not able to explain gravitation at that moment. Sometime later he tried cope it with the concept of cosmological constant but could not succeed. Then, after 15 years since general relativity, he became able to come up with the solution in the form of curved spacetime and general relativity. In that span of 15 years, Einstein must have thought of numerous solutions, would have examined them from different angles and then negated them for one reason or the other. At last he gave the right version. Now, one can think that he or she knows relativity by reading it but it is not true as they have not gone through the process. We do not know those endless ideas those used to pop up in the mind of that great scientist. We do not know on which grounds he rejected all of them. We are only familiar with the appropriate version but he knew all the unfit versions also besides the right one so his understanding and knowledge had covered much more space in comparison of a person who knows the end result only.

A truth, even if it is truth, is never complete for the sake of knowledge, until and unless one does not know what is not truth.

Let us assume that we know that a work could be done or a problem could be solved in a certain way and we can say that is a truth or fact. So, it could be said for sure that for each and every way other than aforesaid right one is not the appropriate way and this saying is also truth or fact.

Hence, we must understand that there are two types of facts; positive facts and negative facts. The number of negative facts will always much larger than the positive facts as we all know that there could be endless ways of doing a work wrongly while the proper way is only one but one could not know the all wrong ways unless and until he tries for the right way. Knowing the wrong ways is equally important otherwise we miss almost all other facts and left with only one which is the right version. So, we see that knowledge is not just a single truth but it comprises of endless facts and those could be acquired only if we go through the process. Hence, the process is more important than the result even if it (process) is not fruitful. Knowledge is long event instead of an instant type phenomenon.
So there is absolutely no comparison between the information and the knowledge. Information is just a drop of the ocean of knowledge.

Yes lancek4, I have some personal experiences. You may call it spiritual or paranormal or something likewise. I am not hesitant mentioning them but I avoided just because I feel that it will be altogether different subject. If you and other members wish then I will post them in a new thread.
But, my interpretation of Socrates does not seem to be unwarranted. Correct me if I am wrong.
I wrote about Satyr what I felt honestly and as well as for SOB.

To SOB-

You got is absolutely right. English is a second language for me but I have mastery in my mother tongue. Furthermore, my vocabulary is not good enough to tackle a difficult subject like philosophy as it has a bad habit of roaming around the words. I tell you honestly that more often than not, I have to consult thesaurus to understand the meaning of words. But, I do not see any harm or shame in it. Nobody knows everything but my understanding is keeping me alive and I hope that it will continue to do so. And, most importantly, I am learning from all this.

From you comment about the statement of Socrates, it appears that you mean that he is trying to hide behind the words. I do not feel so.

I want to draw your attention towards a different aspect. Just look at the character of Socrates. He sacrificed his life without a hint of hesitation for his ideology.

A man of such strong character could not say something in confusing manner just to enable him to take back his words in the future or manipulate his intentions in front of others. He was brave and man of his words. We should not expect a weak posture from him.

As I said my reply to lancek4, he is not certain about the status of his journey. I am trying to visualize his mental state in these words-

Though travelled far enough according to him, having crossed many stages, still travelling and finding hard to go on, yet unable even to estimate the remaining distance as there is not even a hint of final destination.

I see a hint of tiredness and even frustration in him by going through Wikipedia page. It is bound to happen. But, nevertheless, he admits it because he was honest and brave as a true philosopher should be. I want you to have a look at quotations I mentioned above. The problem is that we try to see him as a philosopher and form our opinion. But he simply refuses to pay attention towards what we call thinking or philosophizing. He is talking about entirely different phenomenon. He is talking about spiritual realms, guides and seeking directions from them. He is talking about the things what he is able to see when he closes his eyes. He was a spiritualist. The philosophic proportion of his personality is derived from his spiritual experiences not from thinking.

I am not a Buddhist but I believe in it in a broad sense as in all other prominent religions.
My perception is that all religions and many other spiritual schools walk parallel almost holding hands of each other on the way to the ultimate. Although it is possible that the distance covered by them may be different but I am very sure that the direction is the same. So, sitting at the bottom of the pyramid, we can choose anyone. If one is able to cross some stages, then the time comes when directions are shown in one form or another to show the way.

The four men concept was nice and interesting.

By the way, I live in India and Hindu by religion.

To Arising_uk-------

Although in general behavior it is difficult to carry on the burden of third person all the time but, when you sit down and trying to think deeply, it is achievable. It is not a god like state. If one use to think deep and honestly and convert it into a habit then mind uses to come in this state almost by default. The approach of a judge is must for a philosopher.

I am not against questioning. All I want to say that it should be reasonable.

If Bill has done as you said then I must say sorry to him but I used it just an example to explain my point.

I see belief as a mother and experiences/witnessing as a father. If the semen of father is strong enough to make the mother pregnant and then, if the mother is strong to carry the child in her womb for long time enough so the child would mature before coming into existence, the child of faith is born. Even after taking birth, it needs to be cared properly by his parents otherwise it will die or became ill. It should he looked after until he becomes able to walk and talk.

I simply do not know that there is singularity of the ultimate or ultimate entities. But I feel that one of these must be true. The problem is we cannot know it by philosophy. It could be known only when experience it in person.

I want to thank all of you.

with love.
sanjay