The Ignoramus & The Skeptic

Agent Smith

Skeptic: Someone who knows he knows nothing.
Ignoramus: Someone who knows nothing.

The crucial difference: In psychological circles what is known as insight (into one's own condition).

Insight: Self-awareness is key. In Buddhist terms I believe the apposite concept is mindfulness, a much broader notion that includes, in addition to self-awareness, other-awareness: Situational Awareness!

Skeptic: Knows one and only one thing viz. that he know nothing.

Ignoramus: Knows nothing, plus doesn't know that he knows nothing.

Temet nosce (know thyself).

I've seen more movies on AI (artificial intelligence) than I care to count and there are more I haven't even heard of, obviously. The central theme of all such Hollywood productions: AI gains self-awareness.

Thus, the skeptic's main intention is to awaken us from what could be taken as run of the mill robot mode. We are (true) AI to the extent we're informed of our own existence and condition and just ordinary robots if not.

Ignoramus: Computer (garden variety)
Skeptic: (True) AI [Socrates was a bona fide AI, vide Socratic paradox :point: I know that I know nothing].

god must be atheist

Socrates was totally wrong. He knew some things. He did not know everything, but he was far from knowing nothing.

I wonder why he would want to undermine his own reputation by an obviously false declaration of how things are.

Tom Storm

Skeptic: Someone who knows he knows nothing.
Ignoramus: Someone who knows nothing. — Agent Smith

Skeptic: Someone who pretends they know nothing but acts as if they do.

Ignoramus: Someone who pretends they know something but acts as if they don't.

The truth is located in the behaviour.

The central theme of all such Hollywood productions: AI gains self-awareness. — Agent Smith

I think the central theme is AI becomes human - the great source of fascination and horror since Mary Shelly's monster. Deep down, one great fear is that if being human can be artificially manufactured by mere technology then perhaps we are not so special.

My understanding of Scorates, if located in a Platonic tradition, is that all knowledge of truth goodness and beauty is already there for us waiting immutably in the Logos. It can be reached though an awaking, perhaps with the right rhetorical engagement, hence the importance of dialogues.

I think there are a range of robot modes available to humans - it comes in many guises and variations.

180 Proof

Sceptic: I know that I am ignorant of most knowable things, whatever I do know most of which I'm not certain of and, frustratingly, even my few certainties could still be false – ergo, with sufficient grounds, I question myself and those others who do not. (re: "a sad Socrates")

Ignoramus: I do not want to know that (what) I do not know; therefore, 'illusions of knowledge' suffice – I'm content. (re "satisfied swine")

Robot-mode: GIGO. (Only hazardous when programmed / operated by ignoramuses e.g. politicians, managers, bureaucrats, clergy, et al.)

↪Agent Smith

:chin:

The truth is located in the behaviour. — Tom Storm

:up:

javra

↪god must be atheist

Skeptic: Someone who knows he knows nothing. — Agent Smith

Its only contradictory if no equivocation is involved. Importing some terms from the more modern notion of fallibilism, me thinks the statement nowadays ought to read: “I fallibly know that I infallibly know nothing” :razz: Here illustrating two distinct senses of the term “know”.

Skeptic: Knows one and only one thing viz. that he know nothing. — Agent Smith

Academic skeptics such as Cicero fallibly knew a plethora of things, including that they didn’t hold infallible knowledge. :smile:

To the Academic skeptic at least, he who believes himself endowed with infallible knowledge would be ignorant.

Tobias

Sceptic: I know that I am ignorant of most knowable things, whatever I do know most of which I'm not certain of and, frustratingly, even my few certainties could still be false – ergo, with sufficient grounds, I question myself and others who do not. (re: "a sad Socrates")

Ignoramus: I do not want to know that (what) I do not know; therefore, 'illusions of knowledge' suffice – I'm content. (re "satisfied swine") — 180 Proof

:100: :up:

javra

↪Tobias

Why must the Academic skeptic be classified as "sad"? :gasp:

Tobias

Well, it is 180's description so he is in a better position, but I agree with him and I do see a certain sadness here. One knows that there is no solid foundations on which to build our assumptions of the world and worse, one also knows that the other does not know as well. There is therefore no hope of redemption. You can ask every wise man or woman, but you will only end up asking questions and trouncing him or her. The victory is a pyrrhic one though because the certainty one seeks is not there.

javra

↪Tobias

OK, but all that kind'a flies in the face of their notion of ataraxia.

Tobias

Not necessarily no? Ataraxia is just the condition of accepting this very situation, aka, amor fati, the skeptic is fated to ask these questions and has come to grips with this predicament.

javra

... and:

Pyrrhonists view ataraxia as necessary for bringing about eudaimonia (happiness) for a person,[3] representing life's ultimate purpose.[4] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ataraxia#Pyrrhonism

Now, while Pyrrhonism is different from Academic skepticism, there's no doubting that the latter was strongly influenced by the former.

This as there's no doubting that fallibilism does not translate into universal doubt. Which is to say, different degrees of fallible certainty are part and parcel of ancient skeptic thought: cf., Pyrrhonism's (fallible) certainty that eudaimonia is life's ultimate purpose.

180 Proof

↪javra

"Sad" is how skeptics probably seem to "blissful" ignoramuses. Not all skeptics are alike, however. Pyrrhonians, who restrict their doubt (epochē) to undecideable philosophical and religious Beliefs, I think, attain ataraxia whereas Academic Skeptics (e.g. fideists, dogmatists) do not. Fallibilists, in the context of modern science and politics, treat positive Knowledge-claims as provisional (i.e. not yet shown to be false as well as inherently error-prone and approximative) and in this way are more like Pyrrhonians in contrast to Academics.

↪Tobias

:fire:

javra

↪180 Proof

:up: :grin: Maybe a bit unfair to some Academic Skeptics (my first thought is of Cicero), but I do agree with the overall spiel.

god must be atheist

↪javra

You had me as a reference but you did not quote the part you found pertinent.

I think we think too much into texts. If he wanted to say that you think Socrates really wanted to say, he could have said that. Not to disparage you, but you said that. Why could then Socrates not say that?

I believe that people say what they mean. If Socrates said "I know nothing" he meant he knew nothing. Everything else, interpreting it by twisting and changing the text is illegal reasoning. If he said "I know nothing", he did not mean "I know some things but not really, and the things I know I am skeptical about, for ignoring the skeptic is the ignoramus' way". Or anything of the like. He said "I know nothing" because he meant to say, "I know nothing". I don't accept any other explanation.

john27

Ignoramus: I do not want to know that (what) I do not know; therefore, 'illusions of knowledge' suffice – I'm content. (re "satisfied swine)" — 180 Proof

Hey! I'm not a swine! I prefer "happy human", thank you very much.

john27

I believe that people say what they mean. If Socrates said "I know nothing" he meant he knew nothing. — god must be atheist

I think Socrates was just bitter he couldn't know everything, so he chose the next best thing.

john27

Ignoramus: Someone who pretends they know something but acts as if they don't. — Tom Storm

Nay good fisher, it is someone who simply does not care to know. He has no thirst of knowledge, he's got crops to grow.

Tom Storm

↪john27

So I was merely playing on Agent's wording and making no proclamations about truth. And I hate to break it to you - there are multiple potential definitions for ignoramus.

john27

And I hate to break it to you - there are multiple potential definitions for ignoramus. — Tom Storm

I suppose it would depend on how you look at it and where your looking from. Like always...

So I was merely playing on Agent's wording and making no proclamations about truth. — Tom Storm

Oh. My bad.

Tom Storm

↪john27

:up:

javra

You had me as a reference but you did not quote the part you found pertinent. — god must be atheist

I thought the entire post was, in particular:

Socrates was totally wrong. [...] — god must be atheist

I don't see anything wrong with fallibly knowing that one knows nothing infallibly. As far as the supposed Socratic paradox goes, it makes logical sense of it and is in line with much of ancient skeptic reasoning ... this as far as I can tell.

I think we think too much into texts. If he wanted to say that you think Socrates really wanted to say, he could have said that. Not to disparage you, but you said that. Why could then Socrates not say that?

I believe that people say what they mean. If Socrates said "I know nothing" he meant he knew nothing. — god must be atheist

For the historically accurate record, Socrates never said that he knew he knew nothing:

"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates himself was never recorded as having said this phrase, and scholars generally agree that Socrates only ever asserted that he believed that he knew nothing, having never claimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

That he believed he knew nothing is not a contradiction, and I don't see how anyone can evidence this proposition wrong - especially when knowledge is taken to be infallible by the principle of it being necessarily true, as in being "justified, true belief".

:

Agent Smith

Skeptic: Someone who pretends they know nothing but acts as if they do.

Ignoramus: Someone who pretends they know something but acts as if they don't.

The truth is located in the behaviour. — Tom Storm

I'm sorry I couldn't parse that. You mean to say

Skeptic: Someone who knows something and acts like he knows something

Ignoramus: Someone who knows nothing and acts like he knows nothing.

:chin: Your definitions don't square with my, and presumably others', understanding of what skeptics and ignoranmuses are.

we are not so special. — Tom Storm

Mediocrity principle. Consult 180 Proof for more.

Sceptic: I know that I am ignorant of most knowable things, whatever I do know most of which I'm not certain of and, frustratingly, even my few certainties could still be false – ergo, with sufficient grounds, I question myself and those others who do not. (re: "a sad Socrates")

Ignoramus: I do not want to know that (what) I do not know; therefore, 'illusions of knowledge' suffice – I'm content. (re "satisfied swine")

Robot-mode: GIGO. (Only hazardous when programmed / operated by ignoramuses e.g. politicians, managers, bureaucrats, clergy, et al.) — 180 Proof

:clap: :clap:

Tom Storm's right:

Skeptics and ignoramuses behave differently: the former act cautiously, the latter flings care to the wind.

Agent Smith

↪javra

One of the biggest problems we face is self-proclaimed infallible authorities. The skeptic tends not to recognize such entities, being informed that mistakes could and do occur. The ignoramus though is likely to believe the exact opposite. Odd that! Dunning-Kruger effect?

god must be atheist

I think Socrates was just bitter he couldn't know everything, so he chose the next best thing. — john27

A case of sour grapes? And people argued about that for millennia. I think you're right. No matter what a great thinker one is, one is still bitter for not being all that one can be.

god must be atheist

"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. Socrates himself was never recorded as having said this phrase, and scholars generally agree that Socrates only ever asserted that he believed that he knew nothing, having never claimed that he knew that he knew nothing. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

Wikipedia is full of total bullshit, spewed by Socrates-worshipping blinded nincompoops.
1. Everything Socrates said was derived by Plato's account. Saying that this was falsely derived, and other things were rightfully derived is BLATANT CHERY-PICKING.
2. Socrates ASSERTING something is equivalent to Socrates CLAIMING that something. Scholars? they are stupid, stupid eggheads who know not their anuses from hole in the ground.

I am getting angry, because I've heard these arguments (trying impotently to whitewash and falsify this statement's magnitude) so many times that it's coming out of my ear.

I am finished here. I ought not to let my anger take over me, but I can't help it, seeing so much ingornance, stupidity, and falsification of FACTS.

That he believed he knew nothing is not a contradiction, — javra

Did he say "I believe I know nothing"? Did he? DID HE??? He said "I KNOW nothing". There is no mention of belief there.

Please don't accept your imagination as facts.

Agent Smith

Socrates was totally wrong. He knew some things. He did not know everything, but he was far from knowing nothing.

I wonder why he would want to undermine his own reputation by an obviously false declaration of how things are. — god must be atheist

Maybe Socrates wanted to send a message - exercise caution - and if it meant resorting to hyperbole, so be it!

god must be atheist

Maybe Socrates wanted to send a message - exercise caution - and if it meant resorting to hyperbole, so be it! — Agent Smith

Maybe.

Agent Smith

Maybe — god must be atheist

:grin: Skeptic mode, eh?

god must be atheist

:grin: Skeptic mode, eh? — Agent Smith

Yeah... tired of the stupidity of the world. They see written "yes" and they will say it says "no", because their cognitive dissonance can only be rationalized by altering facts, bona-fide, written, unaltered and unalterable facts. But no, rationalization must win, at all costs, even at the cost of truth.

I am so totally tired of that. You see it everywhere, and if you correct them, they put up stupid arguments, or else, they lynch you.

180 Proof

↪john27

:smirk:

Agent Smith

they lynch you. — god must be atheist

:fear: Auto-da-fé.

Talk is cheap...better that it come to blows than waste your breath. :grin:

I first thought that, supposing those like you are correct, ignoramuses now rule the world, I mean literally (politics & religion the power-sharing couple of all time), what we've experienced over the past millennia is a gradual lynching of skeptics (aka intellectuals); this is an ongoing genocide of course.

I'm not into fortune telling but if we keep this up, the future looks bleak. It appears that we don't need a nuclear holocaust to transport us back to the stone age; we just need to get rid of genuine, good thinkers - lynching would do it and so would other forms of (summary) execution.

Welcome to the world of stupid (3000 AD)!

The Ignoramus & The Skeptic

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions