here is something spiritual which, by a divine dispensation, has accompanied me from my childhood up. It is a voice that, when it occurs, always indicates to me a prohibition of something I may be about to do, but never urges me on to anything. — Socrates

we shall, I think, be nearest to knowledge when we avoid, so far as possible, intercourse and communion with the body, except what is absolutely necessary, and are not filled with its nature, but keep ourselves pure from it until God himself sets us free — Socrates

liberation from [the ignorance that binds us to] the round of birth and death — Wayfarer

Socrates does speak of the “loosing”, or “setting free” (lysis, apolysis) of the soul — Apollodorus

These conflicting ideas: of the prohibition on ourself (our ego, which would urge us to act), by ourselves, that binds us, in chains, corrupted by our body (politic), or that traps us, in a cave, turned from our truth; and: of the freedom to act, but only if necessitated, from outside ourselves (beside ourselves Thoreau says; our next self Emerson echoes), as an attitude (a chosen position) to our expressions that keeps in mind the end (or death) of the passive reception of our open-ended intuition, because a word is a kind of violence, which kills (the other aspect) as much as it births, so we only speak if we must, if our duty requires it (that Arjuna kill his brother, that Emerson shun his mother and father). Wittgenstein, in the Tractatus, definitively makes statements, seemingly factually. But there is also a feeling of extreme restraint, as if he is reluctant to speak (too humble to say "I know") unless he is absolutely certain. Now our understanding from at least the Enlightenment has been that knowledge is that of which we are logically, rationally, validly, emperically certain, but what if our soul is voiced (made "I am!") only when we are certain of ourselves, confident that we have settled the terms of our act, not ignoring its implications, but fated to its consequences, willing to be held responsible, to appear foolish or arrogant or insane, resolved to answer for our need to act, even with our death.

Just think about this. Einstein thought the universe is deterministic on the grounds that God dont play dice. So God matters. — Prishon

Non sequitur!

Its very relevant to the discussion. If God cant create pure randomness then this has implications for QM.

Its very relevant to the discussion. If God cant create pure randomness then this has implications for QM. — Prishon

Non sequitur because Cheshire was trying to use an irony, something that gets my juices flowing, in re epistemology, to prove God. What you said has no relevance to that unless...I'm mistaken and you have a card up your sleeve.

Show me the irony!

Does it get your adverse juices flowing? I guess yes. I cant see the irony in what I said. God didnt like pure chance. In fact he couldnt even imagine it! Thats why he created hidden variables.

Does it get your adverse juices flowing? I guess yes. I cant see the irony in what I said. God didnt like pure chance. In fact he couldnt even imagine it! Thats why he created hidden variables. — Prishon

No irony, no deal!

Now I WAS ironic!

Now I WAS ironic! — Prishon

Sorry, fail! No irony detected!

God didnt like pure chance. In fact he couldnt even imagine it! Thats why he created hidden variables. — Prishon

Dont you think this is ironic.

God didnt like pure chance. In fact he couldnt even imagine it! Thats why he created hidden variables.
— Prishon

Dont you think this is ironic. — Prishon

No, nothing surprising/out of the ordinary/counter-intuitive going on.

No, nothing surprising/out of the ordinary/counter-intuitive going on. — TheMadFool

Then you have to admit that God HAS an influence on epistemology.

Then you have to admit that God HAS an influence on epistemology. — Prishon

Why? That's what theists would do. I could be an atheist. Good day. I'm all out.

Nontheless it was a nice polemic. And eventough God and the gods are there I prefer not to gove a goddamne thing about them. Insofar Im concerned they are dead. I use him only for interpreting QM, which he or they created.

That's what theists would — TheMadFool

What would they do? Make you admit?

Beautiful prose, although I don’t understand all of the allusions. My feeling about The Enlightenment is that its aim is to bend the world to our will and to make ourselves the arbiter of truth, rather than seek a truth to which we must conform. I think Socrates really is an archaic type when viewed from that perspective. There’s a desire to pay him lip service as he’s held to be an icon of Western civilisation but really the spirit of our age is deeply inimical to his kind. We threw the baby of wisdom out with the bathwater of religion.

What would they do? Make you admit? — Prishon

I'm fed up with your questions! — KDT

That's a compliment by the way.

Nontheless it was a nice polemic. And eventough God and the gods are there I prefer not to gove a goddamne thing about them. Insofar Im concerned they are dead. I use him only for interpreting QM, which he or they created. — Prishon

I'm too tired to fight back! You win!

I'm too tired to fight back! You win! — TheMadFool

When you have regained strong awakeness you can return. I now understand.

It is illustrative and obviously not a personal inventory of Socrates knowledge. Has this really been confusing people? — Cheshire

Well, apparently, it continues to be a cause of consternation to some.

I'm fed up with your questions! — KDT

Who is KDT?

To know that I don't know is better than to think you know when you actually don't know. — TheMadFool

Correct.

However, what Socrates means by "right opinion" (orthe doxa) is, for example, if you knew the way to Larisa (the city where Meno was born) without yourself having traveled there, but from being told by someone who has personal knowledge of the way.

This kind of opinion would not be mere uninformed opinion but right opinion and may serve as right guidance (orthe hegesia) as a basis of right action (Meno 97b).

See also Knowledge and Opinion in Plato's Meno

Interesting. I never imagined another way to take it.

Beautiful prose, although I don’t understand all of the allusions. — Wayfarer

Well thank you. Though it's not very analytic of me, all the imagery made me think along those lines. I'm happy to draw out or cite any of the analogy/metaphors.

My feeling about The Enlightenment is that its aim is to bend the world to our will and to make ourselves the arbiter of truth, rather than seek a truth to which we must conform. — Wayfarer

I was mirroring that sentiment in saying, roughly, we impose the criteria for certainty on knowledge, such as universality, predictability, predetermination, abstraction, etc. I feel as if interpreting Plato's forms as metaphysical lost Socrates method, ambition, and aspiration for virtue rather than our modern idea of knowledge.

the spirit of our age is deeply inimical to his kind. We threw the baby of wisdom out with the bathwater of religion. — Wayfarer

I would offer that the culprit is the desire for the outcome (certainty) that science provides, that the same outcome can be reached by anyone, so not only does it have nothing to do with our interests and commitments, but the process does nothing to make us a better person.

As once I said, ideas enslave as much as they emancipate. — TheMadFool

In a sense, that is the message of Taoism.

(I need to go back and read this thread.)

Socrates is a skeptic and fallibilist. "Know Thyself" implies 'to know that one does not know' with complete certainty and therefore always having to learn (especially when one is the teacher). I think Socrates functions only as an exemplar, but not an avatar (like e.g. Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Jesus).

an exemplar, but not an avatar — 180 Proof

Expand a little please.

On what specifically?

I'm haven't read a lot of Greek philosophers, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Socrates was talking about. After all, like some fools, he was put to death. Does that make sense in context: — T Clark

It isn't just fools that are put to death. But it does make sense. Obviously, we can only guess what really was going through his mind. In a way, it may be said that he was at once foolish and wise. Maybe a certain amount of "foolishness" or what appears to be such is needed in order to be truly wise.

"Know Thyself" implies 'to know that one does not know' with complete certainty — 180 Proof

It may well imply that. But I think there must be more to true self-knowledge than apparent absence of complete certainty.

to make wisdom a life goal meant he had to stop caring about crossing the river Styx but then, if he didn't mind a visit from the Grim Reaper, he didn't give jack sh** about life. Thus, in a sense, life was of utmost importance to Socrates but also, it was not! — TheMadFool

Around 400 bc life was very different
It is more likely that survival came with many near death experiences.
Therefore recognition of eminent demise was his only true knowledge,
unless you question your own existence, which he did.