It could also mean, that "Socrates" did not know, how to not to know. — Vajk

Interesting. You pressed a key there. I've been wondering for sometime how one can voluntarily commit things to memory but doing the opposite isn't possible. We can't wilfully forget, can we?

complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash_(computing)

Socrates did not know, how to not to know.

Hi Vajk, good thought, but I think his daemon only guides him in conversations with others, in his relationship with others, in this sense it belongs to the conversation and it is not entirely his.

"And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.”

Perhaps someone should ask the Oracle of Delphoi: "Is there any man wiser than Socrates?"

SOCRATES: You know, Phaedrus, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The offsprings of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify just that very same thing forever. When it has once been written down, every discourse roams about everywhere, reaching indiscriminately those with understanding no less than those who have no business with it, and it doesn’t know to whom it should speak and to whom it should not. And when it is faulted and attacked unfairly, it always needs its father’s support; alone, it can neither defend itself nor come to its own support.

Note that in the academic scholarship on both Socrates and Plato, Socrates' claim to know that he knows nothing is NOT referred to as "the Socratic Paradox". The Socratic Paradox is "No one does evil knowingly (willingly)*."

*The Greeks of Plato's time did not have a concept of Will separate from that of knowing. That only arrives on the scene with the Stoics.

*The Greeks of Plato's time did not have a concept of Will separate from that of knowing. That only arrives on the scene with the Stoics.

I agree with this, the other part...so what?

"But
the most absurd thing of all is that one cannot even get to
know their names or say who they were-except perhaps
one who happens to be a comic playwright. * The ones who
have persuaded you by malicious slander, and also some
who persuade others because they have been persuaded
themselves, are all very hard to deal with: one cannot put
any of them on the stand here in court, or cross-examine
anybody, but one must literally engage in a sort of shadowboxing
to defend oneself, and cross-examine without anyone
to answer."

Just a FYI, so that if outside of this Forum you see the phrase "Socratic Paradox", you'll recognize what is at issue.

SOCRATES: Now tell me, can we discern another kind of discourse, a legitimate brother of this one? Can we say how it comes about, and how it is by nature better and more capable?

PHAEDRUS: Which one is that? How do you think it comes about?

SOCRATES: It is a discourse that is written down, with knowledge, in the soul of the listener; it can defend itself, and it knows for whom it should speak and for whom it should remain silent.

I have to apologize, I did not meant to denote Platos Socrates While I writed that "Socrates did not know, how to not to know." It should be look like this:Perhaps "Socrates" also did not know, how to not to know.

"And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.” — Vajk

That's unfair to the written word. I believe, in some way, it's all about information. It's not my idea but I read a book (sorry can't remember which) that information began as hard-coded in our DNA and then the brain evolved memory which, in turn, led to the evolution of computer memory. I think it's not that people don't want to remember. Rather they simply can't remember it all.

Another thing I want to say is you, knowingly(?), put up an EXIT sign outside the philosophy depatment. I call it anti-philosophy, a rejection, may be even disdain, for knowledge, reason and wisdom. Given that there's no meaning to life, in other words life lacks that essence we seek, there's no reason to turn one's back on philosophy - forget truths, reject rationality and become an idiot or even go insane.

Just a FYI, so that if outside of this Forum you see the phrase "Socratic Paradox", you'll recognize what is at issue. — Mitchell

Thank you so much for the clarification.

I told You, before I was born I have heard a voice:
It sad: Nem hihetsz semmiben. (Hungarian) it could mean that: I shall not belive in anything and it could also mean that I shall not belive in Nothing. And I started to laugh, and while I was laughing i have born, and still laughing.
I see "things" differently I see "points" that others not, like on that pointilist picture I linked before.
As a child, my mother used to call me Vajki, so when I started to think in Hungarian about who I realy am.I formed a question: Vaj ki lehetek?(hungarian) it means Who may I'll be?

To cut to chase, Socrates is not claiming ignorance. Rather he's claiming knowledge of his ignorance.

Your views??? — TheMadFool

I think you're on the right track. I wonder if we can paraphrase Socrates as saying, "I don't go around pretending to know things that I don't know."

I see numbers everywhere. Godel may want to talk to me.

I think you're on the right track. I wonder if we can paraphrase Socrates as saying, "I don't go around pretending to know things that I don't know." — anonymous66

It's so complex. My head hurts and I just want to give up the search for anything philosophy claims is worthwhile. I don't want to turn East and pray to Mecca. I want to go West, away from everything people say is valuable. Strangely, I know I'll end up in Mecca because the world is round.

My head hurts and I just want to give up the search for anything philosophy claims is worthwhile. — TheMadFool

I can relate. I was really enjoying philosophy until recently when I heard some lectures on the topic of truth. Now whenever I think about the various theories of truth my head starts to hurt.

I suspect I'll get over it. (I've had similar experiences with other topics).

Maybe you're trying to hard. Just go where you feel like going. Trust your intuition and your instincts.

Maybe you're trying to hard. Just go where you feel like going. Trust your intuition and your instincts. — anonymous66

(Y)

I skimmed through this thread and didn't see anybody mention the fact that Socrates never actually said this--at least as far as I know; I could always be wrong. But I've always been under the impression that this is one of those made-up quotes that was never actually said, either by him or by anyone.

Does anybody have a citation for this quote? Which text it was claimed to have been said in?

The phrase "I know that I know nothing","The only thing I know, is that I know nothing" or "I know one thing; that I know nothing", sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying.

Wikipedia

He comes very close to this formulation several times at the beginning of the Apology, ex: 21d.

Very interesting, thank you.

I guess it is a very similar sentiment, but the actual quote seems a bit more up for interpretation.

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

It seems to me if we want to reword it, a more accurate version would be "I do not believe that I know what I do not know." Which doesn't appear paradoxical to me.

It's possible there's more to consider in regards to what exactly he meant by "fancy", and comparing translations would likely help. I have two or three different translations of the Apology at home, but unfortunately I am away at the moment.

Either way, though, I think the original inaccurate quote is still a good sentiment. It does depend on one's thoughts about epistemology, though. Personally, I believe Descartes was right in his claim that the only thing i can be certain of is that I exist. Everything else requires varying degrees of faith, and so cannot be said to be "knowledge" in the true sense, because I believe knowledge implies certainty. And "the only thing i know is that I know nothing" is a poetic--if not paradoxical--way to express that.

"I do not believe that I know what I do not know." Which doesn't appear paradoxical to me.

No, not paradoxical, but I wonder if Plato/Socrates would agree. In his Meno Socrates talks about true belief, and he worries about the stability of its foundation. If you look at his geometrical proof with the slave boy, Socrates leads to boy to a correct understanding by showing the path and helping the boy to walk down it, enabling him to reason out to the correct answer. That 'reasoning out' I think is an example of anamnesis, active recollection of truths inside us, versus his myth of previous lives as passive mneme, memories.

Descartes accomplished an amazing epistemological feat but it seems to put us in a very difficult, dualistic position, one that we can't easily escape of if we maintain his position. His position entails that we can't know other minds, or anything outside our own minds with certainly.

That 'reasoning out' I think is an example of anamnesis, active recollection of truths inside us, versus his myth of previous lives as passive mneme, memories. — Cavacava

It's been a while since I studied Meno, but I do believe the concept was that we all possess innate knowledge, not from a past life, but placed into our minds at our conception.

His position entails that we can't know other minds, or anything outside our own minds with certainly. — Cavacava

I agree that it puts us in a difficult position in that regard, but I still can't help but agree with him. I just don't see how we could possibly say we know anything else with certainty, and I've never seen a convincing enough argument to change my mind.