If that works for you, run with it, Fool. As I understand it, however, philosophy proposes definitions, descriptions, interpretations, criteria, methods/systems and speculations (i.e. thought-experiments, intuition pumps, etc) – noncognitive ideas – but does not determine knowledge (i.e. (A) indefeasible axiomatic systems of object / expression substitution rulesets or (B) testable explanatory models of physical transformations / regularities or (C) consistent, coherent webs of defeasible beliefs) so I don't see how "JTB" applies to philosophical discourse (pace Plato et al). In other words, knowledge denotes solutions to well-defined problems (cognitivity, theoretical); philosophy does not 'solve well-defined problems' but rather only raises (unbegged) questions – makes relevant 'ignorance visible' – by which problems might become (at least) conceptually well-defined (noncognitivity, performative) and, therefore, solvable (knowable).

No thanks. After having read one book of [Popper] and his falsificationism I have grown up. All his books, I can say without actually having read them, will be a waste of my time. — Prishon

Gotcha. No sense in troubling yourself with what apparently you don't or can't understand. (I recommended multiple thinkers to corroborate one another as well as to provide more than one source that someone might get hung-up on.) But hey, I won't waste anymore of your incorrigibly precious time. :roll:

:sweat:

Noooo! Not now! Pleaeaease. Im tired and need some sleeeep... :smile:

But I'll be back. To getcha

If that works for you, run with it, Fool. As I understand it, however, philosophy proposes definitions, descriptions, interpretations, criteria, methods/systems and speculations (i.e. thought-experiments, intuition pumps, etc) – noncognitive ideas – but does not determine knowledge (i.e. (A) indefeasible axiomatic systems of object / expression substitution rulesets or (B) testable explanatory models of physical transformations / regularities or (C) consistent, coherent webs of defeasible beliefs) so I don't see how "JTB" applies to philosophical discourse (pace Plato et al). In other words, knowledge denotes solutions to well-defined problems (cognitivity, theoretical); philosophy does not 'solve well-defined problems' but rather only raises (unbegged) questions – makes relevant ignorance visible – by which problems might become (at least) conceptually well-defined (noncognitivity, performative) and, therefore, solvable (knowable). — 180 Proof

I don't know how exactly to phrase this but haven't you answered your own question?

I understand philosophy, not in the sense just the academic discipline but inclusive of all epistemologically charged discourse, whether self-reflective or otherwise, as a game but not merely as a game, that involves exploration from what is essentially uncertainty as encapsulated in the disjunction p v ~p, for any and all propositions p. This, I hold, is the skeptic's calling card.

Given this is so, justification is a cornerstone with belief being optional for knowledge.

However, you've stated a position that I'm, for better or worse, unfamiliar with. To remedy this rather disconcerting state of affairs, I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.

Jokes aside, what do you make of a philosophy (Pyrrhonism) that can induce such a transformation in someone who takes the idea (that) seriously?

It appears that despite the similarities between Buddhism and Pyrrhonism, Buddhism is less radical than Pyrrhonism in its general attitude towards life and reality. — TheMadFool

‘Radical’ means ‘from the root’. Both are radical philosophies. Buddhism was and is a radical philosophy, although it’s been thoroughly domesticated in some ways by thousands of years of acculturation. But in its original setting, it was a strictly renunciate movement - joining the Buddhist order meant literally giving away everything. And the Greek cynics and sceptics were also ascetic in that respect. Wasn’t it Diogenes the cynic who lived in an abandoned water tank on the outskirts of the town? Who, when approached by Alexander the Great, and asked what in the world he, Emperor, could offer him, got the reply ‘just stand to one side, you’re blocking my sun’?

As the article says, many of those anecdotes about Pyrrho are apocryphal, but ancient literature is like that. Stories are selected to make a rhetorical point. If they weren’t remarkable in some way, then they wouldn’t be remarked on. They’re illustrative.

I suppose, from a philosophical perspective, what is interesting about both of those sources, is that they put scepticism in a different perspective. They’re not sceptical in the sense that we understand the term, but sceptical about what we ourselves regard as the indubitable realities of our own experience. It’s actually pretty scary.

It’s actually pretty scary. — Wayfarer

You can say that again!

It appears that few or no people ever practice what they preach because deep down they know their philosophies can't be tranlsated into deeds. Thoughts - go hog-wild; words - be careful; deeds - caution, danger! Isn't that somehow thought-provoking?

I don't know how exactly to phrase this but haven't you answered your own question? — TheMadFool

What question are you talking about? My previous post was in reply to you advocating "JTB", Fool, which I thiink does not apply to (formal, scientific or experiential-doxic forms of knowledge).

I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.

Read (don't skim) my previous post, it's there right smack in the middle spoon-feeding you the A, B, C's. Anything more, Fool, Google & wiki might be of some help (though no substitutes for studying e.g. Peirce & Dewey, Wittgenstein & Popper, Haack et al ... for starters).

What question are you talking about? My previous post was in reply to you advocating "JTB", Fool, which I thiink does not apply to (formal, scientific or experiential-doxic forms of knowledge).

I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.
Read (don't skim) my previous post, it's there right smack in the middle spoon-feeding you the A, B, C's. Anything more, Fool, Google & wiki might be of some help (though no substitutes for studying e.g. Peirce, & Dewey, Wittgenstein & Popper, Haack et al ... for starters). — 180 Proof

I expect you to cut me some slack here because I can't make heads or tails of knowledge divorced from propositions that are justified and hence believed unless, of course, you mean to give the stamp of approval to mysticism and revelation both considered "knowledge" in some circles.

Nope. Have a good one, buddy.

Nope. Have a good one, buddy. — 180 Proof

:lol: :ok:

I still didn't get it. There's merit wherever there's irony. Can you dumb down your argument from epistemic irony for God so that I too may see what you seem to have seen. Thanks in advance! — TheMadFool

Socrates demonstrated the merits of classical skepticism showing expectations of certainty aren't the products of wisdom; but for some reason people choose to struggle to establish certainty instead of critical inquiry of their own ideas. He was basically delivering Popper's critical rationalism thousands of years in advance but it was misinterpreted and dogmatically applied into absurdity. At least they let Popper live a while longer.

I think I have a loose understanding of what you and Plato are getting at. It sounds like giving labels to the different species of thought. The one we play with by the rules being logical, the associative or intuitive connections we make that aren't set to any logical criteria, the background processing like the "what it is" to see in 3D space, and lastly the gray area of mathematics where a self consistent model runs up against a world in flux. Or I'm out in the parking lot chasing fireflies; history suggest it's usually a bit of both. Thanks for the comprehensive response.

"'I know that I know nothing' is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. It is also called the Socratic paradox. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

"Socrates never said this. This quote is never attributed to Socrates in any ancient sources. In fact, this quote actually comes from a source about as far from Socrates as you can possibly get; it originated in the United States in the late nineteenth century as an aphorism among evangelical Protestants."
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/07/16/fake-and-misattributed-ancient-quotes/

There are a lot of references in which this is claimed. But see, this statement-quote is supposed to be said 2,500 ago! Even if it has been actually said (e.g. we have found it in some ancient tablet or papyrus), we can't know really in which context and conditions it was said. Data from various references differ a lot between them.

However, besides all this, we must ask ourselves: "Is there some usefulness in trying to explaining this paradox-like, apparently incomprehensible statement-quote?", "Can it be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion or for explaining anything?" I, personally, can't find anything.

The Wikipedia article you are quoting explains, quite clearly in my view, that "I know that I know nothing" is a paraphrase of Socrates' original statement:

This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know" (in Plato, Apology 21d).

Of course it is entirely possible that Socrates and Plato never existed and never said anything. However, as far as I am aware, this is not disputed by historians or scholars.

It sounds like giving labels to the different species of thought. — Cheshire

Yes. Plato's main intention here seems to be to distinguish between different forms of thought, in particular, discursive thought (dianoia) that uses words and images, and a higher, nondiscursive form (nous) that has the ability to somehow directly grasp more abstract concepts and "metaphysical" realities.

In other words, he is trying to explain how individual human intellect can connect with a higher form of intelligence that is the source of all knowledge and all truth, i.e., "the Good".

Basically, we may identify four different aspects of intelligence:

1. Nous or "intellect" proper.

2. Logistikon, "intellectual" or "thinking" aspect.

3. Thymos or "emotional" aspect.

4. Epithymetikon or "sensual aspect".

(4) relates to sense-perceptions and basic bodily desires.

(3) relates to emotions and will-power.

(2) relates to rational thought and thinking in general.

(1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward.

(1), the nous, is that faculty of the soul by which it is supposed to contemplate and "see" the Forms. Which is why it is referred to as "the eye of the soul".

(1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward. — Apollodorus

Interesting; I would describe this as psychology if I didn't know the context. I need to roll this around a little. Thanks again.

1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward. — Apollodorus

Very nicely put! I wouldnt stay unmoved, silent, and word free though. I would make contact. And shout it out! Let my thoughts give me a song.

I need to roll this around a little. — Cheshire

It does take a bit of reflection, I'm afraid. But that's Plato for you :smile:

I wouldnt stay unmoved, silent, and word free though. I would make contact. And shout it out! Let my thoughts give me a song. — Prishon

:up: :grin:

Did Socrates really knew nothing? Yes.

He didn't know how to walk. He didn't know how to rock and roll. He didn't know how to sleep. He didn't know how to look. He didn't know how to eat and drink. He didn't know how to love or fuck. He didn't know how to treat his mom and dad. Or his kids (if he had them). He didn't know how to kill himself. That's why that was arranged for him.

Socrates demonstrated the merits of classical skepticism showing expectations of certainty aren't the products of wisdom; but for some reason people choose to struggle to establish certainty instead of critical inquiry of their own ideas. He was basically delivering Popper's critical rationalism thousands of years in advance but it was misinterpreted and dogmatically applied into absurdity. At least they let Popper live a while longer. — Cheshire

:up: I finally get it (parts of it at least). First things first, for the reason that empirical claims, being inductive logic at work and thus probabilistic, can never be proven. In other words, for a proposition p, p is impossible to demonstrate and so, Popper thought, the only reasonable course of action is to prove ~p (falsificationism). Realizing I can't know I'm right, at least let me find out if I'm wrong. A gold star for Popper for this amazing insight but, as you said, Socrates, in a way, preceded him. Socrates, to me, was and always will be the first wrecking ball in the history of epistemology, the dialectical method's sole purpose being to demolish rather than bolster belief systems.

That's all I have to say at the moment. Thinking is hard!

@180 Proof If knowledge isn't justified, true belief then it has to be unjustified and/or untrue and/or unbelief. What you seem to have a problem with - religion/mysticism/spiritual - as evidenced by how promptly you dismiss them as woo-woo should be accepted, by you, as knowledge then.

As a follow up Popper credited Xenophanes as the origin of his position. The fellow went around criticizing his teachers work; so I recall.

I mentioned two references from known and standard souces. I also added that this is too old and we can never really know if it has been said or not. This does not mean however that we have to dispute everything that prominent people have said.

This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know"

I have read that too, of course. But it clearly says that this is a paraphrasing. Which is one more indication that Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing". Can't you see it?

Of course it is entirely possible that Socrates and Plato never existed and never said anything. — Apollodorus

This is totally ιrrelevant with the case in hand. I hope you can realize this too, on a second thought.

However, as far as I am aware, this is not disputed by historians or scholars. — Apollodorus

It has never been proved that it has been said either. But I also talked about that too: "... found it in some ancient tablet or papyrus".

Finally, I ended my comment with something that was more essential than the truth about the quote itself. But you ignored it.

After all this, I suspect that you heve not actually read my comment. Because what I can see here is just a reaction to the idea that this special paradox-like statement-quote might have never been said. That's all.

Anyway, thanks for repsonding to my comment as the originator of the topic.

It's seems like a comparison of two perspectives in order to make a point. Thinking you know something and being wrong about it is two mistakes. Socrates at worst just didn't know anything. It's meant to show the value of a classic skeptical position relative to over confidence or unawareness of ignorance. It is illustrative and obviously not a personal inventory of Socrates knowledge. Has this really been confusing people? — Cheshire

As far as I know, Apollodorus is the only one to have suggested that such a personal inventory is what was meant. The OP uses that personal inventory to argue against the position he imagines others are taking.

Finally, I ended my comment with something that was more essential than the truth about the quote itself. But you ignored it. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think I "ignored" it. I just had no objection to it.

If I understand your comment correctly, (1) you see no "usefulness in trying to explain Socrates' statement" and (2) you don't think it "can be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion".

As a matter of fact, I agree with that. Personally, I am not trying to explain Socrates' statement as I believe that it is not meant literally (as stated in the OP), and I never use it as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion. But others may do so, hence it can be discussed by those who take an interest in the topic.

:roll: Read Critique of Pure Nonsense.

Read Critique of Pure Nonsense. — 180 Proof

I went too far, huh? Apologies! G'day.

If I understand your comment correctly, (1) you see no "usefulness in trying to explain Socrates' statement" and (2) you don't think it "can be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion". — Apollodorus

Correct.

One more reason why Socrates wouldn't have ever said something like that is that his arguments were always very clear and his critical thinking almost impeccable.

Personally, I am not trying to explain Socrates' statement as I believe that it is not meant literally (as stated in the OP), and I never use it as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion. But others may do so, hence it can be discussed by those who take an interest in the topic. — Apollodorus

OK, I got that. And you are right. Things have to be put in the right perspective.