Timequake
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2005
- Messages
- 84
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I saw Philosophy and i pounced!
After recently reading the Platonic dialogues, ( most specifically the Apology)i have been thinking a lot about wisdom and how one can acknowledge themselves as truly wise and knowledgeable. In the Apology Socrates asserts himself as the "wisest" after consulting different people ( craftsmen, poets etc.) and then claims if he is wise, he is only wise in that he knows nothing.
What i am wondering is what does he really mean by this? Are we only intelligent if we accept that we know nothing? Or are we intelligent because we are humble enough to realize that we know nothing?
I understand the point he makes about people being unintelligent when they assume to know everything because they may excel at one particular thing, but how is Socrates really able to determine whether someone he talks to possesses knowledge or not?
After recently reading the Platonic dialogues, ( most specifically the Apology)i have been thinking a lot about wisdom and how one can acknowledge themselves as truly wise and knowledgeable. In the Apology Socrates asserts himself as the "wisest" after consulting different people ( craftsmen, poets etc.) and then claims if he is wise, he is only wise in that he knows nothing.
What i am wondering is what does he really mean by this? Are we only intelligent if we accept that we know nothing? Or are we intelligent because we are humble enough to realize that we know nothing?
I understand the point he makes about people being unintelligent when they assume to know everything because they may excel at one particular thing, but how is Socrates really able to determine whether someone he talks to possesses knowledge or not?