"I know that I know nothing." - Socrates

>subjectively

Subjectivity, perception, and certainty don't come into it. Socrates says that the poets seem wise, but they don't have any account of their wisdom, hence their poems might be but they aren't. The politicians too don't have any wisdom regarding their practice. The artisans alone seem to know something, namely, the arts they practice. But then they opine on matters that aren't related to their art, or lie further afield from their art, and it becomes clear that they lack wisdom in those things. Then we get Socrates's statement:

"For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: 'I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything beautiful and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I *am* likely to be a little bit wiser than he is in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know."

The distinction here seems to be not that of "knowing *that* I don't know" but of "knowing *what* I don't know", which seems to amount to positive knowledge of the questions.

>subjectivity, perception, and certainty don't come into it
>describes a philosophical attitude concerning subjectivity, perception, and certainty

He would have to know and understand language to even be able to make this statement.

If it concerns any of those matters, it's at a distance; nonetheless, "Since we perceive the world around us subjectively, we can know know nothing with complete certainty" is still wrong.

That's a very good argument, but ponder this. Is there a character that could EVER defeat Uchiha Madara? And I'm not talking about Edo Tensei Uchiha Madara. I'm not talking about Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara either. Hell, I'm not even talking about Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan and Rinnegan doujutsus (with the rikodou abilities and being capable of both Amateratsu and Tsukuyomi genjutsu), equipped with his Gunbai, a perfect Susano'o, control of the juubi and Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju's DNA implanted in him so he has mokuton kekkei genkai and can perform yin yang release ninjutsu while being an expert in kenjutsu and taijutsu. I’m also not talking about Kono Yo no Kyuseishu Futarime no Rikudo Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan (which is capable of Enton Amaterasu, Izanagi, Izanami and the Tsyukuyomi Genjutsu), his two original Rinnegan (which grant him Chikushodo, Shurado, Tendo, Ningendo, Jigokudo, Gakido, Gedo, Bansho Ten’in, Chibaku Tensei, Shinra Tensei, Tengai Shinsei and Banbutsu Sozo) and a third Tomoe Rinnegan on his forehead, capable of using Katon, Futon, Raiton, Doton, Suiton, Mokuton, Ranton, Inton, Yoton and even Onmyoton Jutsu, equipped with his Gunbai (capable of using Uchihagaeshi) and a Shakujo because he is a master in kenjutsu and taijutsu, a perfect Susano’o (that can use Yasaka no Magatama ), control of both the Juubi and the Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju’s DNA and face implanted on his chest, his four Rinbo Hengoku Clones guarding him and nine Gudodama floating behind him AFTER he absorbed Senjutsu from the First Hokage, entered Rikudo Senjutsu Mode, cast Mugen Tsukuyomi on everybody and used Shin: Jukai Kotan so he can use their Chakra while they are under Genjutsu.

i mean i guess

>"For my part, as I went away, I reasoned with regard to myself: 'I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything beautiful and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I *am* likely to be a little bit wiser than he is in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know."

This means something very different to "I know that I know nothing."

Socrates you fool
to know yourself is to know everything you need to know

cogito ergo sum
Socratessticles BTFO

Yes, both more positive in implication and more qualified.

*Tips fedora.*

I think this statement was just supposed to remind one to think critically at all times and to doubt everything, even most banal truths.

he's right

socrates didn't know anything

I can beat it.

"I know nothing, not even how much or little I may know too"

In what way is it wrong?

oh shit

fuck off

i still laugh at this though desu

1) Subjectivity as a philosophical doctrine is anachronistic to associate with Socrates and Plato. The doctrine takes there to be a difference between subjects and objects, where the mind of the subject has beliefs and perhaps knowledge about things "outside" of it. As close as you might get to that kind of position in Plato is in Parmenides, in a very short passage where young Socrates suggests to the older Parmenides that the forms might be thoughts, a position immediately refuted. Even then, it's not quite the same as the subject-object dualism we see in certain strains of Scholasticism that culminate in Cartesian dualism, and the matters surrounding subjectivity and objectivity afterwards. The world of becoming is not a problem *in the same way* in the Platonic dialogues; the world of people and cities and cows and shit is still there--that shit is intelligible. The issue is rather that what it is that makes the world intelligible (the Forms) seem rather mysterious and hard to understand, and that sometimes the quest in seeking them results in these intelligibles seeming to be unintelligible in themselves. Opinion isn't a problem because of subjectivity, or because of perspectivism, but because opinions as such are not knowledge but lucky guesses at best. The characterization is conceptually different.

2) Certainty, while it's relevant in some conceptual analogue or another (Theaetetus seems relevant here), it isn't what's at issue in the passage this phrase occurs. Socrates is certain that he knows but little or is not the wisest, not that he knows nothing or cannot know with complete certainty. It *can* be made relevant to the passage, but it's not brought out by Socrates, and isn't the thrust of his message, which amounts to playing down his hubris at the same time he's showing how hubristic he is to the Athenian jury (he knows but little and perhaps has a human sort of wisdom; also he's trying to refute Apollo's oracle through his activity.)

3) Perception, if you mean sense-perception (which would be the Greek aisthesis), just doesn't come in. If by perception you mean something intuitional perception, or perceptive knowing by the intellect (the Greek nous or noesis, I think), that doesn't seem relevant here either. I'm just not sure how it would be relevant to this passage at all. It's certainly relevant elsewhere (again, Theaetetus where Knowledge is initially defined by the title character as perception).

I suspect that the passage could be referring to something like Eros as the philosopher, as described in the Symposium, but even that might be a stretch in places. The passage is just as much a rhetorical effort as an observation of the fruits of his philosophical reflection.

strange that we can certainly know this
isnt it f a m

knowing you cant know anything seems to still be knowing something
doesnt it f a m

I'm OP and that is NOT what I was saying.

the neetgod didn't really defeat socrates so much as he identified him as a degenerate and warned people that while socrates was indeed, a big guy (from an intellectual perspective) that his thought (through Plato) mentally prepared western civilization for Christianity.

the line "i know that i know nothing" basically extends the rational into the metaphysical. Instead of being pretty much okay with the fact that there are some things we just won't understand, leaving space for the raw, dark and obscured, Dionysian spaces of knowledge Socrates wanted to extend his hyper-Apollonian mode of critical thought into this sphere. In a way, he created a new kind of game with his dialectic, a game which he was a master of, and the Greeks loved nothing more than mastery and thus were enchanted by him.

Again, Nietzsche doesn't really hate or even dislike Socrates, he just considered him a degenerate (he also considered himself a degenerate in a way, freely admitting he reveled in attacking strong opponents and his own ideas were poisonous).

a bit more than "mentally prepared western civ for christianity" soc prepared western man for the pursuit

of fucking

knowledge

as an authoritative way of life, and the ultimate path to truth.

sounds dogmatic dont it
sounds presuppositional dont it
sounds unfalsifiable dont it

Christianity, while perhaps being a scourge, wasnt half as bad as what we're now seeing rear its big ugly head: at least Christianity tried to be honest within its own dogmatic system.

Haven't seen this pasta yet. Nice.

No you fags, philosophy wasn't made solely to talk about your imagination, it was made to act on. What he's saying is that though we may approve certain actions and condemn others, the truth of it is that we are choosing arguments that are equally valid to the ones we don't. To say what is right is to pretend

One truth that is universal and can be known is that you're a faggot OP

Oh? But what about natural philosophy AKA SCIENCE

>knowledge as an authoritative way of life

yes, that was the problem.

Cogito ergo sum

triggered