Socrates philosophy and method

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure that this answer even makes sense shunya.

The question was a foolish idiot question, and not worth an intelligent answer. Sounds like something seer would as as an example of 'absolute truth.'

<snipe>

This a 'Philosophy' thread section, not a First Grade class involving a tricycle race toward the precipice at the end of the sand box

It would help your case if you ask intelligent rational questions that relate to Philosophy concerning the nature of human knowledge, absolute truth, skepticism, agnosticism, and may be even teleology.

[siam]

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." and "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

After the agnostic Socratic view in Greek philosophy faded when Socrates drank his Hemlock, the dark ages of philosophy and theology dominated when increasingly philosophers and theologians chose the illusion of certainty over the justifiable 'doubt' of Socrates. It rose again in the period of enlightenment in Europe and birth of the United States, and was a part of the Deist philosophy of many of our founding fathers.

This thread will discuss further the issues and problems of those who reject agnosticism as foundation view of why one believes or not believes.

Shuny, If Knowledge is understood as "knowing nothing"/doubt, then how do you define/understand "ignorance" ?

I like the Greek philosophers...I agree that an attitude of doubt or curiosity facilitates the acquisition of knowledge and an attitude of certainty impedes the acquisition of knowledge. However, both doubt and certainty are necessary for human progress. Doubt is necessary for the acquisition of knowledge but certainty is necessary for the accomplishment of action.
The acquisition of knowledge is useless unless humanity can use it for benefit and that requires actions/implementation.

Therefore a state of continued doubt/skepticism in itself does not contribute to human progress unless it is also balanced by certainty. That is why we cannot "know" all---our limit on knowing is the reason/means for progress.

[HumbleThinker]

Humble, do you believe that we can know anything with certainty? Or is it skepticism across the board?

I'm skeptical that we can know anything with certainty (100% probability of being correct) other than what is logically necessary. In other words, I do not absolutely believe or disbelieve that we can know anything with certainty beyond what is logically necessary; it just seems highly unlikely. I haven't found that God needs us to believe anything with certainty, though, nor that we need certainty to live out our lives.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, If Knowledge is understood as "knowing nothing"/doubt, then how do you define/understand "ignorance" ?

The definition and comprehension of 'ignorance' is just as the English language deals with it as simply the lack of knowledge. There is what I call 'voluntary ignorance' where people just simply refuse to know and understood.

I like the Greek philosophers...I agree that an attitude of doubt or curiosity facilitates the acquisition of knowledge and an attitude of certainty impedes the acquisition of knowledge. However, both doubt and certainty are necessary for human progress. Doubt is necessary for the acquisition of knowledge but certainty is necessary for the accomplishment of action.
The acquisition of knowledge is useless unless humanity can use it for benefit and that requires actions/implementation.

OK

Therefore a state of continued doubt/skepticism in itself does not contribute to human progress unless it is also balanced by certainty. That is why we cannot "know" all---our limit on knowing is the reason/means for progress.

There is no question that doubt and skepticism should be balanced by 'reasonable certainty, and knowledge. You understanding of Socrates seems to be reasonable and better than seer and Jim L.

The belief in the absolute truth of theological beliefs of spiritual worlds remains problematic. For example; the existence and nature of God, Creation and Revelation.

[seer]

I'm skeptical that we can know anything with certainty (100% probability of being correct) other than what is logically necessary. In other words, I do not absolutely believe or disbelieve that we can know anything with certainty beyond what is logically necessary; it just seems highly unlikely. I haven't found that God needs us to believe anything with certainty, though, nor that we need certainty to live out our lives.

Humble, I think this is dangerously close to solipsism. But this debate has been going on between me and Shuny for a while. He for instance does not even believe that we can be certain of the laws of logic. Or that those laws are certain and universal.

[seer]

You just do not understand, Descartes like me realizes the limits of human knowledge:

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

Skepticism enjoys a remarkably strong place in Enlightenment philosophy, given that confidence in our intellectual capacities to achieve systematic knowledge of nature is a leading characteristic of the age. This oddity is at least softened by the point that much skepticism in the Enlightenment is merely methodological, a tool meant to serve science, rather than a philosophical position embraced on its own account. The instrumental role for skepticism is exemplified prominently in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), in which Descartes employs radical skeptical doubt to attack prejudices derived from learning and from sense experience and to search out principles known with certainty which may serve as a secure foundation for a new system of knowledge. Given the negative, critical, suspicious attitude of the Enlightenment towards doctrines traditionally regarded as well founded, it is not surprising that Enlightenment thinkers employ skeptical tropes (drawn from the ancient skeptical tradition) to attack traditional dogmas in science, metaphysics and religion.

© Copyright Original Source

First you don't have a clue about what Descartes really believed. He did believe that we can have certainty because of God:

And since God does not wish to deceive me, he surely did not give me the kind of faculty which would ever enable me to go wrong while using it correctlyAnd now it is possible for me to achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters, both concerning God himself and other things whose nature is intellectual, and also concerning the whole of that corporeal nature which is the subject-matter of pure mathematics. (Med. 5, AT 7:70-71)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/de...stemology/#6.1

[seer]

You just do not understand, Descartes like me realizes the limits of human knowledge:

No you quoted Voltaire: "The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing"

How is that not solipsism?

[shunyadragon]

Please Shuny, stop with comprehension thing, half the time you don't even understand your own links.




That is lie Shuny, did you not quote Voltaire: "The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing"

How is that not solipsism?

It is not solipsism, because neither Socrates, Descartes, nor I advocate that we believe in nor affirm knowing 'absolute nothing.' IT is a philosophical argument to be skeptical, question, and explore alternatives, and not believe in absolute truths from the fallible human perspective. This does not preclude the reasonable certainty of 'knowledge.'

Actually our legal system is based on the Socratic Method in the nature of advocacy trial argument, and the test of guilt and innocence. The test of guilt is to be 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,' and not to determine the absolute guilt nor innocence of the accused.

I gave clear references that describe the basics of this philosophy. Part of the problem is that you apparently choose to be 'voluntarily ignorant,' and choose not make the effort to read comprehensively to understand the complete nature of the philosophy as HumbleThinking and Siam apparently have, and carry out a reasonable dialogue.

[seer]

It is not solipsism, because neither Socrates, Descartes, nor I advocate that we believe in nor affirm knowing 'absolute nothing.' IT is a philosophical argument to be skeptical, question, and explore alternatives, and not believe in absolute truths from the fallible human perspective. This does not preclude the reasonable certainty of 'knowledge.'

What is wrong with you, did you not quote Voltaire? "The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing" Are you changing your mind now? And like I said you completely misunderstand what Descartes was getting at - that we can in fact have certainty because of God. And without God there is no certainty. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post340994

[shunyadragon]

First you don't have a clue about what Descartes really believed. He did believe that we can have certainty because of God:

I do fully understand Descartes philosophy. Certainty concerning the belief in God does not translate into 'absolute truth.' Many of our forefathers had certainty in the belief in God (often a Deist God), but they rejected absolute truths and embraced Socrates skepticism, and questioned doctrines, dogmas and beliefs others considered absolutely true. The philosophy of skepticism and questioning absolutes evolves and varies from philosopher to philosopher. I primarily embrace Socrates philosophy where the questioning of 'absotute truths' includes all knowledge without reservation.

[shunyadragon]

What is wrong with you, did you not quote Voltaire? "The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing" Are you changing your mind now? And like I said you completely misunderstand what Descartes was getting at - that we can in fact have certainty because of God. And without God there is no certainty. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post340994

You have to read all of Voltaire, and not selectively quote him to justify your narrow view of what people should believe.

I of course study all the philosophers, and do not necessarily accept all any one proposes. I do rely on Socrates as the foundation of skepticism and agnosticism.

Again, again and again . . . rejection of absolute truths, and believing in skepticism, and agnosticism, does not preclude 'reasonable certainty' of beliefs.

[seer]

You have to read all of Voltaire, and not selectively quote him to justify your narrow view of what people should believe.

Really Shuny, what is wrong with you? I'm going by what YOU QUOTED:"The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing"

So do you disagree with your own quote, that we can know something?

[seer]

I do fully understand Descartes philosophy. Certainty concerning the belief in God does not translate into 'absolute truth.'

No you don't: And now it is possible for me to achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters, both concerning God himself and other things whose nature is intellectual, and also concerning the whole of that corporeal nature which is the subject-matter of pure mathematics.(Med. 5, AT 7:70-71)

[shunyadragon]

No you don't: And now it is possible for me to achieve full and certain knowledge of countless matters, both concerning God himself and other things whose nature is intellectual, and also concerning the whole of that corporeal nature which is the subject-matter of pure mathematics.(Med. 5, AT 7:70-71)

No problem. That is Descartes beliefs.

[seer]

No problem. That is Descartes beliefs.

Sheesh, that is the point Homer - Descartes argued that we could have certain knowledge! He did not embraced skepticism like you suggested with your out of context quotes.