|
Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-04-15 10:17:07 (edited 2009-04-15 10:17:24)
|
|
From the book entitled Dialogues of Plato: Diogenes Laertius There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance. I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance. From your perspective, is he right about his vision about this virtue? Do you even agree? I'd been reading this book for so long, and I can safely say I agree with his words of wisdom. Tell me what do you think.  |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
|
|
First, I really don't think there was a dialogue of Plato entitled Diogenes Laertius, this dude was a biographer of the first, on his famous Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers; he was more like Quintilian, only on the field of philosophy (my personal opinion XD). I don't agree with Plato's wisdom, if that's his wisdom (I haven't read the dialogues throughly). Actually, knowledge isn't good nor bad, so the same happens to ignorance. However, historically, you can say that knowledge has produced more suffering than ignorance. For instance, writing, primarily created to deal with the needs of a centralized political entity in the ancient times. Basically, the knowledge produced through times was used to control, to explore more the population, though we cannot say it didn't bring any good consequences to mankind, but still, it was used for exploration sake. One could argue that the ignorance was bad, since it allowed populations to be controlled by some of its members, that's not correct, the control of the knowledge by those few that ruled over the majority is that caused the misery of so many. So, ignorance and knowledge are neutral, what we do with it that makes it good or evil. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by The Biertrix
on 2009-04-18 13:58:47 (edited 2009-04-18 14:04:05)
|
|
When I dealt with Platon, the most significant part for me was his declaration of wisdom. The phrase "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" is merely a reproduction of sokrates ideas. What he is admitting here is the fact that every konwledge that we possess isn't real knowledge. For him there were two kindo of knowledges: fake knowledge(or ignorance) and true knowledge. The first one is the knowledge we are told by our surrounding(the society) and our senses(hearing, seeing, etc.) (see the "Allegory of the cave"). The last one could only be reached through a long process of rational thinking in which the true form of knwoledge should be discovered. Reaching this kind of knowledge had the highest value in his moral concept (see "Theaitetos"). Since I would declare myself as a freethinker, I support his idea of finding true knowledge on your own through rational thinking and declining fake knowledge that is only told to be "true". It is important that we ourselves try to reach this kind of knowledge in order to protect us from being conrolled and deceived by others. The part where I oppose Platon is when he states that there is only one kind of true knowledge. This comes with his belief that everything in our world has one ideal equivalent in an ideal world. For example: For every horse in our world there exist and idea of an ideal primeal horse in this ideal "world of ideas". This world of ideas is the foundation for our world and thus contains the only form of true knowledge. Realsing the true knowledge is equivlent to recognizing the ideas of this world. The connection to this world can be established by the humans soul since it is the only thing that comes from the world of the ideas. Every kind of serious thinking has to lead to an establishment of this connection. His picture of this world was very complex including the foundation of the four elements thorugh triangles etc. but you get the idea that he created his version of god since everything comes from one idea which represent the highest value. I don't like the idea of one thing being the cause of everything. For me it always seemed like an exscuse to narrow the complexity and all the things that we cannot understand down to something simple that would not exceed our imagination. I support those who try different approaches for everthing they try to understand and that do not come up with one solution for every problem. If there is only one cause behind everything is not relevant to me as long we can understand and use our surrounding world. So my answer is yes, I agree with his idea that seaching for knowledge is good but I disagree at the point where he tells us that there can be only one form of true knowledge. (I totally agree that the world consists of polygons though^^) Best regards The Biertrix |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-04-18 14:11:52 |
|
You guys just expressed yourself. And I'm pretty amused and glad you people expressed your hearts about what Socrates said. But if you read back Apology, where Socrates was accused of being a heretic by his colleague. I remember very well that he said that he's not against the Gods, the state nor the rules of the state. Knowledge is good, if the intention is good, and for the benefit of mankind. Ignorance is knowing of that "knowledge", but in a way that you are twisting and twitching it. Like Fritz Haber's chemical weapon, used in WWI. This weapon is using synthesizing ammonia, and launching it on the western front of Germany. That is ignorance. Knowledge suppose to make us good for humanity, but other people choose to ignore what it suppose to be used. That is my only opinion. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by The Biertrix
on 2009-04-18 15:19:22
|
|
I would say that you have a very clear and simple understanding why knowledge is good or bad. But when I get your point right, you are "accusing" the knowledge of being good for humanity. You are stating that the intention is important. But knowledge does not have a personality. Since it is shere facts it cannot possess any kind of intention by itself. Therefore knowledge can exist without having any kind of intention to it in the first place. What matters is knowledge resulting in a product. And here I would say it is not the knowledge but the person using it that gives the resulting product(for example Fritz Haber's synthesis of Ammonia) its good or bad intention while the knowledge itself stays completly passive. Therefor knowledge cannot be good or bad. Only the person using the knowledge can. But yes, you are right when you say that using knowledge only for your own benefit is ignorance. But interpreting Platon in this manner is quite interestig even if it does not seem right to me. I still would say that his definiton of good and bad knowledge is only refering to whereever or not is was discovered by a process of rational thinking. The discussion we are having here right now is more about the ethical aspect of science. It reminds of the discussions over Alfred Nobel and his backgroud both as a scientist and a industrial in the weapon industry. The same goes for Oppenheim and all the others. There are even dramas evolved arround this like "The physicists" by Friedrich Dürrenmatt. Platon would say that every kind of ethical decision over developing weapons had to come from the transcendent world of ideas, which means from a god-like being so there would be only one good answer. You on the other hand made up your own opinion and on the same hand accepted our oppinions. In a way I would say that you are opposing Platon (which I like better). |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-04-18 20:05:52 |
|
I haven't read the book though. but, All Plato's book I have read is always tell us about Socrates from Plato side-of-view. my question is: is in the book the theory about knowledge is really come from plato? i agree with biertrix that knowledge is not something that can have a will, and so, we can't state it as good or bad. The first thing we have to do is state: what is good and what is evil? 2nd:what is knowledge and what is ignorance? then we can tell: according to the definition about good and evil, can we tell the knowledge as something good or evil? how about ignorance?  |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by The Biertrix
on 2009-04-20 03:24:18
|
|
Concerning your question whereever or not the theory of knowledge comes from Platon: In all his creations, Platon always uses the so called dialogue form. With this he does not state his conviction directly but includes it in an fictional dialogue between an ignoramus and an intellectual. In the course of this dialogue both parties get involved in an discussion where at the end the ignoramus is enlightened by the arguments of the intellectual. This principle of leading philosophical discussions was indeed developed by Platon's teacher Sokrates. In all of Platon's publications, Sokrates takes the place of the intellectual. Sokrates himself was not present at this time anymore, since Platon started publicating after Sokrates death. But it is very probable that some of the ideas originally came from Sokrates. Since there are no writings passed down by Sokrates, it is hard to tell apart the ideas of Platon and Sokrates. So you cannot clearly say if the theory about knowledge completly comes from Sokrates. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-04-20 03:52:50 |
|
True, we can't say if plato's not changing the words... no one's know... plato's real idea can be seen in his last three books... |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by The Biertrix
on 2009-04-20 06:20:52
|
|
I would disagree, that Platon's last three books were his "real" idea. Since his whole Philosophie evolved arround Sokrates idea of knowledge and ignorance, the last three books of Platon also contains of these initial thoughts. An example would be "Politetia" (one of his late works), where he simply describes that a state has to provide the possibility for his citizens to reach the enlightment in which they discover the true knowledge. He never losened himself from Sokrates idea of "Eunasie"(i guess that was the name of the process necessary to reach the enlightment) in the first place. Platon has simply developed the initial thoughts of Sokrates. The thing is that all historians can hardly tell where the border between Sokrates and Platon is. Platon could have simply been a biographer just like Diogenes Laertius or Euklid were. I do not know where you got the information that his last three books would be his real idea. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-04-25 12:15:33 |
|
I must stand to correct some facts. Most of the books written by Plato, was records of Socrates, having conversations or dialogues to the chapters written on the Dialogues of Plato. Of course, Plato had also contributed to this book as well. Like "The Republic", as an example. As we all know, Socrates is more of an orator, not a writer. So Plato was there to record every conversation Socrates and write every word of Socrates and his colleagues, and all that is inscribed is not Plato's point of view, but by Socrates himself. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by The Biertrix
on 2009-04-26 06:27:38
|
|
Actually, I did not know that Platon books were all recordings of actual dialogues. I always thought that this was his way of hounoring and dealing with the death of his teacher and offending the sophists. Regarding the setting and chronological order of his dialogues, it is kind of hard for me to think that they are non-fictional. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
|
| I don't think it's really important to know if whose thinking is on the paper in this circumstances, I mean, you need to work with what you have. For instance Diogenes Laertius, he put parts of works of the philosophers he knew, some of the works he cited were lost, it can be a faithful reproduction as it can be just he remembering the texts by heart or by some improvised manuscript. What is important is that some thinking was left written to us. The same happened with Quintilian, but he just mentioned the works, with the catenas of medieval christian commentators. The only thing we can do, besides reading it, is making the corrections on the texts (copies of copies lead to a snowball of mistakes, so the need to compare to other versions of it). Speculate about it's origins is just at a certain point fruitless, but very interesting I admit |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-04-27 08:44:38 |
|
Well, what i mean by his real idea is his thinking. no doubt that socrates' influence still in him and a flower must grow from it's roots. we can't change the roots, but we can see if some mutation (change) happens and give its something unique. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
|
| But with the acquisition of knowledge don't we get closer to the truth about our Self and our world around us? Doesn't this truth have innate "goodness" as it helps us as a race progress despite the results / birth pangs of this knowledge? |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-04-29 04:55:54 |
|
I think what you are talking about self is Dasein. Read Zeit und Sein and Der Bergriff Der Zeit |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
Link |
by
on 2009-05-01 09:09:36 |
|
Come to think about it, I remember the trial of Socrates in the "Apology". His case was even not on the Athenian law, so he decided himself for his own punishment. And that is drinking poison. Shame on that person who persecuted him. He's a great example of "ignorance" as Socrates said. |
|
Re: Socrates' Teaching about Knowlegde
|
| Well, I think that the knowledge isn't bad or good in itself, because it all depends on how we use it. For example - we know how to produce steel. And from that we can both build buildings for people to live in, and produce weapons and ammunition to kill them... So I think that how we use knowledge is the key to the answer. And about the ignorance - I think that's really bad, because it's better to know more and then we can do something about it if it's bad, or use it, if it's good, right? And if we just ignore it, than we can't do anything... |