Socrates

[TheAncient]

There's a story about Socrates, in which he makes the conclusion that "I am the smartest person alive because I know I don't know much."

 

 

 

The same concept, but my personal words: "There is only one completely true philosophy in the world - and that is that there are no completely true philosophies."

 

 

 

Yes, these two statements are seemingly contradictory, but I personally see some truth in them.

 

 

 

Are these ideas valid? If so, why are they self-contradictory?[/u]

[Sp4de]

I can relate to the 1st one, I probly have an IQ equivilent to a sock but I still feel like I'm a genius :P

[KCHughes]

He actually said "Wisest is he who knows he does not know." That's a little different than actual intelligence.

[Sp4de]

Okay nevermind, I'm just stupid #-o

[TheAncient]

He actually said "Wisest is he who knows he does not know." That's a little different than actual intelligence.

 

 

 

The point gets across. Sorry, I don't word things very effectively.

 

 

 

And I don't remember that that's exactly what he said.

[Bubsa]

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing

[insane]

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing

 

 

 

Yea. Wisest != smartest.

[italianchia]

 

 

 

Yea. Wisest != smartest.

 

 

 

This statement doesn't have any correlation with one another. To be smart is to be "Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright." To become wise is in, "Having the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; sagacious: a wise leader."

 

 

 

School curriculum? To be smart.

 

Answers (or lack thereof) to life? To be wise.

 

 

 

It was also said that one would not become wise until the age of 58, due to lessons in life not being able to be comprehendable to a higher degree until a later age.

 

 

 

Many people in the world are smart, but just because they absorb text upon text and invent their own ideas on something (which may not particularly be true) does not justify their wisdom. To be wise is to question life, in it's entirety, and make of it what you wish. There are many views of how to depict life, due to many different philosophers (Socratic, Sophist, Nietzschian, Aristotlian, etc.) which all have their own adaptation on how they look at life and not necessarily what they would oppress on others.

 

 

 

A primary source of philosophy is that of Buddha, which many practice as a religion. Upon reading the text, though, one will find that they are just thoughts of a wise person, all-knowing, yet not knowing at all.

 

 

 

I believe many philosophers would agree with your second statement sseli. Although there are many views on life, that doesn't mean that they lay over top of each other and there aren't a conglomoration of ideas in our minds when we view life, some are just more extreme. To me, both of those statements are very much so valid, and it's not until someone truly looks at their life and questions everything around them that they will find something as beautiful as that. In doing this, it's just a small stepping stone in finding oneself.

[Kryptic]

I thought it was "A wise man knows that he knows nothing."

 

 

 

Nonetheless its true. Being wise takes many things, but most importantly its knowing that all your thoughts is just 1 line, written on a page, inside a book, in a library. I also think ignorance rules you out from being wise.

[italianchia]

Actually, Socrates believed one would have to be ignorant in many ways to truly become wise. To him, one has to be ignorant in respect to life's answers to become wise, in knowing that he or she will never obtain the answers during their life.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I believe many philosophers would agree with your second statement sseli. Although there are many views on life, that doesn't mean that they lay over top of each other and there aren't a conglomoration of ideas in our minds when we view life, some are just more extreme. To me, both of those statements are very much so valid, and it's not until someone truly looks at their life and questions everything around them that they will find something as beautiful as that. In doing this, it's just a small stepping stone in finding oneself.

 

 

 

No, they wouldn't. A philosopher wouldn't make the basic mistake of making a statement that is self-contradictory.

 

 

 

P1: There is only one completely true philosophy in the world.

 

P2: There are no completely true philosophies in the world.

 

 

 

No matter how you look at it, your two premises contradict each other.

 

 

 

Since the author asked why they are contradictory, I'll explain. The two sentences propose two ideas that cannot be true at the same time. You cannot have one true philosophy is no true philosophies exist. You could say, "Besides this one, no true philosophies exist," but you can't say one is true and yet no true philosophies exist.

 

 

 

@italianchia: You say that the statements look valid, and that's ridiculous. First off, if you are looking at this from a philosophical standpoint - which you assert that you are, statements aren't valid, arguments are. Even further, the argument, because it's self-contradictory, is not valid. A valid argument, despite the truth of the conclusion or the premises, has to be logical - and a contradiction is not logical.

[italianchia]

Alright, let's take religion for an example. People say they know God, but they don't, otherwise they, in essence, would be God themselves. That, is not possible. Looking at philosophers, do you think they were able to justify their ideals into their own lives, or ended up straying from how they perceived a life should be lead? Nobody is perfect, period. Socrates never said his vision was right, or that anyone was wrong. You, my friend, are wrong.

[Auberean]

If you know that you know nothing, do you really know nothing?

 

 

 

I could do paradoxes all day, heh.

[italianchia]

I believe it to be, the knowledge of knowing that there will always be unexplainable, no matter what.

[logic-is-overrated]

A lot of those philosophical statements just sound like people who are too big for their britches. I mean, I'm sure most of those kinds of things have these "deep philosophical meanings" but seriously, most of us have these little brains that just can't thing that hard.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Alright, let's take religion for an example. People say they know God, but they don't, otherwise they, in essence, would be God themselves. That, is not possible. Looking at philosophers, do you think they were able to justify their ideals into their own lives, or ended up straying from how they perceived a life should be lead? Nobody is perfect, period. Socrates never said his vision was right, or that anyone was wrong. You, my friend, are wrong.

 

 

 

No, I'm not wrong. The statement is self-contradictory, therefore irrational, and therefore it doesn't work.

 

 

 

Nothing else you said is relevant to my point. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not philosophers are right, it's whether or not their argument is even rational. I'm not talking about the truth of a statement, I'm talking about it's validity. I would go further, but I don't think you're following me.

 

 

 

Point, clear and simple: A self-contradictory statement holds no value.

[Bnaped]

Soh-Crates!

 

 

 

..bill and ted's excellent adventure

[Auberean]

Soh-Crates!

 

 

 

..bill and ted's excellent adventure

 

 

 

I watched that for the first time ever yesterday, haha.

[italianchia]

 

No, I'm not wrong. The statement is self-contradictory, therefore irrational, and therefore it doesn't work.

 

 

 

Nothing else you said is relevant to my point. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not philosophers are right, it's whether or not their argument is even rational. I'm not talking about the truth of a statement, I'm talking about it's validity. I would go further, but I don't think you're following me.

 

 

 

Point, clear and simple: A self-contradictory statement holds no value.

 

 

 

But, is there really a truth? Just because something isn't rational, doesn't mean it can't have validity. Take God for an example: Do we have physical proof there is an entity beyond us? No, people just have faith and believe it to be true. Just because laws are put in place to govern over the masses, does that mean they have validity, truth, and justice supporting that? It's in the eye of the beholder. I'm glad you called me on this oh-so wonderous trap of sorts, so I could go into this. There's no way that I honestly believe you're wrong... In fact, you're very much so correct, to yourself, where I'm very much so correct to myself.... or are we both inevitably wrong and telling lies?

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

No, I'm not wrong. The statement is self-contradictory, therefore irrational, and therefore it doesn't work.

 

 

 

Nothing else you said is relevant to my point. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not philosophers are right, it's whether or not their argument is even rational. I'm not talking about the truth of a statement, I'm talking about it's validity. I would go further, but I don't think you're following me.

 

 

 

Point, clear and simple: A self-contradictory statement holds no value.

 

 

 

But, is there really a truth? Just because something isn't rational, doesn't mean it can't have validity. Take God for an example: Do we have physical proof there is an entity beyond us? No, people just have faith and believe it to be true. Just because laws are put in place to govern over the masses, does that mean they have validity, truth, and justice supporting that? It's in the eye of the beholder. I'm glad you called me on this oh-so wonderous trap of sorts, so I could go into this. There's no way that I honestly believe you're wrong... In fact, you're very much so correct, to yourself, where I'm very much so correct to myself.... or are we both inevitably wrong and telling lies?

 

 

 

This is ridiculous. I could have sworn you were speaking from a philosophical standpoint - clearly you aren't. Clearly you have no idea what it means for something to be "valid." This has nothing to do with metaphysics or our quest for truth - this has to do with the fact that you can't make valid arguments when your premises are self-contradictory.

 

 

 

Validity is not in the eye of the beholder. It's an actual term with an actual meaning. Self-contradictions are not rational and you can't argue in favor of them. I understand your point, but to get there - you have to move past basic tools of argumentation. If you are going to start attempting to speak from a philosophical standpoint, or discuss what you think philosophers believe, first learn what a contradiction is, and what it means for an argument to be valid. And then read why you don't bring up metaphysical discussions as a cop out to your irrationality. It just doesn't work.

[pianofrieak2]

 

No, I'm not wrong. The statement is self-contradictory, therefore irrational, and therefore it doesn't work.

 

 

 

Nothing else you said is relevant to my point. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not philosophers are right, it's whether or not their argument is even rational. I'm not talking about the truth of a statement, I'm talking about it's validity. I would go further, but I don't think you're following me.

 

 

 

Point, clear and simple: A self-contradictory statement holds no value.

 

 

 

But, is there really a truth? Just because something isn't rational, doesn't mean it can't have validity. Take God for an example: Do we have physical proof there is an entity beyond us? No, people just have faith and believe it to be true. Just because laws are put in place to govern over the masses, does that mean they have validity, truth, and justice supporting that? It's in the eye of the beholder. I'm glad you called me on this oh-so wonderous trap of sorts, so I could go into this. There's no way that I honestly believe you're wrong... In fact, you're very much so correct, to yourself, where I'm very much so correct to myself.... or are we both inevitably wrong and telling lies?

 

 

 

1. God is spiritual and cannot be determined by physical instruments.

 

2. Completely opposite premises cannot both be true at the same time.

 

 

 

You're trying to delve into postmodernism, but the problem with much of that philosophy is that it's based on relativism, a statement that doesn't even hold up to its own promises.

[TheAncient]

These arguments and disagreements only bring me back to my original point. Someone's philosophy, or absolute Truths, come from their personal set of values and beliefs. Is it really valid to say that one person's beliefs are more "correct" than anothers? We are all equal, since we are all human. None of us has a true authority over others.