I’ve only read a tad bit of Socrates as part of a simple philosophy book. He believed, according to the book, that there is only one “good” in this world, knowledge, and only one “evil”, ignorance. His famous saying goes somewhere along the lines of “I know that I know nothing”. Is he admitting his own ignorance here? If so, would that mean he considers himself as “evil”?
1 Like
Not necessarily so because I think what Socrates meant by “ignorance” is thinking you know when you actually don’t know and “wisdom” in his view was recognizing the limits of your knowledge and continuing to seek the truth. So I think what he means in that sentences is that he’s wiser than those who simply believe they know everything. Might be wrong coz I haven’t read Socrates that much but from the little I know about him that’s what I think he meant.
3 Likes
Its a goood question. I believe he meant that we need to apply our knowledge by a process of regular reflection. Its not just insight into right and wrong. Following Socrates, Aristotle later sets out in detail the habits we need to cultivate to live flourishing life
1 Like
First, it should be pointed out that Socrates did not leave any writings. We rely mostly on Plato and Xenophon. While there is agreement on some things there is also significant differences. Xenophon’s Socrates does not talk about “the forms” which play a central role in many but not all of Plato’s dialogues.
When the text you quote says that there is only on good, it is likely it refers to the form of the Good. The Good itself is said to be one, but there are many things that are said to be good in one way or another.
Yes, he is admitting his own ignorance, but he does not say that he knows nothing. He says he possesses human wisdom, knowledge of his ignorance. This is not as simple and straight forward as it may seem. I know that there are a great many things I do not know, but that does not make me wise. To be wise would be to know how to think and act in the face of such ignorance, that is, to determine how best to live knowing that one does not know what is best.
1 Like
Thank you! Would you happen to know in which work/s Aristotle describes these habits?
Wasn’t the theory of forms developed by Plato after Socrates’ death? So Socrates may not have directly thought of this one “good” as having an ideal Form(?)
Each of the forms, including the form of the Good, is one - the just itself, beauty itself, separate from the things that are good or just or beautiful. It does seem to be Plato’s invention
1 Like
Erhics which is sometimes also referred to as Nicomachean ethics.
I have a copy but started with -
The Nicomachean Ethics: For Everyone by Aristotle on Audible. The Nicomachean Ethics: For Everyone Audiobook | Free with trial
1 Like
Right, I’ve heard of the Nicomachean ethics, thank you!
Socrates was Platos inspiration and Plato tells us most of what we know about Socrates. In particular his ideas about using reason to develop good character (virtue)
Plato concludes that we are virtuous because there is a realm of perfect forms which we can discover. Rather few people accept that idea now (although some here may, after all this is a Philosophy forum!)
Aristotle says we don’t need a mystical theory of forms. The reason we are virtuous is because, properly trained, virtues are good for is. An idea that remains influential.
1 Like
I’m so late, mark me tardy teacher! lol
In my philosophy class we touched a bit about Socrates and his human wisdom. He is implying he himself is wiser than the next person due to one adhering to the fact one “does not know he does not know”; this is the ignorance he is referring to. I don’t see how he is admitting his own ignorance but rather that he has the awareness of their, and his own ignorance thus meaning he is not ignorant? But I do see a possible paradox or contradiction or whatever it is within his statement; “I know that I know nothing”. I came up with a insight that he is ignorant himself (we possibly know this already). So I ask the question; how does he know that he does not know? It shows the ignorance in his own statement from when he say’s “I know that I know nothing”. Here’s what I see, wouldn’t it be possible that what he said “I know nothing” is actually that the “nothing” is something he knows but is oblivious too it? “Nothing” would be the absence of knowledge, but he is assuming that it is nothing but in actuality can something behind behind this nothing?
And back to if he would be considered “evil”. Perhaps if my premise holds its place then yes he can be considered “evil”, but if he’s not admitting his own ignorance then therefore he is ignorant, so he’s evil? EVIL! What if the jurors that took place in his trial (the unwise/ignorance of man) considers him evil and that is why he was sentenced to death? The ignorant projects there ignorance and there evilness and portrays him as ignorant and evil. If he’s not ignorant he shares the Good, the virtuous features he holds.
I’m just sharing a insight and ideas of mine and thought it could be relevant to this post. I’m okay with being proven wrong. 
“I know that I know nothing.” seems to imply a strategic epistemic methodology. He knows nothing, but he knows the fact that he knows nothing. Therefore he knows nothing, is false. Knowing something is false implies, knowing something is true. So he knows truth and falsity. So it actually implies that he knows everything.
But having said he knows that he knows nothing, he is ready to ask questions for whatever is unclear for more clarity and lucidity, which is what philosophical dialectic is about.