| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
 Posted - May 13 2010 : 12:21:56 AM
|
I think it's time to start talking about this question. It should be obvious by now why it's one of our three big questions. As you've all seen by now, Sokrates is an absolute madman (or maybe the one and only sane person in the world!) when it comes to consistency, for (1) he's prepared to go to his death to avoid acting, in the face of the threat of death, in a way that's inconsistent with his principles, and (2) his whole way of talking with his fellow human beings involves at its very core putting people to the test to see if they can avoid contradicting themselves in speaking about the things they think they know, pressing them and pressing them and pressing them mercilessly. And yet....
He doesn't claim to know very much at all. And that itself is really odd, isn't it? Because isn't a philosopher a wise man, and isn't Sokrates a philosopher, and isn't wisdom the same thing as knowledge? |
|
|
Jenna Stimac
Apprentice
28 Posts |
Posted - May 20 2010 : 11:09:28 PM
|
To answer the question I thought it might be easier to define consistency, knowledge, and wisdom.
Consistency is reliability or uniformity of successive results or events; steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form.
Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition; familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning
Wisdom is the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight; Common sense; good judgment.
I don't think that knowledge and wisdom are the same things; I think, given the definitions, that knowledge is a type of or precursor to wisdom. I think it is odd that Sokrates doesn't claim to know much at all, but also states that he is a wise man because it isn't consistent.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
 |
|
|
Katie Contreras
Apprentice
29 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - May 21 2010 : 06:51:17 AM
|
Good start, ladies! I'm with you about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I think it's obvious that these aren't simply interchangeable terms. If they were, they'd have the same antonyms and they don't. Being ignorant isn't the same thing at all as being unwise: what isn't wise is either callow or foolish.
And I agree with you, Jenna, that a trip to the dictionary at the beginning of our discussion isn't an altogether bad idea. We're going to want to be familiar with all of the various senses of each of these words, or our conversation is going to be fraught with equivocations. But each one of the three definitions you cite here includes indications of just a few of the many senses of each of these highly polysemic words, and I'm not sure they're even the most relevant ones. What I'd advise all of you to do is to take a trip to a really good, big dictionary -- not a pocket dictionary, but an up-to-date unabridged dictionary that'll give you nice, full explanations of all of each of these words' current senses. The Oxford English Dictionary is the very best, but any up-to-date unabridged dictionary would do.
What I don't agree with you about is that there's any inconsistency in Sokrates' claim to the effect that he doesn't know much at all -- that in fact he doesn't know anything that's "beautiful and good" (i.e., really worth knowing, worthy of some sort of prize) -- and that all the same, he is wiser than those whom he examines in at least this respect: unlike them, he doesn't think he knows things he doesn't know. After all, Sokrates could be ignorant of huge numbers of things and not be so foolish as to be unaware of this fact. That's the foolishness with which he charges those he cross-examines and finds lacking: the foolishness of thinking they know things they don't.
Think of it this way: what are the ways in which one might make oneself "unsokratizable," i.e., make oneself immune to the Sokratic elenkhos, i.e., make it impossible for Sokrates to put one to shame? Aren't they just these? Either (1) one must know -- really know -- what it is that one is talking about, or else (2) one must answer his questions by confessing one's ignorance? |
|
|
|
Richard Mikel
Apprentice
32 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - May 21 2010 : 12:21:58 PM
|
| So then there's no way you could make yourself immune to the Sokratic elenkhos, Richard? That's a depressing idea! But tell me, how could Sokrates make you feel foolish if you "really knew your stuff"? |
|
|
|
Richard Mikel
Apprentice
32 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - May 21 2010 : 3:07:40 PM
|
| "Consistency is proof of knowledge." Interesting, Richard! And more plausible from what you said at first, I think. But couldn't one have a perfectly consistent erroneous view of things? For example: Euclidean geometry is consistent through and through, and yet we now have powerful empirical evidence that it's not correct as a representation of the nature of actual physical space. So while we thought we knew what space was like, we now have to admit that we didn't. And yet still, Euclidean geometry is internally perfectly consistent. |
|
|
|
Richard Mikel
Apprentice
32 Posts |
Posted - May 21 2010 : 4:54:31 PM
|
| That might be reduced to the idea that knowledge is fleeting. Something is considered correct if it has been consistently tested with the same results but that doesn't mean a better solution, idea, or theory can't be found. Everyday people come up with replacements for things that weren't necessarily obsolete before. |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - May 21 2010 : 5:00:59 PM
|
| The developments in geometry hardly show that knowledge is fleeting. They just show that one can think one knows something and be wrong because what one thinks one knows isn't true! We don't know everything that's true, of course, but everything we know is true. Note that what I just said is not -- I repeat not -- that everything we think we know is true! |
|
|
|
Katie Contreras
Apprentice
29 Posts |
Posted - May 22 2010 : 5:17:23 PM
|
| I think I agree with something that Richard said, having to do with not just arriving at wisdom. I do believe that you have to endure problems, questions, and so on in the process; and handling those well will lead you to wisdom -- and you'll gain knowledge in the process. It's like living and learning at the same time in a way. You can live and become wiser and more knowledgeable at the same time just by going through the experiences you go through, but only if you can endure the things you go through in a good manner and learn something from your experiences. |
|
|
|
John Koban
Apprentice
40 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2010 : 10:15:52 AM
|
What does this mean, John: "x is relative" ("Knowledge is relative," "Wisdom is relative," "The whole question is relative")? What exactly does that mean?
In any case, whatever the term "relative" means in this context, could one rephrase your last three questions thus: "Now is consistency the only thing that really matters for Sokrates? Is this why he doesn't claim to know anything? Is the whole question of the truth of one's claims irrelevant in his view as long as all of one's claims are consistent with one another -- i.e., as long as they can't be shown to lead to a contradiction?
If so, I think that you've finally put your finger on something important. I've had the feeling that we've just been spinning our wheels up to this point, but now, I think we're getting down to brass tacks. The only sort of consistency Sokrates shows any interest in is precisely what you've called "consistency in thought and action," and it's a really good question whether it's all he cares about. Is it possible that (a) he doesn't care about truth, or (b) he thinks that consistency is a guarantee of truth?
(By the way: it's not true of Sokrates that he doesn't claim to know anything. All he says that comes even close to this is that he doesn't know anything "beautiful and good" -- which I take to be equivalent to saying that he doesn't know the answers to any of the really important questions in life, such as "What is it exactly to be a human being?" "What exactly is the good for man?" "What is truth?" He never suggests that he doesn't know his name or that he's a citizen of Athens or that the sky is blue, and we've got to be alert to the fact that his claim not know any of the answers to the really big questions may be ironic. In any case, his most careful statement of what he wants to say his wisdom consists in this, you'll recall: "I don't think I know things that I do not know." That's not tantamount to the claim "I know nothing." And look: Sokrates does make claims in the Apology that look like knowledge claims, e.g., "If I say that [for me to keep silent and live a quiet life would be for me] to disobey the god, and therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will not believe me but think I am a humbug. If again I say it is the greatest good for a man everyday to discuss virtue and the other things, about which you hear me talking and examining myself and everybody else, and that life without enquiry is not worth living for a man, you will believe me still less if I say that. And yet all this is true, gentlemen, as I tell you, but to convince you is not easy" (37e-38a, Rouse 526).)
|
|
|
|
Andrew Koziuk
Apprentice
34 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2010 : 10:51:02 AM
|
| I really enjoyed what Jenna did in her post when she defined the words because before I looked at the actual definition of the words I had a different idea of how consistency relates to knowledge. I now feel that consistency is knowledge. What I mean by this is I believe if you are not consistent with your beliefs and understanding of things then your knowledge is weak. I feel that to have real knowledge you must be consistent with yourself and what you believe in. Also, people will see that you are not consistent with your beliefs and they will try and pursue you to understand their beliefs. Consistency directly relates to knowledge, and without being consistent how much knowledge does someone really have? I think they do not have good knowledge because they are not strong in their mind and their beliefs. |
|
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1367 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2010 : 12:07:11 PM
|
| Andrew, what's real knowledge, and what's the difference between good knowledge and knowledge that isn't good (bad knowledge?), and what on earth is weak knowledge? Isn't knowledge just knowledge? The question how much knowledge a person has makes sense to me, but how real it is, or how good it is, or how strong it is? None of these questions makes any sense to me at all. |
|
|
|
Katelyn Kutt
Newcomer
2 Posts |
|
|
Megan Lane
Newcomer
3 Posts |
|
|
John Koban
Apprentice
40 Posts |
|
|
Andrew Koziuk
Apprentice
34 Posts |
|
|
Will Emmons
Moderator
47 Posts |
Posted - May 23 2010 : 7:20:56 PM
|
Katy, when you say "...given the definition of wisdom..." are you referring to the definition which Jenna posted near the beginning of this topic, which runs:
Wisdom is the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight; Common sense; good judgment
or are you referring to some other definition of wisdom? I just want to be sure.
Also, I don't yet understand why you think Socrates' difficult decision to die instead of going against being a philosopher required little effort.
When you mentioned Socrates' difficult decisions, and you gave as an example "the decision that he would rather die than go against being a philosopher," did you mean to suggest that these decisions might be difficult for others but not Socrates, or did you mean that these decisions are difficult for people in general, Socrates included? The reason I ask is this: first you said that "many of the difficult decisions that we have seen [Socrates] make don't seem to require much effort on his part." You then gave as an example Socrates' decision "not to go against being a philosopher," and then you said that it came easily to him because of his consistency. By "difficult" decisions I would guess that you mean to refer to "what we might find difficult" or what "is generally difficult for people" but was not, as you said, difficult for Socrates -- is this right?
It is interesting to me, that you suggested that making certain difficult decisions comes easily to Socrates because of his consistency. Why do you think that this is?
Also, does Socrates really strike you, Katy--or any of the rest of you, for that matter--as someone who is in some sense battling with an enemy in say, for instance The Apology and Ion? It does seem to me that in some sense those in Athens who have long had a prejudice against him might be tempted to think of Socrates as being someone with whom they are to debate or to do battle. It is a bit harder for me to say on Socrates' end. Do you think each of the dialogues we have been reading contains a debate between Socrates and the person or persons with whom he is speaking?
I am also interested in why you said that inconsistency is a weakness... what have you got in mind? Also, if Socrates is strong in being consistent, what about this strength? What should I keep in mind when I encounter these usages of "strength" and "weakness" from both you and Andrew? You said at the end of your post that the consistency which Socrates maintained in his life facilitated decision-making (as well as coming to conclusions) and as such made it easier for him to acquire knowledge. Knowledge comes more easily given consistency?
One other thing... I have this sneaking suspicion that you are interested in consistency not only between things said, between propositions or statements and the like, but also in a broader sense, which would also include things done but not said--in which case we are talking about consistency between, for instance, what one says and what one does, not simply across what one says. Is this so?
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
Edited by - Will Emmons on May 23 2010 7:26:28 PM |
|
|
|
Eliott Dimond
Fledgling
19 Posts |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Consistency: What's It Got to Do with Knowledge?
