View previous topic | View next topic

rules

Page 2 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

JumpingJack
11329.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:51 am Reply with quote

I don't think Socrates meant that he literally knew nothing, by the way.

I mean, I suppose he would've been reasonably happy to admit that he 'knew' that his name was Socrates, for example.

His point was the he didn't claim to be in possession of some higher wisdom, such as did the Sophists (who charged heavily for retailing the supposed commodity).

 
JumpingJack
11330.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:53 am Reply with quote

In fact, I can be bolder than that, with this quotation:

That there is a difference between right opinion and knowledge is not at all a conjecture with me, but something that I would particularly assert that I know. There are not many things of which I would say that, but this one, at any rate, I will include amongst those that I know.
SOCRATES in Plato: The Meno

 
JumpingJack
11331.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:56 am Reply with quote

jme,

I certainly don't claim to be a literary scholar, either.

I looked up 'physicist' in the OED just now.

And 'maieutics', for that matter.

 
JumpingJack
11332.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:58 am Reply with quote

But my point is that while few of us can make any reasonable claim to literary scholarship, we are all equally entitled to call ourselves 'metaphysicians'.

All small children are enthusiastic metaphysicians, for starters.

 
JumpingJack
11333.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:03 am Reply with quote

Here's my stab at The One Rule:

DO WHAT YOU KNOW TO BE RIGHT SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW

 
JumpingJack
11334.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:04 am Reply with quote

The word 'know' in that sentence is something that interests me, and I think it has something to do with what Socrates was getting at when he talked about the difference between 'right opinion' and 'knowledge'.

 
JumpingJack
11335.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:10 am Reply with quote

I would hazard that there are two kinds of 'knowledge'.

There is knowledge is the sense of 'general knowledge' or 'scientific knowledge' a body of facts on which everyone can agree. Nearly all of these 'facts' have been told to us by someone else and we have almost no direct personal experience of them.

(I suppose we could call this stuff 'information')

But there is another kind of knowledge which is (I would argue) ultimately deeper and more meaningful.

As in: 'I know that I love my children'.


Last edited by JumpingJack on Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:20 am; edited 1 time in total

 
JumpingJack
11336.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:12 am Reply with quote

This kind of knowledge is not considered valuable in this benighted hell-hole of a culture we live in, but is more closely akin to the kind of 'knowledge' that the sages of the ages appear to have had access to and often go half-crazy trying to impart to the rest of us.

 
JumpingJack
11337.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:17 am Reply with quote

The great Sufi philiosopher Al-Hallaj, for example, who often fell into trances where he felt himself at one with all creation, and who was brutally executed in 922AD for heresy for his assertion 'I am the Truth'.

 
JumpingJack
11338.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:18 am Reply with quote

I'll shut up now.

 
jme:)
11339.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:29 am Reply with quote

There are two types of knowledge as far as i see.

There is one based upon understanding based on our common experiences.

The other is based on trust of things not directly observed by ourselves.

So..the knowledge of love is based upon undertsanding of the direct relationship between ourselves and other things (not the metaphysical (though need to think about this)).

On the contrary...i can read of love but not process its real meaning..this is a second type of knowledge that exists seperate of undesrtanding and is really just information. It is metaphysical. It has no value in our ascertation of the real.

Now personally I believe the second is more valuable...but it can be linked to the second by two ways..Either the second is learned and then we observe it..so the concept is named. Or it is observed then it is realised what name it has.

Yes, i'm quite pleased with that :)

 
JumpingJack
11340.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:31 am Reply with quote

After a 15 minute silence, I'm back.

 
JumpingJack
11341.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:31 am Reply with quote

Hello, wall.

 
jme:)
11342.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:31 am Reply with quote

sorry...edit of penultimate sentence...

Now personally I believe the first is more valuable...but it can be linked to the second by two ways..Either the second is learned and then we observe it..so the concept is named. Or it is observed then it is realised what name it has.

 
JumpingJack
11343.  Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:34 am Reply with quote

Oops, sorry, jme, I didn't see you interpolating there.

Yes, quite interesting indeed. I'll have a think about that...

 

Page 2 of 6
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group