Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Answer

Commonmark migration
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

'Know thyself' was a Delphic inscription, not a question Socrates asked. For a start, it doesn't have the form of a question; and secondly it is brought in by Critias at Charmides 164d as the correct answer to the question, 'What is sophrosune [temperance, self-control] ?'

When elsewhere Socrates does claim self-knowledge the claim is limited to knowledge of his own ignorance ( Mary Margaret MacKenzie, 'The Virtues of Socratic Ignorance', The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1988), pp. 331-350 : 331):

I recognise in myself (sunoida emautdi) that I am not wise in either a small or a large thing (Apol.21b4)

 

I seem to be wiser than this man in so far as I do not think I know what I do not know (21d 6)

 

I recognised myself, so to speak, as knowing nothing (22dl) ... anyone who, like Socrates, knows that he is in truth worth nothing in respect of knowledge (23b3).

There is a touch of paradox here, as MacKenzie points out, since if Socrates knows that he is ignorant, hence he has some knowledge after all.

That aside, I suggest that while self-knowledge can proceed to the intellectual depths suggested in your question - depths which Heidegger may elucidate - Socrates' self-knowledge as he understood it was only the knowledge of his own ignorance. I don't read a great deal of depth into this, nor I think did Socrates. It had huge implications as a motivator for his philosophical enterprise but that is another matter.

'Know thyself' was a Delphic inscription, not a question Socrates asked. For a start, it doesn't have the form of a question; and secondly it is brought in by Critias at Charmides 164d as the correct answer to the question, 'What is sophrosune [temperance, self-control] ?'

When elsewhere Socrates does claim self-knowledge the claim is limited to knowledge of his own ignorance ( Mary Margaret MacKenzie, 'The Virtues of Socratic Ignorance', The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1988), pp. 331-350 : 331):

I recognise in myself (sunoida emautdi) that I am not wise in either a small or a large thing (Apol.21b4)

 

I seem to be wiser than this man in so far as I do not think I know what I do not know (21d 6)

 

I recognised myself, so to speak, as knowing nothing (22dl) ... anyone who, like Socrates, knows that he is in truth worth nothing in respect of knowledge (23b3).

There is a touch of paradox here, as MacKenzie points out, since if Socrates knows that he is ignorant, hence he has some knowledge after all.

That aside, I suggest that while self-knowledge can proceed to the intellectual depths suggested in your question - depths which Heidegger may elucidate - Socrates' self-knowledge as he understood it was only the knowledge of his own ignorance. I don't read a great deal of depth into this, nor I think did Socrates. It had huge implications as a motivator for his philosophical enterprise but that is another matter.

'Know thyself' was a Delphic inscription, not a question Socrates asked. For a start, it doesn't have the form of a question; and secondly it is brought in by Critias at Charmides 164d as the correct answer to the question, 'What is sophrosune [temperance, self-control] ?'

When elsewhere Socrates does claim self-knowledge the claim is limited to knowledge of his own ignorance ( Mary Margaret MacKenzie, 'The Virtues of Socratic Ignorance', The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1988), pp. 331-350 : 331):

I recognise in myself (sunoida emautdi) that I am not wise in either a small or a large thing (Apol.21b4)

I seem to be wiser than this man in so far as I do not think I know what I do not know (21d 6)

I recognised myself, so to speak, as knowing nothing (22dl) ... anyone who, like Socrates, knows that he is in truth worth nothing in respect of knowledge (23b3).

There is a touch of paradox here, as MacKenzie points out, since if Socrates knows that he is ignorant, hence he has some knowledge after all.

That aside, I suggest that while self-knowledge can proceed to the intellectual depths suggested in your question - depths which Heidegger may elucidate - Socrates' self-knowledge as he understood it was only the knowledge of his own ignorance. I don't read a great deal of depth into this, nor I think did Socrates. It had huge implications as a motivator for his philosophical enterprise but that is another matter.

Source Link
Geoffrey Thomas ♦
Geoffrey Thomas ♦
  • 36.1k
  • 4
  • 46
  • 148

'Know thyself' was a Delphic inscription, not a question Socrates asked. For a start, it doesn't have the form of a question; and secondly it is brought in by Critias at Charmides 164d as the correct answer to the question, 'What is sophrosune [temperance, self-control] ?'

When elsewhere Socrates does claim self-knowledge the claim is limited to knowledge of his own ignorance ( Mary Margaret MacKenzie, 'The Virtues of Socratic Ignorance', The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1988), pp. 331-350 : 331):

I recognise in myself (sunoida emautdi) that I am not wise in either a small or a large thing (Apol.21b4)

I seem to be wiser than this man in so far as I do not think I know what I do not know (21d 6)

I recognised myself, so to speak, as knowing nothing (22dl) ... anyone who, like Socrates, knows that he is in truth worth nothing in respect of knowledge (23b3).

There is a touch of paradox here, as MacKenzie points out, since if Socrates knows that he is ignorant, hence he has some knowledge after all.

That aside, I suggest that while self-knowledge can proceed to the intellectual depths suggested in your question - depths which Heidegger may elucidate - Socrates' self-knowledge as he understood it was only the knowledge of his own ignorance. I don't read a great deal of depth into this, nor I think did Socrates. It had huge implications as a motivator for his philosophical enterprise but that is another matter.