Wisdom, as a highly subjective construct, is often used as a quality of knowing. This is the idea that Socrates both confirms and challenges in The Apology, when he says that he is wise by virtue of knowing that he knows nothing of importance. He therefore has knowledge, which is the foundation of his wisdom, but this idea challenges the intuitive foundation of the received definition of wisdom. He began to accuse him of being a busybody who was not thinking about things to think about, then he began to explain that this was not a “character” who professed to know everything (Plato, Apology>. i>). The story of the Delphic oracle is followed by Socrates’ response to the anticipated confusion of the audience, who wonder why such a charge was brought if Socrates was really innocent. Socrates tells the story of his acquaintances, who went to the oracle and asked who was wiser than Socrates. The oracle replied that there was no one wiser, to which answer he threw Socrates into confusion, when it was reported to him that he had been heard; For Socrates did not know that he was a diamond in any way great or small (Plato, Apology). Socrates discovers the answer by interviewing the honorable men of Athens. They all falsely trust in the knowledge of the world, which Socrates always discovers to be false after questioning. Even poets and artists considered themselves to be the authors of those matters of which they knew nothing.
The conclusion to draw from these conversations with Socrates was that the oracle had created the “human kind of wisdom” that Socrates possessed, wisdom. that he might perceive his own ignorance (Plato, De Apologia). Socrates judged that only the gods can be truly wise, and that the height of human wisdom cannot be attained except by considering the limits of man and knowing nothing.
This view is defined by knowing to define wisdom who is not wise, Socrates has a place, but, as some argue, the epistemological definition does not work. The simplest interpretation of the Apology says: S is wise if S believes S. > He is not wise
OR:
S is wise if S does not believe that S knows anything.
We can clearly think of examples of these thoughts; A careless man may see that he is not wise, but he is not wise at once, because he has recognized what has happened to him. In the same way also in a foolish man, who confesses that he knows nothing. We can also argue that Socrates was not really stupid to believe, otherwise he would have ignored the oracle altogether. moreover, if he had then investigated himself as a fool and believed that he had discovered his own wisdom, the very thing that he later called wise would have “reconsidered” his own wisdom. norms for wisdom, although the theory from Apologia is useful for rejecting unjust beliefs. The value of Socrates’ wisdom is evident in the fact that he is humble and does not threaten to invoke false knowledge on others. For example, in Theaetetus the only conclusion that Socrates and his listeners come to after much controversy is that they do not know what science is. Socrates, however, made Theaetetus great by showing him what he is not, so that he is not “burdensome” to those with whom he associates, if he knows. it does not do something (Plato, Theaetetus).
This second order of knowledge (K(q) where q is of the form K(p), and where p is non-knowledge) it is valid in important matters, since no one knows whether p, but Socrates acknowledges that he does not know p. To make this more understandable, people who don’t know the issues, the candidates and the political issues that are wrong during the election, claim to mislead other voters. For example, if someone who belongs to the Democratic Party talks to a Republican and says, “The Democratic Party appeals to a much larger demographic, so they will get a lot more votes, so the Democrats will vote as well.” His first proposition was true, but his conclusion was still false (a large Democratic appeal than the Democratic Party’s voter demographic is also the least likely), and his suggestion alienated the Republicans’ false conclusion. Therefore, in our example of the Republic, this argument can be brought to the effect of voting the democratic ticket rather than the Republic. We know, in hindsight, that making important decisions based on flawed logic is inappropriate and even dangerous, especially in a situation such as a presidential election. This dissemination of false knowledge could have been stopped if our democrat had subscribed to the theory of Socrates’ wisdom and recognized his own ignorance.
Therefore, the dignity of Socrates’ wisdom was placed not only in the wise, but also in the wise. with whom every wise person associates. This is the most expensive way to understand this aspect of the Apology – to be wise, it is not believed to know what one does not do, but this is not the full extent of the definition of wisdom.
Bibliography
Plato. John Perry, Michael Bratman, and John Martin Fischer, eds.
Plato. Theaetetus, in Prologue to Philosophy, John Perry, Michael Bratman, and John Martin Fischer (5th ed.), Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. /p>
Ryan, Sharon. “Wisdom.” Stafford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 08 Jan 2007. Stanford
University, Web. 7 Oct 2009.
