all i know is that i don't know
this is my philosophy paper i am presenting on tonight. i wish i wouldn't have waited until monday to start this, i'm such a procrastinator. so not my best work, but i would love some feedback on the topic. anyways, here ya go!
Confucius said “real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance” (2005). This is truer today than ever before. In an age where information is at the tip of our fingers, it is difficult to pinpoint the origin of knowledge. We can get online and read through millions of people’s theories and opinions, but from where did all that knowledge come? How do we know the origin is true when it is found? Socrates believed that we are born with all the knowledge we will ever know in our souls, while Locke believed we are born a clean slate and acquire knowledge through the senses. I will present Socrates and Locke’s theories and explain that knowledge comes from both our soul and our senses.
Socrates theory is that we are born with our souls knowing everything. He stated that men cannot ask about that which they do not know, because men would have no way of knowing if the answer is true or not, and that men can also not ask about what they do know, because they already know and there is no need to ask (Plato, 1967). Socrates theory leads one to believe that there is no quest for knowledge, you either know and have no need to ask or don't know what to ask about. This is a bleak outlook. How does one attain knowledge if they already know everything or do not know how to ask for which they do not know? Plato, a student of Socrates, offered a solution to this bleak outlook, the theory of recollection. Plato's theory of recollection is that our souls are eternal and that we remember our relationship with an object's eternal form, a relationship we had before birth (Kemerling, 2002).
This theory is easier to understand when talking about knowledge such as mathematics, but seems less likely to be true when discussing the knowledge of the layout of a person's house or what the box of a new brand of cereal must look like. Mathematical concepts, once explained correctly, seem to be something we already know. We can look at two apples and know there are two apples, but mathematics is the language that conveys that knowledge; but when we walk into a person’s house for the first time, we are learning where all the rooms are in the house. For the theory of recollection to be true, knowledge would have to be defined to include mathematics and other similar concepts, but knowledge of they layouts of houses and other “learned” concepts would have to be defined as something different.
Socrates theory of virtue goes hand-in-hand with his theories on knowledge. He believed in two types of virtue. That there is one form of virtue that varies from person to person, such as a teacher, their virtue is to teach. The other form of virtue is innate and is called true virtue. Socrates focused on true virtue. In Plato’s Meno, Meno asks Socrates whether true virtue is a result of nature or nurture (Farlex, 2004). They define a person’s will for honor and goodness and most importantly, their power to attain honor and goodness as virtue; however the definition of goodness varies from person to person. He then believed that the nature of a person’s goodness comes from the soul. This tells me that our perception is our tool for deciphering the honor and goodness within and that our strength comes from our ability to gain that which we find honorable and good. Meeting our soul’s desire for honor and goodness is the only way to know if we are being true to our own virtue.
Socrates and Plato’s theories of knowledge cannot help but make me think of our instincts. Instinct is defined as "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli" (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000). This tells me that instincts are born into humans. Instincts are universal and natural. Babies instinctually know how to breathe in air to survive, vultures are naturally attracted to the smell of the dead, and animals search for a spot to die alone. On a more subtle level, instincts tell us not to go in a building that smells like gas, or that a dark alley looks too dangerous to walk though at night. These instincts could be attached to our soul. They could also be attached to our body and the senses. I would believe these instincts are attached to our soul, because some people are more in touch with their instincts than others, such as psychics.
This could be our recollection, our relationship with the eternal world. This could also be genetic memory or evolution. There are instances of insects becoming immune to pesticides over a certain number of years, for example. Whether these instincts are tied to the soul or the body is debatable, but I believe the soul and the body are related, as one cannot function without the other in our reality. It’s as if humans are advanced computers. Our senses are the keyboard that enter in various environmental stimuli and our brain is programmed to respond a certain way. There can even by software upgrades that add new instincts to counter act new stimuli.
This theory leads to John Locke’s theories on knowledge. Locke stated that "Nothing exists in the mind that was not first in the senses" (More & Bruder, 2005, p 117). Locke believed that we are born a clean slate and that everything we know comes from our sensory perceptions. This makes sense when discussing how we learn what foods to enjoy; however, our instincts tell us to breathe air. We cannot learn to breathe air because if we did not breathe, we would die and never get a chance to learn that we should have been breathing.
Locke also believed that knowledge comes from relating ideas together. He also believed that there are two qualities to objects, primary and secondary (Ayers, 1998). Primary qualities are more universal and solid, such as figures, motion, and numbers whereas secondary qualities are sensory qualities filtered by perception, such as smell, color, and taste. I believe this to be true. I could ask other people if they see the pendulum on a moving clock, but our perceptions will differ on what color it is and only by relating the motion of the pendulum to our sense of the color do we see the object in our minds. We cannot see motion without also seeing that which our senses perceive.
So while primary qualities are universally accepted, we only experience the objects through our perception of the secondary qualities. For example, everything we see has a color. So while the knowledge of the motion or numbers may be recollection, the smell and the color are learned. For instance, we did not know what the Eiffel tower would look like before it was built. This is the connection between Socrates theories and Locke’s. There are some things we are born knowing, such as instincts and virtue, and some things we learn after being born. Both Socrates and Locke’s theories have validation; however, there are a few flaws.
The body was rejected by Socrates. He felt that the body and soul are separate and that the body only confuses the soul; true knowledge can only come after being separated from our bodies (death), and that the closest we can come to true knowledge is to try and remove ourselves from our bodies as much as possible, by denouncing pleasures of the senses (Cooper, 1998). This contradicts Locke’s theory. This also seems unnatural. Why would we be born into a body we are supposed to deny? Our senses are a part of our body, they are our filter. Our ears listen and our eyes see, how can we deny the only thing we know? I think we can learn from what Socrates has to teach and remember that our senses are only a filter, but we cannot denounce them completely, because we have no way of knowing whether the body or the soul is where knowledge is stored.
Socrates was pronounced as the wisest of people by the Delphi Oracle (More & Bruder, 2005, p 35). He believed this was decided not because he knew more than anyone else, but because he was the most aware of all that he didn’t know. This is important to keep in mind when determining the source of knowledge. Our speculations and theories are just that, speculations and theories. We can deny the body and rely on the soul, deny the soul and rely on the body, or rely on both for our knowledge, but we must keep in mind that the source of knowledge is not something we can prove in our reality and should not deny either argument. To quote a band called Operation Ivy “All I know is that I don’t know, and that’s fine”.
Confucius said “real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance” (2005). This is truer today than ever before. In an age where information is at the tip of our fingers, it is difficult to pinpoint the origin of knowledge. We can get online and read through millions of people’s theories and opinions, but from where did all that knowledge come? How do we know the origin is true when it is found? Socrates believed that we are born with all the knowledge we will ever know in our souls, while Locke believed we are born a clean slate and acquire knowledge through the senses. I will present Socrates and Locke’s theories and explain that knowledge comes from both our soul and our senses.
Socrates theory is that we are born with our souls knowing everything. He stated that men cannot ask about that which they do not know, because men would have no way of knowing if the answer is true or not, and that men can also not ask about what they do know, because they already know and there is no need to ask (Plato, 1967). Socrates theory leads one to believe that there is no quest for knowledge, you either know and have no need to ask or don't know what to ask about. This is a bleak outlook. How does one attain knowledge if they already know everything or do not know how to ask for which they do not know? Plato, a student of Socrates, offered a solution to this bleak outlook, the theory of recollection. Plato's theory of recollection is that our souls are eternal and that we remember our relationship with an object's eternal form, a relationship we had before birth (Kemerling, 2002).
This theory is easier to understand when talking about knowledge such as mathematics, but seems less likely to be true when discussing the knowledge of the layout of a person's house or what the box of a new brand of cereal must look like. Mathematical concepts, once explained correctly, seem to be something we already know. We can look at two apples and know there are two apples, but mathematics is the language that conveys that knowledge; but when we walk into a person’s house for the first time, we are learning where all the rooms are in the house. For the theory of recollection to be true, knowledge would have to be defined to include mathematics and other similar concepts, but knowledge of they layouts of houses and other “learned” concepts would have to be defined as something different.
Socrates theory of virtue goes hand-in-hand with his theories on knowledge. He believed in two types of virtue. That there is one form of virtue that varies from person to person, such as a teacher, their virtue is to teach. The other form of virtue is innate and is called true virtue. Socrates focused on true virtue. In Plato’s Meno, Meno asks Socrates whether true virtue is a result of nature or nurture (Farlex, 2004). They define a person’s will for honor and goodness and most importantly, their power to attain honor and goodness as virtue; however the definition of goodness varies from person to person. He then believed that the nature of a person’s goodness comes from the soul. This tells me that our perception is our tool for deciphering the honor and goodness within and that our strength comes from our ability to gain that which we find honorable and good. Meeting our soul’s desire for honor and goodness is the only way to know if we are being true to our own virtue.
Socrates and Plato’s theories of knowledge cannot help but make me think of our instincts. Instinct is defined as "An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli" (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000). This tells me that instincts are born into humans. Instincts are universal and natural. Babies instinctually know how to breathe in air to survive, vultures are naturally attracted to the smell of the dead, and animals search for a spot to die alone. On a more subtle level, instincts tell us not to go in a building that smells like gas, or that a dark alley looks too dangerous to walk though at night. These instincts could be attached to our soul. They could also be attached to our body and the senses. I would believe these instincts are attached to our soul, because some people are more in touch with their instincts than others, such as psychics.
This could be our recollection, our relationship with the eternal world. This could also be genetic memory or evolution. There are instances of insects becoming immune to pesticides over a certain number of years, for example. Whether these instincts are tied to the soul or the body is debatable, but I believe the soul and the body are related, as one cannot function without the other in our reality. It’s as if humans are advanced computers. Our senses are the keyboard that enter in various environmental stimuli and our brain is programmed to respond a certain way. There can even by software upgrades that add new instincts to counter act new stimuli.
This theory leads to John Locke’s theories on knowledge. Locke stated that "Nothing exists in the mind that was not first in the senses" (More & Bruder, 2005, p 117). Locke believed that we are born a clean slate and that everything we know comes from our sensory perceptions. This makes sense when discussing how we learn what foods to enjoy; however, our instincts tell us to breathe air. We cannot learn to breathe air because if we did not breathe, we would die and never get a chance to learn that we should have been breathing.
Locke also believed that knowledge comes from relating ideas together. He also believed that there are two qualities to objects, primary and secondary (Ayers, 1998). Primary qualities are more universal and solid, such as figures, motion, and numbers whereas secondary qualities are sensory qualities filtered by perception, such as smell, color, and taste. I believe this to be true. I could ask other people if they see the pendulum on a moving clock, but our perceptions will differ on what color it is and only by relating the motion of the pendulum to our sense of the color do we see the object in our minds. We cannot see motion without also seeing that which our senses perceive.
So while primary qualities are universally accepted, we only experience the objects through our perception of the secondary qualities. For example, everything we see has a color. So while the knowledge of the motion or numbers may be recollection, the smell and the color are learned. For instance, we did not know what the Eiffel tower would look like before it was built. This is the connection between Socrates theories and Locke’s. There are some things we are born knowing, such as instincts and virtue, and some things we learn after being born. Both Socrates and Locke’s theories have validation; however, there are a few flaws.
The body was rejected by Socrates. He felt that the body and soul are separate and that the body only confuses the soul; true knowledge can only come after being separated from our bodies (death), and that the closest we can come to true knowledge is to try and remove ourselves from our bodies as much as possible, by denouncing pleasures of the senses (Cooper, 1998). This contradicts Locke’s theory. This also seems unnatural. Why would we be born into a body we are supposed to deny? Our senses are a part of our body, they are our filter. Our ears listen and our eyes see, how can we deny the only thing we know? I think we can learn from what Socrates has to teach and remember that our senses are only a filter, but we cannot denounce them completely, because we have no way of knowing whether the body or the soul is where knowledge is stored.
Socrates was pronounced as the wisest of people by the Delphi Oracle (More & Bruder, 2005, p 35). He believed this was decided not because he knew more than anyone else, but because he was the most aware of all that he didn’t know. This is important to keep in mind when determining the source of knowledge. Our speculations and theories are just that, speculations and theories. We can deny the body and rely on the soul, deny the soul and rely on the body, or rely on both for our knowledge, but we must keep in mind that the source of knowledge is not something we can prove in our reality and should not deny either argument. To quote a band called Operation Ivy “All I know is that I don’t know, and that’s fine”.