Brief Digression Relating to Socrates and Not Knowing (unedited)

 Today, I want to briefly take a pause from continuing my step by step explanation of epistemology (in order to discuss determinism and free will) and talk about Socrates' statement ""For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..." (Plato, Apology 22d, translated by Harold North Fowler, 1966). Like many things, this statement is very much related to epistemology. 

(I also want to quickly note that I'm not editing these posts as much as I want to just because I'm already spending a lot of time on them and have to focus on other things.)

Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if some people misuse Socrates' statement above in the following way. "Socrates' statement about knowing emphasizes how everyone knows nothing and, therefore, even if someone else provides a stronger argument, I will just believe my weaker argument and highlight how the person presenting the stronger argument is arrogant for thinking he or she knows something" (I do not associate this view with Anthony de Mello, who is a Catholic priest).

The reason Socrates did not mean what is found in the above sentence is that when Socrates was showing the contradictions in the statements of others, he was stating that the contradiction was true. An assertion that a statement contains a contradiction assumes that it really does contain a contradiction, which is a claim to knowledge. Moreover, Socrates was constantly drawing conclusions and actively talking to people to draw more conclusions. A conclusion is also a claim to knowledge because it is stating that, this conclusion follows from the premises, and therefore I know the truth that this conclusion follows form the premises.

The paradox of Socrates claiming to not know anything but acting like he does have knowledge can be easily solved by understanding that one word can have multiple meanings. When Socrates said that he did not know anything, he meant that he did not know anything with 100% certainty. Though he did not have 100% certainty, he did act in a way that reflected his belief that his thoughts were correct with the information that he had, thereby allowing him at act as if he believed his conclusions were true.

The way Socrates converses with the Athenians is deeply humbling for me. Socrates never seems to get annoyed and always keeps his cool, a reflection of his maturity. But one thing we have to note is that, even though Socrates never got upset and was courteous, the Athenians still killed him. Socrates pointing out the contradictions to his interlocutors in a more indirect way did not result in a different outcome to those who spoke more directly, namely the Apostles of Christianity.

The Apostles' method of speaking more directly and frankly seems to be superior to Socrates' method because the outcome of death was the same for both parties but one was more courageous and clearly spoke exactly what was on their mind. Socrates is close to being one of the bravest people I know. But even then, the Apostles seem to be braver.

If we do not have 100% certainty, should we not express strong beliefs? We must express our strong beliefs even though we do not personally possess absolute truth. If a child was being murdered in front of you, would you not yell at the person to stop and physically intervene? 

Some situations are less clear but still require strong counter arguments to be voiced. It can be argued that the evils of Communism were hidden from the majority of the world in the beginning of the last century. But someone with prescience would have seen through Communism and would have yelled in the public square that this would lead to millions of people perishing. Close to 100 million people died because of Communism and fervent public criticism of it was and is justified.

It is fine to express strong views if you are fine with being proven wrong and changing your mind. If you feel emotionally strongly about something, it is not wrong to be honest about it. We should all just remember to listen to the other side and be open to changing out opinion.