Socrates was required reading of my liberal arts school even though I was an engineering major, i.e. a math and science guy. I found the actual assigned writings of Socrates impenetrable and suspected much was lost in translation. (I am curious who has the best English translation of Socrates or Plato for that matter.) I had a similar reaction to reading Schopenhauer's philosophies though I found it fascinating that Schopenhauer tried to reconcile the Buddhist philosophies of the Asia with the philosophies of the West like Stoicism back in the 1800s. My bottom line is that it is best to start out reading philosophy a simplified summary much as what Donald Robertson has provided to get the most out of your reading. If you don't get an overview then everything you read will be out of context and make little sense. For example, Robertson was at least able to explain the "Socratic method" in one simple story that failed to be conveyed in most law school by giving a simplified overview of Socrates's purpose for the method. The purpose of the Socratic method is to recognize what you think you know and actually don't is the greatest source of error. In engineering, we call this a faulty assumption but it is a fundamental truth that is shared by both disciplines of engineering and philosophy. (I think I just pegged the needle on the geek-o-meter. Ding, ding, ding!!)
Yes. Plato calls this "double ignorance". Normal ignorance is knowing that you do not know something. And so that is relatively harmless. Double ignorance occurs when you don't even know that you don't know something., Instead you falsely believe that you know something when you are in fact ignorant - it's a form, in other words, of intellectual conceit. Double ignorance can cause many problems for the individual and society.
Thanks for providing the correct terminology for this type of error that I have painfully made in the past. Law school teaches this lesson harshly when you write your first exams thinking you know the meaning of the law elements and being wildly in error. Most crimes and cause of action are made up of multiple individual elements and the meaning of those elements seems simple but are often very nuisanced.
Socrates was required reading of my liberal arts school even though I was an engineering major, i.e. a math and science guy. I found the actual assigned writings of Socrates impenetrable and suspected much was lost in translation. (I am curious who has the best English translation of Socrates or Plato for that matter.) I had a similar reaction to reading Schopenhauer's philosophies though I found it fascinating that Schopenhauer tried to reconcile the Buddhist philosophies of the Asia with the philosophies of the West like Stoicism back in the 1800s. My bottom line is that it is best to start out reading philosophy a simplified summary much as what Donald Robertson has provided to get the most out of your reading. If you don't get an overview then everything you read will be out of context and make little sense. For example, Robertson was at least able to explain the "Socratic method" in one simple story that failed to be conveyed in most law school by giving a simplified overview of Socrates's purpose for the method. The purpose of the Socratic method is to recognize what you think you know and actually don't is the greatest source of error. In engineering, we call this a faulty assumption but it is a fundamental truth that is shared by both disciplines of engineering and philosophy. (I think I just pegged the needle on the geek-o-meter. Ding, ding, ding!!)
Yes. Plato calls this "double ignorance". Normal ignorance is knowing that you do not know something. And so that is relatively harmless. Double ignorance occurs when you don't even know that you don't know something., Instead you falsely believe that you know something when you are in fact ignorant - it's a form, in other words, of intellectual conceit. Double ignorance can cause many problems for the individual and society.
Thanks for providing the correct terminology for this type of error that I have painfully made in the past. Law school teaches this lesson harshly when you write your first exams thinking you know the meaning of the law elements and being wildly in error. Most crimes and cause of action are made up of multiple individual elements and the meaning of those elements seems simple but are often very nuisanced.
A silly non-philosophical, non-psychological thought but...Michelangelo, like Socrates, was a stonemason?!
But, obviously, Socrates and Michaelangelo ultimately used completely different forms to express their own unique creative brilliance!