Scio ut nescio.

That's Socrates, right? Sounds to me like a 'contradictio in terminis'... Of course, I would gladly be corrected if I'm mistaken...

Well, yes, it's the most famous socratian (term?) sentence. With scio ut nescio, the legend says, all his discussions with his 'pupils' closed. You might apply contradictio in terminis to it, but if you look at it in a more philosophical way, you'll see the truth in it.

If my Latin ain't too rusty it means "I know and know not", right? Just making sure before I post a lot of irrelevant crap...

Isn't it rather I know that I know not?

[Edit: Can someone tell me a way to look at this so that the knowing does not exclude the not knowing?]

Edited by The Mole at 13:07 on September, 09th 2002

[center]
[a href="http://www.mutedfaith.com/quiz/vq.htm" target="new"]
[img src="http://www.mutedfaith.com/images/sv.jpg" border=0]
[/a][br]
[a href="http://www.mutedfaith.com/quiz/vq.htm" target="new"]What Type of Villain are You?[/a][br]
[a href="http://www.mutedfaith.com" target="new"]mutedfaith.com[/a] /
[a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/labile"][º][/a]
[/center]

Johann, you can't post html here... you have to use the standard tags which can be found in help -> post formatting



This is your villain type

Literal translation: I know that I don't know.
Meaning: I know that I know nothing.

But he just means that you can never be 100% of anything right? Because we can't even be sure that this state of being is even real... We only participate in this being so we can never know anything for sure, right? Just checking...

Yes. All we can do is theorize, but there can always be something we're missing. We can try to get as close to a possible truth as possible, but we will never be able to reach it. And this is the insight of scio ut nescio - something most people will actually never come to

But how about Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum"... You can't apply "scio ut nescio" to that, right... I mean, there are but two options: I either am or I am not, there is no in-between. And if I'm not, I cannot say or do anything which would affect anything at all seeing as my actions, however 'real' to me, still wouldn't exist... But my actions do seem to affect other people so the only option where I am not is if nothing is, so there's still room for doubt. However if I modify my statement from "I think, therefor I am" to "I think therefor I am if you are" I can be 100% sure of that, right? Or is there a flaw in my reasoning (Which is very possible since it is starting to get late and I haven't had a smoke for 12 hours )?

I think the correct term is socratical... (btw, this is the edit. no [edit:...] this time )

Edited by Pada1 at 22:09 on September, 09th 2002

First of all, I assume you are talking about the actual meaning of 'Cogito ergo sum' in which it is better to replace them 'I am' with 'I exist'. Otherwise, I would now question what 'I am' means and that this is an uncertainity.

No, I don't think you have a point about this statement. Let's assume 'you are', but the people around you are just holographic projections or something (so they 'are not' ). You consider them equally 'being' than you though because you haven't noticed this yet. Your actions would stil seemingly affect others. But your theory about being would fail.

I thought that was Descartes' whole point: the confirmation of existence of 'a thinking subject' comes from within the subject itself and needs no other affirmation...

I do agree with Pada1 however when he says you could never find a true harmony between Socrates and Descartes, the former, not being blinded by a dogmatic belief in the power of reason, would never accept that you can actually 'prove' our existence...

The whole 'project' of modern philosophers (modern meaning here: everything since Descartes ) is to prove that certain knowledge is possible, but none of them succesfully bypasses Socrates without making some sort of assumption, for instance: God

Which is why 'Scio ut nescio' has such an absolute power to end any discussion, and therefore I consider it cheating

You have to take into account that there are centuries between Socrates and Descartes. They both 'founded' completely different 'schools' of philosophy. So a harmony between the two is nothing which ever was even intended!

That brings us to the ultimate and only truth: panta rei!