explain the basic understanding of the philosophical quoted|literature
In this essay I evaluate the philosophical saying:” The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” In my evaluation, I will first explain the basic understanding of the philosophical quote. The basic understanding involves direct interpretation of the words. The evaluation of the basic understanding also takes into account the context of the puzzle by the famous philosopher Socrates. In modern understanding it can be naturally understood that one ought to know nothing to be wise. The statement hence raises epistemological problem of how the lack of knowledge and information can mean the acquisition of wisdom. The statement also raises the question to the belief of minimal knowledge is the key to wisdom. Does relation of the statement to its understanding makes it a complete puzzle? I will also evaluate the scope of this statement by determining our limits to its basic understanding and the philosopher’s explanation. Is knowledge limiting our basis for reasoning? Basing on the philosophical understanding of the statement I will demonstrate the validity of this statement by using various empiricists in its explanation.
Annotated Bibliography
Danzig, Gabriel. “Apologizing for Socrates: Plato and Xenophon on Socrates’ Behavior in Court.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), vol. 133, no. 2, 2003, pp. 281–321. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20054089?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This reference provides an argument on the Socrates behaviour as accounted by both Plato and Xenophon. This article responds in diverse ways to the post trial debate about Socrates. Central literary and much of philosophical difficulties in the composition of the article is based on Socratic dialogues. This article will help explain the success in Socrates conventional terms. The article also explains the contents of the ‘Apology’ and provides a clear explanation of Socrates thoughts. In supporting the thesis statement, the contents of the ‘Apology’ outlines Plato’s own personal vision of the essence of Socrates’ thought and way of life or that of the idealized philosopher.
Mark, Joshua J. “Socrates.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 02 Sep 2009. Web. 11 Dec 2017.
https://www.ancient.eu/socrates/.
This source provides an insight into Socrates early life as a philosopher and his beliefs. It also mentions the progression of the Greek philosophy from Socrates to Alexander the great. Explanation of Socrates background provides a general view on his thoughts and beliefs. This article also explains Socrates main focus of living a good life. Mark Joshua gives a chronological order of main events in Socrates life and his teachings. This analysis explains the validity of the thesis statement.
Kraut, Richard. “Socrates.” Greek Philosopher. Encyclopedia Britannica. 16 August 2016. Web. 11 Dec 2017.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Socrates.
This source provides an overview of Socrates’ legacy as well as many key highlights in his life regarding his work, his relationship with the public and his criminal troubles. It also gives a deeper and different approach to his radical perception of piety and the beliefs that lead him to be charged with impiety by the people. This source will help to provide substance to the essay because of its detailed account of Socrates’ legendary philosophies that played a significant role in the democratic process we know today.
Beversluis, John. Cross-Examining Socrates: A Defense of the Interlocutors in Plato’s Early Dialogues, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Web. 11 Dec 2017. ProQuest eBook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=3004497.
This source provides a very detailed description of the cross examination of Socrates when he was placed on trial by his peers. It also offers Plato’s early dialogues from the point Socrates from the trial. Not at all like existing examinations, which are completely cavalier of the conversationalists and decrease them to the status of negligible mouthpieces for sees which are miserably befuddled or obviously false, this book considers them important and regards them as bona fide scholarly adversaries whose perspectives are frequently more faultless than pundits have standardly thought. This will be instrumental in the completion of the essay because it gives insight to the trial, what was said and the inevitable outcome.
