Karl Popper on Socrates vs Plato (1979)

A short clip of Karl Popper discussing his interpretation of Socrates and Plato, particularly regarding knowledge and the state. He touches specifically on the Socratic paradox about ignorance: i.e. knowledge of our own lack of knowledge, at least when it comes to matters of importance (e.g. in ethics, in politics, about the nature of reality, etc.). This is a version of an upload from the previous channel that I had put together awhile back. The translation is my own. The audio comes from a lecture given on knowledge and ignorance in Frankfurt in 1979, and the video clips come from various interviews and documentaries on Popper that will be added at a later date. You can find more Popper here: • Karl Popper
More Short Clips: • Shorter Clips & Videos...
#Popper #Socrates #Plato

[@brianhatano697]

People are missing Popper’s point that this is not about personal modesty, but about the tradition of criticism that brought all knowledge progress whenever people have made progress, whether practical, artistic, political, or scientific.

[@andoreanesnomeo1706]

Who can argue that intellectual modesty is not an important virtue in clear thinking? I mean, the alternative is in fact a form of willful blindness. We would say that such a person does not know their limits.

[@HalTuberman]

I'm not sure I agree with Popper fully here. In Plato's defense I want to say that what Plato meant was that knowledge which had been hard-earned through the dialectic which always begins with a fundamental recognition of one's own ignorance was the better knowledge. In the Republic, Plato does plenty of mocking of the poets' and politicians' "knowledge." After all, what separates the knowledge of the poets from that of philosophers in Plato's eyes? The dialectical method, right?
But, at the same time, I also see what Popper sees. An abandonment of intellectual modesty in Plato.

[@withnail-and-i]

I can't disparage the good intention that Popper is coming from, and I think some of the passages of his book are relevant to modern politics. I like looking at the two ends of this question, on one side Karl Popper, and on the other Leo Strauss (on the latter's Wikipedia page there is a whole paragraph on what he thought about Popper's grounding in Plato's philosophy). I find myself closer to the Straussian view, although staying distant to some of their weirder avenues of inquiry.
Even people who praise the book have to acknowledge that many quotes are picked out of their context to fit the chosen narrative. At the very least, it is reductive of the complexity of the Platonic text, which has been commented on by so many brilliant mind, adding bricks to the monument of our understanding (which is done here too).
Let's not forget the Homeric characters that are brought back within the myth of Er in Book X... The contradictions keep us going!

[@quiddam]

I guess more than anything his point is that you can come up with a dialectic that has a lot of political activism baked in (as in Marx's case). The logical consequence of this is that movement leaders will use said dialectic to justify whatever. Philosophies of the "I am aware of my own ignorance" side of things, will always try to test and falsify their own knowledge.

[@FressiaSato]

It does not seem to me that this definition makes a complete judgment about the divine oracle. However, what is given by God also has significance in spiritual guidance. How can Socrates say that he knows nothing while others do not know what they know? We do not ourselves know why we have doubts about our reasoning about the presence of wisdom in others and why we do not see anything unusual about it. It would be strange, however, to see various forms of knowledge if Socrates was in three or four different forms. I would immediately switch between them.

[@kishoridesai7830]

When the objective of knowledge is solving problems what is one expected to do knowing "he knows nothing" or his knowledge will always be incomplete?
He has to act one way or the other. In many instances the decision is urgent. The judgement every wise man is in the light of his wisdom which cannot be infinite.
The fact that in democracy people elect practical politicians rather than philosophers to take decisions on their behalf shows they respect engineers more than scientists when problems are to be solved as early as possible.

[@danielleburke9996]

One of the main problems with politicians and government is the urgent need to do something, to act one way or another, but how much trouble would be saved in some instances by doing nothing instead. Politicians usually create 10 more problems when they use their very limited knowledge trying to solve one.

[@Boardwoards]

@@danielleburke9996 oh but floundering is all of the meat in profiteering.

[@TheFlamingChips]

To remind themselves to be open. Saying you know something closes off any progress in that area. Thinking "I know nothing" holds back our arrogance and allows new conjectures and theories to be tested in your mind and with others.
For example, someone before Einstein would say something like "I *know* that time is constant, Newton proved this, everyone knows". Blocking themselves off from unknown progress like general relativity. It's Einstein adopting the thinking that we don't know things for sure, to make progress a different way. Imagine if he agreed with everyone else, and didn't persue what he thought.

[@alva72nashir3]

narrow mind.. short term vision can lead to the failure of the bigger problem recognition..

[@JB-qt3wo]

Popper's axe to grind with Plato seems to be Plato's desire to form a hierarchical society that seeks to transcend the flaws in human nature, thereby collectively bringing about a higher state of existence. This is the fundamental driving force behind much of Western Civilization. Popper of course, views this as source of oppression. Popper is much more insidious and influential than many realize. I believe his ideas have been taken to an extreme. Any existing hierarchy, whether it be socially constructed, or derived from a state of nature, is an enemy of the open society. You can see the influences of Marx, but the methodology in how he implements liberal ideology is much different from traditional Marxists.

[@buzzkill5365]

pooper's hatred for Plato (and Socrates as well) is more than obvious.

[@vladimirkraynyk]

Yes screw this guy, Plato FTW

[@garyscopel6814]

He refers to Plato's Apology of Socrates as the finest philosophical work that he knows. It seems like he has a hefty amount of admiration for both figures.