The Socratic Paradox

Socrates claims to have no knowledge. This has traditionally been seen as a dialogue tactic, and that he isn't serious. It has even become known as Socratic irony.

Problem is that it isn't really consistent with what he actually says. As an famous example when Chaerephon asked the Oracle at Delphi: "Is there anyone wiser than Socrates?", and the oracle answered, "No". About this Socrates says: "When I heard this I kept thinking: 'What on earth does the god mean? What is he hinting at? For I am aware of being wise in nothing, great or small. What then could he mean by saying that I am wise?'". This is far from the only place where Socrates clearly denies any knowledge. One of his main rules of elenctic dialogue is to say what you believe.

So, Socrates really didn't have any knowledge, where's the paradox? For a guy claiming to have no knowledge he sure says he knows a lot: ". . . but that to do injustice and I know to be evil and disobey my superior, god or man, this base" and "I know well that if you will agree with me on those things which my soul believes, those things will be the very truth".

Can't make it too easy now, can he? Clearly stating that he knows nothing and the turning around five minutes later and claiming to know important ethical truths. For somebody who had spent his life digging through the statements of others it seems unlikely that he isn't aware of the contradiction he said.

He claims to know what makes life worth living, and then gives us a riddle.