What about the Socrates who claimed to know nothing?
The Academic Skeptics
Arguments go two ways.
From plausible premises, one can form a new belief.
From absurd conclusions, one can reject premises.
Rejection: Believing Not vs. Not Believing (Suspension, Epoche)
Both give arguments.
Dogmatists aim at belief.
Skeptics aim at Epoche.
Dogmatists attempt to build knowledge up from prior knowledge. So either:
If (1), then either we have an infinite regress, or a circle.
If a circle, then we cannot know unless we already knew.
But we wouldn't be asking if we already knew.
So we should suspend.
If an infinite regress, we can't know the conclusion until we know the starting point.
But there is no starting point.
So we should suspend
If (2) then we must base or knowledge on something that is not knowledge.
But such a thing must be an unsupported Hypothesis
Hence, we must suspend.
How could knowledge be based on something that is not itself knowledge?
What about the senses?
For Epicureans, the senses are the primary criterion of truth.
For the Stoics, knowledge involves reason. Perception is nothing without assent. We figure out what the senses mean by induction and classification.
This lets us avoid error. But do we start on the road to knowledge?
phantasia kataleptike: cognitive impressions.
arises from that which is; is stamped and impressed in accordance with that very thing; and of such a kind as could not arise from what is not
(definition of Chrysippus)
There are no cognitive impressions.
Does (2) just capitulate?