What Socrates' ‘know nothing' wisdom can teach a polarized America
But each dilemma usually comes down to polarized deadlock between two competing visions and everyone's conviction that theirs is the right one. Perhaps this white-knuckled insistence on being right is the root cause of the societal fissure – why everything seems so irreparably wrong.
As religion and philosophy scholars, we would argue that our apparent national impasse points to a lack of 'epistemic humility,' or intellectual humility – that is, an inability to acknowledge, empathize with and ultimately compromise with opinions and perspectives different from one's own. In other words, Americans have stopped listening.
So why is intellectual humility in such scarce supply? Of course, the quickest answer might be the right one: that humility runs against most people's fear of being mistaken, and the zero-sum view that being right means someone else has to be totally wrong.
But we think that the problem is more complex and perhaps more interesting. We believe epistemic humility presents something of a twofold danger that makes being humble frightening – and has, ever since Socrates first put it at the heart of Western philosophy.
If your best friend told you that you were the wisest of all human beings, perhaps you would be inclined to smile in agreement and take the dear friend for a beer. But when the ancient Athenian Socrates was delivered this news, he responded with sincere and utter disbelief – even though his friend had confirmed it with the Delphic oracle, the fortune-telling authority of the ancient world.
This nascent humility – 'No, get out of here, I'm definitely not the wisest' – helped spark what became arguably the greatest philosophical life of all time. Despite relative old age, Socrates immediately embarked on a journey to find someone wiser than himself and spent many days seeking out the sages of the ancient world, a quest Plato recounts in his 'Apology of Socrates.'
The problem? He discovered that the sages thought they knew more than they actually did. Eventually, Socrates concluded that he himself was, in fact, the wisest of all men, because at least he 'knew that he didn't know.'
This is not to say that Socrates knew nothing: He demonstrates time and again that he knows a lot and routinely demonstrated good judgment. Rather, he acknowledged there were definite limitations to the knowledge he could claim.
This is the birth of 'epistemic humility' in Western philosophy: the acknowledgment that one's blind spots and shortcomings are an invitation for ongoing intellectual investigation and growth.
But this mindset can feel dangerous to other people – especially if they feel absolutely certain in their convictions.
In ancient Athens, as much as in the U.S. today, being perceived as right translated into money and power. The city-state's culture was dominated by the Sophists, who taught rhetoric to nobles and politicians, and the Poets, ancient playwrights. Greek theater and epic poetry were closely related to religion, and their creators were treated as mouthpieces for aesthetic and moral truth.
What's more, theater and poetry were also major moneymakers, which motivated artists to adopt a mentality of 'fail fast, fail better,' with an eye to eventually proving correct and getting paid.
By critically interrogating the idols and polarized views of his culture, Socrates threatened the power holders of his city. A constantly questioning figure is a direct threat to individuals who spend their lives defending unquestioned belief – whether it's belief in themselves, their superiors or their gods.
Take Euthyphro, for example, one of Socrates' principal interlocutors. Euthyphro is so sure that he knows the difference between right and wrong that he is bringing his own father to trial. Socrates quickly disabuses him of his certainty, famously debating him about the true meaning of piety.
Or take Meletus, the man who eventually brought Socrates to trial on accusations of corrupting youth. In Plato's account of the trial, it takes Socrates no time to show this 'good patriot,' as Meletus calls himself, that he does not understand what patriotism truly means. Without any pretensions to knowing the absolute truth, Socrates is able to shed light on the underlying assumptions around him.
It's frustrating to read the Platonic dialogues, the works of philosophy that recount Socrates' life and teaching, in part because Socrates rarely claims the final word on any subject. In short, he gives more questions than answers. But what remains constant is his openness to uncertainty that keeps his inquiry on the move, pushing his inquiries further and deeper.
The second danger of epistemic humility is now probably in view. It's the danger that Socrates faced when he was brought to trial for corrupting Athens' youth – the danger to the humble skeptics themselves.
He is brought up on two very serious charges. The first was an accusation that he taught students to make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger – which is actually what the Sophists did, not Socrates. The second was that he had invented new gods – again, he didn't do that; poets and playwrights did.
What was he really guilty of? Perhaps only this: Socrates criticized the arrogant self-assertion of his culture's influencers, and they brought him to trial, which concluded in his death sentence.
Socrates taught that being humble about one's own views was a necessary step in searching for truth – perhaps the most essential one. That was and perhaps still is a revolutionary view, because it forces us to challenge preconceived ideas about what we believe, what we worship and where we tap meaning. He placed himself in the middle of Athenians' sharply polarized debates about what truth and goodness were, and he was the one who got hit.
'Humility like darkness,' wrote American philosopher Henry David Thoreau, 'reveals the heavenly lights.' Put another way, humility about the verity, accuracy and wisdom of one's ideas can reveal the fact that others have understandable reasons for thinking as they do — as long as you try to see the world as they are seeing it. In contrast, arrogance tends to extinguish the 'heavenly light' about what we still don't fully understand.
Being humble about one's position in the world is not an invitation for a post-truth, anything-goes opinion free-for-all. Truth – the idea of truth – matters. And we can pursue it together, if we are always open to being wrong.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: J. W. Traphagan, The University of Texas at Austin and John J. Kaag, UMass Lowell
Read more:
Why China feels threatened by the moral authority of a 90-year-old Catholic bishop
How ideas from ancient Greek philosophy may have driven civilization toward climate change
What Day of the Dead tells us about the Aztec philosophy of happiness
This article was produced with support from UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center and the John Templeton Foundation as part of the GGSC's initiative on Expanding Awareness of the Science of Intellectual Humility.
J. W. Traphagan and John J. Kaag do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointments.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Democrats self-own bragging about inflation shows the left has learned NOTHING
Everybody makes mistakes. Not everyone makes the same mistakes over and over again. Last week, the geniuses in charge of maintaining the Democratic Party's social media picked at a fresh wound — and showed, again, exactly why it lost the 2024 election. The blue team's official X account shared a line chart showing the change in the price of various groceries — meat, dairy, produce, etc. — over time, and asserting that 'prices are higher today than they were on [sic] July 2024.' 'Trump's America,' read the caption. The problem? The last part of the line barely went up. The blue team's official X account, with the caption 'Trump's America,' shared a chart showing the change in the price of various groceries, asserting that 'prices are higher today than they were on [sic] July 2024.' Eric Daugherty, /X And what it actually showed was a massive increase in prices between 2021 and 2024. In other words: over the course of former President Joe Biden's White House tenure. 'I would just advise Democrats not to post about inflation given their track record,' suggested conservative influencer A.G. Hamilton. 'Might save them the embarrassment of having to delete their posts after getting dunked on' — which is exactly what they did. 'This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight!' marveled Fox Business host Stuart Varney. And of course Team Trump got in on the action. The problem with the chart was that it actually showed a massive increase in prices between 2021 and 2024 – when Biden was president. RapidResponse47/X What's notable about the braindead blunder, though, is not the blunder itself. It was that it represented yet another admission, eight and a half months after they surrendered the presidency to Donald Trump for the second time in three election cycles, that the Democrats still haven't made a sincere effort at diagnosing the reasons for their unpopularity — much less addressing them. A new Wall Street Journal poll found that their party continues to suffer as a result — to the point that just 33% of Americans hold a favorable view of it, and 63% view it unfavorably. Both Donald Trump (-7) and the GOP (-11) are also underwater, but may as well be polling as well as ice cream compared to the Democrats. The same holds true of the public's view of various issues; voters still trust the GOP more than the alternative when it comes to the economy, inflation, immigration and foreign policy. If that doesn't wake Democrats up to the provenance of all their political pain, nothing will. The Left has long relied on comforting fallacies to numb the discomfort that accompanies defeat. After 2016, elected Democrats and their media allies insisted that Trump's shocking victory was only possible thanks to Russian meddling. And now, they're laboring under the misimpression that return to power can be attributed to Republicans' superior, but decepting messaging — an almost supernatural ability to compel Americans to believe that which isn't so. If only they could convince the public of the truth, they'd surely prevail. But the cold, hard truth is that it's always been about the substance, stupid — as the unflattering data they so proudly shared last week demonstrates. Kamala Harris was deposited into the dustbin of history because she was the top lieutenant in an administration that had proven a miserable failure long before her boss's implosion last summer. Americans spent the entirety of the Biden years telling pollsters that their lives were demonstrably, palpably worse as a result of historic price hikes. Biden & Co. responded to these pleas for relief by denying the existence of inflation until they couldn't any longer. Then, when they finally did implicitly admit to the effects of the nearly $2 trillion boondoggle they passed in 2021, they slapped the name 'Inflation Reduction Act' on yet another profligate spending bill that every layman in America knew would only compound the problem. There are similar stories to be told about Americans' dissatisfaction with Biden's approach to foreign policy, his abdication of his duty to secure the border, and his championing of a radical social agenda that maintains up is down, left is right, and black is white. Their stubborn refusal to grapple with this incontrovertible truth is also reportedly set to be reflected in an upcoming 2024 autopsy conducted by the DNC. The New York Times reports that it will 'steer clear of the decisions made by the Biden-turned-Harris campaign,' and instead 'focus more on outside groups and super PACs that spent hundreds of millions of dollars aiding the Biden and Harris campaigns through advertising, voter registration drives and turnout efforts.' It's like watching a restaurant serving inedible food invest in new plateware. The gripe has never been with the Democrats' presentation or voters' tastes. It's with the product itself.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Prison reform laws could safely send thousands home — if they're enforced
The two of us have spent a good chunk of our lives on opposite sides of prison bars. One of us worked for 16 years in the federal Bureau of Prisons, including a stretch as acting director during the first Trump administration. The other spent 14 years in federal prison before fighting to help hundreds of thousands of incarcerated people earn their freedom and successfully reenter society. Despite these different backgrounds — or perhaps because of them — we agree on one thing: Our criminal justice system can and must do much more to enhance safety and justice for all Americans. That's why we were encouraged when, last month, the Bureau of Prisons quietly issued a new directive that will help incarcerated individuals return more quickly to their families and communities. Although we are optimistic, the devil is in the details. For this policy to succeed, it must be implemented fairly and consistently for all who qualify. The U.S. has made real progress on criminal justice over the past few decades. The crime rate has declined 61 percent since its peak in 1991. The prison population has shrunk by roughly 25 percent since 2009, and racial disparities have dropped by 40 percent. This progress came from thoughtful, bipartisan reforms. Between 2007 and 2018, 35 states passed sentencing and corrections reform laws. At the federal level, two landmark measures — the Second Chance Act and First Step Act — stand out. Signed in 2008 by President George W. Bush, the Second Chance Act funds state and local programs that help incarcerated people reenter their communities. Ten years later, Trump signed the First Step Act, which modified mandatory minimums, expanded opportunities for people to earn time credits toward early release and increased access to rehabilitative and vocational programs. Many were surprised when Trump, who had promised tougher sentences as he campaigned for office, championed the First Step Act. But he pressured Republicans in Congress to support it and enthusiastically signed it into law, calling it proof that 'America is a nation that believes in redemption.' In his second term, Trump has sent mixed signals so far. His Justice Department cut more than $500 million in state and local criminal justice grants, and Attorney General Pam Bondi rolled out new tough-on-crime policies. At the same time, Trump created a new 'pardon czar' position to advise him on presidential clemency decisions, appointing Alice Marie Johnson — who served over 20 years in federal prison before receiving clemency from Trump — to the role. The latest advancement came in June when Bureau of Prisons Director William K. Marshall III directed the bureau to fully implement both the Second Chance Act and First Step Act. Declaring 'the dawn of a new era,' Marshall promised the policy change would save money, reduce strains on corrections staff and facilities and make it easier for many incarcerated people to return home and contribute to society. This latter point is the centerpiece of the First Step Act. The act allows low-risk individuals who complete rehabilitative programs to earn 'time credits' which can be applied toward early release or to serve the remainder of their sentences in home confinement or residential reentry centers. Since its passage, the First Step Act has proven effective. A Council on Criminal Justice analysis found that individuals released under the First Step Act were 55 percent less likely to return to prison than people with similar profiles released before the law took effect. These lower recidivism rates held even among those considered higher risk by the Bureau of Prisons. Yet challenges remain. Despite receiving more than $400 million annually under the First Step Act, the Bureau of Prisons has long claimed it lacks the contract capacity to support home confinement and reentry centers. There has also been confusion about whether the First Step Act and Second Chance Act could be applied simultaneously. Both the Biden and Trump administrations initially said they could not, before allowing it. The new Bureau of Prisons policy promises to solve these issues, but its success will depend on implementation. The director's message must reach and be embraced by all corners of the system. We have seen encouraging signs thus far. This month, the Bureau of Prisons launched a task force to address logistical hurdles faced by staff — a promising step toward ensuring the policy is put into practice. Going forward, we see three top priorities. First, communication. With over 155,000 employees, the Bureau of Prisons must ensure every staff member understands this policy and why it matters. Second, training. Too often, people remain behind bars simply because staff aren't properly trained on how to apply the law. And third, accountability. Bureau of Prisons leaders must quickly address any staff who resist the changes — whether through correction or removal. In the early months of Trump's second term, we have seen America's political divides on display, from the 'big beautiful bill' to the bombing of Iran to new tariffs. Criminal justice reform should be an exception. It offers a rare opportunity for common ground — a chance to advance solutions that make our communities both safer and more just. Hugh Hurwitz worked for the Bureau of Prisons for more than 16 years, including as acting director during the first Trump administration, and is a member of the Council on Criminal Justice. Louis L. Reed, who served nearly 14 years in federal prison and later helped pass over 30 state and federal bills, including the First Step Act of 2018. He is a member of the Council on Criminal Justice's Board of Trustees.

Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's a year of rapid change, except when it comes to Trump's approval numbers, poll finds
WASHINGTON — Eric Hildenbrand has noticed prices continue to rise this year with President Trump in the White House. The San Diego resident doesn't blame Trump, however, his choice for president in 2024, but says Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats who control the state are at fault. 'You can't compare California with the rest of the country,' said Hildenbrand, 76. 'I don't know what's going on in the rest of the country. It seems like prices are dropping. Things are getting better, but I don't necessarily see it here.' Voters like Hildenbrand, whose support of the Republican president is unwavering, help explain Trump's polling numbers and how they have differed from other presidents' polling trajectory in significant ways. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in March found that 42% of U.S. adults approved of Trump's job performance. That is a lower rating than those of other recent presidents at the beginning of their second terms, including Democrat Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush. The most recent AP-NORC poll, from July, puts Trump at 40% approval. While that is not a meaningful change from March, there is some evidence that Trump's support may be softening, at least on the margins. The July poll showed a slight decrease in approval of his handling of immigration since earlier in the year. Some other pollsters, such as Gallup, show a downward slide in overall approval since slightly earlier in his term, in January. But even those shifts are within a relatively narrow range, which is typical for Trump. The new AP-NORC polling tracker shows that Trump's favorability rating has remained largely steady since the end of his first term, with between 33% and 43% of U.S. adults saying they viewed him favorably across more than five years. Those long-term trends underscore that Trump has many steadfast opponents. But loyal supporters also help explain why views of the president are hard to change even as he pursues policies that most Americans do not support, using an approach that many find abrasive. Trump has not had a traditional honeymoon period in his second term. He did not in his first, either. An AP-NORC poll conducted in March 2017, two months into his first term, showed that 42% of Americans 'somewhat' or 'strongly' approved of his performance. That is largely where his approval rating stayed over the course of the next four years. The recent slippage on immigration is particularly significant because that issue was a major strength for Trump in the 2024 election. Earlier in his second term, it was also one of the few areas where he was outperforming his overall approval. In March, about half of U.S. adults approved of his handling of immigration. But the July AP-NORC poll found his approval on immigration at 43%, in line with his overall approval rating. Other recent polls show growing discontent with Trump's approach on immigration. A CNN/SSRS poll found that 55% of U.S. adults say the president has gone too far when it comes to deporting immigrants who are living in the United States illegally, an increase of 10 percentage points since February. 'I understand wanting to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the way that's being done is very aggressive,' said Donovan Baldwin, 18, of Asheboro, N.C., who did not vote in the 2024 election. 'And that's why people are protesting, because it comes off as aggression. It's not right.' Ratings of Trump's handling of the economy, which were more positive during his first term, have been persistently negative in his second term. The July poll found that few Americans think Trump's policies have benefited them so far. Even if he is not a fan of everything Trump has done so far, Brian Nichols, 58, of Albuquerque is giving him the benefit of the doubt. Nichols, who voted for Trump in 2024, likes what he is seeing from the president overall, though he has his concerns both on style and substance, particularly Trump's social media presence and his on-again, off-again tariffs. Nichols also does not like the push to eliminate federal agencies such as the Education Department. Despite his occasional disagreements with Trump, though, Nichols said he wants to give the president space to do his job, and he trusts the House and Senate, now run by Republicans, to act as a safeguard. 'We put him into office for a reason, and we should be trusting that he's doing the job for the best of America,' Nichols said. Trump has spent the last six months pushing far-reaching and often unpopular policies. Earlier this year, Americans were bracing themselves for higher prices as a result of his approach to tariffs. The July poll found that most people think Trump's tax and spending bill will benefit the wealthy, while few think it will pay dividends for the middle class or people like them. Discomfort with individual policies may not translate into wholesale changes in views of Trump, though. Those have largely been constant through years of turmoil, with his favorability rating staying within a 10-percentage point range through his widely panned handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, a felony conviction and an attempted assassination. To some of his supporters, the benefits of his presidency far outweigh the costs. Kim Schultz, 62, of Springhill, Fla., said she is thrilled with just about everything Trump is doing as president, particularly his aggressive moves to deport anyone living in the country illegally. Even if Trump's tariffs eventually take effect and push prices up, she said she will not be alarmed. 'I've always had the opinion that if the tariffs are going to cost me a little bit more here and there, I don't have a problem with that,' she said. Across the country, Hildenbrand dislikes Trump's personality and his penchant for insults, including those directed at foreign leaders. But he thinks Trump is making things happen. 'More or less, to me, he's showing that he's on the right track,' he said. 'I'm not in favor of Trump's personality, but I am in favor of what he's getting done.' Thomson-Deveaux and Cooper write for the Associated Press and reported from Washington and Phoenix, respectively.