I know that I know nothing
"I know that I know nothing" is a winged word of ancient origin. It is already attested in Cicero , who in his 45 BC The literary dialogue Academici libri, written in the 4th century BC, made the interlocutor Marcus Terentius Varro establish that it was a well-known statement by the Greek philosopher Socrates . This can be found in the writings of the Socratics, the pupils of Socrates. Cicero is referring primarily to Plato's Apology , a literary version of the defense speech that Socrates was accused of in 399 BC. Before the Athenian people's court held.
In Plato's Apology , Socrates explicitly addresses his ignorance or lack of wisdom in five places. However, he does not assert, as Cicero's inaccurate Latin rendering of his view suggests, that knowing one's own ignorance is real, certain knowledge and is thus the only exception to ignorance. Rather, the utterances of Socrates according to Plato's Greek text only say that he is aware of the fact that he lacks wisdom or a real, beyond doubt, knowledge. In addition, the Platonic Socrates is not concerned with technical expertise, but with provisions in the area of virtues and the question of the good. What is prudence? What is bravery? What is piety? What is justice True human wisdom is to be aware of ignorance in the need to know what is good. How the historical Socrates judged his ignorance and the fundamental possibility or impossibility of human knowledge is controversial in ancient studies.
Apology of Socrates
According to Plato's version of his defense speech, Socrates presents the prehistory as follows: His friend Chairephon had the boldness to ask the oracle of Delphi whether anyone was wiser than Socrates. The Pythia , the prophetic priestess, replied that this was not the case. This saying was communicated to him, Socrates. As a result, he was confused because he was aware of his ignorance. In order to check the Pythia's assertion, he asked men who were considered wise or knowledgeable - politicians and poets, but also craftsmen - because he wanted to find out what their knowledge was all about. It turned out that despite his very modest level of knowledge he surpassed the supposedly wise men, because he was able to uncover their errors:
“But as I left I said to myself: 'Compared to this person, I am wiser. Probably neither of us knows anything right; but he thinks he knows something, although he does not know it; I don't know anything either, but I don't think I know anything either. With this small difference, I am obviously wiser that I do not think I know what I do not know. ' From there I went to someone else who is thought to be even wiser than him. There I got exactly the same impression and made myself unpopular with this one and then with many others. Then I went on one after the other and noticed with sadness and horror that I was making more and more enemies. Nevertheless, it seemed necessary to me to attach the greatest weight to the prophecy of God. So I had to go to all those who seemed to know something to see what the oracle meant. "
The common translation of oîda ouk eidōs ( οἶδα οὐκ εἰδώς ) does not match the meaning of the statement. Literally translated, the saying means “I know as a ignorant” or “I know that I don't know”. The additional “-s” to “not” is a translation error, since the phrase “I know that I know nothing” in ancient Greek would mean οἶδα οὐδὲν εἰδώς ( oîda oudén eidōs ). So with his testimony, Socrates does not claim that he does not know anything. Rather, it questions what you think you know. Because this supposed knowledge is only taken for granted without evidence, which on closer examination turns out to be untenable sham knowledge . As a matter of principle, one cannot find reliable knowledge in people, so one can only be temporarily convinced of one's views. The statement ostensibly harbors the paradox that knowledge about “not knowing” is also a knowledge of which one cannot be certain. It is not resolved by the protagonist Socrates himself in the Platonic dialogues . Rather, Plato's early aporetic dialogues often end in perplexity.
False knowledge, ignorance and wisdom
Negation as an educational attitude
With his knowledge of ignorance, Socrates continues the train of thought of Xenophanes , who only starts from pseudo-knowledge : δόκος δ᾿ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τέτυκται. “And a sham knowledge is prepared for everything.” Deceptive appearances in the outside world and false beliefs of people correspond. What is mine takes on the appearance.
“And of course no one saw the exact details and there will never be anyone who knows (has seen) it in relation to the gods and all things that I just keep mentioning; for even if one succeeds in the highest degree in pronouncing something perfect, he still has no knowledge of it himself; Schein (mine) sticks to everything. "
Socrates also deals with this topic in Plato's dialogue Meno , in which he says to him: "[...] of course you might have known earlier before you came into contact with me, of course you are now like someone who doesn't know." here Socrates alludes to the change in the opinion of Menon, who was convinced of his opinion and whose "knowledge" was previously refuted by Socrates. Protagoras had a similar experience , who, after objections from Socrates, took the opposite opinion to what was said before. For Socrates too, wisdom begins with the unmasking of false knowledge. The means to do this was his constant, probing endeavor to get to the bottom of things and not be satisfied with the superficial ones. He wanted to bring up the “best logos”, the constant essence of the matter, independent of time and place . Socratic philosophy means an inner movement, an attitude that determines thought and existence, which is expressed in the translation of the word philosophy as "love of wisdom": love is the only thing that he understands.
Socrates' knowledge of his ignorance is expressed negatively by him. It is not unambiguous because knowledge is first spoken of in the sense of certainty or consciousness in general, then in the intentional sense as consciousness of something, here of the thinking ego. As in skepticism , Socrates distinguishes between truth and certainty; truth is ultimately subordinated to certainty. But the Socratic skepticism does not affect everyday consciousness, it is not comprehensive. It relates to the knowledge of the essence, especially the moral knowledge of the soul. He is not interested in scientific or mathematical knowledge, but in the knowledge of good and bad. In addition to the problem of obtaining a generally applicable definition, the question arises of what certainty is possible about the essence of virtue. Moral truth is subjective, and for Socrates the only possible access to being good lies in subjectivity. Socrates' negation of certain knowledge of values is not destructive. It leads to a conscious shaping of the future and liberates from unreflectedly adopted traditional ways of life. Gernot Böhme described the "type of Socrates", the type of the inwardly independent person, as "placeless":
“Socrates the placeless. Socrates, the strange man, the stranger, the strange, the eccentric. Socrates, the conspicuous, the troublemaker, the anti-social. Socrates, the maladjusted, the paradoxical, the absurd existence. Atopos is his epithet - that is, the placeless. […] Socrates is the archetype of the philosopher. If that is true, then philosophy is something extremely strange. "
The particular wisdom of Socrates consists in the constant readiness to examine the epistemological and logical bases of human knowledge about the virtues and the good. In doing so, he is constantly aware of the limits of human knowledge. For him, philosophy becomes an event in which the unity of person and knowledge is expressed. The decisive characteristic of Socratic philosophizing is therefore adequately expressed in dialogue.
The way of dialogue
In his defense speech, Socrates names the god Apollo of Delphi as the guarantor of the truthfulness of his philosophizing. Apollo is the god of light and the eternal presence. He wages a constant battle against everything dark. For him everything is present and unhidden. It illuminates the dark, that which is not revealed and is hidden. He is therefore also the God of truth. From this god Socrates was called to wisdom and not called a wise man - this is how he interpreted the oracle. So he asked others who were considered wise to learn from them. This led to disputes with the sophists , the wise men of his time, the Athenians in public office, acquaintances and friends. In contrast to the sophists, he did not allow himself to be paid for his teaching work. It was important for him to find a solid foundation for human knowledge. He believed that reason was the foundation . He believed that whoever knew what was good would do good too. He believed that right knowledge led to right action. And only those who do the right thing become the right person. From Socrates' point of view, when a person acts wrong, he only does so because he does not know any better. That is why it is so important to increase wisdom. The inductive method introduced by Socrates was used to teach in an open-ended process in the form of question and answer:
“In Socratic speech and thought there is forced renunciation, a renunciation without which there would be no Socratic philosophy. This only arises because Socrates does not get any further in the area of knowledge and takes flight into dialogue. Socratic philosophy has become dialogical in its essence because exploratory discovery seemed impossible. "
For him, this form of conversation was the original form of philosophical thought and the only way to communicate with others. Reminder ( protreptikos ) and examination (elenchos) moved with him in the form of questions. One example of this is his defense speech:
“I am devoted to you, you Athenians, and friend, but I would rather obey God than you, and as long as I still breathe and have the strength to do so, I will not stop looking for wisdom and each of you, whom I do I encounter, admonish and rebuke in my usual way, for example: 'My dear fellow, you are an Athenian, a citizen of the largest city and most famous for education and power. Aren't you ashamed of the fact that you strive to get as much money, fame and honor as possible, but you don't care and care about insight and the truth and that your soul is as good as possible? ' And if one of you contradicts and claims that he is making an effort, then I will not let go of him immediately and go away, but will ask him and examine and investigate. And if I get the impression that he has no virtue and still maintains that, I will blame him for having the least value on what is most valuable, but more on what is inferior. So I want to do it with everyone I meet, with young and old, strangers and citizens, especially with you citizens who are naturally closer to me; for that, just know, the god commands. And I believe that you have never been given greater benefit in the state than this service that I render to God. Because I don't do anything else than go around to persuade young and old among you not to care so much for the body and for the money, but to care more about the soul and that it becomes as good as possible . "
In order to establish clarity, Socrates used his own method, which is called Maeutics - a kind of "spiritual obstetrics" - by asking questions - and not by instructing the interlocutor, as the sophists did with their students - your own ability to discern should ultimately do that Knowledge of the good ( agathón ) and noble ( kalón ) oneself "give birth" or bring about. However, this goal could not be achieved without understanding the questionable nature of one's own knowledge .
“Socrates, the teacher, appears regularly as a student. He does not want to teach others, but rather to be taught by them. He is the ignorant, his philosophy appears in the form of ignorance. Conversely, he brings his interlocutors into the position of knowing. That flatters most and provokes them to spread their supposed knowledge. Only when you ask consistently does it become apparent that they are the ignorant themselves. "
Socrates' irony was not designed to make the other look ridiculous, but rather to make him recognize his inadequacy as something to laugh at instead of being contrite. The platonic dialogues show how difficult, and often impossible, this was for many of his interlocutors. When in doubt, those addressed also found it unhelpful to be dismantled in public in the agora , especially since Socrates' students also practiced this form of dialogue. The goal was not book knowledge, but wisdom. Socrates proclaimed the self-liberation, self-rule and self-sufficiency of the moral personality. One of the results obtained by Socrates was that right action follows from right insight and that justice is a fundamental condition of salvation.
“In the question of what is good actually lies the service for the Delphic God. The idea of the good is ultimately the philosophical meaning of the Delphic oracle. "
Socrates' investigations therefore mostly revolved around questions of ethics: What is piety? What is self-control (encracy)? What is prudence? What is bravery? What is justice Socrates understood these virtues ( aretai ) as excellence of the soul, just as strength, health and beauty are virtues of the body. Physical and mental virtue is a symmetry of the parts on whose interaction body and soul are based. True virtue is indivisible and one, one cannot have one part of it and one cannot have the other. In the good, Socrates recognized what is really useful, wholesome and bringing happiness, because it leads man's nature to the fulfillment of his being. The ethical is the expression of properly understood human nature. Man is only free if he is not the slave of his own desires. This is how Xenophon lets his protagonist Socrates say:
“You, Antifon, seem to put bliss in opulence and great expense; I, on the other hand, am convinced that needing nothing is divine and therefore the best, and that the fewest needs have that which comes closest to the divine. "
Man does not achieve harmony with the whole of the world through the satisfaction of his sensual needs, but “only through perfect mastery over himself according to the law that he finds in his own soul through research.” The true goal of life is the vision of Good ones. Plato describes the necessary ascent to the truth of the absolute with the parable of the sun , the parable of lines and the parable of the cave . The Socratic knowledge of ignorance thus initiates a dialectical path that leads to the knowing ignorance of absolute transcendence .
Johann Georg Hamann
Johann Georg Hamann wrote the Socratic Memorabilia in 1759 . He uses numerous metaphors and a sometimes dark language. He combines the motto of the Oracle of Delphi “ Know yourself! "With the maxim of Socrates" I know that I know nothing! ". The inscription above the Temple of Apollo in Delphi urges you to recognize yourself. You know the word by heart without understanding it. So you only wear it in front of your forehead and not in your heart. Apollo must have laughed at the question of who was the wisest of all people. Only Socrates realized that he really didn't know anything. According to Hamann, one only understands ignorance when one has experienced it in oneself like Socrates. Not knowing could not be treated like a doctrine. Hamann turns against the Enlightenment , which was convinced of unchangeable reason. Reason must not deny its dependence and finiteness. Reason is mediated through education, experience and the senses and is therefore ultimately historical. Therefore, it is also influenced by likes and dislikes.
"The health of reason is the cheapest, most arbitrary and most insolent self-fame, through which everything is presupposed that was just to be proven, and through which all free investigation of the truth is excluded more violently than through the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church."
According to Hamann, every knowledge is based on convictions that cannot be justified or refuted even with reason. Everyone who thinks about something and understands something brings their own requirements. This then also shapes his findings. The enlightened wise men lack the fear of God, which is the beginning of all wisdom. For Hamann, faith is one of the “natural powers of knowledge and one of the basic instincts of our soul”. One can prove truths without believing them. Ignorance can be experienced as a sensation and only belief makes it a living truth. For Hamann, this is about an existential conviction, about personal concern and not just about objective insight. The other side of Socrates' ignorance is his daimonion . Socrates cannot describe his daimonion. He is gifted, but has no control over his creativity. He seduces his fellow citizens into a hidden truth. Socrates respects his daimonion as a critical authority and regards it with fear of God.
“So Socrates had certainly been ignorant; he had a genius, on whose science he could rely, whom he loved and feared as his God. "
In order to be known by God, according to Hamann, one's own existential ignorance must be experienced. In doing so, he refers to Paul's letter to the Corinthians ( 1 Cor 8 : 1-3 EU ). If someone loves God, he will know him. It is important to become like a child again who can be gifted with truth. True self-knowledge and knowledge of God cannot be separated from one another.
"From this one sees how necessary our self is founded in the creator of the same, that we do not have the knowledge of ourselves in us. [He] has the power to measure the extent of it, we bit into the bosom of the godhead. who alone can determine and resolve the whole mystery of us [his] essence. [...] God and my neighbor therefore belong to my self-knowledge, to my self-love. "
Kierkegaard and the Socratic irony
Søren Kierkegaard received his doctorate in 1841 with a dissertation on the concept of irony with constant consideration for Socrates . He interpreted Socratic irony as a point of view of subjectivity that only got to the limit of the idea. It is the negativity that has not yet produced positivity. She did not yet have the sickly and egoistic of later times. Socratic irony shows the subjectivity that asserts its right for the first time in world history. Socrates raised subjectivity to the universal, thereby becoming the founder of morality. The irony as infinite absolute negativity is contrary to the prophet's point of view. Irony as a way of speaking either annuls itself or is a figure of vanity. It should not be confused with irony as a point of view. Anyone who, like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, interprets irony as a mere “manner of conversation” has misunderstood Socrates' point of view. Hegel's reference that Socrates tried to make abstract ideas concrete is so modern that he hardly reminds one of Socrates. For Socrates, irony, according to Kierkegaard, is not just a means, it is related to existence. It implements knowledge about ignorance and is the form of expression of this insight. This makes it an appropriate expression of existence. Socratic ignorance is an example of thinking about existence. Objective thinking is indifferent to the subject and its existence. The subjective thinker as an existent is interested in his thinking because he exists in it. Only knowledge that is essentially related to existence is essential knowledge. The knowledge that does not concern existence inwardly in the reflection of inwardness is essentially considered indifferent. The irony becomes an expression of existence as categorical ignorance and leads to self-reflection. Human existence is characterized as a form of existence of knowing ignorance.
"[...] lighter and lighter he [Socrates] lifts himself up, sees everything vanish beneath him from his ironic bird's eye view, and he himself hovers over it in ironic self-satisfaction, carried by the absolute inner consistency of the infinite negativity."
The irony brings out the insignificance of things to the self. Socrates leaves open the gap between knowing and not knowing, finitude and infinity. This is precisely what constitutes the peculiarity of existence. The Socratic daimonion shifts the contradiction between finitude and infinity into the interior and becomes a representative of the infinite claim to the finite self. The daimonion thus stands for the relation to the transcendent or to that limit which shows the basic ignorance. According to Kierkegaard, however, Christianity only offers a stopping point with the category of the jump. From the knowledge of one's own limitations the possibility of belief opens up. Man could dare to leap over the limits of knowledge into faith. The paradoxical situation is to be accepted and one's own identity is to be given up in order to gain the true identity in the first place.
"Reflection is a noose in which one is caught, but through leap, inspired by religiosity, the relationship changes, through it it becomes the noose that throws one into the arms of the Eternal."
The interpretation of Popper
Karl Popper referred to Socrates all his life. In particular, Plato's Apology for Socrates is one of the philosophical works that he most admired. Popper assumes that the apology is historically real. It is a faithful account of what Socrates said before the court in Athens. Socrates emphasized that he was aware of his intellectual limits. He is self-critical and a critic of every jargon . Popper therefore assumes that Socrates, like himself, was a falsificationist. According to falsificationism , any theory is subject to possible flawedness. It is impossible to prove the truth of a theory in the field of empirical science. The fallibility of all knowledge is to be recognized. If you take up the profession of philosopher, you should be like Socrates. Plato, as Socrates' most brilliant pupil, betrayed his teacher. While Socrates recognized the statesman's wisdom in the fact that he was extremely modest in his claims, Plato had turned this view on its head: that the statesman had to be wise meant for Plato a claim to power . This made Plato a spiritual pioneer of political totalitarianism . If you follow Socrates, you have to practice politics according to the principle of trial and error . It is then a piecemeal technique:
“Like Socrates, the piecemeal engineer knows how little he knows. He knows that we can only learn from our mistakes. Therefore, he will only proceed step by step and always carefully compare the expected results with those achieved ... "
According to Popper, the wisdom of Socrates is therefore not positive knowledge, but a state of awareness. However, it is doubtful whether the contrast between the two philosophers drawn by Popper actually exists in this sharpness. On the one hand, we encounter Socrates in Plato's works as his protagonist and teacher. Socrates had already prayed to the sun and thus accorded the highest good in the intelligible world the dignity of a divine principle, which Plato then described in more detail in the parable of the sun . On the other hand, the starting point of Socrates is not necessarily an absolute ignorance, but the consistent application of dialectical reasoning with the aim of getting to the essence of the matter. The truth that Socrates strives for can only be reached on the path of rational thought and is independent of the individual. Plato then developed this thought further: The wisdom lies precisely in the fact that the philosopher attains true knowledge of the essence of things in the ideas . Based on the idea of the good, he is able to give the sciences a foundation.
literature
- Gernot Böhme : The Socrates Type . Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1988, ISBN 3-518-57925-8 .
- Günter Figal : Socrates . 3. Edition. Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-406-54747-8 .
- Manfred Fuhrmann : Apology of Socrates. Reclam, Stuttgart 1986, ISBN 3-15-008315-X .
- Hans-Georg Gadamer : Socrates' piety of ignorance. In: Gadamer: Gesammelte Werke , Volume 7, Mohr, Tübingen 1999, pp. 83–117.
- Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt: Irony as the determination of the existence of infinity. On the difference between the irony concept in Socrates and Kierkegaard. In: Niels J. Cappelørn (Ed.): Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook 2009, pp. 41–69.
- Søren Kierkegaard : On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Socrates . In: Kierkegaard: Collected works. Department 31, Volume 25, ed. by Emanuel Hirsch et al., 2nd edition, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh 1986–1995.
- Mugerauer, Roland: Against forgetting the Socratic ignorance . 2 volumes, Tectum, Marburg 2007, ISBN 978-3-8288-9343-6 (habilitation thesis).
- Wolfgang H. Pleger : Socrates. The beginning of the philosophical dialogue. Rowohlt, Reinbek 1998.
- Karl Popper: “I know that I know nothing - and hardly that.” Karl Popper in conversation about politics, physics and philosophy. Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main 1991.
- Gerhart Schmidt: The Platonic Socrates. Collected Papers 1976-2002 . Königshausen and Neumann, Würzburg 2006, ISBN 3-8260-3363-9 .
Remarks
- ↑ Cicero, Academica 1,16: “[Socrates] ita disputat, ut […] nihil se scire dicat nisi id ipsum, eoque praestare ceteris, quod illi quae nesciant scire se putent, ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat” , [ Sokrates ] usually discusses in such a way that he [...] declares that he himself knows nothing but this, and that he is superior to the others in that they think they know what they do not know while he himself only knows one thing he knows nothing. '
- ↑ Marcel van Ackeren : The knowledge of the good , Amsterdam 2003, pp. 54–64.
- ↑ Hans-Georg Gadamer: Socrates' piety of not knowing. In: Gadamer: Gesammelte Werke , Volume 7, Tübingen 1991, pp. 83–117, here: 109.
- ↑ Gail Fine provides an overview of the current state of research and a discussion of the problem: Does Socrates Claim to Know that He Knows Nothing? In: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35, 2008, pp. 49–88.
- ↑ Plato, Apology 21d-22, Translation by Rudolf Called; Original text: […] οὖτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι .
- ↑ Michael Stokes: Apology of Socrates , Warminster 1997, p. 18.
- ^ Wolfgang H. Pleger: Socrates. The beginning of the philosophical dialogue , Reinbek 1998, p. 197.
- ↑ Bruno Snell: The discovery of the spirit , 9th edition, Göttingen 2009, p. 130.
- ↑ Georg Picht: The Fundamentals of Greek Ontology , Stuttgart 1996, p. 138.
- ^ Hermann Diels, Walter Kranz (ed.): The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics , Volume 1, 6th Edition, Zurich 1951, 137 [B 34]; Wilhelm Capelle: Die Vorsokratiker , Stuttgart 1968, p. 125 translated: “The man never existed and there will never be a man who recognized the truth of the gods and everything on earth. Because even if he once got the right thing perfectly, he would not know it himself. Because we are only allowed to imagine. "
- ↑ Plato, Menon 80d: […] σὺ δὲ μέντοι ἵσως πρότερον μὲν ᾔδησθα, πρὶν ἐμοῦ ἅψασθαι, νῦν μέντοι ὅμοιδότς εἶ οὐκ εἰτα.
- ↑ See Wolfgang H. Pleger: Sokrates. The beginning of the philosophical dialogue , Reinbek 1998, p. 178 ff.
- ↑ Cf. Plato, Theages 128a.
- ↑ Cf. Gerhart Schmidt: Der platonische Sokrates , Würzburg 2006, p. 155.
- ^ Gernot Böhme: Der Typ Sokrates , Frankfurt am Main 1998, p. 19.
- ^ Gernot Böhme: Der Typ Sokrates , Frankfurt am Main 1988, p. 131.
- ↑ Christina Schefer: Plato and Apollon. From logos back to myth , Sankt Augustin 1996, p. 12 ff.
- ↑ See Günter Figal: Sokrates , Munich 2006, p. 97 f.
- ↑ Werner Jaeger: Paideia. The formation of the Greek man , Berlin / New York 1989, p. 582.
- ↑ Werner Jaeger: Paideia. The formation of the Greek man , Berlin / New York 1989, p. 601.
- ^ Plato, Apology of Socrates 29d – 30b.
- ^ Wolfgang H. Pleger: Socrates. The beginning of the philosophical dialogue , Reinbek 1998, p. 57.
- ↑ Werner Jaeger: Paideia. The formation of the Greek man , Berlin / New York 1989, p. 588.
- ↑ See Günter Figal: Sokrates , Munich 2006, p. 71 f.
- ↑ Werner Jaeger: Paideia. The formation of the Greek man , Berlin / New York 1989, p. 634.
- ↑ Xenophon : Socratic conversations from Xenofon's memorable messages from Socrates in the Gutenberg-DE project
- ^ On the whole, see Werner Jaeger: Paideia. The formation of the Greek man , Berlin / New York 1989, pp. 586, 609 f.
- ↑ Cf. on this Plato, Politeia 508a ff.
- ↑ Jens Halfwassen: The rise to one. Investigations on Plato and Plotinus. 2nd, extended edition, Munich / Leipzig 2006, p. 225.
- ↑ Johann Georg Hamann: Complete Works , ed. by Josef Nadler, Vol. 3, Vienna 1951, p. 189.
- ↑ Johann Georg Hamann: Complete Works , ed. by Josef Nadler, Vol. 3, Vienna 1951, p. 190.
- ↑ Johann Georg Hamann: Complete Works , ed. by Josef Nadler, Vol. 2, Vienna 1950, p. 75.
- ↑ Johann Georg Hamann: Complete Works , ed. by Josef Nadler, Vol. 2, Vienna 1950, p. 37 f.
- ^ Johann Georg Hamann: Brocken. In: Londoner Schriften , ed. by Oswald Bayer, Bernd Weißenborn, Munich 1993, p. 409 f.
- ↑ Søren Kierkegaard: On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Sokrates , Gütersloh 1984.
- ↑ Søren Kierkegaard: On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Sokrates , Gütersloh 1984, p. 220.
- ↑ Søren Kierkegaard: On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Sokrates , Gütersloh 1984, p. 246.
- ↑ Søren Kierkegaard: On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Socrates , Gütersloh 1984, p. 233.
- ^ Søren Kierkegaard: On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Socrates , Gütersloh 1984, p. 272.
- ↑ Søren Kierkegaard: Final unscientific postscript on the philosophical chunks. In: Kierkegaard: Gesammelte Werke , Volume 16, Düsseldorf 1957, p. 95.
- ↑ Cf. Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt: Irony as determining the existence of infinity. In: Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook 2009, Berlin 2009, p. 47.
- ↑ Søren Kierkegaard: On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Socrates. In: Kierkegaard: Gesammelte Werke , Department 31, Volume 25, 2nd edition, Gütersloh 1986-1995, p. 198.
- ↑ Søren Kierkegaard: On the concept of irony with constant consideration for Socrates . In: Kierkegaard: Gesammelte Werke , Department 31, Volume 25, 2nd edition, Gütersloh 1986–1995, p. 263 ff.
- ↑ Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt, Irony as a determination of the existence of infinity. In: Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook 2009, Berlin 2009, p. 55.
- ^ Søren Kierkegaard: A literary advertisement. In: Kierkegaard: Gesammelte Werke , Department 17, Volume 12, 2nd edition, Gütersloh 1986–1995, p. 95.
- ↑ See Karl Popper: In Search of a Better World , Munich 1984, p. 41, 195 and Karl Popper: I know that I know nothing , Frankfurt 1991, p. 48.
- ↑ Cf. Karl Popper: In search of a better world , Munich 1984, p. 44.
- ↑ Karl Popper: In search of a better world , Munich 1984, p. 195.
- ^ Karl Popper: All life is problem solving , Munich 1994, p. 239 ff.
- ^ Karl Popper: The misery of historicism , Tübingen 1965, p. 53 f.
- ^ Plato, Symposium 220d.
- ↑ See Wilhelm Capelle: The Greek Philosophy , Vol. 1, 3rd, edited edition, Berlin 1971, p. 176.