"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Attributed to Socrates.

Socrates: Tell me, Euthydemus, have you ever gone to Delphi?

Euthydemus: Yes, twice.

Socrates: And did you observe what is written on the temple wall - "know thyself"?

Euthydemus: I did.

Socrates: And did you take no thought of that inscription, or did you attend to it, and try to examine yourself, ascertain what sort of character you are?

This exchange between Socrates and Euthydemus comes from Xenophon's autobiography entitled Memorabilia. [1] One of the main themes of Socrates's philosophy is, as the title says, that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Bringing this back to the exchange above, Socrates asks a series of simple questions in order for Euthydemus to reach the conclusion himself. Socrates came up with this method - which came to be known as the Socratic method - because, unlike the sophists of the way - who would charge money to teach others - Socrates was more interested in reaching valid and sound conclusions.

When Socrates was 13 years old, his friend Chaemphon, went to the Oracle of Delphi and asked if there was any man wiser than Socrates, to which the Oracle said that there was none wiser. What would you do if you lived during that time and the Oracle of Delphi, considered to have the ability to foresee the future and communicate with the gods, said that about you? Would you take pause and question whether what the Oracle said was true or not? I wonder how many people would simply accept what the Oracle said as true, letting their egos get in the way of reason.

Upon hearing this, Socrates began to question the meaning of it. He couldn't understand why the Oracle would say he was the wiser of all men when he himself knew he was not. He thought that, since the Oracle was a god and could not lie, she was telling the truth, but it still perplexed him enough to reluctantly set out to seek an answer. He started by going to a man reputed to be wise, hoping to find an answer there, proving the Oracle wrong.

Upon examination by Socrates, the man reputed to be wise turned out not to have any wisdom at all. When Socrates tried to point this out to him he, along with the crowd, became indignant. Socrates left thinking that he was wiser than this man in the sense that neither of them really knew anything worthwhile. As he so often claimed, Socrates himself did not have knowledge. However, it was pretty evident that he was an intelligent man when people talked to him. Contrast that with people who, just because they have a bit of knowledge, think they are wise or have already reached wisdom. Whereas Socrates realized that the little knowledge we do possess means nothing at all in the grand scheme of things.

Socrates spent his entire life having philosophical discussions, deflating egos of men who claimed to have knowledge in other areas simply because they had knowledge in one area - the ancient version of the Dunning-Kruger effect [2]. It seems that, no matter the time period, all humans are susceptible to this: having their egos inflate to massive proportions. How can we have confidence in what we know but still have humility to recognize that, as much as we have learned throughout our lives, there is still move to learn and that human knowledge isn't perfect? It certainly takes someone who has the self-awareness to recognize their own limitations when it comes to what they know.

I have met a lot of really smart people during my time on the internet. These people recognize that has much as they know about a given topic - say, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, cosmology, etc. - there is still more to learn in their field and that they may never know it all. The people I've come across seem to have this mentality that you can only specialize in one area of knowledge due to how specialized each field has become now a days. They have bought this narrative that a Leonardo DeVanci could never exist in our modern time and it is the height of arrogance to think that someone like him could exist today. The phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" gets thrown around a lot now a days, but no one really stops and thinks what that actually means.

It is my firm belief that, if someone wants to learn a subject, given enough time, they will become sufficient at it, reaching a level just below or even surpassing those with formal education. For knowledge does not care about your status, it does not care about your mental capacities or whether you gain it through formal education or on your own. People limit themselves way too much, never reaching their full potential as human beings.

It is often said "know your limitations." But how many people attempt to overcome those limitations rather than simply accepting them? If I have limited knowledge about economics and I recognize it, what is stopping me from gaining the knowledge needed to understand it better? What about Astronomy? Or Chemistry? There are many factors that could stop a person from gaining the knowledge regarding a topic they are not familiar with. Not having an interest in that topic is definitely the biggest roadblock stopping a lot of people. Another one seems to be this notion that the brain cannot retain too much information, thus specializing in other fields would be impossible. Well, maybe I'm wrong about this, but I do not believe it is true.

The human brain - the physical component of the nervous system - has about 80 to 100 billion neurons. All these neurons for near limitless connections between them. New neurons are created all the time through neural-plasticity, allowing the brain to gain new information and make connections. The issue is that, due to the way humans live their lives, not a lot of people spend their time developing their minds. There are social interactions to worry about, making sure you have food on the table, etc. Such things require our constant attention, taking away from gaining the knowledge of various subjects. In order to gain an understanding of numerous fields of study, one must sacrifice social interactions, must be well off financially, and must have a lifespan long enough to apply such knowledge.

Knowledge is useless without application, no one is going to argue that. But why can't you learn other fields and apply the knowledge gained from them? One response to this question would be that, depending on the problem, application of the knowledge requires time. I think that if we were able to extend our lifetimes, one person could gain a lot of knowledge and apply it as they saw fit. Life extension has its own issues of course, but I would rather live 300 hundred years or more and have enough time to learn all that I can than limit myself to one field of study.

[1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1177/1177-h/1177-h.htm [2] https://steemit.com/steemstem/@rsc227/the-curious-case-of-mcarthur-wheeler