Unknown

According to Wikipedia, "Many of the beliefs traditionally attributed to the historical Socrates have been characterized as 'paradoxical' because they seem to conflict with common sense." Two of these supposed paradoxes are as follows: "No one desires evil," and "No one errs or does wrong willingly or knowingly." (I would rephrase the second statement as "People only err or do wrong unwillingly or unknowingly," since that strikes me as a more accurate rendering of its meaning.) Oxford reference describes "Socratic paradoxes" as "surprising and unacceptable conclusions."

I had encountered the Socratic view of wrongdoing previously, and, as I understand the world, it's a true statement. I remember it as something of a revelation, in the sense that it clearly articulated something that had occurred to me previously, but that I hadn't actually directly articulated before. So I was surprised to find it viewed as surprising and unacceptable. In conflict with common sense, I understand a bit more. I understand that not everyone believes that no one desires evil or that people only commit evil acts unwillingly or unknowingly. But why that dissenting view should be labeled the common sense one seems arbitrary, although to be honest, the whole sorting of ideas into buckets of "common sense" and "not common sense" strikes me as arbitrary.

In any event, it reminded me of my father's old saying that "Obvious is something that is so crystal-clear that you are the only person who sees it." And while I don't claim to have anything in common with Socrates, it occurs to me that just as I found that the "paradoxes" fit well within my lived experience, I suspect that there was something within his lived experience that lead him to that conclusion. (Or someone, given the trickiness of proving that Socrates was a real person.) The thing about lived experience, however, is that it is personal, and that means that it can be difficult to truly share with others. So while I can ask what it is about my lived experience that leads me to agree with people, such as Immanuel Kant, who believe that humans are never motivated solely by the desire to do something wrong, I can never really answer that question; because even if I had perfect recall of my own lived experience, I have no similar access to anyone else's.

All of which, I suppose, is merely a long-winded way of noting that I often find my own understanding of the world to be as opaque as other people's understanding of it. Which then, leads to a fascination with understanding people and how they think; because I feel that I understand myself better. Of course, the flip side of that is that if understanding others is a requirement for understanding myself, I will likely never understand myself fully. I'm not sure yet what I think of that.