SOCRATES WAS A KIND OF
INTELLECTUALIST OR RATIONALIST,
AND HE THOUGHT THAT FOR ANYBODY
TO BE AN EXPERT IN ANY DOMAIN
THEY HAD TO UNDERSTAND THE
PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THEY
WERE ACTING IN THAT DOMAIN.
OTHERWISE, HE SAID, THEY
WERE JUST LIKE COOKS.
THEY HAD A KNACK BASED ON
KIND OF EMPIRICAL FEEDBACK.
THEY JUST KNEW WHAT
PLEASED PEOPLE.
BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT
YOU SHOULD HAVE.
IF YOU UNDERSTOOD
THE DOMAIN, YOU
WOULD HAVE A
THEORETICAL ACCOUNT.
YOU COULD MAKE THE POINT LIKE
THIS, THAT SOCRATES THOUGHT
THAT COOKS KNEW FROM
EXPERIENCE WHAT TASTED GOOD,
BUT DOCTORS HAD A THEORY
ABOUT WHAT WAS GOOD FOR YOU.
AND HE ALREADY, PLATO
OR SOCRATES, PLATO MORE,
HAD THIS TREMENDOUS ADMIRATION
FOR DOCTORS, BECAUSE THEY WERE,
THEY THOUGHT AT THE TIME,
THE FIRST PEOPLE WHO
HAD A WORKED OUT
THEORY OF HEALTH,
AND COULD DEDUCE WHAT
WAS GOOD FOR YOU.
SO SOCRATES WENT AROUND ASKING
EXPERTS IN VARIOUS DOMAINS
TO TELL HIM THE RULES
ON WHICH THEY ACTED.
FOR INSTANCE, IN
THE EUTHYPHRO, WHICH
IS ONE OF THE VERY EARLY
DIALOGUES WHERE PLATO
IS TELLING US WHAT
SOCRATES DID, SOCRATES
RUNS INTO A PROPHET NAMED
EUTHYPHRO, WHO SUPPOSEDLY
KNOWS WHAT PIOUS BEHAVIOR IS.
AND SOCRATES SAYS
TO EUTHYPHRO, I
WANT YOU TO TELL
ME THE-- I DON'T
KNOW IF HE SAYS RULE
OR PRINCIPLE, SOMETHING
LIKE THAT-- BY WHICH YOU CAN
TELL WHICH ACTIONS ARE PIOUS.
BECAUSE EUTHYPHRO WAS
TURNING IN HIS FATHER
FOR KILLING A SLAVE, WHICH
IS A VERY VEXED SITUATION,
SINCE ON THE ONE HAND YOU'RE
NOT SUPPOSED TO KILL PEOPLE,
ON THE OTHER HAND
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED
TO TURN IN YOUR FATHER.
BUT EUTHYPHRO CLAIMS THAT HE
KNOWS EXACTLY WHICH IS RIGHT,
AND SOCRATES WANTS
TO KNOW THE PRINCIPLE
BY WHICH HE KNOWS IT'S
RIGHT TO TURN HIS FATHER.
AND WHAT EUTHYPHRO DOES
HOWEVER IS GIVE SOCRATES
A BUNCH OF EXAMPLES OF
THINGS THAT GODS HAVE DONE
AND FAMOUS PEOPLE HAVE DONE
THAT EVERYBODY AGREES ARE PIOUS.
AND SOCRATES-- AND THIS IS
THE FIRST IMPORTANT MOVE
IN PHILOSOPHY, I BELIEVE-- SAYS,
I DON'T WANT YOUR EXAMPLES.
I WANT THE RULE THAT
ENABLE YOU TO PICK OUT
THOSE AS EXAMPLES OF PIETY.
A VERY CLEVER MOVE.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, EUTHYPHRO
CAN'T GIVE HIM ANY RULE.
ALTHOUGH EUTHYPHRO CLAIMS TO
BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE PIETY
WHEN HE SEES IT, HE DOESN'T HAVE
A PIETY RECOGNIZING PRINCIPAL,
OR AT LEAST HE CAN'T FIND IT,
AND SOCRATES CAN'T GET IT OUT
OF HIM.
AND THE DIALOGUE ENDS LIKE
ALL THE SOCRATIC DIALOGUES,
IN A KIND OF FAILURE TO FIND
THE RULE, THE PIETY RECOGNITION
RULE.
AND SOCRATES CONCLUDES THEN
THAT EUTHYPHRO DOESN'T REALLY
KNOW WHAT PIETY IS,
THEREFORE HE CAN'T REALLY
BE AN EXPERT OR A PROPHET.
AND THEN SOCRATES
DISCOVERS THAT PEOPLE
DON'T KNOW WHAT
JUSTICE IS EITHER.
STATESMAN DON'T
KNOW WHAT JUSTICE
IS, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GIVE
A DEFINITION OF JUSTICE.
AND THIS IS VERY
UPSETTING TO SOCRATES.
AND IT TURNS OUT
NOBODY THAT HE FINDS
AND QUESTIONS CAN GIVE
THE RULES BY WHICH
THEY OPERATE IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS EXPERTS.
SO SOCRATES REACHES
THIS FAMOUS CONCLUSION
THAT NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.
AND HE DOESN'T KNOW
ANYTHING EITHER.
HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RULES
THAT HE OPERATES ON.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE
WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
BEGINS AND ENDS RIGHT THERE.
A VERY UNFORTUNATE CONCLUSION
THAT, IN EFFECT, NOBODY
KNOWS ANYTHING.
SOCRATES KNOWS ONE THING
MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE,
NAMELY THAT NEITHER HE OR
ANYBODY ELSE KNOWS ANYTHING.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT
THIS THEORETICAL NOTION OF WHAT
COUNTS AS EXPERTISE OR
KNOWLEDGE, PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.
AND THEY THINK THERE MUST
BE A THEORY BEHIND IT,
AND HE CAN'T FIND THE THEORY.
WELL, PLATO SAVES
THE DAY FOR THIS
IN A MOST AMAZING AND
SORT OF OUTRAGEOUS WAY.
THE PROBLEM IS,
LOOK, THESE PEOPLE
BEHAVE AS IF THEY'VE
GOT A THEORY,
BUT THEY DON'T SEEM
TO HAVE ANY THEORY.
THEY CAN GIVE YOU ANY
RULES OR PRINCIPLES.
SO PLATO SAYS, WELL, THEY ONCE
KNEW THE RULES AND PRINCIPLES
IN ANOTHER LIFE, BUT
WHEN THEIR SOULS WERE
PUT IN THEIR BODIES
THEY FORGOT THEM.
BUT-- AND THIS IS
THE CRUCIAL THING--
THE PRINCIPLES ARE STILL
THERE IN THEIR SOUL
GENERATING THE BEHAVIOR, EVEN
THOUGH THEY'RE NOT AWARE OF IT.
SO PLATO HAS SAVED THE DAY.
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE
JOB OF THE PHILOSOPHER
IS WHAT PLATO
CALLS RECOLLECTION.
IT'S TO GET THE PEOPLE TO
REMEMBER THE RULES, WHICH
ARE ALREADY THERE, CAUSING THE
EXPERTS TO HAVE THIS EXPERT
BEHAVIOR, BUT WHICH THE
EXPERTS HAVE FORGOTTEN.
I WON'T FOLLOW IT
RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT
WILL TAKE YOU RIGHT TO THE
COMPUTER EXPERT SYSTEMS
PEOPLE, WHO THINK THE
EXPERTS HAVE THE RULES,
AND IT'S THEIR JOB TO HELP THE
EXPERTS RECOLLECT THE RULES.
BUT IT COULD EQUALLY
WELL BE THE CASE
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE
ANY RULES AT ALL.
THERE'S A KIND OF INTERESTING
MISTAKE BEHIND IT,
WHICH I COULD PUT IN HERE.
THIS IS SORT OF AN ILLUSTRATION
OF THE WAY PHILOSOPHERS THINK,
BOTH THE CLEVER WAY
THEY MAKE MISTAKES,
AND THEN THE CLEVER WAY
THEY FIND THEIR MISTAKES.
IN AN EXPERT SYSTEMS
BOOK, COMPUTER SCIENTIST
NAMED FEIGENBAUM, WHO MAKES
EXACTLY THE SAME MOVES
AS PLATO, THOUGH HE HASN'T
READ PLATO-- IT DOESN'T MATTER.
PLATO'S IS SO PERVASIVE.
HE'S POSSESSED BY PLATO
WHETHER HE'S READ HIM OR NOT.
HE SAYS, WE ONCE HAD TO LEARN
HOW TO TIE OUR SHOELACES,
AND THAT MEANS, I PRESUME,
THAT WE HAD TO GO OVER
HERE AND UNDER HERE
AND THROUGH HERE.
WE CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN
HOW WE DO IT ANYMORE.
YOU COULDN'T TELL ME HOW
TO TIE YOUR SHOELACES.
SO FEIGENBAUM SAYS, WE ONCE
KNEW HOW TO TIE OUR SHOELACES.
WE CAN STILL TIE OUR SHOELACES.
BUT WE CAN'T GIVE THE RULE.
SO THE RULE MUST BE COMPILED.
IT MUST BE IN A PART
OF OUR MENTAL COMPUTER
WHERE WE NO LONGER HAVE
CONSCIOUS ACCESS TO IT.
NOW, THAT'S THE PLATO PICTURE.
BUT IT'S GOT A MISTAKE IN IT.
THE MISTAKE IS,
CONSIDER THE ANALOGY.
WE ONCE HAD TO USE
TRAINING WHEELS IN ORDER
TO RIDE A BICYCLE.
AND WHEN WE STARTED, WE
COULDN'T RIDE A BICYCLE
WITHOUT TRAINING WHEELS.
NOW, WE CAN RIDE A BICYCLE.
THEN WE MUST BE USING
INVISIBLE TRAINING WHEELS.
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
THE FACT THAT WE NEEDED THE
RULE TO DO IT IN THE BEGINNING,
AND WE'RE NOT
USING THE RULE NOW,
DOESN'T MEAN THE RULE
HAS GONE UNCONSCIOUS
AND IT IS INVISIBLE
ANYMORE THAN THE TRAINING
WHEELS GO INVISIBLE.
IT MEANS WE'RE DOING
IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
JUST AS WE RIDE THE
BICYCLE IN A DIFFERENT WAY,
I THINK EXPERTS DON'T USE RULES.
THEY NEED RULES WHEN
THEY'RE LEARNING
TO TIE THEIR SHOELACES,
FOR INSTANCE.
BUT AFTER THEY'VE HAD LOTS
OF EXPERIENCE TYING SHOELACES
WHAT THEY DO IS THEY
JUST KNOW THAT WHEN
THE SHOELACE LOOKS
LIKE THIS DO THAT.
AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT
IN THE SENSE OF CONSCIOUSLY
KNOW IT.
THEIR BRAIN IS JUST
SO FIX THAT WHEN
THEY GET A PICTURE OF
SHOELACES LOOKING LIKE THIS,
AN ACTION LIKE THAT COMES OUT.
AND THE RULE HAS
DISAPPEARED FROM THE STORY.
IT HASN'T GONE UNCONSCIOUS.
IT'S JUST GONE.
THE ONLY TIME
PEOPLE EVER ACTUALLY
USE RULES TO EXPLAIN AND
DIRECT THEIR BEHAVIOR
IS EITHER WHEN THERE'S
COME KIND OF BREAK DOWN
AND THE SITUATION IS
UNFAMILIAR, SO THAT THEY
HAVE TO GO BACK
TO THE PRINCIPLES
THAT THEY LEARNED BEFORE--
SUPPOSE THEY'VE GOT,
I DON'T KNOW, SOME SPECIAL
KIND OF VERY THICK SHOELACES
OR WHATEVER, SOMETHING THAT
MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO JUST USE
THE CASES THAT THEY
HAVE ALL REMEMBERED.
THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE TO TRY
TO GO BACK TO THE PRINCIPLES.
MORE LIKELY, TO TAKE
A BETTER EXAMPLE,
IF YOU'VE LEARN SOME
SKILL IN SCHOOL,
OR LET'S SAY A
SKILL LIKE DRIVING,
YOU ONCE USED RULES,
SAY, FOR PARKING--
JOHN SEARLE HAS AN EXAMPLE
OF THE PARKING RULE--
AND JOHN USED TO SAY
THAT WE CAN STILL PARK,
SO THE RULE MUST BE UNCONSCIOUS.
BUT THEN JOHN AND I
HAD A LITTLE DISCUSSION
ABOUT THIS FOR A
WHILE, AND NOW HE
DOESN'T SAY THAT
ANYMORE, I DON'T THINK,
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THAT
KIND OF PHILOSOPHICAL MOVE.
BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS IF YOU
GOT INTO SOME FUNNY SITUATION
WHERE PARKING WAS
VERY DIFFICULT,
MAYBE YOU WERE
DRIVING IN ENGLAND
AND EVERYTHING WAS ON THE
WRONG SIDE OF THE STREET,
AND THE STEERING WHEEL
WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE
OF THE CAR FOR
YOU, THEN YOU MIGHT
HAVE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO
REMEMBER AND APPLY THE RULE.
BUT IF IT'S ROUTINE, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO THINK ANYMORE.
I'LL GET MY MIRROR IN LINE
WITH THEIR STEERING WHEEL
AND THEN I'LL TURN 45
DEGREES TO THE LEFT OR RIGHT
OR WHATEVER THE ORIGINAL
THING YOU LEARNED.
