know thyself essay

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

UConn Today

• School and College News
• Arts & Culture
• Community Impact
• Entrepreneurship
• Health & Well-Being
• Research & Discovery
• UConn Health
• University Life
• UConn Voices
• University News

August 7, 2018 | Kenneth Best - UConn Communications

Know Thyself: The Philosophy of Self-Knowledge

Dating back to an ancient Greek inscription, the injunction to 'know thyself' has encouraged people to engage in a search for self-understanding. Philosophy professor Mitchell Green discusses its history and relevance to the present.

From Socrates to today's undergraduates, philosophy professor Mitchell Green discusses the history and current relevance of the human quest for self-knowledge. (Getty Images)

UConn philosopher Mitchell S. Green leads a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) titled Know Thyself: The Value and Limits of Self-Knowledge  on the online learning platform Coursera. The course is based on his 2018 book (published by Routledge) of the same name. He recently spoke with Ken Best of UConn Today about the philosophy and understanding of self-knowledge. This is an edited transcript of their discussion.

Q. ‘Know Thyself’ was carved into stone at the entrance to Apollo’s temple at Delphi in Greece, according to legend. Scholars, philosophers, and civilizations have debated this question for a long time. Why have we not been able to find the answer?

A. I’m not sure that every civilization or even most civilizations have taken the goal to achieve self-knowledge as being among the most important ones. It comes and goes. It did have cachet in the Greece of 300-400 BC. Whether it had similar cachet 200 years later or had something like cultural importance in the heyday of Roman civilization is another question. Of course some philosophers would have enjoined people to engage in a search for self-understanding; some not so much. Likewise, think about the Middle Ages. There’s a case in which we don’t get a whole lot of emphasis on knowing the self, instead the focus was on knowing God. It’s only when Descartes comes on the scene centuries later that we begin to get more of a focus on introspection and understanding ourselves by looking within. Also, the injunction to “know thyself” is not a question, and would have to be modified in some way to pose a question. However, suppose the question is, “Is it possible to know oneself, either in part or fully.” In that case, I’d suggest that we’ve made considerable progress in answering this question over the last two millennia, and in the Know Thyself book, and in the MOOC of the same name, I try to guide readers and students through some of what we have learned.

Q. You point out that the shift Descartes brought about is a turning point in Western philosophy.

A. Right. It’s for various reasons cultural, political, economic, and ideological that the norm of self-knowledge has come and gone with the tides through Western history. Even if we had been constantly enjoined to achieve self-knowledge for the 2,300 years since the time Socrates spoke, just as Sigmund Freud said about civilization – that civilization is constantly being created anew and everyone being born has to work their way up to being civilized being – so, too, the project of achieving self-knowledge is a project for every single new member of our species. No one can be given it at birth. It’s not an achievement you get for free like a high IQ or a prominent chin. Continuing to beat that drum, to remind people of the importance of that, is something we’ll always be doing. I’m doubtful we’ll ever reach a point we can all say: Yup, we’re good on that. We’ve got that covered, we’ve got self-knowledge down. That’s a challenge for each of us, every time somebody is born. I would also say, given the ambient, environmental factors as well as the predilections that we’re born with as part of our cognitive and genetic nature, there are probably pressures that push against self-knowledge as well. For instance, in the book I talk about the cognitive immune system that tends to make us spin information in our own favor. When something goes bad, there’s a certain part of us, hopefully within bounds, that tends to see the glass as half full rather than half empty. That’s probably a good way of getting yourself up off the floor after you’ve been knocked down.

Q. Retirement planners tell us you’re supposed to know yourself well enough to know what your needs are going to be – create art or music, or travel – when you have all of your time to use. At what point should that point of getting to know yourself better begin?

A. I wouldn’t encourage a 9-year-old to engage in a whole lot of self-scrutiny, but I would say even when you’re young some of those indirect, especially self-distancing, types of activities, can be of value. Imagine a 9-year-old gets in a fight on the playground and a teacher asks him: Given what you said to the other kid that provoked the fight, if he had said that to you, how would you feel? That might be intended to provoke an inkling of self-knowledge – if not in the form of introspection, in the form of developing empathetic skills, which I think is part of self-knowledge because it allows me to see myself through another’s eyes. Toward the other end of the lifespan, I’d also say in my experience lots of people who are in, or near, retirement have the idea they’re going to stop working and be really happy. But I find in some cases that this expectation is not realistic because so many people find so much fulfillment, and rightly so, in their work. I would urge people to think about what it is that gives them satisfaction? Granted we sometimes find ourselves spitting nails as we think about the challenges our jobs present to us. But in some ways that frequent grumbling, the kind of hair-pulling stress and so forth, these might be part of what makes life fulfilling. More importantly, long-term projects, whether as part of one’s career or post-career, tend I think to provide more intellectual and emotional sustenance than do the more ephemeral activities such as cruises, safaris, and the like.

Q. We’re on a college campus with undergraduates trying to learn more about themselves through what they’re studying. They’re making decisions on what they might want to do with the rest of their life, taking classes like philosophy that encourage them to think about this. Is this an optimal time for this to take place?

A. For many students it’s an optimal time. I consider one component of a liberal arts education to be that of cultivation of the self. Learning a lot of stuff is important, but in some ways that’s just filling, which might be inert unless we give it form, or structure. These things can be achieved through cultivation of the self, and if you want to do that you have to have some idea of how you want it to grow and develop, which requires some inkling of what kind of person you think you are and what you think you can be. Those are achievements that students can only attain by trying things and seeing what happens. I am not suggesting that a freshman should come to college and plan in some rigorous and lockstep way to learn about themselves, cultivate themselves, and bring themselves into fruition as some fully formed adult upon graduation. Rather, there is much more messiness; much more unpredictable try things, it doesn’t work, throw it aside, try something else. In spite of all that messiness and ambient chaos, I would also say in the midst of that there is potential for learning about yourself; taking note of what didn’t go well, what can I learn from that? Or that was really cool, I’d like to build on that experience and do more of it. Those are all good ways of both learning about yourself and constructing yourself. Those two things can go hand-in-hand. Self-knowledge, self-realization, and self-scrutiny can happen, albeit in an often messy and unpredictable way for undergraduates. It’s also illusory for us to think at age 22 we can put on our business clothes and go to work and stop with all that frivolous self-examination. I would urge that acquiring knowledge about yourself, understanding yourself is a lifelong task.

Q. There is the idea that you should learn something new every day. A lot of people who go through college come to understand this, while some think after graduation, I’m done with that. Early in the book, you talk about Socrates’ defense of himself when accused of corrupting students by teaching them in saying: I know what I don’t know, which is why I ask questions.

It seems to me the beginning of wisdom of any kind, including knowledge of ourselves, is acknowledgment of the infirmity of our beliefs and the paucity of our knowledge. — Mitchell S. Green

A. That’s very important insight on his part. That’s something I would be inclined to yell from the rooftops, in the sense that one big barrier to achieving anything in the direction of self-knowledge is hubris, thinking that we do know, often confusing our confidence in our opinions with thinking that confidence is an indication of my degree of correctness. We feel sure, and take that surety itself to be evidence of the truth of what we think. Socrates is right to say that’s a cognitive error, that’s fallacious reasoning. We should ask ourselves: Do I know what I take myself to know? It seems to me the beginning of wisdom of any kind, including knowledge of ourselves, is acknowledgment of the infirmity of our beliefs and the paucity of our knowledge; the fact that opinions we have might just be opinions. It’s always astonishing to me the disparity between the confidence with which people express their opinions, on one hand, and the negligible ability they have to back them up, especially those opinions that go beyond just whether they’re hungry or prefer chocolate over vanilla. Those are things over which you can probably have pretty confident opinions. But when it comes to politics or science, history or human psychology, it’s surprising to me just how gullible people are, not because they believe what other people say, so to speak, but rather they believe what they themselves say. They tend to just say: Here is what I think. It seems obvious to me and I’m not willing to even consider skeptical objections to my position.

Q. You also bring into the fold the theory of adaptive unconscious – that we observe and pick up information but we don’t realize it at the time. How much does that feed into people thinking that they know themselves better than they do and know more than they think they do?

A. It’s huge. There’s a chapter in the book on classical psychoanalysis and Freud. I argue that the Freudian legacy is a broken one, in the sense that while his work is incredibly interesting – he made a lot of provocative and ingenious claims interesting – surprisingly few of them have been borne out with empirical evidence. This is a less controversial view than it was in the past. Experimental psychologists in the 1970s and 80s began to ask how many of those Freudian claims about the unconscious can be established in a rigorous, experimental way? The theory of the adaptive unconscious is an attempt to do that; to find out how much of the unconscious mind that Freud posited is real, and what is it like. One of the main findings is that the unconscious mind is not quite as bound up, obsessed with, sexuality and violence as posited by Freud. It’s still a very powerful system, but not necessarily a thing to be kept at bay in the way psychoanalysis would have said. According to Freud, a great deal with the unconscious poses a constant threat to the well-functioning of civilized society, whereas for people like Tim Wilson, Tanya Chartrand, Daniel Gilbert, Joseph LeDoux, Paul Ekman, and many others, we’ve got a view that says that in many ways having an adaptive unconsciousness is a useful thing, an outsourcing of lots of cognition. It allows us to process information, interpret it, without having to consciously, painstakingly, and deliberately calculate things. It’s really good in many ways that we have adaptive unconscious. On the other hand, it tends to predispose us, for example, to things like prejudice. Today there is a discussion about so-called implicit bias, which has taught us that because we grew up watching Hollywood movies where protagonist heroes were white or male, or both; saw stereotypes in advertising that have been promulgated – that experience, even if I have never had a consciously bigoted, racist, or sexist thought in my life, can still cause me to make choices that are biased. That’s a part of the message on the theory of adaptive unconscious we would want to take very seriously and be worried about, because it can affect our choices in ways that we’re not aware of.

Q. With all of this we’ve discussed, what kind of person would know themselves well?

A. Knowing oneself well would, I suspect, be a multi-faceted affair, only one part of which would have to do with introspection as that notion is commonly understood. One of these facets involves acknowledging your limitations, “owning them” as my Department of Philosophy colleague Heather Battaly would put it. Those limitations can be cognitive – my lousy memory that distorts information, my tendency to sugarcoat any bad news I may happen to receive? Take the example of a professor reading student evaluations. It’s easy to forget the negative ones and remember the positive ones – a case of “confirmation bias,” as that term is used in psychology. Knowing that I tend to do that, if that’s what I tend to do, allows me to take a second look, as painful as it might be. Again, am I overly critical of others? Do I tend to look at the glass as overly half full or overly half empty? Those are all limitations of the emotional kind, or at least have an important affective dimension. I suspect a person who knows herself well knows how to spot the characteristic ways in which she “spins” or otherwise distorts positive or negative information, and can then step back from such reactions, rather than taking them as the last word.

I’d also go back to empathy, knowing how to see things from another person’s point of view. It is not guaranteed to, but is often apt to allow me to see myself more effectively, too. If I can to some extent put myself into your shoes, then I also have the chance to be able to see myself through your eyes and that might get me to realize things difficult to see from the first-person perspective. Empathizing with others who know me might, for instance, help to understand why they sometimes find me overbearing, cloying, or quick to judge.

Q. What would someone gain in self-knowledge by listening to someone appraising them and speaking to them about how well they knew them? How does that dynamic help?

A. It can help, but it also can be shocking. Experiments have suggested other people’s assessments of an individual can often be very out of line with that person’s self-assessment. It’s not clear those other person’s assessments are less accurate – in some cases they’re more accurate – as determined by relatively well-established objective psychological assessments. Third-person assessments can be both difficult to swallow – bitter medicine – and also extremely valuable. Because they’re difficult to swallow, I would suggest taking them in small doses. But they can help us to learn about ourselves such things as that we can be unaccountably solicitous, or petty, or prone to one-up others, or thick-skinned. I’ve sometimes found myself thinking while speaking to someone, “If you could hear yourself talking right now, you might come to realize …” Humblebragging is a case in point, in which someone is ostensibly complaining about a problem, but the subtext of what they’re saying might be self-promoting as well.

All this has implications for those of us who teach. At the end of the semester I encourage my graduate assistants to read course evaluations; not to read them all at once, but instead try to take one suggestion from those evaluations that they can work on going into the next semester. I try to do the same. I would not, however, expect there ever to be a point at which one could say, “Ah! Now I fully know myself.” Instead, this is more likely a process that we can pursue, and continue to benefit from, our entire lives.

Recent Articles

April 26, 2024

New Alzheimer’s Treatment Available at UConn Health

Read the article

Marissa Salvo Named the 2024 School of Pharmacy Faculty Service Award Recipient

Mathew Chandy ’24, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 

• Corrections

Michel de Montaigne and Socrates on ‘Know Thyself’

‘Know Thyself’ is a popular philosophical dictum. This article explores how Socrates popularized the saying, and how later thinkers like Montaigne interpreted it.

In ancient Delphi, the phrase ‘Know Thyself’ was one of several philosophical sayings allegedly carved over the entrance to the Temple of Apollo. These phrases came to be known as the ‘Delphic maxims’. Clearly ‘Know Thyself’ was influential enough in ancient Greek society to feature so prominently at one of its most revered holy sites. It would later be referenced over a thousand years later by Montaigne in his celebrated Essays. So where did the maxim actually come from?

Socrates on “Know Thyself”

While many people assume that Socrates invented ‘Know Thyself’ , the phrase has been attributed to a vast number of ancient Greek thinkers, from Heraclitus to Pythagoras. In fact, historians are unsure of where exactly it came from. Even dating the phrase’s appearance at Delphi is tricky. One temple of Apollo at Delphi burnt down in 548 BC, and was replaced with a new building and facade in the latter half of the sixth century. Many academics date the inscription to this time period. Christopher Moore believes that the most likely period of its appearance at the temple is between 525 and 450 BC, since this is when “Delphi would have been asserting itself as a center of wisdom” (Moore, 2015).

The fact that we’ve struggled to establish the origins of ‘Know Thyself’ has two major consequences for Socrates’ use of the phrase. First, we’ll never be able to say with certainty how Socrates was reinterpreting the earlier Delphic maxim (since we have no idea when or why it appeared!). Second, we do know that the maxim was hugely important within ancient Greek philosophical circles. Its prominent location at Delphi, home of the famous oracle , means we have to take it seriously.

What Is Self-Knowledge? Some Views on Socratic Self-Knowledge

Nevertheless, scholars have interpreted Socrates’ interest in self-knowledge in very different ways. Some academics are dismissive of its value altogether, believing that the ancients held true self-knowledge to be impossible. The soul is the self, and the self is always changing, so how is it possible to ever really ‘know’ oneself? Others claim that the saying is peripheral to Socrates’ wider philosophy.

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

Not everyone agrees. Various scholars have sought to illustrate how important self-knowledge is to Socrates’ philosophical project . Academics such as M. M. McCabe have argued that Socratic self-knowledge involves a deep examination of one’s principles and beliefs. We must judge ourselves honestly and openly in order to see where we might be flawed in our views. ‘Know thyself’ requires “the courage to persevere, to acknowledge failure, to live with the knowledge of one’s own ignorance” (McCabe, 2011). This is where we begin to see how self-knowledge, when done correctly, can become a tool for self-improvement.

Self-Knowledge: What Are We Actually “Knowing”?

We’ve already seen the word ‘self’ several times in this article. But what does it actually mean? As Christopher Moore points out, “the severe challenge in ancient philosophy is to identify the “self” of self-knowledge” (Moore, 2015). Is a self something universal that everyone possesses? And is it therefore an entity which can be discovered? Or is it something that doesn’t preexist an effort to know it i.e., does it need to be constructed rather than found?

According to Socrates, self-knowledge was a continuous practice of discovery. In Plato’s dialogues , for example, Socrates is portrayed as being dismissive of people who are interested in trying to rationalize things like mythology: “I am not yet able, as the Delphic inscription has it, to know myself; so it seems to me ridiculous, when I do not yet know that, to investigate irrelevant things”.

The self, according to Socrates , is best thought of as a ‘selfhood’ consisting of beliefs and desires, which in turn drive our actions. And in order to know what we believe, we first have to know what is true. Then we can reassess our preconceptions on a given topic once we have established the truth. Of course, this is much easier to say than to actually do! Hence why self-knowledge is portrayed as a continuous practice.

Self-Knowledge and the Importance of Conversation

Socrates was well-known for his love of conversation . He enjoyed asking questions of other people, whether they were philosophers or senators or merchants. Being able to answer a question, and also offering a coherent explanation for one’s answer, is an important component of self-knowledge. Socrates liked to test people’s beliefs, and in doing so try to establish truth about a particular topic.

Sometimes we confuse how certain we are of our opinions with whether they are actually true or not. Socrates pursued conversation because it helps to question why we believe certain things. If we don’t have a good answer to why we are fighting against climate change, for instance, then how can we continue to hold this as a principle? As Moore writes, “Being properly a self involves meaning what one says, understanding how it differs from the other things one could say, and taking seriously its consequences for oneself and one’s conversations” (Moore, 2015). We have to be able to account for our views on the world without recourse to circular reasoning and other weak forms of argumentation, since these things won’t help us to establish truth.

Michel de Montaigne and ‘Know Thyself’

The French Renaissance thinker Michel de Montaigne was another man who believed in the importance of conversation. He was also a proponent of self-knowledge. His entire purpose in writing the Essays, his literary magnum opus, was to try and commit a portrait of himself to paper: “I am myself the subject of this book.” In doing so, he ended up spending the last decades of his life writing and rewriting over a thousand pages of his observations on every topic imaginable, from child-rearing to suicide.

In many ways, Socrates would have approved of this continuous process of self-examination – particularly Montaigne’s commitment to honest and open assessment of one’s selfhood. Montaigne shares his bowel habits and sicknesses with his readers, alongside his changing tastes in wine. He commits his aging body to paper alongside his evolving preferences for philosophers and historians. For example, Montaigne goes through a phase of fascination with Skepticism, before moving on to Stoicism and thus adding in more quotes and teachings from Stoic philosophers to balance out his older Skeptic preferences. All of this revision and reflection helps to create a moving literary self-portrait .

Indeed, the Essays were constantly revised and annotated right up until Montaigne’s death. In an essay entitled “On Vanity” he describes this process thus: “Anyone can see that I have set out on a road along which I shall travel without toil and without ceasing as long as the world has ink and paper.” This is one of many quotes which reveals Montaigne’s belief that true self-knowledge is indeed impossible. Montaigne frequently complains about the difficulties of attempting to properly ‘pin down’ his own selfhood, since he finds that his beliefs and attitudes towards various topics are always changing. Every time he reads a new book or experiences a particular event, his perspective on something might well change.

These attempts at self-knowledge don’t entirely align with Socrates’ belief that we should attempt to seek out truth in order to know what we ourselves believe. For one thing, Montaigne is not convinced that finding even objective truth in the world is possible, since books and theories are constantly being published that contradict one another. If this is true, then what can we ever truly know?

Well, Montaigne is content to believe that knowing thyself is still the only worthy philosophical pursuit. Even though it’s not a perfect process, which seems to evade him constantly, he uses the Delphic maxim ‘Know Thyself’ to argue that in a world full of distractions, we must hold on to ourselves above all else.

Self-Knowledge and Socrates’ ‘Know Thyself’ in Modern Society: Following Montaigne’s Example

Of course, Socrates and Montaigne are not the only thinkers to ponder this phrase. Everyone from Ibn Arabi to Jean-Jacques Rousseau to Samuel Coleridge has explored the meaning and importance of ‘Know Thyself’. Self-knowledge is also explored in non-Western cultures too, with similar principles found in Indian philosophical traditions and even Sun Tzu’s The Art of War .

So how can we begin to use self-knowledge in our everyday lives ? Thinking about who we are can help us to establish what we want, and what kind of person we would like to be in the future. This can be useful from a practical standpoint when making decisions about what to study at university, or which career path to follow.

We can also use self-knowledge to improve how we communicate with other people. Rather than simply believing what we think, without any further scrutiny, we should try and look more deeply at why we think that and be open to testing our assumptions. Analyzing our own opinions in this way can help us to defend our opinions and beliefs more convincingly, and perhaps even persuade other people to join our cause.

‘Know thyself’ has likely been treated as a valuable maxim within human society for thousands of years. Its inclusion on the walls of Apollo’s temple at Delphi cemented its reputation as a useful philosophical maxim . Socrates explored it in more detail and came up with his own interpretation, while thousands of years later, Montaigne attempted to put the aphorism into practice with his Essays. We can draw on these two influential figures to interpret ‘Know thyself’ for, well, ourselves and our own sense of selfhood.

Bibliography

M.M. McCabe, “It goes deep with me”: Plato’s Charmides on knowledge, self-knowledge and integrity” in Philosophy, Ethics and a Common Humanity, ed. by C. Cordner (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011), pp. 161-180

Michel de Montaigne, Les Essais, ed. by Jean Balsamo, Michel Magnien & Catherine Magnien-Simonen (Paris: Gallimard, 2007)

Christopher Moore, Socrates and Self-Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)

Plato, Phaedrus, trans. by Christopher Rowe (London: Penguin, 2005)

Where Was Ancient Greece Located?

By Rachel Ashcroft MSc Comparative Literature, PhD Renaissance Philosophy Rachel is a contributing writer and journalist with an academic background in European languages, literature and philosophy. She has an MA in French and Italian and an MSc in Comparative Literature from the University of Edinburgh. Rachel completed a PhD in Renaissance conceptions of time at Durham University. Now living back in Edinburgh, she regularly publishes articles and book reviews related to her specialty for a range of publications including The Economist.

Frequently Read Together

5 Quotes by Socrates Explained

Heraclitus of Ephesus: The Philosopher of Change (Bio & Quotes)

Oracle of Delphi: Why Was It So Important To Ancient Greeks?

The Encyclopedia Of Philosophy

What Is “Know Thyself” By Socrates? A Comprehensive Overview

Have you ever heard the phrase “know thyself”?

It’s a famous quote that has been attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. But what does it really mean?

Is it just a catchy saying, or is there more to it?

In this article, we’ll explore the concept of “know thyself” and why it’s still relevant today.

We’ll delve into the different interpretations of the phrase and how it can be applied to our modern lives.

So, sit back, relax, and let’s discover what Socrates meant when he said “know thyself.”

What Is Know Thyself By Socrates

Socrates was a philosopher who lived in ancient Greece and is widely regarded as one of the most influential thinkers in Western philosophy. One of his most famous teachings is the phrase “know thyself.”

But what does it mean to know oneself? According to Socrates, it means to have a deep understanding of one’s own beliefs, values, and principles. It means to be aware of one’s own strengths and weaknesses, and to be honest with oneself about them.

Socrates believed that self-knowledge was essential for living a good life. He believed that if we don’t know ourselves, we can’t make good decisions or live in accordance with our true nature.

The Origin Of Know Thyself

The phrase “know thyself” has its roots in ancient Greece and was inscribed on the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, also known as the Oracle of Delphi. Legend has it that the seven sages of ancient Greece, philosophers, statesmen, and law-givers who laid the foundation for Western culture, gathered together in Delphi and encapsulated their wisdom into this command.

The saying was subsequently attributed to a dozen other authors, of which Thales of Miletus most commonly takes the honor. However, it was Socrates and Plato who popularized this phrase and grappled with the mysterious nature of knowledge and identity. Since Greek philosophy laid the foundation for subsequent Western thought, the influence of the Greek command “know thyself” expanded to many other schools of thought, permeating Western philosophical essays and inspirational poetry.

The call to self-knowledge also appears in the East, independently, as far as we can tell, from its Greek emphasis. The Hindu scriptures bring the self into prominence, speaking of its realization as the means to immortality. Along the same vein as Western philosophy, the Hindus claim that man is not naturally born knowing his self and that self-knowledge is a bold and challenging endeavor.

Even farther East, in Imperial China, Confucius draws from the ancient texts of the I-Ching and calls for a system of government based on self-government, which implies self-knowledge. Thus, the call to knowing oneself is universal historically and cannot easily be attributed to a single individual or even a single culture.

Socrates’ Interpretation Of The Phrase

Socrates’ interpretation of the phrase “know thyself” goes beyond just having a general understanding of oneself. He believed that true wisdom comes from recognizing the limits of one’s own knowledge and understanding. In other words, to know oneself means to acknowledge what one does not know.

Socrates argued that people must know themselves before they can claim to know anything else. He believed that ignorance ultimately derived from a lack of self-knowledge, and that by remedying this deficiency, one could gain greater knowledge of oneself and others.

For Socrates, all knowledge must start with the individual and the cultivation of the rational part of their soul. Only then can one acquire knowledge of the world around them, including objects, things, and other people. Socrates believed that knowing oneself was the first step towards wisdom, and that it required courage to persevere, acknowledge failure, and live with the knowledge of one’s own ignorance.

Socrates also believed that knowing oneself meant recognizing one’s true nature as an immortal soul. He argued for the immortality of the soul in his Phaedo dialogue and believed that by knowing oneself as an immortal soul, one could live in accordance with their true nature and make decisions that align with their highest good.

The Importance Of Self-Knowledge

Self-knowledge is important because it allows us to understand our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. It provides us with a deeper understanding of our own motivations and desires, which in turn allows us to make better decisions and live more fulfilling lives.

Without self-knowledge, we may be prone to making poor decisions that are not in line with our true nature. We may also struggle to understand why we feel the way we do or why we behave in certain ways. This lack of understanding can lead to feelings of confusion, frustration, and even depression.

Furthermore, self-knowledge is essential for personal growth and self-improvement. By understanding our own strengths and weaknesses, we can work on improving ourselves and becoming the best version of ourselves. We can identify areas where we need to grow and develop new skills or habits that will help us achieve our goals.

In addition, self-knowledge is important for healthy relationships with others. When we know ourselves well, we are better able to communicate our needs and boundaries to others. We are also more empathetic and understanding towards others because we have a greater awareness of our own emotions and experiences.

Applying Know Thyself In Modern Life

In modern life, the concept of “know thyself” is still highly relevant. It means understanding who we are as individuals and what motivates us. It means recognizing our own limitations and knowing when to ask for help.

One way to apply this concept is by practicing self-reflection. This involves taking time to think about our actions, thoughts, and feelings. By doing so, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and our motivations. We can also identify patterns in our behavior that may be holding us back or causing us problems.

Another way to apply “know thyself” is by seeking feedback from others. This can be difficult, as it requires us to be open to criticism and willing to learn from our mistakes. However, it can also be incredibly valuable, as it allows us to see ourselves from a different perspective and identify areas for improvement.

Finally, “know thyself” means being true to ourselves and living in accordance with our values and principles. This may require making difficult decisions or standing up for what we believe in, even if it’s not popular or easy.

Challenges In Achieving Self-Knowledge

Despite the importance of self-knowledge, achieving it is not an easy task. There are several challenges that make it difficult for individuals to truly know themselves.

One challenge is the tendency to deceive ourselves. It’s common for people to have a distorted view of themselves, either by overestimating their abilities or downplaying their flaws. This self-deception can prevent us from seeing ourselves clearly and hinder our ability to make good decisions.

Another challenge is the influence of external factors. Our beliefs and values are often shaped by the society and culture we live in, and it can be difficult to separate our own thoughts and feelings from those that have been imposed on us. This can make it challenging to understand our true selves and what we really want out of life.

Additionally, emotions can cloud our judgment and make it difficult to see ourselves objectively. Fear, anxiety, and other negative emotions can prevent us from confronting our weaknesses and acknowledging our mistakes.

Finally, achieving self-knowledge requires a willingness to be introspective and reflective. It takes effort and courage to examine oneself honestly, and many people may avoid doing so out of fear or discomfort.

Despite these challenges, achieving self-knowledge is possible with practice and dedication. By being honest with ourselves, seeking feedback from others, and engaging in introspection, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and live more fulfilling lives.

Tools And Techniques For Self-Discovery

Knowing oneself is a lifelong journey, and there are many tools and techniques available to help with self-discovery. Here are a few:

1. Self-reflection: Taking the time to reflect on your thoughts, feelings, and actions can help you gain insight into who you are and what you value. Journaling, meditation, and mindfulness practices are all great ways to cultivate self-awareness.

2. Personality assessments: There are many personality assessments available that can help you understand your strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. These assessments can provide valuable insights into your personality type and how you interact with others.

3. Feedback from others: Sometimes, it can be difficult to see ourselves clearly. Asking for feedback from trusted friends or colleagues can provide a different perspective and help us see ourselves more objectively.

4. Therapy or counseling: Talking to a mental health professional can be a powerful way to gain insight into yourself and your patterns of behavior. A therapist can help you identify areas for growth and provide support as you work through challenges.

5. Mindful self-compassion: Being kind and compassionate toward yourself is an important part of self-discovery. Practicing mindful self-compassion involves treating yourself with the same kindness and care that you would offer to a good friend.

Ultimately, the key to self-discovery is to approach it with curiosity and openness. By being willing to explore our inner selves, we can gain a deeper understanding of who we are and what we want out of life.

Related Posts

Did jesus know about socrates a historical perspective.

Two of the most influential figures in history, one a philosopher and the other a religious leader, have left a lasting impact on the world.…

Read More »

What Did Socrates Discover? A Look Into His Life And Philosophy

In the world of philosophy, few individuals have had as profound an impact as the ancient Greek thinker we know simply as Socrates. Despite never…

How Did Socrates Defend Himself? A Comprehensive Overview

In the world of philosophy, Socrates is a name that is synonymous with wisdom, questioning, and the pursuit of truth. However, he was also a…

Did Socrates Have A Wife? A Look Into The Philosopher’s Personal Life

In ancient Greece, philosophers were revered for their wisdom and intellect. One of the most famous philosophers of all time was Socrates, known for his…

How Did Socrates Think People Should Learn? A Comprehensive Overview

Learning has been a fundamental part of human existence since the beginning of time. From the earliest days of civilization, people have sought to understand…

How To Read Socrates: A Beginner’s Guide

Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, is widely regarded as one of the most influential figures in Western philosophy. Despite never having written anything down himself,…

About The Author

Bradley Gray

Know Thyself

“Know thyself” is the dictum which appeared on the front of the temple in Delphi. But what does that mean and why is it important?

Presumably, it means to know, first and foremost, one’s own character and it is important because only by knowing one’s character can one be aware of one’s limitations and avoid likening oneself to the gods. But, more simply, it is only by knowing one’s character that one can try and improve from a moral point of view, or make the right decisions in one’s life.

Centuries have gone past and one important addition to that Delphic injunction has come from the discovery of the unconscious. Again, it looks as if it is only by knowing our deep-seated feelings, desires, beliefs and intentions that we can actually improve our lives.

Thus, if you start approaching the issue from the Delphic injunction, there seems to be a certain distance between each subject and themselves. One’s character is not only what we manifest in acting and by living as we do, but it is also an object for each of us to study and make sense of, as if alien.

In fact, it consists of one’s dispositional mental states, let them be conscious or unconscious, which are the object of what, in The Varieties of Self-Knowledge , I call “third personal self-knowledge”. That is to say, in order to get knowledge of those mental states, we need to engage in quite complex epistemic procedures that have no guarantee of being successful. In fact, they are broadly akin to the ones we use to gain knowledge of other people’s minds. Yet, when successfully executed, these procedures give us substantial knowledge of ourselves. They give us knowledge that is sometimes difficult to attain and which is valuable because it discloses to us important truths about ourselves, on the basis of which we can eventually make decisions that can actually improve the quality of our lives.

Still, there is an important difference between the application of these epistemic procedures in one’s own case and in the case of other people. Namely, often times, in our own case and in our own case only, the prompts we have to start with are inner feelings and other occurrent mental states we are immediately aware of. That is, mental states we are aware of in a “first-personal” way.

The overarching claim of The Varieties of Self-Knowledge is that a comprehensive account of self-knowledge should be an account of both first- and third-personal self-knowledge. Oddly enough, the contemporary debate on self-knowledge has tended to be oblivious to this rather obvious desideratum. On the one hand, behaviorists, for instance, have tried to reduce all of self-knowledge to third-personal self-knowledge. In a similar vein, contemporary cog.sci.-informed philosophers, like Peter Carruthers and Eric Schwitzgebel, have tried to deny the existence of first-personal self-knowledge drawing on recent empirical data, which show how ignorant or positively mistaken we can be regarding our own minds. Contemporary proponents of an inferentialist conception of self-knowledge, like Quassim Cassam, have tried to diminish the role of first-personal self-knowledge by arguing that at most it would give us knowledge of rather irrelevant mental states – like feeling pain in one’s foot right now. By contrast, in his view, important truths about oneself could only be revealed through inference to the best explanation starting with the observation of one’s own behavior and inner promptings . While I do agree that the latter kind of knowledge is certainly more interesting, it should be recognized that it would simply be impossible without knowledge of one’s occurrent mental states. Furthermore, while certainly not revelatory of one’s character, one’s first-personal knowledge of one’s own bodily sensations like pains, for instance, clearly serves an invaluable role. It is only that way that we can avoid certain dangers and set forth eradicating their causes. Finally, although a case can be made, based on empirical findings, against the width of first-personal self-knowledge, this does not mean that it is vanishingly small.

On the other hand, if one looks at the purely philosophical literature on self-knowledge, which has developed in the last fifty years or so, one will be struck by quite the opposite phenomenon. Namely, an enormous amount of attention has been devoted to first-personal self-knowledge with very little work done on third-personal self-knowledge. Why so? Well, because of what I would call a kind of philosophical snobbery. Let me explain. Since at least Descartes, philosophers have been puzzled by the characteristic traits of first-personal self-knowledge. For our minds seem to be “transparent” to us. Whatever is occurring within them, it seems immediately evident to us. The painful or pleasurable sensations I am feeling right now are “self-intimating”. If I am feeling pain in my foot, I am immediately aware of it, and if I have the relevant concepts, I can immediately self-ascribe that sensation. Conversely, if I do so ascribe it, unless there are reasons to doubt of my sincerity or of being cognitively well-functioning, the self-ascription is guaranteed to be correct. We therefore appear to be “authoritative” with respect to our own mental states. Since, however, such knowledge is not independent of experience, nor is it based on an observation of our own mental states, through something like a mental eye, or on the observation of our own behavior and on the inference to its likely cause, we seem to be confronted with a serious epistemological problem. How does that knowledge come about and how can it exhibit those traits, which seem to set it apart from all other kinds of empirical knowledge we have—that is, transparency and authority? The difficulty of making sense of this epistemological problem has led many philosophers to discard third-personal self-knowledge as philosophically uninteresting, because they have always ultimately considered it just one more instance of knowledge based on inference to the best explanation.

Indeed, some contemporary theorists, like Richard Moran, have gone so far as to argue that it is only when we deliberate what to believe, desire and intend, based on weighing reasons, that we are actually capable of first-personal self-knowledge. While in all other cases—that is to say, in those cases where we gain knowledge of ourselves through third-personal means and, interestingly, also when we make self-ascriptions of occurrent sensations—we would not be operating in that mode and there wouldn’t be anything epistemologically distinctive.

Again, I do agree that there is something epistemologically puzzling about first-personal self-knowledge and that it is a phenomenon in need of philosophical explanation. Yet, third-personal self-knowledge too is epistemologically interesting, once one realizes the variety of methods by means of which it can come about, over and beyond inference to the best explanation. Moreover, while I do agree that there is definitely something distinctive about our knowledge of what I would call our “commissive propositional attitudes”, I do think that self-ascriptions of sensations are also a manifestation of first-personal self-knowledge, even though, as we will see, they do call for a subtly different account than the one we might want to give for our knowledge of our commissive propositional attitudes.

11 Comments

I believe that historians often interpret “Know Thyself” as “know your place in the scheme of things – where you fit in society.”

Maybe so. Originally it was meant to remind humans of their limitations.

The dual approach that that Annalisa Coliva recommends, which allows both first-person and third-person routes to self-knowledge, seems to me very sound indeed. Often in spite of all the external “third-person”) evidence we can know (n.b.) what is going on with us, by some small but persistent and closely-held private insight. On the other hand, a whole world of private personal insights can be rotten and fall apart at a word or two from a friend or someone who knows us, and is perhaps a little unsympathetic. I am moved to wonder whether there isn’t such a thing as “second-person” knowledge. This would be the same as third-person knowledge in Coliva’s sense (which seems to be a matter of method as well as available data), but differ in regard to the relationship to the one known of the knower. “You” is different from “She” and “He”. There can be an element of accusation, say, or a compliment and a celebration, or a confrontation, which you don’t get in third-person style reports. I am thinking of Tolstoy’s account of sharing a room with his older brother, both now grown men, and Tolstoy kneeling by the side of the bed as he had done since childhood, to pray, and his brother looking at him and say, ‘You don’t still do that, do you?’ Tolstoy reports that at that moment his childhood faith collapsed. He had not himself known that his faith had been dead for a long time, but his brother knew. This is the sort of perhaps confrontational thing thing I had mind as “second-person” knowledge parallel to Annalisa Coliva’s other two senses.

Coliva recognizes the epistemological problem about first-person self-knowledge. How do I know that I am feeling uneasy, say? I wonder whether she would share with us any insight she has into this problem. Sometimes I think of it like this. There is the first-person state, uneasiness, over in the left-hand corner. In the right is me, doing something called “feeling” the state. Now is this like a person feeling a bolt of cloth, say, or feeling the texture of a coat? And if so, what is the perceptual system, the mechanism by which we do it?

That’s great Jonathan! I do think there is third-personal self-knowledge based on testimony. More on that in the next post. And indeed I will say more about my views about first-personal self-knowledge in the third one.

I will also say more about the way in which we can get to know ourselves through the interction with others and even through literature and movies.

How would I realize that I am feeling uneasy, say? I ponder whether she would impart to us any knowledge she has into this issue. In some cases I consider it like this. There is the main individual state, uneasiness, over in the left-hand corner. In the privilege is me, accomplishing something many refer to as “feeling” the state. Presently is this like a man feeling an electrical jolt, say, or feeling the surface of a coat? What’s more, assuming this is the case, what is the perceptual framework, the component by which we isn’t that right? A lot seems counter-factual and ridiculous Brainology

A philosophical position of very great interest is seond person knowledge about ourselves, a knowledge that is neither equal to first person knowledge of ourselves or to the third person point of view. Instead of discussing this, my point of view is that we can learn much about ourselves and others by studying the second person access to ourselves.

Correction…nor to the third person point of view.

Thanks Olav. If you prefer to call self-knowledge based on testimony second-person self-knowledge, no problem. What matters, anyway, is the fact that testimony is a source of self-knowledge. More on this in the second post, which is now out.

I understand: Stimuli to brain reveal states of mind which can be identified as in two parts. 1.A mental state (correlated to brain state)in its feelings,emotions & dispositions.These are all based on neuronal reactions. These are first- personal traits and 2.A mental activity (Correlated to brain activity)related to stimuli and neuronal reactions. The mental parts correlated to neuronal reactions is the present interacting self.We can call them mental reactions to stimuli.

We can know the mental state in a higher level consciousness directly.The lower level consciousness is capable of knowing the activity portion.Our character can be known indirectly through several observations of behaviour,indirectly.These are third- personal traits.

Thanks for the comment! I do not talk about brain activity. I do not think we can directly know brain activities as such. My book concernes only mental self-ascriptions, whatever their realization might be. In the third post, I will address the issue of first-personal self-knowledge. But yes, you are right that I think we can know our own mental dispositions in a third personal way, using a variety of methods, which I’ve briefly presented in the second post.

Comments are closed.

Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King”

The famous saying “Know Thyself,” which is written on the temple at Delphi, is one of the main messages of the Sophocles’ play “Oedipus the King.” Taking into account the historical context, it is easy to explain the problem that appeared at the end of the fifth century. “Know Thyself” becomes not a trivial motto, but real folk wisdom of that time. The whole life and activity of Oedipus are aimed at knowing himself.

The main character does not care about the challenges, tribulations, and other problems the acknowledgment may bring, he is ready to accept any truth and follow the destiny. “And yet I know this much – no disease no any other suffering can kill me…But whether my fate leads, just let it go” (Sophocles “Oedipus the King,” 1700). The first desire of the protagonist is not only to learn whose son, husband, or father you are, but to learn your abilities and willingness to follow your purpose.

On the other hand, Oedipus’ desire to know himself also leads to despair. He realizes the vanity of human efforts, limited knowledge we have, and inability to shape the future: “O generations of mortal men…What man is there, what human being, who attains greater happiness than mere appearances, a joy which seems to fade away to nothing?” (Sophocles “Oedipus the King,” 1423). The theme of knowing yourself and following your destiny is revealed from different points in the play. However, the conclusion remains the same: perfect knowledge leads to great suffering.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, July 4). Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King”. https://studycorgi.com/know-thyself-sophocles-oedipus-the-king/

"Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King”." StudyCorgi , 4 July 2021, studycorgi.com/know-thyself-sophocles-oedipus-the-king/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King”'. 4 July.

1. StudyCorgi . "Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King”." July 4, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/know-thyself-sophocles-oedipus-the-king/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King”." July 4, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/know-thyself-sophocles-oedipus-the-king/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King”." July 4, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/know-thyself-sophocles-oedipus-the-king/.

This paper, “Know Thyself: Sophocles’ “Oedipus the King””, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: July 4, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Browse by Subjects
• New Releases
• Coming Soon
• Chases's Calendar
• Browse by Course
• Instructor's Copies
• Monographs & Research
• Intelligence & Security
• Library Services
• Business & Leadership
• Museum Studies
• Pastoral Resources
• Psychotherapy

Know Thyself

An essay on social personalism, thomas o. buford, also available.

Know Thyself

Shakespeare once said, Life is but a stage and men merely players on it. In order for us to become main characters on this stage, instead of mere extras, we must be able to truly identify who we are as individuals first. After this has been accomplished we can find out how we can benefit our society. When complete self-awareness, self-knowledge, self-confidence, and self-respect are reached, than you can truly know thyself. In all of the Natural Sciences, be it physics, chemistry, or biology, the physical world is dissected and analyzed. Using a language of their own, the Natural Sciences go about defining and declaring what we are.

In biology the human brain is analyzed and studied; in fact when my parents were in medical school and were studying neurology, they were given actual brains to dissect. However these studies merely identify what is there physically, not the soul or the identity. Sant Kirpal Singh explains, Man is composed of body , mind (intellect) and soul. We are extremely careful to develop ourselves physically and mentally, but understand very little about the soul, which is the Power ruling both the body and the mind . I have a sixth grade sister named Nora, and she is going through what most young adults go through at her age, self-discovery.

She is neither an adult nor a child and is feeling lost and angry at the world . According to James Marcia there are four stages that one may or may not go through in order to find their identity. They are Identity Foreclosure, Identity Diffusion, Moratorium, and Identity Achievement. My sister has passed the Identity Foreclosure state where she accepts everything blindly and does not question her surroundings. She is now in the Identity Diffusion state in which she is still not looking for an identity for herself, yet she is beginning to question her surroundings.

In this stage she has a complete lack of self-identity and no commitment to her personal goals. Most teenagers at our age, about 16 or 17, are in a state of Moratorium in which we still do not know who we are, but we are striving to create an identity for ourselves. This is reflected in the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, and the groups we tend to hang out with. The last stage, which many do not even reach, is the Identity Achievement stage, in which the person is happy with their share in life and is committed to their own values and goals.

Henry Shaw once said, It is not only the most difficult thing to know oneself, but the most inconvenient too. Many people who lack a clear identity, and therefore feel insecure because of it, may turn to chat rooms or to gangs, where they can portray themselves as anything they want to be. Knowing thyself is extremely important to both the individual and society in general, for it causes the person to become more committed to their goals, and allows them to truly understand others. A society populated by individuals is much more prosperous than one populated by followers.

When you know thyself, you know your own limits and how far you can push yourself in order to achieve your goals. For example, a woman is very good at biology and is a horrible artist. If she knows herself and she knows her strength, she will benefit society more because she will realize that her strength is indeed biology not art and will therefore become a scientist or a doctor instead of being an artist. A psychologist by the name of Erikson believed that real love cannot possibly exist between two people until each knows who he or she is.

This is most likely the reason why high school relationships do not last very long. A relationship requires commitment, stability, and the ability to understand; if a person is lacking in one of these areas, then the relationship is doomed. However, high school relationships can help us define who we are, for they teach us about commitment, stability, the ability to understand another person, and bring us a step closer to self-discovery. Carl Jung once said, Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.

There are many different possible ways that someone can become introduced to oneself, among them are near death experiences or deaths of a loved one. The death of a loved one could cause you to realize that life is fleeting and to realize what it is really about, or it can cause you to want to forget yourself entirely. Through your faith and your religion you may also be able to discover yourself, for the holy books give you step by step instructions on how to live.

It is said that if you believe entirely in God, he will grant you the sight. In all plays there must be the main characters , supporting characters, and the extras. If you are that extra, then be happy with the fact that you actually had a chance to be in the play. Maybe if you show that you are capable of indeed being a supporting character or a main character, then the director will elevate you to that position. Ram Dass says, When I dont know who I am, I serve you. When I know who I am, I am you.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

• Gene Editing Vs Synthetic Biology Essay
• Integrated software application
• -Software and copyright-
• David Levinson: Seasons’ of A Man’s Life
• Effects Of Identity Theft Essay
• What influences a person’s identity
• Computer Software Piracy and it’s Impact on the International Economy
• Analyzing Eriksons Psychosocial Theory Essay
• Personal Statement: A Career In Microbiology Essay
• Marine Biologist Career Essay
• Software Piracy: A Worldwide Problem

• Politics & Social Sciences

Promotions apply when you purchase

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

• Highlight, take notes, and search in the book
• In this edition, page numbers are just like the physical edition

Buy for others

Buying and sending ebooks to others.

• Select quantity
• Buy and send eBooks
• Recipients can read on any device

These ebooks can only be redeemed by recipients in the US. Redemption links and eBooks cannot be resold.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Follow the author

Know Thyself: An Essay on Social Personalism Kindle Edition

• ISBN-13 978-0739146187
• Sticky notes On Kindle Scribe
• Publisher Lexington Books
• Publication date November 25, 2011
• Language English
• File size 847 KB
• See all details
• Kindle (5th Generation)
• Kindle Keyboard
• Kindle (2nd Generation)
• Kindle (1st Generation)
• Kindle Paperwhite
• Kindle Paperwhite (5th Generation)
• Kindle Touch
• Kindle Voyage
• Kindle Oasis
• Kindle Scribe (1st Generation)
• Kindle Fire HDX 8.9''
• Kindle Fire HDX
• Kindle Fire HD (3rd Generation)
• Fire HDX 8.9 Tablet
• Fire HD 7 Tablet
• Fire HD 6 Tablet
• Kindle Fire HD 8.9"
• Kindle Fire HD(1st Generation)
• Kindle Fire(2nd Generation)
• Kindle Fire(1st Generation)
• Kindle for Windows 8
• Kindle for Windows Phone
• Kindle for BlackBerry
• Kindle for Android Phones
• Kindle for Android Tablets
• Kindle for iPhone
• Kindle for iPod Touch
• Kindle for iPad
• Kindle for Mac
• Kindle for PC
• Kindle Cloud Reader

Editorial Reviews

How do we know who we are, what we are and what are we to be? According to one of the leading philosophers of Personalist tradition, the answers will not be found in Naturalism, Idealism or Rationalism, all of which are forms of the impersonal that lead us to a dead-ends of Objectivism or Subjectivism, thereby shortchanging the full range of human experience. This fascinating essay offers a creative approach to self-understanding as "persons in triadic relationships," which in addition to trust, includes obligation and transcendence.

The author skillfully utilizes images of "suspicion", "master narrative", "I-Thou-It triad", "dancing", "broken dances," "the Personal" that update and bring the Personalist tradition to a new level. This narrative provides an imaginative way to consider human experience, enabling us to move beyond individualism or collectivism.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to explore imaginative approaches to self-reflection, which is always done in a social context. — Norman J. Faramelli, Boston University School of Theology

About the Author

Product details.

• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0073XLX6M
• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Lexington Books (November 25, 2011)
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 25, 2011
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 847 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 235 pages

About the author

Thomas o. buford.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Essays on know thyself

• Studentshare
• Know Thyself
• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY