The most agreeable expression of ignorance was that credited to Socrates, “the more I learn, the less I know”.

“The more I learn, the less I know” (or “I know that I know nothing”) is a Socratic paradox highlighting that true wisdom lies in recognizing the limitations of one’s own knowledge. As knowledge increases, so does the awareness of the vast, unknown, and complex nature of the world.

Unfortunately this adage doesn’t always appeal to the majority.  Indeed the majority is more often than not inclined to think just the opposite, “the less I learn, the more I know”.  Both renditions of the adage are sustainably but for different – and competing – reasons. Each has the strength of a paradox. Hence the combination of contradictory theses: Learn more, know less; or, learn less, know more. Confronted with this dilemma, one must then ask, What is the object of conclusion?

At this juncture I wish to add a parenthetical detail. Permit me to interject what I recall from Terry Cooper, a senior student at law school who, one rainy November Saturday night in the law library, instructed me in the manner of rendering a legal opinion.  Before disclosing the frank and undramatic methodology, I should in fairness disclose that, to my knowledge, Cooper began a successful courtroom lawyer. He unwittingly spoke with gravity.

So here’s the system: 1) State the question. 2) Give the answer. 3) Describe the reasons for the conclusion; and, provide an alternative (in case you’re wrong). Assuming – as I believe I am entitled as one who is illustrative of the commoners – that the student is armed with a degree of intellectual capability, each of the steps warrants an element of consideration.  For example, State the question: as simple as the mandate at first appears, it speaks to the heart of the matter, not only because it is the question but because it invites a broader consideration of the issue or issues surrounding the question.  Refining those issues is what opens the debate to numerous other features to be accounted for. Let us say, by way of example, that the question is not, “Is the contract legal”. Instead the specific isolated issue for determination is whether a contract signed by a Power of Attorney is legal.

Thus you can see that the very nature of the response depends upon the characterization of the question. Indeed the early determination of the question affects the entire response. And as one quickly observes, the response is open to numerous complications and alternatives. In the result the conclusion about what one has for consideration can quickly become unmanageable.  It is at this point that one is advised to alter one’s course – not to predict the answer sought – rather to afford the effort a greater legitimacy.

The theme at which I am here so painfully reaching is this: the conclusion we draw about a matter depends how we retail the initial question. It is a tired saying that, Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer! It helps in these matters to cultivate a broad image of the world, especially now as we are draw more and more closely together. Just as the bounds of geography no longer separate us from others, similarly our familiarity exacts heightened intellect. The traditional fibre of hunting and hunted no longer applies.

And most significantly in this process, one must recognize not only the possibility of error (and regret) but also the preference for the larger ( and more favourable) definition of the issue. As i have heard it mockingly stated, “You say to me – What is the answer? And I say to you – What is the question?” It would be misleading to suggest the characterization of the question is not of paramount importance. And in that venture one is strongly advised to keep in mind the possibility of error or misinterpretation of the larger issue at hand.

I say this at a time when people of supposed intelligence throughout the world are at war with one another; and, within isolated communities there is the pitiful prospect of civil war.  It’s about time we stop to ask the correct question before we contaminate both ourselves and others  with useless and self-serving quizzes having no application to the broader concern.