As well as the Socratic Paradox, Socrates

Socrates used the premise that he knew nothing to refute other people's claims about their knowledge. He would quiz his students on subjects they were expected to be knowledgeable about, making them feel awkward and eventually pushing them to admit that they knew nothing. Socrates was renowned for his tenacious pursuit of other people's knowledge. He visited Athens and spoke with the most knowledgeable and skilled individuals, including legislators, poets, craftsmen, and others.

Socrates found that many of these people did not know as much as they claimed as he worked to disprove the Oracle. For instance, politicians pretended to be wise but lacked philosophical or ethical knowledge; poets might move people with their words without understanding what they meant; and craftsmen had talent but little real comprehension of the world.

Socrates was a person who saw that intellectualism alone could not serve as the basis for virtue and that he needed to work to become truly enlightened. He would have the freedom to conduct his life in a way that represented and promoted justice, thanks to this new way of doing things.

Philosophers have struggled with the intriguing Socratic Paradox for centuries. The main point is that without first knowing what they are seeking, a person cannot inquire about what they know or learn anything new.

The Socratic method is an admirable attempt to resolve this paradox in the context of philosophy. The process involves a series of questions that must be answered logically in an iterative loop. The challenge of responding to non-empirical inquiries, such as those that deal with metaphysics, is well suited to the Socratic method.

The best strategy for solving this problem is to consider it from a different perspective. The Socratic approach aims to provide a response to the query, "What is knowledge?" Although it may seem like a simple question to ask, it's crucial because it lays the groundwork for all other aspects of a person's life. Reevaluating what it is to be a human being and reflecting on one's previous errors are two ways to accomplish this.

No one intentionally acts wrong, according to Socrates. On the other hand, everything a person does voluntarily is done with the intention of doing good (Gorgias 467c–468b). 

According to Socratic thinkers, these assertions are aphorisms—the cornerstones of their ethical philosophy—that are worthy of repetition and recounting. This is because they are simple to understand and remember and contain the fundamentals of Socratic ethics.

The interpretation of the Socratic paradoxes, however, is the subject of considerable debate. For instance, it is debatable whether Socrates agrees with the hedonistic interpretation of akrasia that is promoted by "the many."

Judith Weiss examines alternative interpretations of this key line in her book Socrates and the Socratic Paradox: I Know That I Know Nothing. Her method is fresh, and her analysis will undoubtedly lead to more discussion among experts on the subject.

Socrates attempts to define virtue as a response to Meno's challenge regarding the essence of virtue. The quest for a suitable definition by Socrates is typical of Platonic epistemology.

Socrates' attempt to describe virtue is only successful if it offers insight into the essence of virtue, in the sense that it clarifies what virtue actually is rather than just what it is or what individuals do.

Roslyn Weiss makes the case in her book The Socratic Paradox and Its Enemies that Socrates used paradoxes not to accomplish some enigmatic, vague aim but rather to refute the viewpoints of his adversaries. According to Weiss, Socrates used the Socratic paradoxes to refute sophistic viewpoints, such as those who reject akrasia or maintain that no one commits sin voluntarily.

Also explained by Weiss is how Socrates used the words "epithumein" and "boulesthai." While epithumein denotes a more irrational, appetitive type of desire, the latter refers to rational desire.