Plato wrote in "Apology" that no one really knows anything, and that those who realise this are infact more ahead then the people who think they do know something. To not know is to know...but in that scenario those who realise they know nothing, in fact are saying that they know that the know nothing, therefore they know something. So they aren't anybetter or ahead or realise anymore then those who know.

BUT if this entire assumption is proposed by someone who says they know nothing, but in fact know they know nothing therefore they know something, then is this assumption really as difficult to run through as I am currently blabbing on about>?