Many times, I see discussions about the importance of the so-called "self-knowledge," "knowing oneself and such," especially regarding self-care and psychology/psychologists. However, when the discourse comes from this community and in the tone typically used online for such topics, I don't quite understand why they preach this and where they want to go with it, what exactly they refer to as self-knowledge, and why they encourage it. Where exactly do they want to go with this? What does the path of psychology aim to achieve? What is its purpose?

Note: This post is not a complaint or necessarily against the idea of self-knowledge itself; I am just sharing with you my inquiries and doubts about the topic, personal questions and uncertainties.

Well, continuing... Where exactly do they want to go with this? What does the path of psychology aim to achieve? What is its purpose?

Knowing our emotions, the reasons behind our thoughts, okay, but why exactly, with what greater purpose, where does this lead? After all, although knowledge can be useful, knowing just for the sake of knowing, understanding something solely for the sake of knowledge does not practically solve the human condition. Unless the very act of self-discovery, in some way, this introspection, helps to heal/relieve the problems of conscious existence on its own. The act itself could be the ultimate path and objective. Well, first of all, before expressing such doubts, I need to know what is meant by "knowing yourself"? Is it emotional introspection, intellectual understanding, or a meditative observation? Does knowing what I think and feel, by itself, change the roots of suffering?

Anyway, I am expressing many shallow and silly doubts that could perhaps be resolved with an hour of conversation with a truly open psychologist, or with a quick Google search, but the point I want to reach, which is a bit difficult to articulate, is: "Where exactly does self-knowledge aim to go, what does it want to resolve? Does self-knowledge somehow lead to greater happiness, peace? Why exactly? Because if that is the case, if the goal is to directly address human suffering itself, not the emotions surrounding it, then perhaps it would be good to slightly change the mainstream discourse and not just say 'know thyself,' but to explain the true GENUINE WHY of knowing yourself, the philosophical-existential, perhaps spiritual, reasons for undertaking such a quest. Where does this want to go, where does therapy REALLY want to go, and why should one trust the discourse of a person who is helping me to know MYSELF more than in oneself, if the ego is the very object of the search?

Before, I didn’t understand why self-knowledge was so perpetuated, and when I occasionally asked someone about these complaints I had, I didn’t receive very long responses and the subject didn’t expand much, because I don’t know. But, after consuming quite a bit of content about Eastern spirituality throughout this year, I managed to attain an interpretation that seemed satisfactory to me. From a famous quote: "Know thyself, and you will know the gods and the universe."

Well, I imagine that when discussing this, a possible message that Socrates wanted to convey in this quote is that, upon examining deeply, we will see that, contrary to what we usually think, WE ARE THE UNIVERSE. In spite of being human, we live and coexist as part of nature and a connection with the universe; we live and depend on it, we thrive from it and with it. Therefore, knowing oneself, as Eastern religions preach, implies not only a knowledge of oneself and therapy but also realizing that you and I are united, that we share life with all living beings and live on Earth together, in the universe. Human suffering operates in interconnectedness; the wheel of samsara turns for all of us. Thus, knowing oneself implies recognizing in oneself the suffering of others, and in others, your own suffering. It also implies recognizing that we are parts of a whole, and the whole at the same time. This is the deepest self-knowledge, in the sense of a third person, in the most objective sense of the word, wouldn’t that be so?

And regarding the part about "and you will know the gods"... Well, Socrates was Greek, and in Ancient Greece, they were polytheistic, with a god of agriculture, a god of rain and seas, a god of lightning, a god of fertility... Do you see how all these gods represent elements of nature? Now relate this to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and you will see that there would be, in this sense, a connection between them, nature, and us. We are the gods, and they are us, in a metaphorical sense. It is also possible to interpret it differently: For atheists, gods are creations of the human mind. In other words, for an atheist, this phrase would reflect that by knowing oneself, you theoretically know the gods and the universe, because you created the gods. We created them.

(Obviously, I am taking Socrates' quote in isolation; I haven’t read much of Plato's dialogues to place it in its proper context.)

Anyway, thank you guys for reading.