Interesting dialetic and logical progression. Again it shows the quandaries in philosophy that absolute truth can never be garnered despite their concentrated proofs by exhaustion. Mainly centred on the concepts of knowledge, socrates is careful to avoid the misgivings brought about by varying meanings, assumptions and semantics that often belie the real essence of philosphical arguments. Initially it seems somewhat empiricist by assuming that knowledge is perception itself but through a quagmire of circular arguments that often involve relying on real world experience, a whole myriad of contradictions are brought about. I cant help but think it that it the whole premise of trying to discern knowledge, begs the question;as knowledge is required to discern logical argument and the meaning of things involved in the discussion. However, they account for by the fact that they acknowledge and understand knowledge of things; it is just knowledge as an independent entity to which they are trying to attain an understanding. IT is odd because it is asking what is the knowledge of knowledge