Two ignorances — one blindness. A compressed epistemology of self-knowledge through two questions. (1) He who does not know DOGMA"what the world (κόσμος) is" "does not know where he is" (οὐκ οἶδεν ὅπου ἐστίν): without a map of the whole there is no place of one's own. (2) He who does not know DOGMA"for what he has come to be" (πρὸς ὅ τι πέφυκεν) "does not know who he is, nor what the world is": without an end-and-function there is neither self-understanding nor understanding of the whole. The knowledges are interlocked: place from the map, purpose from nature; drop one and "you cannot say for what you yourself have come to be."

Who is applauding. Hence the blow to the love of fame: what is he who "flees or chases the praise of the applauders" (τῶν κροτούντων ἔπαινον), who "know neither where they are nor who they are"? To prize the verdict of those blind to their own place and nature is a double absurdity: the judges know neither the stage nor themselves (cf. 8.44 — their opinion is nothing to you; 7.62 — look into the sources of their judgment). There are no term-lemmata in the text (κόσμος is uncarded; πέφυκεν is a verb). The governing discipline is assent (to know the world and one's own purpose), the sustaining one desire (not to chase the praise of the ignorant).