The Socratic Method

[Fade the Butcher]

Discuss. A defintion here . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

The Socratic method is a negative method of hypotheses elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. The method of Socrates is a search for the underlying hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom), which may subconsciously shape one's opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny, to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question) formulated as tests of logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs) about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logoi) (singular logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos)), seeking to characterise the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. To the extent to which this method is designed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, it was called the method of maieutics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maieutics). Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle) attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method. Oddly, however, Aristotle also claimed that this method is not suitable for ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics).

[Petr]

Oddly, however, Aristotle also claimed that this method is not suitable for ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics).
Hmm, interesting.

Here is somewhat less than adulatory description of Socrates by Gary North: :p

"It was in this period of defeat and despair that Athens executed Socrates in 399 B.C. He had been perceived by many critics as a Sophist. They were essentially correct: he was, in fact, a sophisticated dialectician who defended the existence a hypothetical realm of absolute knowledge but also insisted that no one, including himself, had been able to enter it -- a sophist's ploy if there ever was one. He was also a political authoritarian.(32) In terms of his philosophical undermining of Greek religion, the Athenians' perception of Socrates was correct. He was guilty as charged. (He was also a defender of pederasty with adolescents, but that did not bother Athenians any more than it bothers his apologists today.)(33)"

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1698&highlight=jaeger


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Isn't Gary North one of Lew Rockwell's hacks?

[Ahknaton]

Hmm, interesting.

Here is somewhat less than adulatory description of Socrates by Gary North: :p

"It was in this period of defeat and despair that Athens executed Socrates in 399 B.C. He had been perceived by many critics as a Sophist. They were essentially correct: he was, in fact, a sophisticated dialectician who defended the existence a hypothetical realm of absolute knowledge but also insisted that no one, including himself, had been able to enter it -- a sophist's ploy if there ever was one. He was also a political authoritarian.(32) In terms of his philosophical undermining of Greek religion, the Athenians' perception of Socrates was correct. He was guilty as charged. (He was also a defender of pederasty with adolescents, but that did not bother Athenians any more than it bothers his apologists today.)(33)"

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1698&highlight=jaeger


Petr
Petr,

Must you tear down everyone and everything that's not wholly Christian in origin?

[Helios Panoptes]

Isn't Gary North one of Lew Rockwell's hacks?

That he is. Quite a Grecian scholar, too, from the looks of it. :rofl:

[Anarch]

Petr,

Must you tear down everyone and everything that's not wholly Christian in origin?
He's a Prot. They tend to hate Hellenes.

[Petr]

He's a Prot. They tend to hate Hellenes.
Now now, don't put words into my mouth. I just do not subscribe to an uncritical worship of all things Greek, which is common in very many different circles.

(Heck, Roman conservatives like Cato already thought that it is possible to have an overdose of Hellenism...)


Here is a good Philhellenic site that I gladly support:

http://www.grecoreport.com/index.html


Petr

[cyborg]

A Socratic Dialogue

(This is based on a discussion with a highly intelligent friend of mine who, like most, was indoctrinated in liberal ideas and has not had time to think them through. Socrates serves in place of myself and two others, and the idealized Bret serves for my friend and four others.)

Bret: Greetings, Socrates. I am told you believe that democracy is bad, and aristocracy is good.

Socrates: So you believe democracy is the best good - can you tell me why?

Bret: The individual is the most important good, and democracy allows the individual to express themselves and have the most power against societies that can cause them harm, through representation. It is freedom for the individual, and that is the highest goal of an advanced society.

Socrates: That sounds well enough. But tell me - if an individual were to develop a virus that would eliminate all of humanity, would you stop him?

Bret: Certainly. He would be impeding the rights of individuals, and would have to be stopped.

Socrates: Even though he has the right to freedom, and to express himself?

Bret: His expression of self would prevent others from having the same freedom, so in the name of the collective, we would deny it to him.

Socrates: So if the individual is doing something destructive to the whole, it must be prevented?

Bret: Obviously, if it restricts the freedom of the whole.

Socrates: What if the individual was using his freedom to create a political state which would restrict the freedom of the whole?

Bret: He would have to be restricted.

Socrates: So if one individual were using his freedom to restrict the freedom of the whole, he would be restricted. What if more than one individual were doing so?

Bret: They would also, have to be restricted.

Socrates: What if these individuals did not know their vote would restrict the freedom of the whole?

Bret: They would still have to be restricted.

Socrates: What if these individuals constituted a majority?

Bret: If the democracy were to keep existing, they would have to be restricted.

Socrates: But then there must be someone to restrict them?

Bret: Yes, a wise leader.

Socrates: So how is this different from a king?

Bret: Well, the people have freedom.

Socrates: But only to choose what is already chosen, namely democracy?

Bret: Anything else restricts the freedom of others.

Socrates: And to keep them from this fate they need - a king?

Bret: No, an elected leader.

Socrates: But if they do not know when their decisions will restrict the freedom of the whole, how can they pick the right elected officials?

Bret: If they do not, they will lose their freedoms.

Socrates: But with a king, they always have freedoms?

Bret: Except to choose a leader!

Socrates: But we've already established that they cannot know if they are choosing a leader who will restrict freedom of the whole, or not, and that if they choose the wrong options, they must be restricted. Therefore, do they really have the freedom to choose a leader?

Bret: Well, it's freedom within limits.

Socrates: It seems to me a king offers the same limited freedom, and removes the chance of the people making choices they do not understand. Supposing that people today are voting for something that would restrict the freedoms of the whole in, say, 500 years, and once it is voted for, nothing can change that course?

Bret: Of course that would have to be changed. Through education, or something of that nature.

Socrates: What if education didn't work - if it was something so complex the average person could not understand it?

Bret: Then their vote would be restricted.

Socrates: So if someone is voting for something that in the far future would necessarily limit freedoms for the whole, their vote would be restricted?

Bret: Yes.

Socrates: Yet democracy, in order to preserve itself from bad votes, must limit freedom of the whole. Do you agree?

Bret: Of course.

Socrates: And votes which restrict freedom of the whole must be limited?

Bret: Yes.

Socrates: Does that include... voting for democracy?

(Democracy is a paradox: people voting on things they do not understand, in order to achieve paradoxical goals such as the freedom to have unfreedom. It does not function, except as an appeasement to the masses, who believing they are "free" will ignore the behind-the-scenes machinations of commerce.)


http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/socrates/

Featured in Radio NIHIL (http://www.anus.com/zine/radio/) for June 29.

[Petr]

Why did this ancient thread had to be resurrected?


NECROMANCER

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/necromancer.htm


Petr

[cyborg]

The first post helps to set context. Actually, I didn't know if this topic had been covered by another agent, so I searched for thread title socratic and having located this only one, found it appropriate for appending.

[Geist]

I've always referred to it as the Method of Elenchus. It leads to a recognition of how our proper relation to virtue is by way of waylessness or aporia. As Heidegger would say thinking is always on the way.