The Socratic Method is a hoax

[arthwollipot]

Jesus Christ, it's not enough that people who do a thing you disapprove of are simply mistaken, they must be actively evil as well. I give up.

Not only that, it's evil to want you to learn something.

 

[arthwollipot]

As long as you give up on trying to 'win' debates by asking leading questions without exposing your own argument to examination, because it's an evil way to debate, all's well that ends well.

What's the difference between winning a debate and teaching someone something?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps some people are so adversarial by nature they cannot grasp any interaction of any two parties not being adversarial in nature?

 

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps some people are so adversarial by nature they cannot grasp any interaction of any two parties not being adversarial in nature?

It almost seems like that, yeah.

 

[Manopolus]

I got in a discussion with a preacher recently after I pointed out the evil in the Christian god. IE: The global flood, slavery, racism, sexism. He said I didn't understand. And that I couldn't judge God.

I replied that I could and do. And so did he. He s said no he didn't. So I asked him if God was good. He said of course. Then you judged him. Didn't you?

Yeah... the preacher's typical answer is found in the book of Job. Basically an appeal to absolute authority... despite the fact that they'll also admit that it was written by a human. They'll then tell you that said human was inspired by God, exposing just how deep the unverified claims go. As far as we know, there could indeed be a God, but He thinks The Bible was the worst thing ever written.

Universal irony achieved.

I wouldn't mind the concept of God or gods so much if people would simply let whatever gods may exist speak for themselves instead of projecting their own thoughts onto the divine and then pretending that doing so means that they can borrow divine authority. Belief does not grant anyone the authority to declare themselves God's mouthpiece.

And I see no reason not to apply that concept as vigorously to ancient texts as we would to some crazy homeless person gesticulating wildly in Central Park. So yeah... Euthyphro was just the beginning of a much longer thought process that started around 40 years ago.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps some people are so adversarial by nature they cannot grasp any interaction of any two parties not being adversarial in nature?

You gotta problem wit dat?

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah... the preacher's typical answer is found in the book of Job. Basically an appeal to absolute authority... despite the fact that they'll also admit that it was written by a human. They'll then tell you that said human was inspired by God, exposing just how deep the unverified claims go. As far as we know, there could indeed be a God, but He thinks The Bible was the worst thing ever written.


Universal irony acheived.

I wouldn't mind the concept of God or gods so much if people would simply let whatever gods may exist speak for themselves instead of projecting their own thoughts onto the divine and then pretending that doing so means that they can borrow divine authority. Belief does not grant anyone the authority to declare themselves God's mouthpiece.

And I see no reason not to apply that concept as vigorously to ancient texts as we would to some crazy homeless person gesticulating wildly in Central Park.

My question is how can you say that "God is good," if you didn't make a judgment that he is good?

There is only one way you could come to that conclusion fairly. You judged him on his deeds.

If you simply accepted it a priori, your statement that God is good is given without thought and has little value.
The Bible says lean not unto your own understanding.

Christians are afraid that people will start thinking for themselves.
Atheists are afraid they won't.

 

[arthwollipot]

"God is good" is a presupposition. God is axiomatically and definitionally Good, not judged good on his deeds. In fact, since God is definitionally Good, any and all of his deeds are also Good, necessarily. Including sending bears to maul children who mock a bald man. Even if you can't see why it was Good, it doesn't mean that it wasn't.

 

[acbytesla]

"God is good" is a presupposition. God is axiomatically and definitionally Good, not judged good on his deeds. In fact, since God is definitionally Good, any and all of his deeds are also Good, necessarily. Including sending bears to maul children who mock a bald man. Even if you can't see why it was Good, it doesn't mean that it wasn't.

I'm sure that would be their argument.

But since good and bad are evaluations, their statements about what is good without evaluation is worthless to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm sure that would be their argument.

But since good and bad are evaluations, their statements about what is good without evaluation is worthless to me.

No, under the presuppositionalist position, Good and Bad are not evaluations. Good is a property of God.

 

[Manopolus]

No, under the presuppositionalist position, Good and Bad are not evaluations. Good is a property of God.

...which is basically the exact same position as God deciding between good and bad arbitrarily while pretending not to be. Same thing, different word choice. Or if something else was meant, it could be the opposite, too... God has no choice other than to "act good" becaue the Good is greater than God and the deity apparently has no free will to choose otherwise. It's just a dodge.

 

[arthwollipot]

...which is basically the exact same position as God deciding between good and bad arbitrarily while pretending not to be. Same thing, different word choice. Or if something else was meant, it could be the opposite, too... God has no choice other than to be good because the good is greater than God.

No, it's not the same at all. If God decides between good and bad, then good and bad are arbitrary - it's a choice that God makes. If Good is a property of God, there is no agency in it. God just has to exist in order for Good to exist. God defines Good, he does not decide what is good.

Notice how I'm capitalising Good as the property of God and not capitalising good when it's arbitrary. I don't know if that helps the discussion at all, but I'll keep doing it as I believe that there's a distinction between them.

 

[Manopolus]

No, it's not the same at all. If God decides between good and bad, then good and bad are arbitrary - it's a choice that God makes. If Good is a property of God, there is no agency in it. God just has to exist in order for Good to exist. God defines Good, he does not decide what is good.

Notice how I'm capitalising Good as the property of God and not capitalising good when it's arbitrary. I don't know if that helps the discussion at all, but I'll keep doing it as I believe that there's a distinction between them.

Yeah... I guess it could be taken either way... thus avoiding the question entirely. It's not really the third option that it pretends to be. It could coexist with either side of the dichotomy, but can't be both or really a separate thing that somehow transcends the question, either. It still pretty much has to be one or the other.

Either the definition of "good" comes from absolute authority (thus arbitrary), or God himself is also subject to judgment (thus, the Good is greater than God or the gods in the Greek case). There is no logical in between. The propsed third option does nothing to satisfy the question. It's just a framing trick that pretends to.

I mostly associate it with the authoritarian version (arbitrary), because that seems to be the expectation of how believers are supposed to respond (as in, the same old don't question God stuff).

 

[TragicMonkey]

Congratulations! You've found the Problem of Evil, a philosophy wrangle even more boring than debating the Socratic Method. Only one of those dull things is the subject of this thread, though, so perhaps it could be taken to a separate dumpster? This one's burning well enough already.

 

[Thermal]

Probably said already, but I think the appeal of the Socrativc Method increases when you are dealing with someone so entranced by their own argument that they can't see another point of view, so you guide them into confronting the shortcomings. They have their argument and agency; how does it serve them in real time?

On this forum, when a poster is confronted with something thorny or fatal, they often 'snip it out' of their reply (or otherwise ignore it) and change the subject, most often repeating the very argument being challenged. Using the Socratic Method or its variants invites them to test their position. If their position is sound, they are fine. If they find their position cannot hold against a challenger's Soctratic stroll, then what? The Method was evil?

 

[bruto]

Not exactly. The problem I'm complaining about is people thinking that asking leading questions designed to force someone else into agreement is a toxic, anti-social, dishonest practice. It's structured on the assumption that you're right, and that you can force someone else to admit you're right without having to actually argue for your position, by asking them leading questions that suit your conclusion but don't actually open up your conclusion for debate.

That seems somewhat extreme. There is a difference between a leading question and a falsehood, after all. I do think there's a bogus element to the Socratic method, in that in its original form it seemed a little like saying you already know the answer but are too stupid to do the math, and the rather arrogant assumption that your carefully plotted argument reveals what should be obvious.

But I think there's a difference between argument and debate. If you steer a discussion toward the weakness of someone else's beliefs such that they must reconsider what they had presumed, then you have argued a case at least in the negative. The formulation of the questions is the position. If you make an assertion you make an argument. If you want to debate it, fine, then there's a debate. But it's still an argument if you write it in a book and close it.

I don't get how you go from there to the idea that anyone is forced to do anything. If you are asked a leading question, you are free either to dispute its relevance, refute it, or refuse to answer it. If you deem the question misleading or spurious, you're free to make that argument as well. If you're writing fiction, of course, that's not going to happen very often, but that's not to say it couldn't. Plato wasn't likely to record instances where another philosopher bested Socrates, or just told him to go to hell.

In what universe do you enter an argument without the assumption that you're right?

 

[acbytesla]

No, under the presuppositionalist position, Good and Bad are not evaluations. Good is a property of God.

So slavery is good?
Raping 14 year old girls is good?
Killing people is good?
Stoning children is good?
Genocide is good?

Got it.

 

[Thermal]

In what universe do you enter an argument without the assumption that you're right?

In fairness, i enter a lot of arguments not knowing if i am right, wrong, or even have an opinion, but my adversaty is for damn sure wrong by any standard.

 

[TragicMonkey]

when you are dealing with someone so entranced by their own argument

their position is sound, they are fine.

Thank you, you are absolutely correct in this assessment of my arguments! I heartily endorse your acknowledgement of my wisdom.

 

[Manopolus]

One example is the Pythagorean theorem. Socrates - the fictional character in Plato - claims that he can prove that someone already knows something, even if they don't know they know it. Plato writes in a regular dude, some kind of uneducated laborer who's passing by. Socrates starts up a conversation, walking the passerby through the steps of a geometric proof of the Pythagorean theorem, by means of questions and answers. The conclusion to Plato's story is that not only is the Pythagorean theorem true, but the passerby knew it was true all along, if they ever thought it through.

At no point is there a debate between peers, where one person is advancing an argument - evidence, reasoning, conclusion - and the other is looking to rebut that argument with evidence, reasoning, and conclusion of their own.

My thesis is that while the SM may look good on paper for teaching Geometry Facts to Children, it's a mistake to introduce it into a reasoned debate between peers. There are two main reasons I think it's a mistake. The first is that it's condescending. The second is because it excuses your own conclusions from critical examination and rebuttal.

You think you have a solid rebuttal to the other person's claim. Instead of laying out your rebuttal for examination - evidence, reasoning, conclusion, you assume your conclusion is true, and then try to get the other person to answer your leading questions until they arrive at your conclusion. ]

Any rebuttal that can be expressed on the form of leading questions can be much more quickly, clearly, and honestly expressed as a series of concrete statements. Hiding those statements as unstated assumptions behind leading questions is a technique for avoiding honest debate.

Yeah... that sounds like one of the more "heroic tales" sides of Plato, just to keep things interesting. He wasn't above it. He had a bit of Homer in him, but glorifying wisdom instead of battle.