bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, I guess I was too binary here. I think it fair to say, though, that you would not enter an argument unless you are convinced that your adversary is wrong.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The Socratic Method is a hoax
- Thread starter theprestige
- Start date
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
God didn't do any of those things. Except for the killing people one - he definitely did that. Humans did all of those, sometimes claiming God's command. But the point is that God's Good is greater than humans' good. If God tells you to stone someone to death, there's a Good reason for it even if there is not a good reason. And you don't know God's reasons, because God is ineffable or something. Mysterious ways et cetera.
I hope it's clear here that I'm presenting the argument, and not that I believe any of this ◊◊◊◊ myself. That would make me a terrible person. But I would also like to point out that I am clearly presenting the argument in declarative statements, and not using the Socratic method, thus demonstrating @theprestige's thesis, which is why it is still on-topic.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 41,149
Excuse me? What about Mary? He raped the mother of Jesus. He killed David's son. He also had the wives of David raped by his son in broad daylight as punishment for Bathsheba. He ordered the taking of slaves which means he did it. The entire Bible suggests that we are his slaves. These are God's deeds.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's not the point of the Method at all. The Method always and only considers one side of a case that's already been decided.
Plato's story about Socrates walking an ignorant bystander through a geometric proof of the Pythagorean Theorem never considers any other side of the case besides the one where the Theorem is already true.
This is one of the reasons the Leading Questions approach to debate is so obnoxious.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Yeah... umm... methinks you need better reading comprehension. A lot of Plato's work concerning Socrates examines things from multiple angles. While you might feel like the end result was fixed (Of course it was. It's prose. A story, in other words. The ending is predetermined almost by definition), he does go down a few false leads most of the time.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Plato's story about Socrates is more about teaching the Pythagorean Theorem to readers than it is to argue a case.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Are we doing a reset to the beginning? Is the cloud still there for the old man to shake his fist at?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sure Plato examines things from many angles. That's not what the Socratic Method does, though.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
No, that was Euclid.
Thermal
August Member
The method can be used to steer a resistant adversary to understanding the opposite view that they can't grasp. That doesn't mean they have to concede the outcome, or the steps taken to arrive at it. They are free to criticize it, and argue that the leading questions distort the issue. So I'd call the SM clean pool, at least as much as any other argumentative pose.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's exactly the use I say is a hoax, for the reasons already belabored at length in this thread.
Thermal
August Member
Yes, but you are slightly off to the side of that, particularly in adding the elements of condescension and begging the question that the user is unquestionably right. I see it as often using a concrete, real world example that the recipient may already be familiar with, to show how their view doesn't fly even by their own argument. The difference is whether the dude employing it is open to criticism of his questioning himself, or if he demands you follow along.
Eta: it can be used honestly/constructively, or oafishly/deceptively. You seem.to only acknowledge the latter possibility.
Last edited:
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Well, if the opposing view was correct, there wouldn't be much to write a heroic tale of epic wisdom about, would there? Nor would it make much of a story if they just kept arguing around in circles. And as I mentioned before, the point that most people get from it isn't that it's a way to win an argument. It's a way to assess the claim. It's mostly about narrowing down to the base claim.
And yes, most pople don't know how to argue properly, anyway. Even with argument, itself, the point isn't to "win." The goal should be to become more and more specific about the exact point of disagreement by examining the subject from multiple angles. You can even end up agreeing on everything but the exceptions. That's where the Socratic Method performs quite well.
Otherwise, you're just hurling insults at each other without bothering to actually listen to the response half the time. Framing much of your argument in the form of non-rhetorical questions prevents that, at least to some degree. A question signals that you're willing to listen.
And I have yet to bother adding one in this post, oddly enough (well except that first one, which was somewhat rhetorical), so I guess my instincts don't always follow my ideals precisely.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, because trying to force a resistant adversary into conceding your claim through leading questions is necessarily condescending and question-begging. You've gone from just explaining your position to trying to win.
Thermal
August Member
The part you took the extra time to snip out addressed that. You are not necessarily 'forcing' anything. You are asking how your adversary can resolve a given scenario, employing his position, which may hilite inherent flaws that the adversary cannot see unless he puts himself in that position more concretely.
Some people like a dry argumentative style that reads like a technical manual. Some prefer the Ecclisiastical immediacy of a concrete example. I dislike the former, as a cunning wordsmith can make almost anything sound persuasive. Putting yourself and your position to the test by walking a mile in those shoes (Socratically guided by your adversary) is sometimes the nudge needed to see a different point of view. Like so many things, it can be used well, or it can be used badly. It doesn't need to be broadly branded as dishonest though.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's not the Method.
I'm pretty sure I already acknowledged the distinction between asking clarifying questions and asking leading questions.
Thermal
August Member
It is. Or can be, anyway. You only acknowledge a misuse of it.
Thats not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about leading questions employed constructively, normally because the adversary studiously avoids going down that road, un/consciously knowing it is fatal to their argument.
Eta: concreteness is a thing that works well with some folks. Leading them to the concrete example/dilemma/whatever that they are argumentatively blind about is not necessarily a bad thing.
We see this all the time in dry discussion threads. The respective arguments are made, and both sound convincing. One side avoids a particular quandary, and a little Socratic 'forcing' them to confront it is clean pool. If it employed dishonestly, that can be criticized on its own merits.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
That's where borrowing from Buddhism would help. Have no presumption of whether God is good or bad, God is just God.