Socratic Method: Good Way to Find Truth?

[RobNY]

The type of setting suitable for Socratic dialogue is a setting similar to that of Symposium-- a group of friends who are honestly and truly interested in finding truth together. It doesn’t work if two sides are hostile, and it doesn’t work if people are proud and unwilling to be critiqued.

As you can imagine, this nearly kills it. In the first place, we tend to be friends with like minded people, in the second, we human beings are a very proud race, and we tend to dislike criticism.

In this sense, I think we do need the purifying fire of God to cleanse our souls of imperfections, ala Bonaventure, so that we can truly use the light of reason to find truth-- from the introduction to the Journey of the Mind to God:

Wherefore, it is to groans of prayer through Christ Crucified, in Whose blood we are cleansed from the filth of vices that I first invite the reader.

I think the ancients would agree-- virtue is very important if we want to find truth. Vices cloud our minds and make us hostile to unpleasant truths.

-Rob

 

[Contarini]

Do you believe Edwin that things are always as the appear when it comes to what a person says?

Certainly not. But if you want to communicate effectively you need to pay attention to how you are coming across. For instance, I often come across on the Internet as an arrogant snob. I often don’t think I really am being one. Whether this is self-deception or not, the fact is that if I am perceived that way then I’m not going to communicate as effectively as I would like.

Internet communication makes it very easy to annoy people and set up barriers to their hearing what you are trying to say. If I get the impression that someone is playing games rather than engaging in serious discussion, I’m likely either to lose my temper with them or simply tune them out.

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, if you want to explore Socrates’ reason for drinking poison rather than escaping, you could read Plato’s Crito and Phaedo. If you want to explore Jesus’ reasons for not letting the cup of death pass Him but going to the excruciating pain of crucifixion for you and me, you might read the Gospels.

I’ve read both – frequently.

I might point out that Plato is hardly in inspired writer, and many a pholosopher has concluded that Plato was not so much a student of Socrates as he was a student of Plato – that the “Socrates” in his work is an invented character, not the true man himself.

I

f you did, you might find that both men preferred death to doing what is wrong. One might call them both insane, but one can never, with a straight face, call them both cowards or hypocrites.

You need to go back and read both Plato and the Gospels.

According to Plato, Socrates died rather than accept exile. According to the Gospels, Jesus died because it was His Father’s will.

The two are in no way comparable – in fact, Jesus could not have chosen Socrates’ death, since Socrates committed suicide, which is a mortal sin.

 

[wjp984]

Don’t get sick – there are doctors who will not accept lawyers as patients.

Funny since doctors need lawyers more than most professions consideing how often they get sued. However, here is what I take from your statement. I assume these doctors are upset at lawyers for malpractice suits and either they personally were harmed by one, know others that were, or just are tired of the growing cost of malpractice insurance as a result of them in general. However, would it not go against their hyppocratic oath to refuse to treat lawyers? Also, if the doctor truly was a doctor for the right reasons they would never consider such a terrible action as refusing to treat someone in need even if they disliked them. If they did, such as the case as you say lawyers, well then, they aren’t a very good doctor and deserved to get sued for everything they got anyways and it is no surprise that people have complained and had malpractice suits against them. Also, if this is the case then these doctors are no different than the lawyers who sue them. They are in it for the money.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Funny since doctors need lawyers more than most professions consideing how often they get sued.

There’s an old saying, “If we didn’t have lawyers, we wouldn’t need lawyers.”

However, here is what I take from your statement. I assume these doctors are upset at lawyers for malpractice suits and either they personally were harmed by one, know others that were, or just are tired of the growing cost of malpractice insurance as a result of them in general. However, would it not go against their hyppocratic oath to refuse to treat lawyers?

Nope. No doctor is required to take more patients than he can attend to, nor is he required to take patients he feels he is not qualified to treat.

Most doctors don’t take the Hippocratic Oath, anyway – since it prohibits abortion.

Also, if the doctor truly was a doctor for the right reasons they would never consider such a terrible action as refusing to treat someone in need even if they disliked them.

Also, if the lawyer truly was a lawyer for the right reasons they would never consider such a terrible action as suing for money when there is no real culpability.

If they did, such as the case as you say lawyers, well then, they aren’t a very good doctor and deserved to get sued for everything they got anyways and it is no surprise that people have complained and had malpractice suits against them. Also, if this is the case then these doctors are no different than the lawyers who sue them. They are in it for the money.

If they did, such as the case as you say doctors, well then, they aren’t a very good lawyer and deserved to get turned down for treatment anyways and it is no surprise that people have complained and don’t like them. Also, if this is the case then these lawyers are no different than the doctors who they sue. They are in it for the money.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I would say, MM, that wisdom is what enables a person to know what is virtue and what is not. Whether wisdom is itself a virtue is something i would be willing to explore. Do you believe wisdom is a virtue? If so, please explain why.

Was Eve therefore wise?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Socrates was not Jesus.

No. Socrates did not come to earth to save mankind.

Traditionally Socrates is regarded as being the most virtuous of all the pagans. Sometimes he come startlingly close to the Christian message, as when he asks his listeners to consider the good man who does not appear to be good, and therefore is crucified.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Back to the title of the thread. Socratic Method: Good Way to Find Truth?

The answer is, no.

First of all, the Socratic method doesn’t seek truth, it merely seeks to examine beliefs and ideas.

Secondly, it is essentially reification in that it regards ideas as if they had concrete existance and words as if they controlled reality – by arriving at the “proper” definition of a term, we somehow arrive at Truth.

Third, it rejects experience – a Socratic would debate the question of which falls faster, a feather or a brick? A scientist would drop both in a vacuum chamber.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Traditionally Socrates is regarded as being the most virtuous of all the pagans.

Yet he committed what was regarded as the ultimate sin, did he not? He committed suicide.

Sometimes he come startlingly close to the Christian message, as when he asks his listeners to consider the good man who does not appear to be good, and therefore is crucified.

And what part of the gospels cites Socrates?

Finally, who cares how good or bad Socrates was – the question is, can his method produce truth? And the answer is, it cannot.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Finally, who cares how good or bad Socrates was – the question is, can his method produce truth? And the answer is, it cannot.

I think Uncle Herbivore wrote on this? Do you remember how he demonstrated that the Socratic Method cannot produce truth?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think Uncle Herbivore wrote on this? Do you remember how he demonstrated that the Socratic Method cannot produce truth?

That would be Herbivore’s First Law of Epistemology, “Just 'cause I don’t know the answer don’t mean I have to accept your cockamamie idea.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

That would be Herbivore’s First Law of Epistemology, “Just 'cause I don’t know the answer don’t mean I have to accept your cockamamie idea.”

Ah! The penny falls. I believe I have encountered this First Law on the forums from time to time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

HERBIVORE’S FIRST LAW OF EPISTEMOLOGY
“Just because I don’t know what’s going on, that doesn’t mean I have to accept your cockamamie explanation.”

HERBIVORE’S SECOND LAW OF EPISTEMOLOGY
“In any field, those with the least practical experience write the most scholarly papers.”

HERBIVORE’S THIRD LAW OF EPISTEMOLOGY
“If you don’t grasp an idea the second time you read it …
there’s no idea there to be grasped.”

HERBIVORE’S FOURTH LAW OF EPISTEMOLOGY
“The stupider the idea, the more difficult it is to refute.”

 

[katholicos]

I also don’t think imitating Socrates is possible in our culture. We have 2500 years behind us since Socrates’ time. We’re just too cynical and sophisticated. The great thing about the Athenians was that they were incredibly profound and at the same time had a kind of innocence in their intellectual inquiries–an innocence that is simply not possible any more.

FWIW, I regularly have ‘Socratic dialogues’ with my friends, lasting until very late at night (!). We are not “too sophisticated”, and we do reach conclusions, however small.

The Socratic method does work. I think you’re the cynical one

 

[Pug]

I try to use the Socratic Method to learn what others believe and why they believe it and determine whether it is true. Do you think this is wise?

More information about Socrate’s method is here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

To execute the method well, I think you have to know something already. So, I wouldn’t use it for information gathering. However, if all you mean is that you ask a bunch of questions, well, that seems just fine for information gathering. If I am truly seeking information, I’d be sure to also ask the person what questions I have neglected to ask, and then ask those as well.

I recently tried to read a mathematics book that used the method to discuss conic sections. It drove me insane. I just wanted them to tell me the information already!! Arrrrrg! (yes, I do have the background to read it, so that wasn’t the problem). Anyway, that is irrelevant, I know.

Oh, on a thread, you might get too many interlocutors, perhaps.

 

[vern_humphrey]

FWIW, I regularly have ‘Socratic dialogues’ with my friends, lasting until very late at night (!). We are not “too sophisticated”, and we do reach conclusions, however small.

The Socratic method does work. I think you’re the cynical one

Those are called “bull sessions.”

And how do they “work?” Give us an example of a previously-unknown “truth” you discovered in such a session.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

To execute the method well, I think you have to know something already.

Oh, it wouldn’t work with me then. :crying:

 

[katholicos]

Those are called “bull sessions.”

Hah, maybe.

And how do they “work?” Give us an example of a previously-unknown “truth” you discovered in such a session.

Well, they concern moral philosophy. Tho I must confess that for them to be ‘Socratic’ you tend to have to do it from a secular perspective. From a Catholic perspective it just turns into a question of who knows the most.

 

[Pug]

Oh, it wouldn’t work with me then. :crying:

Me neither.

Hey, at least we “know ourselves”. (silly joke)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Me neither. Hey, at least we “know ourselves”. (silly joke)

:doh2: More epistemology. You must know Uncle Herbivore.