Have you missed my homework entries? <3
The Socratic Method. This is a dialectic method of inquiry, largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts and first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. For this, Socrates is customarily regarded as the father and fountainhead for western ethics or moral philosophy. It is a form of philosophical inquiry. It typically involves two speakers at any one time, with one leading the discussion and the other agreeing to certain assumptions put forward for his acceptance or rejection. The method is credited to Socrates, who began to engage in such discussion with his fellow Athenians after a visit to the Oracle of Delphi. The practice involves asking a series of questions surrounding a central issue, and answering questions of the others involved. Generally this involves the defence of one point of view against another and is oppositional. The best way to 'win' is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer's own point.
This simple, yet effective method to discovering ‘irony’, and providing ‘insight’, is a key study in moral and ethical philosophy. The schools of this study use this method as a staple in their programmes, and any ethicist you encounter will know this method, and would practice it, well. But what else did Socrates do? He used this very method to question the established, unjust rules. The way this would work, is such:
1. The interlocutor would establish a thesis, and assert it; much like, “Courage is Endurance of the Soul”.
2. One secures the thesis by pushing it further into other channels, such as “Courage is a good thing” and “Ignorant Endurance is not a good thing”.
3. One then argues that these two contradict each other in premise, which would lead to “Courage is not endurance of the Soul”.
4. One has then proven that the thesis is false and that the contrary is true.
One can then refine the beginning statement to say “Courage is Wise Endurance of the Soul”.
Of course, by institutionalising this method, one institutionalises the tool for de-institutionalisation, and therefore this act is ironic. Of course, irony provides insight. What is our insight here? The fact that we have made a tool for breaking down established order the ‘norm’ would indicate that we are giving the users of this tool a right to break down the order within the institution that this tool is housed. If this is true, why is this method still taught and used as the elementary tool for ethics? Not only ethics, but law and other practices. This tool, which may be faulty, is nevertheless widespread. Has anyone even turned their Socratic method against itself?
The fact remains, unfortunately, that Socratic method is exceedingly simple. As we can establish, “The best method is often the simplest” (a resolution which has, most likely, been refined on several occasions by the Socratic method). If the best method is often the simplest, then perhaps the Socratic method is the best method, and therefore cannot be polished further. Although this is true, the reality is that we have used this method to break down institution, and have institutionalised it, too. What would Socrates say? Would he be proud that his method is so widespread and known? Or would he realize that we’ve missed his point? Would he feel forsaken by his own students, were he to be brought back from Purgatory and shown our ‘institution’?
And yet, though we’ve made his method normal, it doesn’t seem to work on polished, yet sometimes hypocritical politicians of our time. That would be disrespectful, wouldn’t it?
This simple, yet effective method to discovering ‘irony’, and providing ‘insight’, is a key study in moral and ethical philosophy. The schools of this study use this method as a staple in their programmes, and any ethicist you encounter will know this method, and would practice it, well. But what else did Socrates do? He used this very method to question the established, unjust rules. The way this would work, is such:
1. The interlocutor would establish a thesis, and assert it; much like, “Courage is Endurance of the Soul”.
2. One secures the thesis by pushing it further into other channels, such as “Courage is a good thing” and “Ignorant Endurance is not a good thing”.
3. One then argues that these two contradict each other in premise, which would lead to “Courage is not endurance of the Soul”.
4. One has then proven that the thesis is false and that the contrary is true.
One can then refine the beginning statement to say “Courage is Wise Endurance of the Soul”.
Of course, by institutionalising this method, one institutionalises the tool for de-institutionalisation, and therefore this act is ironic. Of course, irony provides insight. What is our insight here? The fact that we have made a tool for breaking down established order the ‘norm’ would indicate that we are giving the users of this tool a right to break down the order within the institution that this tool is housed. If this is true, why is this method still taught and used as the elementary tool for ethics? Not only ethics, but law and other practices. This tool, which may be faulty, is nevertheless widespread. Has anyone even turned their Socratic method against itself?
The fact remains, unfortunately, that Socratic method is exceedingly simple. As we can establish, “The best method is often the simplest” (a resolution which has, most likely, been refined on several occasions by the Socratic method). If the best method is often the simplest, then perhaps the Socratic method is the best method, and therefore cannot be polished further. Although this is true, the reality is that we have used this method to break down institution, and have institutionalised it, too. What would Socrates say? Would he be proud that his method is so widespread and known? Or would he realize that we’ve missed his point? Would he feel forsaken by his own students, were he to be brought back from Purgatory and shown our ‘institution’?
And yet, though we’ve made his method normal, it doesn’t seem to work on polished, yet sometimes hypocritical politicians of our time. That would be disrespectful, wouldn’t it?