Can the Socratic Method win any argument

umm… thats like too many big words i really don’t get what you are saying

Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did.

[winks at Dean Wormer]

Otter: But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

Let’s start back at the beginning, then.
Could you please tell us what you think the Socratic Method is?




Do you accept this simple definition from Wiki?

what do you mean by the word “simple”

Does this thread have any ties to this post? If it doesn’t, could you please describe what you mean by “Socratic Method”?


no, it didnt. by socratic method i mean when socrates, supposedly, would say well what do you mean by justice? but how do you know that is fair? and who determines what is fair? does this apply to all situations… like that

Interestng question. Another thread perhaps.

i’m still trying to learn the posting habits and rules of this site. i’d be glad to start a new thread but since i am not sure what you really mean by base assumptions i don’t know how to make a question of the topic.

Then if you mean calling continuously asking questions until the person you are talking to walks away wondering why they wasted their time talking to you a “win” then, yes-your version of the “Socratic Method” means you will always “win”.

And Socrates eventually got *executed *for it. Well, there were some trumped-up charges, but basically he’d pissed off everyone in town for the last fucking time.

You have to start somewhere. If opposing sides can agree to some fundamentals…
Think of it as blowing away the fluff to expose a skeleton which some flesh can be put on.

ok, then, you seem to imply there is a proper use for it. i’m not saying their is not a proper use of it, BTW. Used correctly is the conclusion when the person gets the right answer, like a predetermined answer, or is the conclusion when the person makes their own mental breakthrough and doesn’t necessarily have to come to the same conclusion as the questioner?

So, is it like defining terms paid worker, indentured servant and slave? Is it like defining terms like freedom, captivity and bondage? Am I on the right track or is it something else?

Going back to Socrates (plato), you start off with some concept (eg piety), and begin to examine supposed necessary and sufficient conditions for it. You may have to break it down further to find something that actually has those kinds of conditions, because the original concept is a bundle of different ones that have separate conditions. In science, an operational definition.

yes, but in that case the person asking the questions has to already have stuff defined. who is to say his definitions are correct?

The knifing method.