| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Tom Trelogan |
Posted - May 13 2010 : 12:21:56 AM
I think it's time to start talking about this question. It should be obvious by now why it's one of our three big questions. As you've all seen by now, Sokrates is an absolute madman (or maybe the one and only sane person in the world!) when it comes to consistency, for (1) he's prepared to go to his death to avoid acting, in the face of the threat of death, in a way that's inconsistent with his principles, and (2) his whole way of talking with his fellow human beings involves at its very core putting people to the test to see if they can avoid contradicting themselves in speaking about the things they think they know, pressing them and pressing them and pressing them mercilessly. And yet....
He doesn't claim to know very much at all. And that itself is really odd, isn't it? Because isn't a philosopher a wise man, and isn't Sokrates a philosopher, and isn't wisdom the same thing as knowledge? |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| John Koban |
Posted - Aug 08 2010 : 10:16:52 PM
That does seem to be the case with some people. Especially in a heated conversation, it seems to me that both parties usually repeat the same things over and over again with no real interest in what the other individual is saying. The goal for many arguers, it seems, is to state the points they are putting forth and then move on. It is true that a conversation between two parties who are both actively engaged in the conversation yields much better fruit, and what a beautiful thing it is.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Cassie Vrooman |
Posted - Aug 08 2010 : 1:10:54 PM
I have wondered, quite a few times, if a person really wants to hear my answers when they ask for a reason for my beliefs. Very rarely have I engaged in conversation in which both parties were open to listen and converse on a topic. I find that when people ask that question, rather than looking for my answer, they use it as a gateway to talk about what they think and why their way is correct. So it's not so much that they don't want to hear what I have to say; it seems more that they just want to talk about what they think.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT]
|
| Andrew Koziuk |
Posted - Aug 02 2010 : 9:31:03 PM
I am sure some do! Maybe those are the people who convert to different religions. It just seems to me the conversations I have had in which people ask that question are conversations in which they just ask it to argue or to say that their way is better and bring the other person down. However, I am sure some listen and actually take the answer to heart and think about it -- just none of the ones I have been in. More evidence of how times have changed.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Tom Trelogan |
Posted - Aug 02 2010 : 8:38:00 PM
Golly, I wouldn't say more than that some of the people who ask "Why do you believe those things?" don't want to hear an answer, namely those who ask it purely rhetorically. But don't you think that some really do? |
| Andrew Koziuk |
Posted - Aug 02 2010 : 5:10:07 PM
I agree with you two that people who ask that question really do not care at all. I think that when people ask that question, the people listening almost just zone out because they think their way is better then everyone else's and do not really care because their beliefs probably are not going to change if they have been raised this way. However, there are some people who do change and it kind of makes me wonder why.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Tom Trelogan |
Posted - Aug 02 2010 : 09:32:08 AM
This isn't a problem with the "Why do you believe those things?" question. It's a problem with the people who ask this question purely rhetorically, i.e., as a way of saying: "I don't believe those things," or "Nobody believes those things. Get real!" or something else along those lines. |
| Aaron Mund |
Posted - Aug 02 2010 : 09:14:22 AM
One problem I have seen with the "Why do you believe those things?" question is that the person who asks the question doesn't always want to know the answer. They just don't care. I have been a part of many discussions on many different topics in which the people I spoke to did not want to listen to the evidence I could offer in support of the things I said or the other reasons I have for believing the things I do.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Tom Trelogan |
Posted - Aug 01 2010 : 7:05:29 PM
Well, you're right: most people believe at least many of the things they believe for no good reason. But what other answer could you give? Talk to a number of theologians, and you'll learn that there are people who make it their lives' work to get beyond the point at which they're just repeating things they've heard so as to have real grounds for their convictions -- even in matters having to do with theology. The interesting part of theology from this point of view is rational theology as opposed to revealed theology. |
| Andrew Koziuk |
Posted - Aug 01 2010 : 6:08:25 PM
Tom, that is very interesting, and I have not thought about that before. However, I think that is what any person would say to the question "Why do you believe those things?" What other answer could you give? For example if someone is brought up going to church and was taught certain religious beliefs, then the answer he or she would give to that question above would be, "that is how I was raised and how I was taught to live."
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Tom Trelogan |
Posted - Jul 31 2010 : 5:02:36 PM
Andrew, you've certainly put your finger on the reason we have the beliefs we do if by that you mean what's causally responsible for our having those beliefs, at least at the beginning. The question, though, is whether it isn't important for us to have more than an explanation of our having the beliefs that we do. Wouldn't you like to have a reason in the sense of grounds for believing the things you do?
By the following, I certainly do not mean to suggest that your parents have lied to you or even that they have "passed down" to you beliefs that are false, but consider the following analogy: suppose someone has been lied to systematically about something all his or her life; in these circumstances it's perfectly understandable that he or she believes all those lies, but even if there's a reason why he or she believes them in the sense that we can say what has caused him or her to have those beliefs, it doesn't follow that he or she has reasons for believing those things in the sense of grounds. If asked "Why do you believe those things?" and the only answer a person can give is "That's what I've been told," then he or she has no rationally compelling grounds for thinking that they are true. |
| Andrew Koziuk |
Posted - Jul 31 2010 : 09:10:07 AM
If you are thinking logically about the right thing, then how would you know what is "right and good?" I think that the reason we have our beliefs is because they are passed down from our parents or other people and that is how we are raised. Even today I still listen to my parents and think that they know more then I do because they have gone through it before.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Stephanie Miller |
Posted - Jul 30 2010 : 2:34:23 PM
Yeah, I think that is one of the important things that is being taught here. I was reading someone's essay and they had said something about people doing the right thing, but I made a point to say that I think it isn't all about just doing what is right; it is about learning for yourself whether or not something is good or right, and acting upon that. If you just go by what people tell you is right, then it might not be. I think that unless you find out for yourself and logically think about what really is right and good, you have no way to be sure that you're doing the right thing.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Andrew Koziuk |
Posted - Jul 18 2010 : 11:04:46 AM
Stephanie, I agree with you that Sokrates is still learning every day just as we are. I think every experience he goes through is different. thus he is learning how to deal with different situations. Even though he may be wise, this does not mean he cannot continue to learn.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Stephanie Miller |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 8:49:39 PM
John, I really liked how you said that Socrates can create a learning experience for himself too. I kind of forget that he still confesses to not knowing things, and usually during his Sokratic discussions, he is just showing people their inconsistencies. He is therefore teaching them things, and teaching himself things as well. I think that is a very important piece to these lessons.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| John Koban |
Posted - Jul 16 2010 : 4:37:38 PM
Yeah, and I think that the nit-pickyness is something that is essential to most philosophical thought. One must know exactly what one is saying, and one must use all words and phrases extremely carefully. So, according to Socrates, if you cannot say exactly what you mean correctly the first time and again a second time, maybe that means that you do not really know what you are talking about, or believe what you are saying. Then Socrates uses the uncertainty of his opponent and creates a learning experience for himself and for any who may be listening.
[Very lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Stephanie Miller |
Posted - Jul 14 2010 : 10:30:18 PM
Christine, your statement, "He uses nit-picking reasoning to unmask their illusions about reality" captures perfectly how I feel about the way Socrates passes on knowledge. Although I believe that it could very be necessary at times, his constant use of this method does seem to me to be very nit-picking. I think your use of language here describes vividly the way he does this. It makes it seem less philosophical in a way and easier for me to relate to.
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
| Christine Gylling |
Posted - Jun 20 2010 : 4:33:08 PM
I was trying in my last post to show that Sokrates always does the same thing to get the answer that he wants. What I meant by his arguments is what he presents when he gives people examples and counter-examples until one cannot help agreeing with his statements. If I have incorrectly used the words "arguments" and "statements" interchangeably, then I haven't been sticking to your definitions. To clarify that, I would say Socrates is in the habit of using questioning to help his interlocutors achieve self-knowledge. He uses nit-picking reasoning to unmask their illusions about reality. He challenges his interlocutors to answer carefully. He allows them to make a statement first, then he presents them with a series of questions about why they would say such a thing. Then he leads them into taking his way of approach, then allows them to contradict themselves, and then exposes their illusions about reality. By exposing the illusory character of their knowledge, he helps them to see that they have trapped themselves by means of their own inconsistency. I hope I have succeeded in conveying my understanding of "argument," "logical reasoning" and "statement" this time.
[Edited really extensively to enhance readability -TT] |
| Aaron Mund |
Posted - Jun 15 2010 : 2:58:41 PM
Each discussion does have its own format, and adding in "r" does help clarify the nature of the exchanges. I do have to say that there are many of these sort of exchanges in the ''Meno'' -- hich doesn't seem to make Menon happy and messes with his brain. |
| Tom Trelogan |
Posted - Jun 13 2010 : 08:19:45 AM
Aaron, those two passages and your comments on what you were trying to do with the format that you suggested really do clarify things a lot! You're certainly right that these two passages contain typical exchanges in which Sokrates is putting questions to his interlocutor and his interlocutor is giving simple, short replies. And I think I really misunderstood what you were trying to do specifically with Sokrates' lines:
If p is true, then would you say q is true?
...
So then if q is true, would you say p is true?
...
Then you would have to say that both p and q are true?
What you were trying to capture, I now see, is simply the fact that Sokrates is often trying to get his interlocutor to see that one thing follows from another, is entailed by another, is a logical consequence of another, not to grant the truth of "if-then" statements, but simply to assent to certain inferences. I think that could be made still clearer if you modified your schema to make it go like this:
Socrates: If "p" is true, then mustn't we also say that "q" is true?
Other speaker: Yes, we must.
Socrates: And if "q" is true, then mustn't we also say that "r" is true?
Other speaker: Why, yes. We must say that as well.
Socrates: Then you think that all these things are true: "p", "q", and "r". Is that right?
Other speaker: Yes. That's what I think.
This is exactly the sort of thing Sokrates is doing in his second question in the first exchange ("Then whoever is a good reciter is also a really good general") and in his last question in the third exchange ("Then the essence of even will never approach three?"). With both of those two questions, he's trying to get his interlocutor to see that something follows from his earlier admission or admissions. This is in fact evident from the precise way in which he uses the word "then" in each of those two sentences. And you're right about this too: once he's gotten his interlocutor to grant a number of these inferences, he'll assemble all the statements to which the interlocutor admits he or she is committed (there don't have to be three as you schema suggests; there might be just two; there might be more than three) and will then -- assuming that the set of all those statements is logically inconsistent -- use that fact, the fact of the logical inconsistency of that set of statements -- to point out that the controversial assumption (hypothesis) from which they all follow must be rejected. In that sense, he can be said to "use his interlocutor's admissions against his interlocutor."
That's not a bad description of the elenctic method at all! |
| Aaron Mund |
Posted - Jun 12 2010 : 10:24:40 PM
Here are two example of what I was trying to capture with the format I mentioned. Now the format does not encompass every exchange. I was trying to show the back and forth and the basic simple answers from the questioned.quote:
SOCRATES: How's that -- no difference? Do you say that reciting and generalship are one art or two?
ION: One, I think.
SOCRATES: Then whoever is a good reciter is also a really good general?
ION: Certainly, my dear Socrates. (Rouse 19)
quote:
"And the essence opposite to that which does this we say could never come near to such a thing."
"It could not."
"And what has done this? Was not it oddness?"
"Yes."
"And the opposite to this is the essence of even?"
"Yes."
"Then the essence of even will never approach three?"
"No." (Rouse 607)
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
