I try to apply this everyday to as many conversations as possible, and my gods... talk about a lost art. I don't know if it's because patience is a very, very rare virtue and people don't feel like thinking, or there's information overload and people are too distracted. It is, without doubt, the greatest tool in the mindbox.
teachphilosophy Now that is a fine art, indeed! Somehow asking "why do you think that?" is always interpreted as a smart-ass remark. I don't really like hemlock, thanks. ;)
I use the Socratic method in my safety training classes and it really gets the attendees riled up and thinking about their long held beliefs of safety in the workplace and how they assume and assumed so much about various facts and figures. Amazing that even after a lot of questioning and probing of various ideas and thoughts that are often NON FACTUAL, the hard and fast will hold on to their beliefs............even with controvertible facts in front of them. They tell me the "facts" are wrong...........natural law type facts. So, you don't win over everyone because facts scare many, many people when it comes to their perceptions of reality.
Thanks, I agree. I don' think it could be used everyday, but a bit of the Socratic Method each day or week could improve most education experiences, I think.
I really enjoyed this breakdown. I personally think the reason why this method is not used in certain classes is it takes too long and the material in the syllabus wont be covered in time. So memorization is favored. As a recently accepted Nursing student. All my prior science classes is heavy memorization. But once I begin my nursing curriclum. I must recall all I have learned and critically think how to stabilize, care, and improve my patient.
I think I just figured out why there are so many different words in greek and latin for what English has one. because they used this line of thinking they truly understood concepts and could break them down into different words. For example, the greek language has four words for Love. eros - sexual love, storge - affection toward your parents or children, philia - deep friendship, agape - unconditional love of God. this makes so much since now.
pervypirates I agree. I hate when people/myself say I love pizza. because you don't love pizza. you don't love it unconditionally, as a brother, as a child, as a sexual partner. you like pizza. it tastes good.
Thank u for uploading it! I like how in the end u say finding essence of things around us is essential to our understanding of this world. I cannot agree more, only if reality would allow people to do that more often. Instead of that we can see priorities in almost every society shifted towards materialism and possession. People r being taught and they r being provided with real examples early from their childhood that owning and earning more is a true way to freedom and happiness. Another popular idea which is being told to them is that life is way too short so there is no time to question or discuss world and things around us. This only push them more to first understand pricetags and discounts and then the definition and essence of trade and economy. So instead of critically thinking individuals who can question and formulate their opinions we have masses of compulsive consumers who rather follow philosophy of getting lots for less. Because of that its no surprise that democracy have a hard time to work. If materialistic thinking can seduce and take over ones free mind so drastically then its even more important to teach and understand its root cause and effects. So BIG THX to TH-cam and people like u who open doors, which some like to keep shut! Hopefully over 7k viewers of this video can think different or they go watching Harlem shake ;)
This video defined the purpose of Socrates daily life, it captures his essence and shows us the path to enlightenment, oh daddy Socrates teach me of my ignorance...
Knowledge is knowing a thing. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. What does it mean to have knowledge? It is the basis for which we make informed decisions. Whether the information we hold is accurate or less so is inconsequential to the state of having knowledge. What is truth? Truth is a concept of accurate information.
@@PhertPherto-ek9sw it means that when you want to make a decision, you get the information you think you need to move forward. Just like I said previously, the accuracy of your information matters not to the process.
Thank you. That was the very thing I was looking for. I believe that it is essential that we think for ourselves, so indeed we should question everything. Why do we question everything? Because we have to be self reliant.
yeah it is irritating but still it is better than a debate where they are already adamant that they 'know'... and ultimately it's a method in philosophy and normal people can't understand all what these bugs do...
Perhaps because they mainly hold onto beliefs, hear-say, fallacies and don't want to be threatened. Or, perhaps they're sophists. I find this "tool" does very little without honesty as a pre-requisit.
You obviously are not schooled in critical thinking as with others of your generation..only indoctrination..and if folks are unable to participate thus they are not worthy of interaction
Hi @Kresimir: I think the situation you describe is avoidable if the two people discussing the topic actually want to come to a solution, or what to further their knowledge. If one of them is aiming to be awkward, or painstakingly persnickety in a finite world, then the method can be gamed. In that, its not a perfect tool for all occasions, obviously, but its certainly a way to begin to, semi-neutrally, move forward towards knowledge.
Triangle Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense, every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else... Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses… Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in you bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel from the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end. Somebody wrote a work called “The Loves of the Triangles”; I never read it, but I am sure that if triangles ever were loved, they were loved for being triangular. This is certainly the case with all artistic creation, which is in some ways the most decisive example of pure will. The artist loves his limitations: they constitute the thing he is doing.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
"TeachPhilosophy," I have a high school senior who is working on his final research project and the topic he's selected is the applicability of the classic philosophers, like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, to modern society and a comparison of their works. As part of his project, he must consult with an expert in the field or at least, a related field. Basically, the student asks a few questions via email on his project and uses these thoughts to help guide his research. The project is to be done by June. Can you help with a few questions? That would be amazing!
Thank you for this video. It really helped me. I'm taking a philosophy course right now and one of the topics is the Socratic Method. Thanks especially for the 1 - 2 - 3 Socratic Method steps.
Hi doombybbr, yes some similarities. Science (observing, hypothesizing, testing) vs. Socratic Method ( definition, exception, revised definition). The socratic method doesn't necessarily involve observation or talk of empirical realities.
This strikes me as a sort of scientific method for thoughts, ideas, & philosophy. Of course, it preceded the latter by a couple of thousand years! I'm curious as to the objection by Wittgenstein you mentioned. I paused the video & tried to look it up, but only got buried in things that might or might not have answered my question without reading a whole book's worth of material. Perhaps you cover that later. No matter, though! Thanks for the video! 𝕥𝕒𝕧𝕚.
Hey! Thanks for this video! Im a philosophy student and your ideas about critical thinking really helped me put logic into a context that i understood because until now, i saw logic as some sort of 2nd math that relied heavily on pre supposed axioms. I am generally troubled with maths and things that i cant really connect with other things in my brain.
consensus trance (plural consensus trances) An automated state of consciousness; actually, the normal consciousness, based on the premise that people believe what they are told to be true as opposed to what they have themselves realized to be true.
Knowledge is not belief. Knowledge is based on what a person knows. It's based on facts. Beliefs are guesses which people think could be true. Totally separate from knowledge. You could have knowledge on beliefs, but that isn't the same as them being facts. Knowledge is information a person knows. Belief is something a person believes, or could guess. Facts are proven to be true or self evident. Knowledge in my view should not be classed as belief. If someone guesses something and it is true, that is a fact. I wouldn't call it a true belief.
i can see the relation of this and maths. in the axiomatic sytem of maths, you use field axioms or propositions to build the axiomatic system trough proving your conjecture, but those firts propositions that you build the system cant be contradictory otherwise the whole axiomatic system will collapse. i guess euclid use socratic method to come about the first proposition or defintion of geometry axiomatic system.
The Socratic method, like a Zen koan, leads to the ineffable essence of things. Knowing by not knowing…thus the wisdom of Socrates: “I know nothing.” Like, I know what time (justice, love, faith etc) is until I am challenged to explain it.
I don't understand this ): my history teacher assigned me an essay and my topic is to discuss the ideas of Socrates. So I'm doing the Socratic Method. Is it basically just the teacher asking questions to students so that they can think for themselves?
Yes and no. The Socratic Method (from my own opinion mind you) is very similar to the Scientific method, except with ideas and abstract concepts, like love and justice. Saying a bear is an animal is true, but a fish is also an animal. does that mean a fish is the same as a bear? Well, they aren't. So we have to better define what a bear and a fish are. The Socratic method is a way to analyze and discover what something truly is.
Reading some of the comments and replies may help to explain the apparent decline in our society. Some have never left the cave and a few who got out didn't "get it" and for them, it would be to the benefit of all to return their former positions chained to the wall.
Hi, your video on the Socratic method is very enlightening. I'm a youth worker and I am currently trying to develop a theory for introspection that makes use of the Socratic method. Is your video based on an piece of academic work/ a paper or a particular theory which involves the 3 steps u have mentioned?
for exercise 3, if i had made that claim and you asked me that question, couldnt I just say "my claim does not say anything wether or not fish are the only animal that swim, only that a fish is an animal and that fish swim"?
Socrates would respond by asking, "Is there ever a time when the preferred action is not the just one (in your opinion)? For example, I prefer to take the money but don't because I think it unjust?" If you then argue that you must have preferred justice, Socrates would then use his method to lead you into a contradiction getting you to say justice is that which is both preferred and not preferred.
Well I hope you persist all the same. It takes a lot to become differentiated in a way leaves a mark from your actions - but anything you experience as good - anything - is there because someone made and effort and refined their procedure.
I don't follow because it IS justice to give someone their keys. Isn't what you're arriving at something different? For ex, wouldn't a more appropriate question be: is it moral/ethical to give them their keys?
is s ocrates saying that at the end for any concept if you keep asking yourself questions on the definition their will eventually be a point that makes you realize there is no definition to the concept ? in other words you dont trully know what it is?
Some examples here are rather trivial like the fish. The method works well when questioning those who assume to be in authority, testing their honesty and integrity.
Thanks Alexxandro. If we assume truth is logically consistent, then the Socratic method can help us discover truth because it makes our ideas more consistent. If we can't assume that, then the Socratic method can clarify our ideas. As for other methods of truth, there are 1) introspection (I know my back hurts), 2) Logic (if a then b, a , therefore b), 3) math and 4) science (empirical truths). I like to define truth as "what is the case, not want we believe or want to be the case" but there are other definitions of truth (e.g. coherence).
So what would the definition of justice be? Could you say justice is the act for holding someone/those accountable for their actions based on a majority of a group of people that agree on ethics and moral standards? I think it's a group of people(not anyone in particular, but more of a societal factor) that determines what is ethical, moral, and ultimately what is good and bad. Though those are somewhat abstract terms. So is society in charge of enacting justice? Is it all of us who determine what is just and fair? Maybe justice is just another subjective term. Maybe what is right for me is wrong for you. Though I think that stands true for most of life. If anyone cares to reply and try to have a discussion, I'd love to indulge in a debate or something.
Socrates would then argue "preferences" need involve no reason giving whereas reasoned opinions in justice/morality do involve reasons. So Justice cannot be mere preference because it involves reason-giving. This is one reason many became pretty angry at Socrates. :)
That method was common before the Christian era, and it been alive in discussions among friends, as in my youth at a beach-side park, unquestioned beliefs made away with it.
How does one deal with the following situation? A: A triangle is a shape. B: Is a circle a triangle? A: No, a triangle is a shape that is not a circle. B: Is a square a triangle? A: No, a triangle is a shape that is neither a circle or a square. B: Is a pentagon a triangle? A: No, a triangle is a shape that is none of the following: circle, square, pentagon. B: -_- I have encountered this pattern when trying to apply the Socratic method. This can continue until B is completely exhausted and cannot think of any more counterexamples to the last definition A has proposed. Of course, the result is a highly complex and completely useless definition consisting of nothing but a huge list of shapes that are not a triangle (including, but not limited to shapes of various species of fish). It is obvious that A and B are not getting anywhere if A simply continues to exclude counterexamples that B can think of (at least in the cases where there are infinitely many counterexamples). Does that mean that the Socratic method cannot be applied in such cases and a different method of obtaining knowledge has to be used? Of course, in realistic situations, the dialogue is not as obtuse as this one, but people often exclude counterexamples, sometimes in less obvious ways than A in the example above.
Hi Kresimir, great example. Yes, I believe the Socratic Method is a tool like any other and has limitations. In a similar way, a hammer is dandy, but cannot do everything a screwdriver or saw can do.
+Krešimir Cindrić Greetings Krešimir, Good example - in cases such as the one you mention, B should inquire more deeply into the assumptions behind A’s utterance. The key is to see that A in your example tries to define the triangle with reference to what it is not. B’s task, then, is to expose this strategy and steer the dialogue onwards by penetrating A’s line of reasoning. For instance the conversation might continue along the following lines: B: ”So, when you look at a triangle, do you recognize it as such because you notice first that it is not a circle, square or a pentagon?” A: ”Yes”. [This response in itself is counterintuitive but let’s assume that A persists with his strategy of defining by negation]. B: How about a cat - do you also recognize it as such because it is not a dog, a horse, or whale?”. [B now tests A's proposition on other definitions. If A replies ”No” to this, B can move the discussion onwards from there based on A’s new explication. If, however, A sticks to his guns and replies ”Yes”, B can pursue one of the following strategies: 1) Continue to challenge A’s line of reasoning with still more extreme examples until A’s underlying strategy of defining concepts in negative terms is exposed and he ends in absurdity. 2) Challenge A's assumption directly A combination of the two is also forceful, since an affirmative answer to 1) essentially forces A to reply affirmatively to 2) as well. This would look something like this:] B: (Strategy 1) ”So, when you see an airplane, do you also recognize it because you see that it is not a horse, not a fish and not a toothbrush?” A: ”That’s right”. B: (Strategy 2) ”So, in other words, knowledge of an object requires knowledge of what it is not? Et cetera. The central point to bear in mind is that the entire purpose of Socratic dialogues is not single-mindedly to arrive at solid definitions but rather to clarify our thinking processes. In other words, Socratic dialoguing is process-oriented not goal-oriented. We engage in the philosophical conversation because we want to understand the world better - not to determine who is right.
This works for a problem that has two answers, not multiple. If you encounter a multiple choice problem, divide it up into many answers which have two answers.
This is a bad explanation. You don't apply the socratic method by pretending generalizations for the sake of practicality are treated as objective truths when they were never meant to be. It's creating a strawman fallacy by twisting and intentionally misunderstanding the initial context of the statement.
Could it be that the correct guess is a result of social consciousness? It has been proven that if enough people know something to be true, eventually all people will know this as well.
Bob Olsemann Yes, it is a tricky one. I think it shows the limitation of seeking universal definitions (Wittgenstein), but the Socratic Method could still help clarify "games" in various contexts.
My example of number 4 was: If justice is saving the maximum number of lives, should two boulders be rolling down either side of a mountain towards 70 terminally ill people, and thirty perfectly healthy ones, and we have time to save only one group, should we save the sick?
My definition of justice. Justice is going through any means nessasary to keep a society of people, safe, co-operative, and working in both the long term and short term. But mostly long term. go ahead. try to find a flaw or prove it wrong. i dare you.
+ Ben Cadet What if that society is based on unjust principles? What happens when that society encounters a different society? What if their society is based on keeping themselves safe at the expense of another society? Is there one true society? What is society? also, What is your social security number?
socrates believed that if doctors exposed themselves to the diseases they were treating, this would make them better doctors. for some reason he thought the opposite should apply to judges, who should insulate themselves from evil while they judged it. it's time someone called socrates out for what he was; a purveyor of syllogistic woo woo. monry python Satarize d his syllogisms perfectly in the holy grail. the socratic method is useful in analysing bad lines of reasoning, bit it is hopeless in establishing good ones because a leading series of questions can be used to draw people into opposite conclusions.
Western civilization and education would improve much with Socratic method and dialogue. Thanks
@Peter Smith I would argue about education but clearly your way of interacting with others is not.. very Socratic
I try to apply this everyday to as many conversations as possible, and my gods... talk about a lost art. I don't know if it's because patience is a very, very rare virtue and people don't feel like thinking, or there's information overload and people are too distracted. It is, without doubt, the greatest tool in the mindbox.
+mentored1 HI Mentored. Yes, it's a good way to lose friends and alienate people unless one does it with the right tone, perhaps. :)
teachphilosophy Now that is a fine art, indeed! Somehow asking "why do you think that?" is always interpreted as a smart-ass remark. I don't really like hemlock, thanks. ;)
Ever used it in a climate change argument?
FabainLacapus Isn't it easier to bang my head against a wall until I'm unconscious? :P
+mentored1 If you argued against the science, maybe. But I was wondering if it's effective against the propaganda.
I use the Socratic method in my safety training classes and it really gets the attendees riled up and thinking about their long held beliefs of safety in the workplace and how they assume and assumed so much about various facts and figures. Amazing that even after a lot of questioning and probing of various ideas and thoughts that are often NON FACTUAL, the hard and fast will hold on to their beliefs............even with controvertible facts in front of them. They tell me the "facts" are wrong...........natural law type facts. So, you don't win over everyone because facts scare many, many people when it comes to their perceptions of reality.
Thanks, I agree. I don' think it could be used everyday, but a bit of the Socratic Method each day or week could improve most education experiences, I think.
Brilliant, straight forward and easy to understand. Thanks!!!
Thanks. :)
I really enjoyed this breakdown.
I personally think the reason why this method is not used in certain classes is it takes too long and the material in the syllabus wont be covered in time. So memorization is favored.
As a recently accepted Nursing student. All my prior science classes is heavy memorization. But once I begin my nursing curriclum. I must recall all I have learned and critically think how to stabilize, care, and improve my patient.
This is an excellent video! Incredibly insightful, thanks
I think I just figured out why there are so many different words in greek and latin for what English has one. because they used this line of thinking they truly understood concepts and could break them down into different words. For example, the greek language has four words for Love. eros - sexual love, storge - affection toward your parents or children, philia - deep friendship, agape - unconditional love of God. this makes so much since now.
android272 we should bring that back
pervypirates I agree. I hate when people/myself say I love pizza. because you don't love pizza. you don't love it unconditionally, as a brother, as a child, as a sexual partner. you like pizza. it tastes good.
@@android272 What if you define love as "Really like"?
Then you would be wrong about what love is.
@@android272 Oh? So love has an objective meaning?
Thank u for uploading it! I like how in the end u say finding essence of things around us is essential to our understanding of this world. I cannot agree more, only if reality would allow people to do that more often. Instead of that we can see priorities in almost every society shifted towards materialism and possession. People r being taught and they r being provided with real examples early from their childhood that owning and earning more is a true way to freedom and happiness. Another popular idea which is being told to them is that life is way too short so there is no time to question or discuss world and things around us. This only push them more to first understand pricetags and discounts and then the definition and essence of trade and economy. So instead of critically thinking individuals who can question and formulate their opinions we have masses of compulsive consumers who rather follow philosophy of getting lots for less. Because of that its no surprise that democracy have a hard time to work. If materialistic thinking can seduce and take over ones free mind so drastically then its even more important to teach and understand its root cause and effects. So BIG THX to TH-cam and people like u who open doors, which some like to keep shut! Hopefully over 7k viewers of this video can think different or they go watching Harlem shake ;)
I'd like to read all this, but I have to shop...
hey man,.. thank you for this teaching.
thank you Mr. Stearns this helped me clarify the topic alot more
Belief is a substitute for knowing. You can't both know and believe something, it's one or the other.
This video defined the purpose of Socrates daily life, it captures his essence and shows us the path to enlightenment, oh daddy Socrates teach me of my ignorance...
Knowledge is knowing a thing. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. What does it mean to have knowledge? It is the basis for which we make informed decisions. Whether the information we hold is accurate or less so is inconsequential to the state of having knowledge. What is truth? Truth is a concept of accurate information.
What is an informed decision?
@@PhertPherto-ek9sw it means that when you want to make a decision, you get the information you think you need to move forward. Just like I said previously, the accuracy of your information matters not to the process.
Thank you for this! Trying to write a 2 page summary on the Socratic method.
Thank you. That was the very thing I was looking for. I believe that it is essential that we think for ourselves, so indeed we should question everything. Why do we question everything? Because we have to be self reliant.
" How to lose friends and alienate yourself" would have been a good title. LOL. People hate you when you engage them as Socrates did.
yeah it is irritating but still it is better than a debate where they are already adamant that they 'know'... and ultimately it's a method in philosophy and normal people can't understand all what these bugs do...
Perhaps because they mainly hold onto beliefs, hear-say, fallacies and don't want to be threatened. Or, perhaps they're sophists.
I find this "tool" does very little without honesty as a pre-requisit.
You obviously are not schooled in critical thinking as with others of your generation..only indoctrination..and if folks are unable to participate thus they are not worthy of interaction
What's a friend?
99 percent of people can't handle the truth!
Hi @Kresimir: I think the situation you describe is avoidable if the two people discussing the topic actually want to come to a solution, or what to further their knowledge. If one of them is aiming to be awkward, or painstakingly persnickety in a finite world, then the method can be gamed. In that, its not a perfect tool for all occasions, obviously, but its certainly a way to begin to, semi-neutrally, move forward towards knowledge.
Thank you, this taught me a lot of new things
Triangle
Every act of will is an act of self-limitation. To desire action is to desire limitation. In that sense, every act is an act of self-sacrifice. When you choose anything, you reject everything else... Every act is an irrevocable selection and exclusion. Just as when you marry one woman you give up all the others, so when you take one course of action you give up all the other courses… Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If, in you bold creative way, you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe. The moment you step into the world of facts, you step into a world of limits. You can free things from alien or accidental laws, but not from the laws of their own nature. You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel from the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel. Do not go about as a demagogue, encouraging triangles to break out of the prison of their three sides. If a triangle breaks out of its three sides, its life comes to a lamentable end. Somebody wrote a work called “The Loves of the Triangles”; I never read it, but I am sure that if triangles ever were loved, they were loved for being triangular. This is certainly the case with all artistic creation, which is in some ways the most decisive example of pure will. The artist loves his limitations: they constitute the thing he is doing.”
― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Very interesting. This method should be used in schools.
Is the Socratic method the best method of the Socratic Method?
Nice
Well, it's *_definitely_* the best one *_called_* the Socratic Method! 𝕥𝕒𝕧𝕚.
Well, what is the Socratic method?
Is the socratic method methodic socrat???
"TeachPhilosophy,"
I have a high school senior who is working on his final research project and the topic he's selected is the applicability of the classic philosophers, like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, to modern society and a comparison of their works.
As part of his project, he must consult with an expert in the field or at least, a related field. Basically, the student asks a few questions via email on his project and uses these thoughts to help guide his research. The project is to be done by June.
Can you help with a few questions? That would be amazing!
Thank You for this video.This is brilliant explanation of Socratic Method.
Justice, truth, beauty, love, getting to the essence of what people mean is valuable for common ground. Socratic method is great.
The definition of a circle is the set of points that are equidistant from a given point (center). No philosophy needed there.
Thank you for this video. It really helped me. I'm taking a philosophy course right now and one of the topics is the Socratic Method. Thanks especially for the 1 - 2 - 3 Socratic Method steps.
Thanks, glad it helped.
Thanks man, great examples!
Hi doombybbr, yes some similarities. Science (observing, hypothesizing, testing) vs. Socratic Method ( definition, exception, revised definition). The socratic method doesn't necessarily involve observation or talk of empirical realities.
This strikes me as a sort of scientific method for thoughts, ideas, & philosophy. Of course, it preceded the latter by a couple of thousand years! I'm curious as to the objection by Wittgenstein you mentioned. I paused the video & tried to look it up, but only got buried in things that might or might not have answered my question without reading a whole book's worth of material. Perhaps you cover that later. No matter, though! Thanks for the video! 𝕥𝕒𝕧𝕚.
Very well done lesson! Thank you.
Great video very informative, thank you for all the examples.
Hey! Thanks for this video! Im a philosophy student and your ideas about critical thinking really helped me put logic into a context that i understood because until now, i saw logic as some sort of 2nd math that relied heavily on pre supposed axioms. I am generally troubled with maths and things that i cant really connect with other things in my brain.
Thanks MrJoe, I'm glad you found it helpful. I like your comments about connection, all concepts should be part of a "web" of belief.
What is the ultimate web! Why this Drama around me? I am a medical student who suffer from a disease of Philosophy or you can say Philosophobia.
I really enjoyed this lesson, Thank you.
Thank you for this video!
Well done. I wish I would have spent more time studying Socratic method...no time like the present though...
Thank you!
Fantastic!
consensus trance (plural consensus trances)
An automated state of consciousness; actually, the normal consciousness, based on the premise that people believe what they are told to be true as opposed to what they have themselves realized to be true.
Knowledge is not belief. Knowledge is based on what a person knows. It's based on facts. Beliefs are guesses which people think could be true. Totally separate from knowledge. You could have knowledge on beliefs, but that isn't the same as them being facts. Knowledge is information a person knows. Belief is something a person believes, or could guess. Facts are proven to be true or self evident. Knowledge in my view should not be classed as belief. If someone guesses something and it is true, that is a fact. I wouldn't call it a true belief.
i can see the relation of this and maths. in the axiomatic sytem of maths, you use field axioms or propositions to build the axiomatic system trough proving your conjecture, but those firts propositions that you build the system cant be contradictory otherwise the whole axiomatic system will collapse. i guess euclid use socratic method to come about the first proposition or defintion of geometry axiomatic system.
The Socratic method, like a Zen koan, leads to the ineffable essence of things. Knowing by not knowing…thus the wisdom of Socrates: “I know nothing.” Like, I know what time (justice, love, faith etc) is until I am challenged to explain it.
I don't understand this ): my history teacher assigned me an essay and my topic is to discuss the ideas of Socrates. So I'm doing the Socratic Method. Is it basically just the teacher asking questions to students so that they can think for themselves?
Yes and no. The Socratic Method (from my own opinion mind you) is very similar to the Scientific method, except with ideas and abstract concepts, like love and justice. Saying a bear is an animal is true, but a fish is also an animal. does that mean a fish is the same as a bear? Well, they aren't. So we have to better define what a bear and a fish are. The Socratic method is a way to analyze and discover what something truly is.
Reading some of the comments and replies may help to explain the apparent decline in our society. Some have never left the cave and a few who got out didn't "get it" and for them, it would be to the benefit of all to return their former positions chained to the wall.
I love the examples given but it's kind of clear the Socratic method is like Common Core math; if you know what I'm talking about about
Are there more exercises I can do? Yes?
Hi, your video on the Socratic method is very enlightening. I'm a youth worker and I am currently trying to develop a theory for introspection that makes use of the Socratic method. Is your video based on an piece of academic work/ a paper or a particular theory which involves the 3 steps u have mentioned?
for exercise 3, if i had made that claim and you asked me that question, couldnt I just say "my claim does not say anything wether or not fish are the only animal that swim, only that a fish is an animal and that fish swim"?
“A way to discover truth.”
So what is truth, if not subjective?
@Mike Kane But... medicine does work?
Socrates would respond by asking, "Is there ever a time when the preferred action is not the just one (in your opinion)? For example, I prefer to take the money but don't because I think it unjust?" If you then argue that you must have preferred justice, Socrates would then use his method to lead you into a contradiction getting you to say justice is that which is both preferred and not preferred.
Well I hope you persist all the same. It takes a lot to become differentiated in a way leaves a mark from your actions - but anything you experience as good - anything - is there because someone made and effort and refined their procedure.
I don't follow because it IS justice to give someone their keys. Isn't what you're arriving at something different? For ex, wouldn't a more appropriate question be: is it moral/ethical to give them their keys?
is s ocrates saying that at the end for any concept if you keep asking yourself questions on the definition their will eventually be a point that makes you realize there is no definition to the concept ? in other words you dont trully know what it is?
excellent
Thanks! :)
i questioned authority and the question won
Is this technique also relevant for problem solving for example in medicine in identifying the safety of medications or the nature of illnesses etc.?
Great!
Some examples here are rather trivial like the fish.
The method works well when questioning those who assume to be in authority, testing their honesty and integrity.
yo man this is nice
good job
How can you tell what's true and what is not true? This is a good tool.
Thanks Alexxandro. If we assume truth is logically consistent, then the Socratic method can help us discover truth because it makes our ideas more consistent. If we can't assume that, then the Socratic method can clarify our ideas. As for other methods of truth, there are 1) introspection (I know my back hurts), 2) Logic (if a then b, a , therefore b), 3) math and 4) science (empirical truths). I like to define truth as "what is the case, not want we believe or want to be the case" but there are other definitions of truth (e.g. coherence).
So what would the definition of justice be?
Could you say justice is the act for holding someone/those accountable for their actions based on a majority of a group of people that agree on ethics and moral standards?
I think it's a group of people(not anyone in particular, but more of a societal factor) that determines what is ethical, moral, and ultimately what is good and bad. Though those are somewhat abstract terms.
So is society in charge of enacting justice? Is it all of us who determine what is just and fair?
Maybe justice is just another subjective term. Maybe what is right for me is wrong for you. Though I think that stands true for most of life.
If anyone cares to reply and try to have a discussion, I'd love to indulge in a debate or something.
Socrates would then argue "preferences" need involve no reason giving whereas reasoned opinions in justice/morality do involve reasons. So Justice cannot be mere preference because it involves reason-giving. This is one reason many became pretty angry at Socrates. :)
Good one. :)
That method was common before the Christian era, and it been alive in discussions among friends, as in my youth at a beach-side park, unquestioned beliefs made away with it.
So process of elimination then.
One could draw a white circle in that one paints everything outside of that circle black.
For # 8...Is gravity love?
How does one deal with the following situation?
A: A triangle is a shape.
B: Is a circle a triangle?
A: No, a triangle is a shape that is not a circle.
B: Is a square a triangle?
A: No, a triangle is a shape that is neither a circle or a square.
B: Is a pentagon a triangle?
A: No, a triangle is a shape that is none of the following: circle, square, pentagon.
B: -_-
I have encountered this pattern when trying to apply the Socratic method. This can continue until B is completely exhausted and cannot think of any more counterexamples to the last definition A has proposed. Of course, the result is a highly complex and completely useless definition consisting of nothing but a huge list of shapes that are not a triangle (including, but not limited to shapes of various species of fish). It is obvious that A and B are not getting anywhere if A simply continues to exclude counterexamples that B can think of (at least in the cases where there are infinitely many counterexamples). Does that mean that the Socratic method cannot be applied in such cases and a different method of obtaining knowledge has to be used?
Of course, in realistic situations, the dialogue is not as obtuse as this one, but people often exclude counterexamples, sometimes in less obvious ways than A in the example above.
Hi Kresimir, great example. Yes, I believe the Socratic Method is a tool like any other and has limitations. In a similar way, a hammer is dandy, but cannot do everything a screwdriver or saw can do.
+Krešimir Cindrić
Greetings Krešimir,
Good example - in cases such as the one you mention, B should inquire more deeply into the assumptions behind A’s utterance.
The key is to see that A in your example tries to define the triangle with reference to what it is not. B’s task, then, is to expose this strategy and steer the dialogue onwards by penetrating A’s line of reasoning. For instance the conversation might continue along the following lines:
B: ”So, when you look at a triangle, do you recognize it as such because you notice first that it is not a circle, square or a pentagon?”
A: ”Yes”. [This response in itself is counterintuitive but let’s assume that A persists with his strategy of defining by negation].
B: How about a cat - do you also recognize it as such because it is not a dog, a horse, or whale?”. [B now tests A's proposition on other definitions. If A replies ”No” to this, B can move the discussion onwards from there based on A’s new explication. If, however, A sticks to his guns and replies ”Yes”, B can pursue one of the following strategies:
1) Continue to challenge A’s line of reasoning with still more extreme examples until A’s underlying strategy of defining concepts in negative terms is exposed and he ends in absurdity.
2) Challenge A's assumption directly
A combination of the two is also forceful, since an affirmative answer to 1) essentially forces A to reply affirmatively to 2) as well. This would look something like this:]
B: (Strategy 1) ”So, when you see an airplane, do you also recognize it because you see that it is not a horse, not a fish and not a toothbrush?”
A: ”That’s right”.
B: (Strategy 2) ”So, in other words, knowledge of an object requires knowledge of what it is not?
Et cetera.
The central point to bear in mind is that the entire purpose of Socratic dialogues is not single-mindedly to arrive at solid definitions but rather to clarify our thinking processes. In other words, Socratic dialoguing is process-oriented not goal-oriented. We engage in the philosophical conversation because we want to understand the world better - not to determine who is right.
Krešimir Cindrić how about: what is it about a traingle that doesnt make it a square/circle?
This works for a problem that has two answers, not multiple. If you encounter a multiple choice problem, divide it up into many answers which have two answers.
Amen
If you prefer others to give the money back then that is your preference. If you take the money then you act unjustly.
ask the question What is the Socratic Method?
It is a way of getting to the truth of something.
thanks. :)
lol, yes Freeman Stephen, it helps us understand why Socrates was killed. :) freeman stephen
This is a bad explanation. You don't apply the socratic method by pretending generalizations for the sake of practicality are treated as objective truths when they were never meant to be. It's creating a strawman fallacy by twisting and intentionally misunderstanding the initial context of the statement.
I object. A child would make a triangle shape with their hands "This is a triangle!" :P
Good video. :)
But the child wouldnt be defining a triangle, he would be pointing out one
Could it be that the correct guess is a result of social consciousness? It has been proven that if enough people know something to be true, eventually all people will know this as well.
Justice is a preferred reality
i did say it is SIMILAR.
Isn't number six contextual and therefore misleading?
Bob Olsemann Yes, it is a tricky one. I think it shows the limitation of seeking universal definitions (Wittgenstein), but the Socratic Method could still help clarify "games" in various contexts.
Morally preferable maybe??
As good a definition
so it is similar to the scientific method.
Anyone want to play: Life is about finding happiness.
explains it better
maybe. :)
Another one for # 4. Is saving the lives of a billion bacterial cells better than saving the life of one human life.
hi
Is that why Socrates was executed?
Water is corn confirmed.
I wanna teach all my baby mommas this, so they can use it to teach my 20 some odd children. Thx
Your kids already know it. "Why? Why? Why?"
The Socratic method.
My example of number 4 was:
If justice is saving the maximum number of lives, should two boulders be rolling down either side of a mountain towards 70 terminally ill people, and thirty perfectly healthy ones, and we have time to save only one group, should we save the sick?
If it looks like a duck...
Walks like a duck..
Quacks like a duck...
It's a duck...
Unless it is a simulacrum!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
How is the Socratic Method progressive if it has been around since ancient times? Would it not then be a conservative method?
The socratic method if correctly applied can also get you a black eye (or a dose of hemlock) :)
My definition of justice. Justice is going through any means nessasary to keep a society of people, safe, co-operative, and working in both the long term and short term. But mostly long term.
go ahead. try to find a flaw or prove it wrong. i dare you.
+ Ben Cadet What if that society is based on unjust principles? What happens when that society encounters a different society? What if their society is based on keeping themselves safe at the expense of another society? Is there one true society? What is society? also, What is your social security number?
Just saying "any means necessary" opens up a can of worms. Be very careful with absolutes
Why is there so much god damn text on your slides?
They didn't have cars when Socrates was about so he definitely did not say that lol
ilummmiiinnaaattiiii
socrates believed that if doctors exposed themselves to the diseases they were treating, this would make them better doctors. for some reason he thought the opposite should apply to judges, who should insulate themselves from evil while they judged it. it's time someone called socrates out for what he was; a purveyor of syllogistic woo woo. monry python Satarize d his syllogisms perfectly in the holy grail. the socratic method is useful in analysing bad lines of reasoning, bit it is hopeless in establishing good ones because a leading series of questions can be used to draw people into opposite conclusions.