The Socratic Method summary : - Let other explain the matter at hand and encourage other person - Examine truthfulness of claims thoroughly - Raise honest doubts and eliminate the false claims Be humble and seek truth by speech dialogue, dont force your win or loss. Seek truth earnestly and understand.
In my teens-I know everything more so than adults In my 20s- I don't know what I am doing and everyone else has it figured out I am falling behind approaching my 30s- I have come to the conclusion no one really knows what they are doing.
I tried using this with a history teacher once, without even knowing I used it. We were discussing something related to church organisation, basicly, a church leader picks sub leaders of smaller districts, and when voting for the leader comes by, those sub leaders vote for one of the candidates. As the teacher explained that, I asked "so, leader picks the sub leaders which later pick the leader, what stops him from putting only the people who will vote for him in the sub leader spots, to ensure he will keep his leadership?". Instead of invoking some critical thinking in the teachers mind, she just got angry for asking such a question and questioning church. Then said "why do you have to make everything political?!". Since that class I never asked another question.
Thank you so much for this video, I just shared it with my 23 year old son. First I would like to say he is an amazing young man (graduating from university this may) but we had a disagreement this morning regarding how I handled what I considered a difficult situation at work. He though my “question” to my supervisor was antagonistic and I should have just kept my head down and said nothing. So this is the situation, Christmas Eve I was checking at our local grocery store here in California. I usually work bakery but I was scheduled for a 8 hour shift due to the enormous amount of holiday food shopping. A bit more than half way through my shift a manager came on workin self-check out adjacent to my register. She is known as a bit of a tough guy and immediately began giving corrective criticism (from afar and close up) along with lots of eye rolling and looks of disgust. At one point she accused me of not charging appropriately for our shopping bags (10 cents here in California). Up until this point I really was just trying to get through the day but was being drawn down by the seeming endless comments on my checking skills. I’m usually very positive but feeling really bad at this point. I finally asked her if she was going to fire me on Christmas Eve? I asked calmly, almost jokingly. She was not amused and barked “we’re not going to fire you, we’re going to make you quit “ she then left the area and soon after went home. So was I out of line? Maybe but I was curious what her end game was. I don’t think she wants to fire me , just bully. But I was over her endless annoying attitude.
I feel like you're severely underestimating the "average person". I think you are equating people being deaf to others ideas to their ability to reason. Like most people can understand this but if it can be used against their beliefs why would they engage with it?
Yeah, I have been using it all my life too. I have also always sat down to think in that same posture from the statue. I always found it so comforting when I want to question life and just observe people.
Very well done with this video! I prefer to follow the Socratic method to live, outside of going around and calling people out on their lack of knowledge, haha. His irony though is my absolute favorite!
I have thought in this way most of my adult life,, i do not chase answers,, if your looking for answers you will find one that I have no doubt you will feel confident with....I have spent my life learning how to ask the correct question instead... had no idea though that it was an aspect of the Socratic method.. confirmation that I'm on the right page I guess!!
This is a really good video. Thank you for sharing. I have also a composition cold, Socrates, experimental, music, associate Suter, but it’s not meant to be fictitious because I believe in the teachings of Socrates.
I do this almost constantly now days. Let me give some examples of questions I use on christians and muslims just like socrates was doing. People of all kinds please state if your christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent? Now the problem I have been running into has been unconscious denial and only less then 18% of christians will answer and less then 6% of muslims, while atheists and agnostics are nearly 100%. If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before. The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter. A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost? You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time. The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it. The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation. Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones. Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long. Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it. The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used. So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point. Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even. So was this understandable or confusing? if you understand it, do you think its possibly true? Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
The way they dressed, the quality in their thought, the sincerity in their ambition, seems they were experiencing a golden age of sorts... man alive I was born into the wrong bloody era....
Concerning one particular much-vaunted example of the Socratic method, as with regard to Laches’ thesis that “Courage is endurance of the soul.”, one would think that the soul as considered to be made in God’s image (Ancient Greek beliefs on such matters were varied) or the particular concept that Laches may have been trying to express by his use of the word “soul” would be considered to be implicitly a “fine” thing and that the endurance referred to as being of the soul would be, in that pointedly specified context, implicitly a fine thing, notwithstanding Socrates’ attempts to distract attention away from the pointedly specified context. I think Laches was deceived into accepting Socrates’ different qualifying characteristics of endurance as “wise” and “foolish” in substitution for Laches’ qualifying characteristic as “of the soul” with regard to defining courage, instead of mentioning that foolish endurance would be implicitly not endurance of the soul as in the sense that Laches intended to denote by his use of the word “soul”. The original thesis of Laches as “Courage is endurance of the soul.” seems to be, at the very least, credible, if not insightful and eloquent. Socrates’ repeated incoherently disjointed diversions, including his reframing endurance in terms of wise particular cases compared with foolish particular cases, with lack of reference as to whether the cases would be, according to Socrates, of the soul or not, in his attempt to negate the thesis seem like the small minded, egomaniacal attention seeking of an intellectual standover merchant and pretentious quack with no particular interest in truth, who would sooner sabotage the good work of another in order to cater to his self-indulgent urges than utilise an opportunity to learn and properly digest something new. The Socratic method has been essentially a caricature of manipulatively deceitful methodology and a lazy thimblerig practice of charlatanic, standover merchant intellectual bluff that has been a devastating, very pernicious influence on the western legal culture, with a catastrophically detrimental effect on the progress of western society.
Plato described the dialectic as a 'boxing in' or perhaps a pinning down . While the word 'ethos' can be traced back to a proto Indo European word meaning 'sit down'. This reminds me of a (Dutch) book my mother used to have: Sit still! Guide to Raising Hypermobile Children. Arendt said Plato didn't like human activity because it was too confusing or messy. As a final thought I would like to remind you of Schreber, the case of paranoid schizophrenia studied by Freud. Schreber's father, a doctor, used to lock (or pin down or box in) the young Schreber in orthopedic appliances, which were supposed to ensure a healthy posture. You think it was ethos but it was pathos.
Now, one can truly understand the Persian mystic, Rumi's words: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there.” Is not Rumi describing our human nature, the second paradigm of the knowledge of good and evil? Is there an original paradigm of knowledge? What is it, " there is a field"? Is it a knowledge with an innate essence to transcend our human nature, to transform it?
I don't think we need to transform or transcend human nature. I think human nature in itself is correct because it evolves on its own in time. It's our understanding & belief of what human nature should be that is flawed & very questionable. I think this is why socrates asks us too deeply examined ourselves in all situations of life as we may not understand how contradictory we are to our own thoughts & that just because we think we understand something does not make us always right in our judgements & actions that take place there after. Perspective is everything.
The problem with this is that the alleged "Socratic" method, the "elenchos", is an invention of Vlastos in 1983. Why is it that never before, in the whole History of Philosophy, someone referred to the method with that name. In fact, why does Socrates himself never used that term to refer to his method but, instead, says in "Socrates Apology" that he does what his mother did, using the maieutic method. Why is it that in the whole Platonic dialogues there is no one passagem in which Plato adscribes that method to Socrates, the "elenchos", and in the whole dialogues "elenchos" almost never appears?
I have a belief a sort of premonition maybe,, I have touched on it before yet now I'm older and wiser,,, the belief is that once humanity learns how to create a modern technological society that enhances and compliments the natural world rather than diminishing it that we will experience a type of exponential growth as a species and experience a new golden age of quality of thought stimulated by new considerations and contemplations that we largely ignore today because their in conflict with our present norm. NARCISSISM ie the willingness to obscure truth for profit...
Chaerophon or whatever his name was, did not go to Delphi to ask a question about Socrates. He went there to find out who was the wisest man in Athens. It was the Oracle who brings up the name Socrates in response to his question. By the way, this is probably a totally made up story.
7:34 I am sure I am watching this video. Or am I? Do I have eyes? Hmmm. Ears? Is 2+2 really 4? Yes. A misuse of the Socratic method leads to ignorance and a waste of time. Use this method wisely.
Lastly, Socratic Method will make your students annoyed by you if you use it for objective questions. Socratic Method is effectively applicable for Philosophical concepts. I just had a fight with my professor earlier because his questions are objective - a type of inquiry where science-based/historically-based/trivias/facts are needed. - It should have been better if the questions are Philosophical, only then can a Socratic Method be interesting and not annoying. The moment teachers refute students answers are okay for error-correction but only with Philosophical concepts not queries based on empirical science/historical accounts/ and trivias because those contain only objective answers. That professor is terribly annoying. That's the negative side of Socratic Method, which means the time someone uses it for fact based questions not philosophical questions
@@j.l.glover4037 And just what does your imaginary friend have to do with this video? In other words, why bring this up here? Keep your illusions private please
@@Mastermirror89 And what are you doing here with your close minded ignorance? You're are not expressing the Socrates method. You are just imposing your atheistic cults dogmatic materialistism
The Socratic Method summary :
- Let other explain the matter at hand and encourage other person
- Examine truthfulness of claims thoroughly
- Raise honest doubts and eliminate the false claims
Be humble and seek truth by speech dialogue, dont force your win or loss. Seek truth earnestly and understand.
Thanks
the last person I did something similar got really angry at me.
@@praetoriancorps that happens, especially when the other party does not want to concede they are operating in bad faith.
thanks man I really needed a summary of what it was but could not find a good one
"truth" is the one immediate problem
In my teens-I know everything more so than adults
In my 20s- I don't know what I am doing and everyone else has it figured out I am falling behind
approaching my 30s- I have come to the conclusion no one really knows what they are doing.
Amen!
I tried using this with a history teacher once, without even knowing I used it. We were discussing something related to church organisation, basicly, a church leader picks sub leaders of smaller districts, and when voting for the leader comes by, those sub leaders vote for one of the candidates.
As the teacher explained that, I asked "so, leader picks the sub leaders which later pick the leader, what stops him from putting only the people who will vote for him in the sub leader spots, to ensure he will keep his leadership?". Instead of invoking some critical thinking in the teachers mind, she just got angry for asking such a question and questioning church. Then said "why do you have to make everything political?!". Since that class I never asked another question.
Thank you so much for this video, I just shared it with my 23 year old son. First I would like to say he is an amazing young man (graduating from university this may) but we had a disagreement this morning regarding how I handled what I considered a difficult situation at work. He though my “question” to my supervisor was antagonistic and I should have just kept my head down and said nothing.
So this is the situation, Christmas Eve I was checking at our local grocery store here in California. I usually work bakery but I was scheduled for a 8 hour shift due to the enormous amount of holiday food shopping. A bit more than half way through my shift a manager came on workin self-check out adjacent to my register. She is known as a bit of a tough guy and immediately began giving corrective criticism (from afar and close up) along with lots of eye rolling
and looks of disgust. At one point she accused me of not charging appropriately for our shopping bags (10 cents here in California). Up until this point I really was just trying to get through the day but was being drawn down by the seeming endless comments on my checking skills. I’m usually very positive but feeling really bad at this point.
I finally asked her if she was going to fire me on Christmas Eve? I asked calmly, almost jokingly. She was not amused and barked “we’re not going to fire you, we’re going to make you quit “ she then left the area and soon after went home.
So was I out of line? Maybe but I was curious what her end game was. I don’t think she wants to fire me , just bully. But I was over her endless annoying attitude.
Socrates was indeed a sarcastic bastard. But goddamn it do I love him.
in a way but also a very pure form of sarcasm as he just wanted to learn lol
Although you gave a great explanation, I would've liked this broken down a bit more so the average person could deploy this.
and the voice, i got difficulties with it. nothing personal, but it gets me distracted.
I feel like you're severely underestimating the "average person". I think you are equating people being deaf to others ideas to their ability to reason. Like most people can understand this but if it can be used against their beliefs why would they engage with it?
@@Z0mb13ta11ahase cool.
@@factfactory575 Thanks.
@@Z0mb13ta11ahase yep.
I have been using Socratic method without knowing that it is actually a philosophical method of reasoning given by Socrates 😀
You should call it the Vivekan Method then.
@@raunaklanjewar677 lol
Same lol
@@raunaklanjewar677 Don't tell him what to do, he'll figure it out
Yeah, I have been using it all my life too. I have also always sat down to think in that same posture from the statue. I always found it so comforting when I want to question life and just observe people.
This is the best explanation I have found after much searching. Thank you.
Subscribed
Do you have a transcript of this video?
I'd like to study for my homework
Why the need for the transcript? You wrote the dialogues, no?
I loved it.
Thanks for your time and effort for this video.
Really appreciate this.
Parth
Very well done with this video! I prefer to follow the Socratic method to live, outside of going around and calling people out on their lack of knowledge, haha. His irony though is my absolute favorite!
idk why im here but i watched and took alot from this, good video
This is excellent! This probably the best video I have seen on this. Thank you so much!
Amazing video presentation! Thanks! I am inspired to view more of your videos.
Thank you for this clear and informative description of how Socrates is said by Plato to have implemented the Socratic Method!
Enjoyed it immensely! Let's see what else you got.
Thanks for this great video!
i loved the presentation. i am so much interested to learn about ancient philosophy especially Socrates, this video is excellent i give that
Great content. "Intellectual modesty" is a great phrase.
He new nothing, he married a unwise women and became a philosopher. ? ?
This video was absolutely exactly what I was looking for... just wow!!
I have thought in this way most of my adult life,, i do not chase answers,, if your looking for answers you will find one that I have no doubt you will feel confident with....I have spent my life learning how to ask the correct question instead... had no idea though that it was an aspect of the Socratic method.. confirmation that I'm on the right page I guess!!
You’ve got a new subscriber!
This is a really good video. Thank you for sharing. I have also a composition cold, Socrates, experimental, music, associate Suter, but it’s not meant to be fictitious because I believe in the teachings of Socrates.
this is a nice content and its also helps me to understand what is socratic method.
What a fantastic explanation! I can’t wait to use this with my writing students.
I do this almost constantly now days. Let me give some examples of questions I use on christians and muslims just like socrates was doing.
People of all kinds please state if your christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
Now the problem I have been running into has been unconscious denial and only less then 18% of christians will answer and less then 6% of muslims, while atheists and agnostics are nearly 100%.
If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before.
The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter.
A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?
You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time.
The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it.
The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones.
Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not exempt from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long.
Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it.
The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used.
So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point.
Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even.
So was this understandable or confusing?
if you understand it, do you think its possibly true?
Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
this was put together very well and I learned a lot from this. Thank you.
Clicked on 'Like' because I couldn't find the 'LIKED LOTS' button. Many thanks 🙏
Great video, thanks!
The way they dressed, the quality in their thought, the sincerity in their ambition, seems they were experiencing a golden age of sorts... man alive I was born into the wrong bloody era....
Yeah but every age is the "golden age" for some and not others. Think of internet billionaires today.
Quite thought provoking. How can this approach be adopted to enhance analytical thinking in the contemporary?
Wow, thanks! Very cool.
Ed Winters debates got me here.
Thanks love to understand more❤️❤️
Concerning one particular much-vaunted example of the Socratic method, as with regard to Laches’ thesis that “Courage is endurance of the soul.”, one would think that the soul as considered to be made in God’s image (Ancient Greek beliefs on such matters were varied) or the particular concept that Laches may have been trying to express by his use of the word “soul” would be considered to be implicitly a “fine” thing and that the endurance referred to as being of the soul would be, in that pointedly specified context, implicitly a fine thing, notwithstanding Socrates’ attempts to distract attention away from the pointedly specified context. I think Laches was deceived into accepting Socrates’ different qualifying characteristics of endurance as “wise” and “foolish” in substitution for Laches’ qualifying characteristic as “of the soul” with regard to defining courage, instead of mentioning that foolish endurance would be implicitly not endurance of the soul as in the sense that Laches intended to denote by his use of the word “soul”.
The original thesis of Laches as “Courage is endurance of the soul.” seems to be, at the very least, credible, if not insightful and eloquent. Socrates’ repeated incoherently disjointed diversions, including his reframing endurance in terms of wise particular cases compared with foolish particular cases, with lack of reference as to whether the cases would be, according to Socrates, of the soul or not, in his attempt to negate the thesis seem like the small minded, egomaniacal attention seeking of an intellectual standover merchant and pretentious quack with no particular interest in truth, who would sooner sabotage the good work of another in order to cater to his self-indulgent urges than utilise an opportunity to learn and properly digest something new.
The Socratic method has been essentially a caricature of manipulatively deceitful methodology and a lazy thimblerig practice of charlatanic, standover merchant intellectual bluff that has been a devastating, very pernicious influence on the western legal culture, with a catastrophically detrimental effect on the progress of western society.
Love the content! Thx
Well illustrated!
video is helpful, but honestly the pen on screen is very distracting
Plato described the dialectic as a 'boxing in' or perhaps a pinning down . While the word 'ethos' can be traced back to a proto Indo European word meaning 'sit down'.
This reminds me of a (Dutch) book my mother used to have: Sit still! Guide to Raising Hypermobile Children.
Arendt said Plato didn't like human activity because it was too confusing or messy.
As a final thought I would like to remind you of Schreber, the case of paranoid schizophrenia studied by Freud. Schreber's father, a doctor, used to lock (or pin down or box in) the young Schreber in orthopedic appliances, which were supposed to ensure a healthy posture.
You think it was ethos but it was pathos.
This was enjoyable
So... he was a sarcastic bastard, really, and I fucking love it.
Great Video.
It’s a good video, not gonna question how a tiny tip makes a big square on 4:12
They don't teach this in Philosophy 101 anymore
Now, one can truly understand the Persian mystic, Rumi's words: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there.” Is not Rumi describing our human nature, the second paradigm of the knowledge of good and evil? Is there an original paradigm of knowledge? What is it, " there is a field"? Is it a knowledge with an innate essence to transcend our human nature, to transform it?
I don't think we need to transform or transcend human nature. I think human nature in itself is correct because it evolves on its own in time. It's our understanding & belief of what human nature should be that is flawed & very questionable. I think this is why socrates asks us too deeply examined ourselves in all situations of life as we may not understand how contradictory we are to our own thoughts & that just because we think we understand something does not make us always right in our judgements & actions that take place there after. Perspective is everything.
“Know thyself”
The problem with this is that the alleged "Socratic" method, the "elenchos", is an invention of Vlastos in 1983. Why is it that never before, in the whole History of Philosophy, someone referred to the method with that name. In fact, why does Socrates himself never used that term to refer to his method but, instead, says in "Socrates Apology" that he does what his mother did, using the maieutic method. Why is it that in the whole Platonic dialogues there is no one passagem in which Plato adscribes that method to Socrates, the "elenchos", and in the whole dialogues "elenchos" almost never appears?
Thank you master
Humility and extreme good faith.
Nice!
Great video here
u just posted this on my birthday
Very interesting.
And, 'Segeant Schultz' says, "I don't know Nothing!" ... the wisest man in the Stalag 13 :)
Which app ypu use for editing please tell
nice video!
This reminds me of a drunk talk at a pub.
Where people start telling the honest truth about themselves & others? lol
Very beautiful video, I love the quotes. Thanks
Video was great, you could make your thumbnails more appealing.
Very nice. You should have millions of subs while Logan Paul should have none. Very well done good sir.
So cool
Great video. Thank you!
I'm a student of philosopher
I have a belief a sort of premonition maybe,, I have touched on it before yet now I'm older and wiser,,, the belief is that once humanity learns how to create a modern technological society that enhances and compliments the natural world rather than diminishing it that we will experience a type of exponential growth as a species and experience a new golden age of quality of thought stimulated by new considerations and contemplations that we largely ignore today because their in conflict with our present norm. NARCISSISM ie the willingness to obscure truth for profit...
Chaerophon or whatever his name was, did not go to Delphi to ask a question about Socrates. He went there to find out who was the wisest man in Athens. It was the Oracle who brings up the name Socrates in response to his question. By the way, this is probably a totally made up story.
new subcriber here
When your dad forces you to watch a youtube video
i wish he did force me to watch this back in the day, instead I was shown table manner videos when I was younger xD
🕊
Short and sweet, but I don't know, so I guess I better sub....scribe.
7:34 I am sure I am watching this video. Or am I? Do I have eyes? Hmmm. Ears? Is 2+2 really 4? Yes. A misuse of the Socratic method leads to ignorance and a waste of time. Use this method wisely.
It is THE pithia, its a title not a name.
What?!
Why?
I'm new to philosophy, I understood nothing :)
Are you here because of Assassin's Creed Odyssey?
T H E S O C
Anyone else here because of mind parasites?
the unexamined life is not worth living
Man was smart enough admit he know nothing
It’s ridicules how much you can learn from TH-cam
Who's here after watching Law School in Netflix?
Lastly, Socratic Method will make your students annoyed by you if you use it for objective questions. Socratic Method is effectively applicable for Philosophical concepts. I just had a fight with my professor earlier because his questions are objective - a type of inquiry where science-based/historically-based/trivias/facts are needed. - It should have been better if the questions are Philosophical, only then can a Socratic Method be interesting and not annoying. The moment teachers refute students answers are okay for error-correction but only with Philosophical concepts not queries based on empirical science/historical accounts/ and trivias because those contain only objective answers. That professor is terribly annoying. That's the negative side of Socratic Method, which means the time someone uses it for fact based questions not philosophical questions
Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven ✝️
agemo2007ed because he is the only one who took the punishment for our sins. He’s the only worthy one
@@j.l.glover4037 and why he's act of sacrifice would be the only way to the heaven? Maybe other ways exist too?
@@j.l.glover4037 And just what does your imaginary friend have to do with this video? In other words, why bring this up here? Keep your illusions private please
@@j.l.glover4037 so taking punishment on behalf of others makes one worthy?
@@Mastermirror89 And what are you doing here with your close minded ignorance? You're are not expressing the Socrates method. You are just imposing your atheistic cults dogmatic materialistism