The Socratic method

[superunknown]

Anyone who's read some Plato, particularly The Republic, or studied Ancient Greece will know about Socrates's method of constantly questioning everyone on the meaning of certain words. For example, in one instance in The Republic, Socrates is asking a group of men what the word "justice" means, and every one who offers up a definition is eventually and sometimes in the very next page forced to contradict himself because Socrates keeps continuously asking questions until he ends up completely refuting his previous definition. One Socrates's belief was that words like "honor," "justice," and "righteousness," among others, are completely abstract and without meaning, and when we use our logic to challenge their empty definitions, they don't stand the test. Socrates believed that these definitions are not exact, and there are real, undeniable definitions for such words which, when tested, would always prove true, and when we do find these real definitions for such words, we should live by them.

However, thousands of years later, the world is still very much the same as it was back then, with the extremely vague definition for these words being exactly the same as they've always been. So my question is, when we know that these concepts are abstract and don't stand the test of repeated questioning, why do we still live by it? Is it healthy just to abide by our hypocrisies, simply because we have nothing else?

[ErotiKa]

how do i analyse a book?

[blp]

From my memory of the Republic, Socrates also assumes a lot of things to be true that are highly questionable, e.g. the innate superiority of men to women, without ever applying his famous method.

You yourself are falling into an assumption that might be open to question - that it's necessary and even possible to arrive at absolute and universally applicable definitions for these words, as if they and the concepts they define are prior (a priori Kant or Leibniz might have said) to our experience. The question of whether this is really the case is one of the big ones in philosophy. The fact that we can't arrive at infallible definitions of them might simply suggest that they're not. Plato's Republic was tried, I believe, and failed. Wherever theory's allowed to come first, contingent reality usualy finds a way of tripping it up, from communism to privatisation.

Even if they are, it's not necessarily hopeless (not on those grounds, anyway). Without necessarily wanting to advise that you simply skip to the end of philosophy, you might find it useful to read some Richard Rorty. His discussion of post structuralism as it relates to humanism and democracy shows words in a language functioning like people in society - as part of a context that perpetually defines and redefines them. Ultimately, it's an argument against theory as a governing method and for perpetual rethinks and renegotiations.

[mono]

However, thousands of years later, the world is still very much the same as it was back then, with the extremely vague definition for these words being exactly the same as they've always been. So my question is, when we know that these concepts are abstract and don't stand the test of repeated questioning, why do we still live by it? Is it healthy just to abide by our hypocrisies, simply because we have nothing else?
Hello, superunknown, welcome to the forum. :)
Firstly to answer any queries regarding the Socratic method, many of the ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle, believed any truth seemed attainable by logic and reasoning. How did logic and reasoning appear in utilization? Particularly by forming an hypothesis, critiquing it with questions and faults, forming another hypothesis, critiquing it with more questions and faults, and so on, ad infinitum; thus formed the Socratic method, in a way, an early, rough form the scientific method.
The definitions of honor, justice, and righteousness no one will quite agree on, I postulate. Nowadays, the definitions, whether people agree with them or not, seem established through a process of 'majority rules,' though, as the quote proceeds, 'justice is blind,' and many individuals, I think, mostly assume justice and honor, as blp quoted from Kant, as a priori - a truth requiring no proof, but something commonly known without analysis or syllogisms. No one can tell me, however, that no one, at one time or another, questions the validity and justice of common-day law, interpersonal treatment, etc.
Unfortunately, I feel unsure whether I can delve further into this subject without involving some comparisons of historical politics and contemporary politics, but would love to continue any discussion not involving politics.

[Regit]

However, thousands of years later, the world is still very much the same as it was back then, with the extremely vague definition for these words being exactly the same as they've always been. So my question is, when we know that these concepts are abstract and don't stand the test of repeated questioning, why do we still live by it? Is it healthy just to abide by our hypocrisies, simply because we have nothing else?
I think I understand the intention of your question. However, in order to give any kind of satisfying answer I must ask you that, of "honour", "justice", and "righteousness", which concept do you pose the question to first of all? Since although they were all derived from similar methods, they arrived with very different effects. They must really be looked at separtely first if we want a well-supported and reasonable answer.

However, I do disagree with the comment that all of these concepts are exactly the same as they were back then; I have studied and read more recent theories/writings about, or concerning, them and viewing them in arguably different ways. The most obvious examples are the development of the legal systems of Europe and England concerning "justice", and the New Testament, a doctrine concerning all three concepts I think, etc. Reviewing these doctrines in detail and relating them to each concept would make a great debate, I feel. If you would like to discuss about one concept first, I would love to continue contributing to this thread. Good question. :)

[blp]

I think I understand the intention of your question. However, in order to give any kind of satisfying answer I must ask you that, of "honour", "justice", and "righteousness", which concept do you pose the question to first of all? Since although they were all derived from similar methods, they arrived with very different effects. They must really be looked at separtely first if we want a well-supported and reasonable answer.

However, I do disagree with the comment that all of these concepts are exactly the same as they were back then; I have studied and read more recent theories/writings about, or concerning, them and viewing them in arguably different ways. The most obvious examples are the development of the legal systems of Europe and England concerning "justice", and the New Testament, a doctrine concerning all three concepts I think, etc. Reviewing these doctrines in detail and relating them to each concept would make a great debate, I feel. If you would like to discuss about one concept first, I would love to continue contributing to this thread. Good question. :)

I'm not at all convinced that what you're asking is necessary here, Regit. The original question seems to me to be fundamentally a general one of epistemology - philosophy that inquires into the nature of human knowledge - how do we know what we know?

[PeterL]

However, thousands of years later, the world is still very much the same as it was back then, with the extremely vague definition for these words being exactly the same as they've always been. So my question is, when we know that these concepts are abstract and don't stand the test of repeated questioning, why do we still live by it? Is it healthy just to abide by our hypocrisies, simply because we have nothing else?

What do you mean by "the same"? What definitions are "extremely vague", and why do you think they are vague? What concepts are abstract? Why does something being abstract make it unable to "stand the test of repeated questioning?"

Do you have particular thoughts regarding those matters?

[Broken]

we know that these concepts are abstract and don't stand the test of repeated questioning

Do we indeed know that those concepts are purely abstractions? Have we perhaps not subjected them to enough "repeated questioning" and therefore proceeded to draw a conclusion that is as yet unproven? Could we not assume that "honor" and "justice" are objectively real ideas since we seem to recognize them in some of our observations of reality?

[jackyyyy]

However, thousands of years later, the world is still very much the same as it was back then, with the extremely vague definition for these words being exactly the same as they've always been. So my question is, when we know that these concepts are abstract and don't stand the test of repeated questioning, why do we still live by it? Is it healthy just to abide by our hypocrisies, simply because we have nothing else?I don't know what you mean here. How are they vague today, when, for example, 'justice' is defined, redefined and applied everyday. We live by 'it' because this abstract notion turned into a social contract. Do you think its vague for some people?


I think I understand the intention of your question. However, in order to give any kind of satisfying answer I must ask you that, of "honour", "justice", and "righteousness", which concept do you pose the question to first of all? Since although they were all derived from similar methods, they arrived with very different effects. They must really be looked at separtely first if we want a well-supported and reasonable answer.

However, I do disagree with the comment that all of these concepts are exactly the same as they were back then; I have studied and read more recent theories/writings about, or concerning, them and viewing them in arguably different ways. The most obvious examples are the development of the legal systems of Europe and England concerning "justice", and the New Testament, a doctrine concerning all three concepts I think, etc. Reviewing these doctrines in detail and relating them to each concept would make a great debate, I feel. If you would like to discuss about one concept first, I would love to continue contributing to this thread. Good question. :)I agree with Regit here, indicating to look at them separately. To be sure, I have less problem understanding 'justice', how that was derived from a societal need and turned into a social contract, than I do other 'abstractions', as you call them here. 'Honour', 'loyalty' and similar human constructs may or may not be part of some social contract, depends on the culture adopting it, or not. They do show up in history in various forms; if you were disloyal, your head was cut off, if you were dishonourable, you were expected to put a sword though your belly, walk off the end of a plank. I think your point is, "how solid are some of these notions", because they do not seem to hold up very well in an individualist society. I wonder if the society supported, or lets say, purported them, they would indeed stand the test of 'repeated questioning'. I am thinking of practical applications here, if I pledged allegiance to a King (a contract) for 10 shillings a year, and changed my mind, understanding it would then be treason, its very real. Looking back at ape man, hardly able to put two noises together for Socrates, there existed social constructs. If he wanted to go hunting food with his brothers, he best not club his brother, he best be loyal to his tribe and he best be honourable, else, he might not eat. I guess these abstracted words are needed in a society. I do not need to be loyal if I am the only Yeti on Everest, or do I?

I wonder if we could replicate Socrates Q&A session and what the result would be today, or did he simply argue the brains out of people till he won?

Interesting to think, thanks.

[blp]

I don't know what you mean here. How are they vague today, when, for example, 'justice' is defined, redefined and applied everyday. We live by 'it' because this abstract notion turned into a social contract. Do you think its vague for some people?

I agree with Regit here, indicating to look at them separately. To be sure, I have less problem understanding 'justice', how that was derived from a societal need and turned into a social contract, than I do other 'abstractions', as you call them here. 'Honour', 'loyalty' and similar human constructs may or may not be part of some social contract, depends on the culture adopting it, or not. They do show up in history in various forms; if you were disloyal, your head was cut off, if you were dishonourable, you were expected to put a sword though your belly, walk off the end of a plank. I think your point is, "how solid are some of these notions", because they do not seem to hold up very well in an individualist society. I wonder if the society supported, or lets say, purported them, they would indeed stand the test of 'repeated questioning'. I am thinking of practical applications here, if I pledged allegiance to a King (a contract) for 10 shillings a year, and changed my mind, understanding it would then be treason, its very real. Looking back at ape man, hardly able to put two noises together for Socrates, there existed social constructs. If he wanted to go hunting food with his brothers, he best not club his brother, he best be loyal to his tribe and he best be honourable, else, he might not eat. I guess these abstracted words are needed in a society. I do not need to be loyal if I am the only Yeti on Everest, or do I?

I wonder if we could replicate Socrates Q&A session and what the result would be today, or did he simply argue the brains out of people till he won?

Interesting to think, thanks.

Jackyyy, my point about this being an epistemological question is that the question is not about the specifics of what any of these concepts are, it's about if and how we can be sure we know what any of them are. Socrates and Plato settled on the idea that there were ideal versions or 'forms' of these things from which all our ideas about them came. It's a pretty unsatisfactory solution, which is why philosophy itself didn't settle on it, but it is quite difficult to think about them any other way either. You throw the word 'construct' around pretty liberally, but that's a big statement that needs a lot of substantiation, especially given that it's not the way most of us act or think from day to day. Actually, if we say, for instance, that something isn't 'fair', I think most of us do have a sense that an objective standard of rightness, somewhere, somehow, has been breached - a kind of ideal. Opinions will vary, of course, and our opponent in the argument will no doubt explain that, no, it is fair, also alluding to the invisible objective standard.

[jackyyyy]

Jackyyy, my point about this being an epistemological question is that the question is not about the specifics of what any of these concepts are, it's about if and how we can be sure we know what any of them are. Socrates and Plato settled on the idea that there were ideal versions or 'forms' of these things from which all our ideas about them came. It's a pretty unsatisfactory solution, which is why philosophy itself didn't settle on it, but it is quite difficult to think about them any other way either. You throw the word 'construct' around pretty liberally, but that's a big statement that needs a lot of substantiation, especially given that it's not the way most of us act or think from day to day. Actually, if we say, for instance, that something isn't 'fair', I think most of us do have a sense that an objective standard of rightness, somewhere, somehow, has been breached - a kind of ideal. Opinions will vary, of course, and our opponent in the argument will no doubt explain that, no, it is fair, also alluding to the invisible objective standard.My post was for the most part addressing 'hypocrisies' from superunknown. I can agree with Socrates /Plato in that there are 'ideal' forms, and for practical reasons. I can also see how attaining and accepting of an ideal 'should be acceptable' to a philosopher, seems fair minded of Socrates /Plato. Epistemology questions itself. I think in these cases, we need to take a stance with which to derive an ideal. Personally, I can rationalize evolution being a root, which I brought forward in my post. That 'fairness' being breached, is another word to join 'loyalty' and 'honour', and if the opponent does not adhere to the same ideal, then yes, its in conflict. I wonder if there is a hierarchy here; Fair, Loyal, Honour, Justice. They have different values and different consequences, apparently different levels of importance. I would not assert their absoluteness because they cannot be black and white, they are foggy at the edges. So, our morals and laws try to push those edges in on a continual basis.
Ultimately, it's an argument against theory as a governing method and for perpetual rethinks and renegotiations.I looked back at this, and agree with it - a moving idea, a perpetually evolving concept as large as humanity. I don't know why an ideal is 'an unsatisfactory solution'. Socrates /Plato tried to create an ideal that fit, and today our societies do the same. A philosopher, rather like a politician, might have a different view to argue, and his view would be only that. A purer form is maybe what was bothering Socrates - Greek God or Darwinism, and he settled for an ideal.

[blp]

The reason the ideal forms explanation is unsatisfactory is that you have to wonder not only what the hell they are, but worse, where they are and how they got there. This is why, I believe, early Christian philosophers were so happy to go along with Socrates, though I could be wrong, not having got to them yet. Kant said, 'But the deus ex machina is the greatest absurdity one could hit upon in the determination of the origin and validity of our knowledge. It has - besides its deceptive circle in the conclusion concerning our cognitions - also this additional disadvantage: it encourages all sorts of wild notions and every pious and speculative brainstorm.'

[mono]

To put it the most simply, especially regarding justice, I find that most politics, historical and contemporary, still find themselves caught on whether 'right makes might' or 'might makes right.' :p

[jackyyyy]

The reason the ideal forms explanation is unsatisfactory is that you have to wonder not only what the hell they are, but worse, where they are and how they got there. This is why, I believe, early Christian philosophers were so happy to go along with Socrates, though I could be wrong, not having got to them yet. Kant said, 'But the deus ex machina is the greatest absurdity one could hit upon in the determination of the origin and validity of our knowledge. It has - besides its deceptive circle in the conclusion concerning our cognitions - also this additional disadvantage: it encourages all sorts of wild notions and every pious and speculative brainstorm.'If something is introduced, such as Greek Gods or Talking Fish, and that society is quite happy about that, that can then become and constitute their ideal. Yes, a philosopher will challenge that, which is what Socrates did, and he then tried to replace it with a new ideal. I should say, 'include with it', because he was under enormous political pressure. I agree with Kant, and I would not think 'fairness' came out of the sky. Equally for Kant, might be the validity of claims by archeologists and historians. I have not seen any alien spaceships yet, though I never discount them. Possibly in centuries to come, the notion /ideal of fairness will evaporate just like Greek God pranking. Some people think it already has. These words exist today, humans use them, and fish don't.

[jackyyyy]

To put it the most simply, especially regarding justice, I find that most politics, historical and contemporary, still find themselves caught on whether 'right makes might' or 'might makes right.' :pYou're right, politics and philosophy often go out on dates together.

[blp]

These words exist today, humans use them, and fish don't.

Now come on jackyyy. Must we backtrack? Seems we must...superunknown wants to know why we use these words and how that can be tenable and what their relationship can be to their referrents when we aren't even sure what they mean. Thanks for pointing out that the words are in use, but I might just gently point out that that was a given in the original question.

[blp]

If something is introduced, such as Greek Gods or Talking Fish, and that society is quite happy about that, that can then become and constitute their ideal. Yes, a philosopher will challenge that, which is what Socrates did, and he then tried to replace it with a new ideal. I should say, 'include with it', because he was under enormous political pressure. I agree with Kant, and I would not think 'fairness' came out of the sky. Equally for Kant, might be the validity of claims by archeologists and historians. I have not seen any alien spaceships yet, though I never discount them. Possibly in centuries to come, the notion /ideal of fairness will evaporate just like Greek God pranking. Some people think it already has. These words exist today, humans use them, and fish don't.

Also, you say, as if philosophers were just sort of merry pranksters fiddling about with reality meaninglessly, 'a philosopher will challenge that'. It's not right to say that Socrates tried to replace one ideal with another. The ideal forms for him were unchanging and unchangeable and beyond human reach. What he did was try to show how far short of understanding or knowing these forms humans were and, laterly, how this might be detrimentally affecting the running of society.

Again, the idea that all this is just a matter of fashion and consensus requires a lot of justification, which you don't provide. On the whole, your post sounds like someone who's hostile to the very idea of philosophy. You seem to be trying to say, hey, what's the problem, we've got the words, they basically do the job, why rock the boat? But philosophy isn't trying to rock the boat. It's trying to point out that we're cruising around in the boat without having learned either how to navigate or work the rudder and, worse, the boat appears to have no bottom, so how the hell are we staying afloat anyway?

[jackyyyy]

Now come on jackyyy. Must we backtrack? Seems we must...superunknown wants to know why we use these words and how that can be tenable and what their relationship can be to their referrents when we aren't even sure what they mean. Thanks for pointing out that the words are in use, but I might just gently point out that that was a given in the original question.He wrote they were vague, and I asked why. If no definition already exists and none is made to exist, they can mean nothing, no?
The reason the ideal forms explanation is unsatisfactory is that you have to wonder not only what the hell they are, but worse, where they are and how they got there.Would you say they exist within the structure of 'a' society, and are tenable if such society says so and applies them? I just read your 2nd post there. No, I am not hostile at all, I am questioning the context.

[rachel]

Well since Socrates totally believed that which he taught was under Divine comission and Divinity cannot be explained nor truly understood by mortals nor the concepts adequately defined as put forth by God, that would be understandable as to how he taught and constantly questioned and pruned and whittled away at what others said things meant.He believed that all vice is the result of ignorance, and that no person is willingly bad; and also on the other hand virtue is knowledge, and those who know the right will act rightly. His logic placed particular emphasis on rational argument and the quest for general definitions,so I don't see anything really to wonder about.I passionately don't agree that this philosopher or others like him were in any way toying with the popular beliefs and thought. It was too serious and had eternal consquences in their minds it would seem.

[Regit]

I'm not at all convinced that what you're asking is necessary here, Regit. The original question seems to me to be fundamentally a general one of epistemology - philosophy that inquires into the nature of human knowledge - how do we know what we know?
You can certainly look at it that way blp. I don't disagree with you, it is a question about knowledge. But I don't have to disagree with you in order to raise my question; because I prefer to address the problem in depth and with specific examples. I don't think that it was completely pointless to mention the Socratic method and the specific concepts; we can't just ignore them in the process of answering the question. Don't you think that it is only fitting to try and answer this question by looking at the socratic method? And how can we analyse the Socratic method without considering each concept that it was used for?


So my question is, when we know that these concepts are abstract and don't stand the test of repeated questioning, why do we still live by it? Is it healthy just to abide by our hypocrisies, simply because we have nothing else?The person who raised this question made the assumptions that these concepts are abstract, that they do not stand the test of questioning, and that their derivations were hypocrisies. Now how can we varify those assumptions without looking at each concept separately? Lest you suggest that that every concept derived or debated by the Socratic method was derived to the same effect, and with the same results. In this case I think I can prove you wrong. Because I certainly think, with reasonable understanding, that the Socratic method was convincing at different levels for each problem debated in "The Republic"; thus I think that it is very necessary to look at each concept individually before drawing any general conclusion. Otherwise this may end up being a totally abstract debate and actually involve no philosophical literature at all.

[blp]

He wrote they were vague, and I asked why. If no definition already exists and none is made to exist, they can mean nothing, no?

If they meant nothing, they wouldn't function at all would they? The problem, I think, is that the question appears, at least, to be a paradox. Whichever way you try to explain it, something untenable seems to have to be called into play.



Would you say they exist within the structure of 'a' society, and are tenable if such society says so and applies them? I just read your 2nd post there. No, I am not hostile at all, I am questioning the context.

This is kind of what I was getting at by referring to Rorty and would seem to contradict what I say about a paradox above. It's not just a question of the society saying so and applying them though - and already, in trying to explain why, you're back to having a problem: people don't agree. If there's no objective standard for any of the concepts according to which we live, how do you resolve an argument? Threaten to cut the baby in half and see which 'mother' caves maybe.

You could say it's all down to specifics - individual court cases say. But the problem is, those cases are all being run according to certain assumptions - that the results should be 'fair' and 'just', for instance.



You can certainly look at it that way blp. I don't disagree with you, it is a question about knowledge. But I don't have to disagree with you in order to raise my question; because I prefer to address the problem in depth and with specific examples. I don't think that it was completely pointless to mention the Socratic method and the specific concepts; we can't just ignore them in the process of answering the question. Don't you think that it is only fitting to try and answer this question by looking at the socratic method? And how can we analyse the Socratic method without considering each concept that it was used for?

Well, I said, I wasn't sure what you were asking was necessary. The original question seems to be premised on the idea that the Socratic method in itself failed to deliver, so it's less about the method in itself than the philosophy that came after it. But you suggest you can point to individual instances where the Socratic method was more or less successful. It's worth a try: bring on the concrete.

[jackyyyy]

If they meant nothing, they wouldn't function at all would they? The problem, I think, is that the question appears, at least, to be a paradox. Whichever way you try to explain it, something untenable seems to have to be called into play.

This is kind of what I was getting at by referring to Rorty and would seem to contradict what I say about a paradox above. It's not just a question of the society saying so and applying them though - and already, in trying to explain why, you're back to having a problem: people don't agree. If there's no objective standard for any of the concepts according to which we live, how do you resolve an argument? Threaten to cut the baby in half and see which 'mother' caves maybe.

You could say it's all down to specifics - individual court cases say. But the problem is, those cases are all being run according to certain assumptions - that the results should be 'fair' and 'just', for instance.
Yes, and if, as we are finding, the original question is still debating its existence, it would always fail the test. Of course its vague, when we put some white inside our black, to confuse an answer. I just decided its origin is ape man (humanity), but I wonder if Socrates was allowed to think such things - he ended up guilty of corrupting Athens.

"They mean nothing to a fish, they mean something to a human." It does not exist outside of humanity. Therefore, where the test would always be TRUE would occur when humans do not exist. If humans did not need justice, fairness, honour, loyalty, and so on, the test would always pass. I can now apply some arithmetic, the persistance of these objects reduces as humans reduce. In other words, if we become 'better citizens', we would have less need for them, and conversely. They each conform to moral righteousness. What might be interesting here would be to attempt to attach values to each of these named: fair, loyal, honour, justice, and as Regit was suggesting, to maybe look at them independently.

[Regit]

Well, I said, I wasn't sure what you were asking was necessary. The original question seems to be premised on the idea that the Socratic method in itself failed to deliver, so it's less about the method in itself than the philosophy that came after it. But you suggest you can point to individual instances where the Socratic method was more or less successful. It's worth a try: bring on the concrete.
I hate to be around the bush; but before getting down to business let me try to make myself clearer one last time. You said that a debate about the method itself is less relevant than that about later philosophy. Though this point can be contested, even if it is assumed to be true we must still look at the later philosophical methods in relation to these specific concepts. Otherwise we cannot make a direct comparison. Thus, as I said in my original reply, we should look at each concept individually and consider views relating to it from "the Republic" and from other more recent sources also in this debate. I remember mentioning the New Testament and modern legal writings. But you are right, let's start discussing philosophy. I think we should look at "justice" first.

[Anonymous Angel]

Hello, everyone! This truly is a fascinating discussion. I find it interesting that we are all trying to define (including Socrates) something that is, for all intensive purposes, indefinable. I don't think it's a fault carried in the ideas or ideals put forth by philosophers in regards to the issues we're questioning, but rather a limitation based on language's ability to completely grasp the ideals we feel are an necessary component of everyday cultural living. It seems to me that the fact that our cultures are different determine the fine differences in opinion or accepted fact as to what these things are. As far as the ideos (justice, fairness, honour and loyalty) goes, however, the indefinable verity of these ideas always remain in that the innate "good" in these concepts exist beyond literal description and are usually present in one's psychic vocabulary, regardless of one's birthplace or cultural norms. The actual application of one's values might vary, but the essential goodness of the concepts remain. My instincts push me to ask whether the truth of the matter was that Socrates asked questions realizing that language itself is a barrier to recognizing the deeper truths of psychological values. In a sense, your own opinions will limit your ability to recognize and weigh them in regards to yourself and others without prior opinion or prejudice.

Anyway, fascinating question!

[cuppajoe_9]

Concepts such as love, honour, justice, loyalty and morality are impossible to write fixed definitions for because they are completely subjective and subject to change within the individual. This certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist, however.

[behindblueeyes]

yep that's why theyre "concepts" they can't be completely defined and are not tangible