Still alive, just.
Australia Zoo pics to follow.
For now, click here to see them on facebook.
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Friday, 10 October 2008
Socratic Dialectic
What is the aim of the Socratic dialectic? What method does it use to reach this aim?
The Socratic dialectic method (also known as the method of elenchus) encourages and involves the exploration of implications of conversational positions in order to promote and foster rational thought process/approach to the investigation of ethical concepts (Macquarie, 2008). Socratic dialectic method takes the form of a conversation in which a rigorous inquiry is conducted in order to investigate interlocutors’ claims to knowledge. Initial questioning probes enough to find out what the interlocutor’s pre-existing notions are. Further questioning reveals inconsistencies to the interlocutor. Some critics consider the applications of dialectic inquiry to be mostly negative, i.e. chiefly for the purposes of refutation; however the importance of critical reflection highlighted by the method and the desire to investigate which it instils in people cannot be underestimated, and arguably supersedes these concerns.
In the first part of the Socratic dialectic method --the analysis-- primary questioning identifies assumptions implied in the interlocutor’s personal beliefs about a given topic, by searching thoroughly for the commonly held assumptions and unchecked tacitly accepted facts that have the potential to influence one’s opinion on the subject. This interrogation to identify assumption and bias is vital as reasons justifying a position must be considered rationally (Macquarie, 2008); irrespective of tendencies towards traditional thinking, any urge to follow current thinking trends, or allow any conflict of interest to affect one’s responses.
Then the second part of the method is utilised, the synthesis (Macquarie, 2008). Synthesis is the process by which the dialectic questioner distils the interlocutor’s answers and compares the information therein to that gathered by the first definition put forward by the interlocutor, in order to expose inconsistencies, and --as much as possible-- leave no errors undetected. In the Socratic dialogues, further questioning often leads the interlocutor to put forward a position completely opposite to that which they started with, often leading to a confused and perplexed state known as aporia (Vasilis, 2006).
It is consistently found by Socrates that those with claims to knowledge and expertise lack the true wisdom that --according to Socrates-- the only path to true wisdom is by accepting that one knows nothing, since only the gods can possibly know the purpose of all things (Macquarie, 2008), their reason for being. It is also found that, while Socrates’ intentions are not to dictate one particular definition of virtue --i.e. the intended outcome isn’t necessarily simply to refute a point of view-- his inquiries are all conducted with the goal of attaining moral wisdom, self knowledge; exhorting that we should question even our most comfortable preconceived notions and beliefs in order to work towards achieving a state of ataraxia, thus freeing us to live the good life whilst continuing to inquire and examine. Those who pursue evil do so because they lack this self knowledge, according to Socrates, who believed that no-one commits evil intentionally (Macquarie University, 2008), and that gaining an awareness of self moves one closer to the aforementioned “good life”.
The Socratic dialectic method appears – on the face of it— to be for the most part a negative and one-sided method in its use in refuting false claims to knowledge, particularly as there appears to be no occasion in the dialogues in which Socrates is forced to change his mind instead. However, despite these criticisms, one can see that in convincing the interlocutor that he/she in fact knows nothing, Socrates has helped them to uncover errors in their own thinking where previously their assumptions would have led them to believe they were correct. As Socrates believed that since the truly wise consider themselves to “know only that they know nothing”, the only requirement for answering the dialectic questioning is pure common sense—no special knowledge or skills are needed in order to pursue a logical argument (Macquarie, 2008). So, ultimately, the Socratic dialectic method is a worthwhile action in the pursuit of truth, with the goal of increasing self-understanding. Socrates, as evidenced in the Apology (Tredennick, trans. 1969), considered this act to be his duty, asserting that a “life without examination is not worth living”.
References:
Tredennick, H. (1969) "The Apology of Socrates" (Plato) in The Last Days of Socrates p45-76
Macquarie University (2008) Phi130. Study notes weeks 2-4
Vasilis P. (2006). "Aporia and Searching in the Early Plato" in L. Judson and V. Karasmanis eds. Remembering Socrates. Oxford University Press.
-- copyright LHT 2008--
The Socratic dialectic method (also known as the method of elenchus) encourages and involves the exploration of implications of conversational positions in order to promote and foster rational thought process/approach to the investigation of ethical concepts (Macquarie, 2008). Socratic dialectic method takes the form of a conversation in which a rigorous inquiry is conducted in order to investigate interlocutors’ claims to knowledge. Initial questioning probes enough to find out what the interlocutor’s pre-existing notions are. Further questioning reveals inconsistencies to the interlocutor. Some critics consider the applications of dialectic inquiry to be mostly negative, i.e. chiefly for the purposes of refutation; however the importance of critical reflection highlighted by the method and the desire to investigate which it instils in people cannot be underestimated, and arguably supersedes these concerns.
In the first part of the Socratic dialectic method --the analysis-- primary questioning identifies assumptions implied in the interlocutor’s personal beliefs about a given topic, by searching thoroughly for the commonly held assumptions and unchecked tacitly accepted facts that have the potential to influence one’s opinion on the subject. This interrogation to identify assumption and bias is vital as reasons justifying a position must be considered rationally (Macquarie, 2008); irrespective of tendencies towards traditional thinking, any urge to follow current thinking trends, or allow any conflict of interest to affect one’s responses.
Then the second part of the method is utilised, the synthesis (Macquarie, 2008). Synthesis is the process by which the dialectic questioner distils the interlocutor’s answers and compares the information therein to that gathered by the first definition put forward by the interlocutor, in order to expose inconsistencies, and --as much as possible-- leave no errors undetected. In the Socratic dialogues, further questioning often leads the interlocutor to put forward a position completely opposite to that which they started with, often leading to a confused and perplexed state known as aporia (Vasilis, 2006).
It is consistently found by Socrates that those with claims to knowledge and expertise lack the true wisdom that --according to Socrates-- the only path to true wisdom is by accepting that one knows nothing, since only the gods can possibly know the purpose of all things (Macquarie, 2008), their reason for being. It is also found that, while Socrates’ intentions are not to dictate one particular definition of virtue --i.e. the intended outcome isn’t necessarily simply to refute a point of view-- his inquiries are all conducted with the goal of attaining moral wisdom, self knowledge; exhorting that we should question even our most comfortable preconceived notions and beliefs in order to work towards achieving a state of ataraxia, thus freeing us to live the good life whilst continuing to inquire and examine. Those who pursue evil do so because they lack this self knowledge, according to Socrates, who believed that no-one commits evil intentionally (Macquarie University, 2008), and that gaining an awareness of self moves one closer to the aforementioned “good life”.
The Socratic dialectic method appears – on the face of it— to be for the most part a negative and one-sided method in its use in refuting false claims to knowledge, particularly as there appears to be no occasion in the dialogues in which Socrates is forced to change his mind instead. However, despite these criticisms, one can see that in convincing the interlocutor that he/she in fact knows nothing, Socrates has helped them to uncover errors in their own thinking where previously their assumptions would have led them to believe they were correct. As Socrates believed that since the truly wise consider themselves to “know only that they know nothing”, the only requirement for answering the dialectic questioning is pure common sense—no special knowledge or skills are needed in order to pursue a logical argument (Macquarie, 2008). So, ultimately, the Socratic dialectic method is a worthwhile action in the pursuit of truth, with the goal of increasing self-understanding. Socrates, as evidenced in the Apology (Tredennick, trans. 1969), considered this act to be his duty, asserting that a “life without examination is not worth living”.
References:
Tredennick, H. (1969) "The Apology of Socrates" (Plato) in The Last Days of Socrates p45-76
Macquarie University (2008) Phi130. Study notes weeks 2-4
Vasilis P. (2006). "Aporia and Searching in the Early Plato" in L. Judson and V. Karasmanis eds. Remembering Socrates. Oxford University Press.
-- copyright LHT 2008--
Thursday, 9 October 2008
Sea World - Gold Coast
Excellent trip to Sea World.
Took loads of photos, will upload soon.
Afterwards we paid my inlaws a visit in Tugun and then spent what felt like 8 hours driving back to Brisbane.
More soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to No Artistic Merit
Posts
All Comments
