The Socratic Method is defined as Entrapment

[marjoramblues]

Well is it ?

First, what do you understand by the Socratic Method ? and how often do you think it is applied within this forum as a way to trap people ?

To entrap:
1. to catch or snare as in a trap
2. to trick into danger, difficulty or embarrassment (Collins English Dictionary and Thesaurus,2009)

3. to trick (someone) into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution (Concise Oxford English Dictionary,2009)

The background to this is from the 'Apology' thread in the Lounge, particularly the post by The Jesus Head, Sat Jun 16th 1.38pm. I had suggested that if his original thread was about 'entrapment' then it was a 'violence' in itself with an assumption of criminality.

TJH's view appears to be that his 'entrapment' was of a Socratic type; as such, displayed good philosophy.

In addition, REM expressed the view that 'entrapment happens repeatedly on this forum' and then offered up a mere 2 quotes from posts by a single poster,Chaz, as evidence. { my bolds and italics }
Here, the implication was that 'entrapment' was wrong and that only TJH had been 'punished' for it by being censored. If I have misinterpreted then please correct.

My view is that TJH did not use the Socratic method; and that his Conclusion as to Rick/Arising displaying the 'human violence' as per 'Straw Dogs' is flawed. The socratic method, as far as I have read and understood, requires a high degree of mental alertness, high moral qualities with a sprinkling of honesty, humility and courage. With its questioning spirit, the conversation should protect against any 'wild conclusions with irresponsible premises'.

So, the Socratic method is not the same as the alleged 'Thought Experiment' used by TJH.

Any thoughts on this ?

I did a search re 'Socratic method' on this forum, and found this:

We all need to be disturbed occasionally, and we should all do our bit to disturb the complacency of others.

Of course, there are different ways of doing the disturbing. On any philosophy forum, the best way is to disturb people is with provocative, startling ideas that undermine their preconceptions and unexamined assumptions.

An alternative way to do it is with obscenities and aggression. The people who choose this method of disturbing people usually do so because they can't manage the other one.

Socrates generally went for the first method. This is why we talk about "Socratic gadflies" rather than "Socratic warthogs"!


Which method do you favour, Satyr?Pasted from <viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3140&p=34877&hilit=Socratic+method>

Edited to highlight quote.

[lennartack]

Of course, there are different ways of doing the disturbing. On any philosophy forum, the best way is to disturb people is with provocative, startling ideas that undermine their preconceptions and unexamined assumptions.

Seems like an accurate description of the Socratic method, and not really what TJH was doing. I don't think there was anything wrong with what he was doing though.

[reasonvemotion]

In addition, REM expressed the view that 'entrapment happens repeatedly on this forum' and then offered up a mere 2 quotes from posts by a single poster,Chaz, as evidence.

Here, the implication was that 'entrapment' was wrong and that only TJH had been 'punished' for it by being censored. If I have misinterpreted then please correct.

Covering yourself, just in case

Thanks for pointing this out, REM - I hadn't really noticed before. that, I dont believe..can you reference the quotes so that I can see them in context ?

Ha

There are many more examples, some are Spheres, Artisticsolution and more in CWs posts. If I had realised you were using my "mere" two examples, perhaps I would have included more. It is a tedious task, if you want more they are all there for you to research. I am, with hindsight a perfect example of entrapment by you. Asking so sweetly, with a hidden agenda of your real purpose, to trap and annihilate. The thought crossed my mind, when I noticed your absence.

majoramblues:

Which method do you favour, Satyr?

ummmm....

sa·tyr/ˈsatər/Noun: 1.One of a class of lustful, drunken woodland gods. In Greek art they were represented as a man with a horse's ears and tail, but in Roman...
2.A man who has strong sexual desires.

any of the above on this Forum. LOL


or did you mean satire?

[The Jesus Head]

My view is that TJH did not use the Socratic method; and that his Conclusion as to Rick/Arising displaying the 'human violence' as per 'Straw Dogs' is flawed.

You do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

[marjoramblues]

In addition, REM expressed the view that 'entrapment happens repeatedly on this forum' and then offered up a mere 2 quotes from posts by a single poster,Chaz, as evidence.

Here, the implication was that 'entrapment' was wrong and that only TJH had been 'punished' for it by being censored. If I have misinterpreted then please correct.

Covering yourself, just in case

Just making sure that I understood your meaning; and giving you the opportunity to clarify, if necessary. So, was my interpretation correct or not ?

Thanks for pointing this out, REM - I hadn't really noticed before. that, I dont believe

I try not to be dishonest in my writing. I hadn't perceived many posts as 'entrapment' before - not in a socratic way, nor as a particular thread set up as a so-called 'thought experiment'.

..can you reference the quotes so that I can see them in context ?

Ha
There are many more examples, some are Spheres, Artisticsolution and more in CWs posts. If I had realised you were using my "mere" two examples, perhaps I would have included more. It is a tedious task, if you want more they are all there for you to research.

I can imagine it is a tedious task to search for examples of 'entrapment' in the whole of the PN forum. However, if this method was as all-pervasive as you made it out to be, then it shouldn't be such an almighty task, should it ? And interesting that you zoned in on Chaz.

I am, with hindsight a perfect example of entrapment by you. Asking so sweetly, with a hidden agenda of your real purpose, to trap and annihilate. The thought crossed my mind, when I noticed your absence.

You give me too much credit
And please, nothing should be assumed from any 'absence'...

majoramblues:

Which method do you favour, Satyr?

ummmm....

No need to 'ummm...' - this was part of the quote I found, not mine. Satyr was/?is a PN participant.

So, returning to the main questions - have you any thoughts on what the Socratic Method entails ? And would you see it as a form of 'entrapment' ?

[marjoramblues]

Of course, there are different ways of doing the disturbing. On any philosophy forum, the best way is to disturb people is with provocative, startling ideas that undermine their preconceptions and unexamined assumptions.

Seems like an accurate description of the Socratic method, and not really what TJH was doing. I don't think there was anything wrong with what he was doing though.

Thanks, lennartack - I appreciate your response.

[marjoramblues]

My view is that TJH did not use the Socratic method; and that his Conclusion as to Rick/Arising displaying the 'human violence' as per 'Straw Dogs' is flawed.

You do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

So, you disagree with my statement, then ?

[The Jesus Head]

My view is that TJH did not use the Socratic method; and that his Conclusion as to Rick/Arising displaying the 'human violence' as per 'Straw Dogs' is flawed.

You do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

So, you disagree with my statement, then ?

In Philosophical discussion we generally expect that those who submit a rebuttal to an idea
expressed by someone carries with it an explanation .
Firstly you have never read John Gray's Straw Dogs and you have not even the most rudimentary understanding of Socrates. What you do have is the arrogance of posture and that is about all you have.

[marjoramblues]

In Philosophical discussion we generally expect that those who submit a rebuttal to an idea
expressed by someone carries with it an explanation .
Firstly you have never read John Gray's Straw Dogs and you have not even the most rudimentary understanding of Socrates. What you do have is the arrogance of posture and that is about all you have.

I agree that my understanding of the Socratic Method is basic. That is why I am asking the question - I would like to know if it is as outlined below; and if others recognise it as an 'entrapment'.

I admit to not having read 'Straw Dogs' for some time and only the first 4 chapters. A philosophical review and discussion would be welcome. Until then, I can only go by what I have via Gray's index re 'violence'. This I used in our earlier discussion where you approved of my 'analysis'.

So, given the above, my statement stands.

[The Jesus Head]

marjoramblues

I agree that my understanding of the Socratic Method is basic. That is why I am asking the question - I would like to know if it is as outlined below; and if others recognise it as an 'entrapment'.

So what if it is a rhetorical trap to get at the truth? So what?

I admit to not having read 'Straw Dogs' for some time and only the first 4 chapters. A philosophical review and discussion would be welcome. Until then, I can only go by what I have via Gray's index re 'violence'. This I used in our earlier discussion where you approved of my 'analysis'.

I don't approve of you saying I dont know what I am talking about when you do not
specify exactly what your objection is and on what grounds you submit your argument.
It is all very well saying I think TJH is wrong about Gray and then not qualifying the statement . You admit you have skimmed the first four chapters of Gray's book Straw Dogs and now you are an expert on the matter and know more than I do about Gray.
I have read all Gray's book cover to cover to cover to cover.
If you have a direct challenge to what I have stated then let us hear your argument but do not be so arrogant as to just say that guy is wrong without qualification.

[marjoramblues]

marjoramblues

I agree that my understanding of the Socratic Method is basic. That is why I am asking the question - I would like to know if it is as outlined below; and if others recognise it as an 'entrapment'.

So what if it is a rhetorical trap to get at the truth? So what?

If 'what' is a rhetorical trap ? Your thread - or the socratic method ?

Rhetoric: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, but often lacking sincerity or meaningful content. Intention to persuade or impress.
Trap: a trick betraying someone into acting contrary to their interests or intentions.

If your conclusion was based on such a method, then it created a false situation which does not necessarily entail getting at any 'truth'.

I admit to not having read 'Straw Dogs' for some time and only the first 4 chapters. A philosophical review and discussion would be welcome. Until then, I can only go by what I have via Gray's index re 'violence'. This I used in our earlier discussion where you approved of my 'analysis'.

I don't approve of you saying I dont know what I am talking about when you do not
specify exactly what your objection is and on what grounds you submit your argument.

Where did I say that you don't know what you are talking about ?
The main purpose of this thread is for me to clarify what is understood by the 'Socratic Method' - and I was rather hoping that more people would reply. My contention is that your thread, later described as a 'Thought Experiment', was not an example of using the Socratic Method, as previously outlined.

It is all very well saying I think TJH is wrong about Gray
and then not qualifying the statement .

Again, this is not what I said.

You admit you have skimmed the first four pages of Gray's book Straw Dogs and now you are an expert on the matter and know more than I do about Gray.

See above.

I have read all Gray's book cover to cover to cover to cover.

Excellent.

If you have a direct challenge to what I have stated then let us hear your argument but do not be so arrogant as to just say that guy is wrong without qualification.

See above.

[The Jesus Head]

marjoramblues

If your conclusion was based on such a method, then it created a false situation which does not necessarily entail getting at any 'truth'.

Are you really suggesting that we validate a conclusion by the means that acquired it?
The conclusion is the conclusion and must be seen objectively.
If you are saying that the means to get to the truth is unfair because it entails
trapping a person in their own confusion then I have no sympathy for your
idea and frankly it is banal .

Where did I say that you don't know what you are talking about ?
The main purpose of this thread is for me to clarify what is understood by the 'Socratic Method' - and I was rather hoping that more people would reply.

You said I was wrong about Gray. In other words, that I do not know what I am talking about, when, in fact, the person who is totally and hopelessly clueless is yourself.

My contention is that your thread, later described as a 'Thought Experiment', was not an example of using the Socratic Method, as previously outlined.

Why was it not ? what is the difference?
When Socrates defended himself at his trial ,in terms of him corrupting the youth
where in his reply do we not find artifice ; all be it rather shallow at that.
You basically have made a statement that TJH is wrong based entirely on
what may I ask ?
Why don't you do yourself a favour and dis-guard any notion you have that you are
worthy of being taking seriously.
If you wish to criticize my ideas ,I would appreciate some scholarship, in the process and not some pretentious pseudo intellectual waffle .

[marjoramblues]

marjoramblues

If your conclusion was based on such a method, then it created a false situation which does not necessarily entail getting at any 'truth'.

Are you really suggesting that we validate a conclusion by the means that acquired it?
The conclusion is the conclusion and must be seen objectively.
If you are saying that the means to get to the truth is unfair because it entails
trapping a person in their own confusion then I have no sympathy for your
idea and frankly it is banal .

If you are going to rewind the tape, then please play the whole conversation, and answer my first question [in bold]:
TJH: So what if it is a rhetorical trap to get at the truth? So what?

MB: If 'what' is a rhetorical trap ? Your thread - or the socratic method ?
Rhetoric: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, but often lacking sincerity or meaningful content. Intention to persuade or impress.
Trap: a trick betraying someone into acting contrary to their interests or intentions.

If your conclusion was based on such a method, then it created a false situation which does not necessarily entail getting at any 'truth'.

Where did I say that you don't know what you are talking about ?
The main purpose of this thread is for me to clarify what is understood by the 'Socratic Method' - and I was rather hoping that more people would reply.

You said I was wrong about Gray. In other words, that I do not know what I am talking about, when, in fact, the person who is totally and hopelessly clueless is yourself.

No, and no. And I would be grateful if you would refrain from personal comments. They do not facilitate the discussion.

My contention is that your thread, later described as a 'Thought Experiment', was not an example of using the Socratic Method, as previously outlined.

Why was it not ? what is the difference?

It did not seem to me to be that type of philosophical enquiry. Again, I would appreciate the input of others as to what is understood by the Socratic Method. 'What is the difference?' - between Socratic Method and a Thought Experiment ?

When Socrates defended himself at his trial ,in terms of him corrupting the youth
where in his reply do we not find artifice ; all be it rather shallow at that.

This is not about Socrates' trial.

You basically have made a statement that TJH is wrong based entirely on what may I ask ? Why don't you do yourself a favour and dis-guard any notion you have that you are worthy of being taking seriously. If you wish to criticize my ideas ,I would appreciate some scholarship, in the process and not some pretentious pseudo intellectual waffle .

I am going to do myself a favour and take a break. Your continual put-downs and misinterpretations are not conducive to mutual respect, nor an atmosphere in which a helpful discussion, philosophical or otherwise, can ensue.

[The Jesus Head]

I am going to do myself a favour and take a break. Your continual put-downs and misinterpretations are not conducive to mutual respect, nor an atmosphere in which a helpful discussion, philosophical or otherwise, can ensue.

Well let us reveal your part in the mutual respect . It is that you condemn
my essay about Gray, without bringing a sliver of academic information to bear
on the subject. Your disrespect for me was used to position yourself as my
intellectual superior as you preened yourself on this forum.

Let me tell you that I have absolutely no respect for you at all because you are a circus act.
You read 4 chapters of John Grays Straw Dogs and that puts you in a position to talk down to me about how to interpret Gray ?
I read the book from cover to cover for over 3 years .
I have read all of Gray's works.

I really do not appreciate a fool like you babbling on about how I am wrong about Gray.
If you had any constructive remarks about Straw Dogs then things would be different
but you dont . You are a show-off and there is one too many of that type here.
I suggest you take a long break and study some philosophy before you start spouting
and bringing people into disrepute for the sake of your ego.

[artisticsolution]

There are many more examples, some are Spheres, Artisticsolution and more in CWs posts. If I had realised you were using my "mere" two examples, perhaps I would have included more. It is a tedious task, if you want more they are all there for you to research. I am, with hindsight a perfect example of entrapment by you. Asking so sweetly, with a hidden agenda of your real purpose, to trap and annihilate. The thought crossed my mind, when I noticed your absence.

Huh...You think I entrap people? Really?! That is the sweetest thing anyone has ever said to me! Seriously, I would never believe that simply being myself and allowing my 'brilliance' to shine through, could snare the less fortunate/naive into the web I call being forthright and honest about my opinions. Mwah, ha ha! They are all but pawns in my game of laying all my cards on the table! Simple fools!


Actually, I really appreciate MB creating this thread...as I have just been reading the PN magazine on my new Nook and I find it much more entertaining than the paper version. It is easier for me to focus....however, I will say that the features of my Nook don't work when I read the PN magazine...like for example...when I download a book...I can hold my finger on a word and an option pops up where I can look up the definition of that word...or highlight the word...or make a note (how cool is that?) Only the same options do not happen when I am reading stuff over the internet...which I know...I should not have expected them to...just that it would have been really really cool...to make notes while I was reading and then copy and paste them to the forum would have been a way cool feature. (But maybe I am not working the technology right...as I have not figured out how to cut and paste.....)

Anywho...I like what this plato character has to say about ol' sew crates....especially the allegory of the caves. I was delighted by that explanation by David Macintosh titled 'Plato: A Theory of Forms.' I loved how he took my imagination on an adventure and how it got me remembering back to a past I have perhaps never really experienced....but still has been there all the time....I am convinced I was the one in the back...creating shadow puppets on the wall of the cave unbeknownst to those in the front row! Suckers! Man how easy is it to entrap simple minds! Mwah, ha ha!


Still, I wondered to myself how the two men did not consider that maybe it was not that the people could not see the true forms but rather that they did not know how to explain what they saw...or possibly that they did not want to mention it...for reasons that might be misunderstood by many. Perhaps , it was more important to a person to fit in...or to not want to blow their own horn...or simply to ignore certain truths that could or could not result in any "good" (or bad as the case may be) outcome or any other combination of the long list of differences among people.

In other words...why must we assume people have ignorance by accident and not by choice....and why do we see that as a necessarily bad thing?

If I have the ability to entrap people...as reasonvemotion say, then how is it that she could also agree with me that I do not have the ability to communicate well? Here in the Anti-christ thread:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8802&start=405

Just out of curiosity...wouldn't it stand to reason that I would need the ability to communicate well in order to entrap people? So either I have the ability to communicate well...and thus entrap people...OR...I do not have the ability to communicate well and my entrapment capabilities are benign.

So which is it? As it can't be both...can it? (that's a gadfly's cheesy grin btw )