The Socratic Method is defined as Entrapment

[reasonvemotion]

Artisticsolution:

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 )

Reasonvemotion:


You are a woman who walks the razor's edge.

[marjoramblues]

a quick reply,needs must dash...

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!

I think it interesting to consider what 'entrapment' means in a philosophical context.

Actually, I really appreciate MB creating this thread...

Thanks, and I appreciate TJH for his thought-provoking comment.

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.....)

Excellent - look forward to any discussion re PN magazine articles.

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?

I like the way you think, AS - but I'm trying hard to fit this in to my questions re the Socratic method and entrapment. I'm sure there is a relationship, but I can't see it right now...

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

I knew you wouldn't forget that comment by REM but again, I would like to know whether you think the Socratic Method is defined as entrapment. What is wrong with 'entrapment' - what if we consider it as being led along a path to another philosophical view ( another mind 'trap' ? ) )

[artisticsolution]

Hi MB,


M:I knew you wouldn't forget that comment by REM

AS:Of course I don't forget things like that...nor do I let them lie.... Simply because I never understood someone calling another person both wise and unwise, clever AND stupid, talented AND untalented, etc...at the same time. I don't understand it. I would have been fine if reasonvemotion had just said I did not have the ability. I would be in agreement...but then to go on and say I do have the ability is a contradiction I could not let slide. It was just toooo tempting.

M: but again, I would like to know whether you think the Socratic Method is defined as entrapment. What is wrong with 'entrapment' - what if we consider it as being led along a path to another philosophical view ( another mind 'trap' ? )

AS: I consider the type of 'entrapment' you talk about ... 'manipulation.' And I have wasted hours and hours of my breath discussing it in this forum to no end.

It is clear to me that when we say words like "entrapment" and "manipulation" we hear them in a derogatory way against our humanity...i.e. they go against our vision of the 'goodness' in ourselves. It is these types of aesthetic values we can't bare to think about ourselves, imo. So we dress them up...we switch those words out with words like, cunning, strategy, reverse psychology, etc because they sound better to us. They make us 'feel' good about ourselves. But why does that have to be? Why do we like to 'dress up' the image of ourselves to be better than we are? What is wrong with admitting we might not be all that?

I do not think that there is anything wrong with "entrapment" as it pertains to the Socratic method. To me it is like you said, it might lead us "along a path to another philosophical view." And yes, it probably is a 'mind trap' both negative or positive as the case may be. It is discerning which is which that is the problem. I don't know how long you have been reading the forum, but we used to have a contributor named 'Non Sum" who was better at doing this than anyone I have ever met. The reason I say this is because he did not simply do the opposite of what the others did... No...Non Sum did not merely do the opposite and say it was unique and special. Non Sum had a way of stripping those aesthetics down to their bare bones and exposing the essence of humanity...without the romantic ideals similar to the young woman who wants the picked fence vs. the young man in all his existential angst. He did not choose a particular side to tout as humanity's coat of arms in a pridefully way.

What I don't understand is why most of us deny and resist the notion that we are being led anywhere. Why would we go kicking and screaming into a deeper wisdom than we might not have been able to get to on our own? Is it that we want to take the credit for our own wisdom/intelligence/individuality? Well, I think that point is moot, since even to type or write our thoughts...most of us had to be 'manipulated' by a teacher at some point. And why, when that teacher...happens to verbalize a thought that is against our image of the goodness in ourselves...do we become angry? As if that can harm us in some way? What was that quote that Richard Baron posted long ago by Thomas Jefferson? "
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Even though this quote is referring to politics...we could easily see how it can refer to philosophy as well. Why should we believe that words will injure us? Why should we fight against an idea that may put us in an unattractive light if it is truth?

Take the recent argument in the sunday sermon thread by tjh....his sermon was disregarded because we did not like his personality and that he was berating our friend "Rick Lewis". But TJH's personality was not the issue...it was separate and apart from his essay. But we all made it the issue...we allowed that to persuade our reading of a simple thought, which was...humanity is cruel. Big deal....would we not all agree if the thought came from Rick Lewis? I think we would have...because Rick would have worded it in a way that made us feel good about ourselves.

In conclusion, I believe most every thought we have has been the cause and effect of 'entrapment.' And those who are avid readers are the most 'entrapped' and enlightened people in the world...imo. Reading another's words is to allow yourself to become entrapped in the author's world and viewpoint, quite literally. This is not a bad thing...it just is. I think the bigger problem is stripping away the rhetoric in order to get to the bare bones...lest we be 'ripe' for the picking into any mass movement which causes us to quite literally cause real injury i.e. 'breaking of bones and picking of pockets 'that happens to rear it's ugly head (or pretty head as the case may be....as I doubt the majority of German people thought the Nazi movement was an 'ugly' one at first.)

[reasonvemotion]

Artisticsolution:


Quote:
Reasonemotion agreed with me that I do not have the ability to word complicated ideas. Even though it was an insult...I did not disagree with her/him. She was just iterating what I knew myself. No biggie as she/he is right. And even though I don't like that about myself...and struggle to change...I can hardly fault her accurate reading of me.

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..

Reasonvemotion:

I say you manage very well using the abilities below:

street·wise (strtwz)
adj.
Having the shrewd awareness, experience, and resourcefulness needed for survival in a difficult, often dangerous urban environment.

[Arising_uk]

... as I doubt the majority of German people thought the Nazi movement was an 'ugly' one at first.)

The ones who partook(the majority) didn't think it was one later.

[marjoramblues]

Hi MB,

M: but again, I would like to know whether you think the Socratic Method is defined as entrapment. What is wrong with 'entrapment' - what if we consider it as being led along a path to another philosophical view ( another mind 'trap' ? )

AS: I consider the type of 'entrapment' you talk about ... 'manipulation.' And I have wasted hours and hours of my breath discussing it in this forum to no end.

The kind of 'entrapment' I discussed first was re the so-called 'thought experiment' which TJH apparently 'set' to trap Rick/Arising into certain forms of behaviour. And yes, it is a form of manipulation but that of a certain kind. It just takes a minute browsing a thesaurus to realise that 'manipulation' is a wide term with many meanings.

It is clear to me that when we say words like "entrapment" and "manipulation" we hear them in a derogatory way against our humanity...i.e. they go against our vision of the 'goodness' in ourselves. It is these types of aesthetic values we can't bare to think about ourselves, imo. So we dress them up...we switch those words out with words like, cunning, strategy, reverse psychology, etc because they sound better to us. They make us 'feel' good about ourselves. But why does that have to be? Why do we like to 'dress up' the image of ourselves to be better than we are? What is wrong with admitting we might not be all that?

I agree that certain words/phrases tend to be seen as negative.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with "entrapment" as it pertains to the Socratic method.

What do you understand as the 'Socratic method' ? Is it a method that can be learned ? Here in the PN forum, have you used it - seen it used ? Where, how and who with ? and to what effect ?

If 'to entrap' is defined as something other than manipulation of the mind, e.g. to victimize; to deceive; to lead into temptation - or to make an ass of - then can this be said to be part of the Socratic method ?

To me it is like you said, it might lead us "along a path to another philosophical view." And yes, it probably is a 'mind trap' both negative or positive as the case may be.

I think that the Socratic method can be used in many contexts - e.g. as a teaching tool in arithmetic. In a very pure form, it can lead to an understanding by asking rather than telling. So, only questions are used to arouse curiosity, capture enthusiasm and allows students to figure things out, step-by-step.

Overall, I see the Socratic method as a positive method, with the intention of producing positive results. Whether this is the case is debatable. And I wish more people would chip in with some ideas...

It is discerning which is which that is the problem. I don't know how long you have been reading the forum, but we used to have a contributor named 'Non Sum" who was better at doing this than anyone I have ever met. The reason I say this is because he did not simply do the opposite of what the others did... No...Non Sum did not merely do the opposite and say it was unique and special. Non Sum had a way of stripping those aesthetics down to their bare bones and exposing the essence of humanity...without the romantic ideals similar to the young woman who wants the picked fence vs. the young man in all his existential angst. He did not choose a particular side to tout as humanity's coat of arms in a pridefully way.

Are you saying that Non Sum used the Socratic method ? Perhaps you could offer up an example ?

What I don't understand is why most of us deny and resist the notion that we are being led anywhere. Why would we go kicking and screaming into a deeper wisdom than we might not have been able to get to on our own? Is it that we want to take the credit for our own wisdom/intelligence/individuality? Well, I think that point is moot, since even to type or write our thoughts...most of us had to be 'manipulated' by a teacher at some point.

It is not necessarily true that being led anywhere results in a deeper wisdom. Again, a teacher might lead us to a knowledge of maths and some might appreciate this; whereas others can't 'get' it - or see the relevance. Learning might be about changing and growing; the mind might be 'manipulated'. Some will fight this; others accept it, and even grasp it with both hands. Nobody likes to feel coerced or be a victim or being made a wally of...

And why, when that teacher...happens to verbalize a thought that is against our image of the goodness in ourselves...do we become angry? As if that can harm us in some way? What was that quote that Richard Baron posted long ago by Thomas Jefferson? "
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

I'm not sure as to the relevance of this. Care to explain?

Even though this quote is referring to politics...we could easily see how it can refer to philosophy as well. Why should we believe that words will injure us? Why should we fight against an idea that may put us in an unattractive light if it is truth?

Again, this is not about words that injure us...or fighting against an idea...at least I don't see it that way...

Take the recent argument in the sunday sermon thread by tjh....his sermon was disregarded because we did not like his personality and that he was berating our friend "Rick Lewis".

Erm - I think you assume too much. And the original thread was not a sunday sermon...

But TJH's personality was not the issue...it was separate and apart from his essay. But we all made it the issue...we allowed that to persuade our reading of a simple thought, which was...humanity is cruel. Big deal....would we not all agree if the thought came from Rick Lewis? I think we would have...because Rick would have worded it in a way that made us feel good about ourselves.

Again, who is this 'we'. And no, we did not all make TJH's personality the issue - although I agree that his presentation method is coloured and not always attractive. The idea presented I think slightly more complicated than 'humanity is cruel'.
The thread, as far as I can remember, was not the simple presentation of an idea; Rick described it as a 'nonsense discussion' - others as trolling; TJH basically instigated a fight.

In conclusion, I believe most every thought we have has been the cause and effect of 'entrapment.' And those who are avid readers are the most 'entrapped' and enlightened people in the world...imo. Reading another's words is to allow yourself to become entrapped in the author's world and viewpoint, quite literally.

I don't see it as entrapment - we might be caught up in it, but we also allow our thoughts to wander and we can analyse and make connections outwith the text. If we identify too closely with an author's point of view, then we can't be objective and think for ourselves.

This is not a bad thing...it just is. I think the bigger problem is stripping away the rhetoric in order to get to the bare bones...lest we be 'ripe' for the picking into any mass movement which causes us to quite literally cause real injury i.e. 'breaking of bones and picking of pockets 'that happens to rear it's ugly head (or pretty head as the case may be....as I doubt the majority of German people thought the Nazi movement was an 'ugly' one at first.)

So, the entrapment here would be manipulation as a form of propoganda; a swaying of the crowd. Subterfuge. Plot. A falsification of true intent. And isn't that exactly what TJH was attempting to do ? And this was certainly not about using the socratic method.

However, perhaps we can conclude that the Socratic Method can be defined as entrapment, depending on meaning and context.

[marjoramblues]

Artisticsolution:
Quote:
Reasonemotion agreed with me that I do not have the ability to word complicated ideas. Even though it was an insult...I did not disagree with her/him. She was just iterating what I knew myself. No biggie as she/he is right. And even though I don't like that about myself...and struggle to change...I can hardly fault her accurate reading of me.

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..

Reasonvemotion:
I say you manage very well using the abilities below:

street·wise (strtwz)
adj.
Having the shrewd awareness, experience, and resourcefulness needed for survival in a difficult, often dangerous urban environment.

I think that AS probably has this, and much, much more besides.

REM, to return to your evidence as to 'entrapment', what did you use as your criteria ?
Did you type in the word 'trap', or what ?

Did you observe different kinds of entrapment; and would you say they could be described as an application of the Socratic method ?

[marjoramblues]

... as I doubt the majority of German people thought the Nazi movement was an 'ugly' one at first.)

The ones who partook(the majority) didn't think it was one later.

Thanks for participating, Arising.

I'd appreciate hearing more about your, and others, thoughts on the Socratic Method; and how it might be defined, described and used/abused.

Same kind of questions I put to AS, see above.

[marjoramblues]

The Socratic Method in teaching.

A transcript of a teaching experiment using the Socratic method.

http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html


A further explanation :

http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/smmore.htm

[artisticsolution]

Hi MB,

Thank you for the links. A long time ago Tom linked to a page which was a dialogue between Socrates and one of his students so I kinda got the drift. It seemed to me that teaching in the "socratic" method would be very difficult and I don't think it is a talent that many possess and like you, I think that every student might not be able to learn in this manner. I think the problem is very complex...as no matter what, personalities/aesthetics get in the way of common sense/learning not to mention the student must have the ability to follow a certain abstract reasoning. It seems to me the conditions would have to be just right in order for the student to be open to the questions the teacher asks of him/her. ...not only pertaining to the development of the student...but also to the student's morality/culture/temperament etc. For lose the student's attention in any one of these areas and the teacher could lose the students trust and could turn the student off to their personality. I think there has to be a certain respect there...for the Socratic method to work...and to me those type 'feelings' = aesthetics.

MB:If 'to entrap' is defined as something other than manipulation of the mind, e.g. to victimize; to deceive; to lead into temptation - or to make an ass of - then can this be said to be part of the Socratic method ?

AS: I agree. But is there any guarantee that even with exercising the 'proper' Socratic method, the student would still be left feeling like an 'ass'? Sometimes, even when you have the gentlest of teachers....the realization that you had been foolish/wrong in your thinking can make you embarrassed by your behavior. Especially, I think...if you really liked the teacher. Plus, there are times when one has an opinion...that may be the corner stone of the individuals existence that is too difficult to examine more closely.

For example...I have a friend...who was very active in the church. This friend is very funny, intelligent, outspoken and confident, plus she has a very good way of explaining her beliefs and I thought this friend would be great to have in the forum. So I invited her. She told me later that she was "too afraid" to join and she didn't know why. She mentioned that she didn't think she was 'strong' enough to have her convictions questioned. I can certainly understand this...as this is how I was in the past...until I realized that the more I had my beliefs questioned...the more it was no big deal and that I could separate myself from my beliefs in order to know a particular 'truth' /fact....and ...even when proven wrong... I can go back to stupidity at any moment if I so choose...lol. So where is the harm, i figure.

MB:I think that the Socratic method can be used in many contexts - e.g. as a teaching tool in arithmetic. In a very pure form, it can lead to an understanding by asking rather than telling. So, only questions are used to arouse curiosity, capture enthusiasm and allows students to figure things out, step-by-step.

Overall, I see the Socratic method as a positive method, with the intention of producing positive results. Whether this is the case is debatable. And I wish more people would chip in with some ideas...

AS: Well, I am not a teacher...I am but a mere student. However, like I said before, I have been very embarrassed when learning by the "Socratic" method. It's when the light bulb goes off (and it might even be years later) and you blush when you finally figure out what the teacher was trying to get at....and then you remembered what you had said and how foolish it was. Not only that...even if the teacher is a great one...and everyone raves about their talents....if their teaching methods are too advanced for the students intellect, aesthetics rears it's ugly head and resentment can build. I remember hearing that Wittgenstein was a mean teacher. I believe there was a lot of resentment both on his behalf and the students who could not keep up. I wonder if he tried to use the Socratic method? It must be very frustrating to have students who just simply do not get it...no matter what method of teaching you try.

MB:Are you saying that Non Sum used the Socratic method ? Perhaps you could offer up an example ?

AS: Most of his 'good' stuff was in the other forum. But he did post a few times on this one. I will try to see if I can get you an example. However, he was just having conversations...and not necessarily in "teaching" mode. lol

MB:It is not necessarily true that being led anywhere results in a deeper wisdom. Again, a teacher might lead us to a knowledge of maths and some might appreciate this; whereas others can't 'get' it - or see the relevance. Learning might be about changing and growing; the mind might be 'manipulated'. Some will fight this; others accept it, and even grasp it with both hands. Nobody likes to feel coerced or be a victim or being made a wally of...

AS:You are probably correct here....but for me...the aesthetics of a certain person or thing...be it good or bad or neutral....sometimes can lead me on a path of a deeper wisdom. I will try to give you an example...but I am sorry...I don't have a Socratic example at this moment. Let's take a wall. When I am doing a mural, let's suppose I need to find the center of the wall and I will use a tape measure to do so. However, the wall has a certain aesthetic value. aesthetically speaking, let's suppose the entrance to the room is at the other end of room, to the far right. In my mind, if I found the dead center of the wall where the mural is going...and painted it there....visually/aesthetically it would not look like it was centered...even if mathematically it was. This is because aesthetically speaking, the distance between the space between the center of the "mural" wall and where you are standing, is much closer that the (visual) difference of the distance between the center to the wall farthest away from where you are standing.
So in order for the mural to "appear" center from your perspective, it has to be a little off center so that it fools the eye visually.

I believe there is this same aesthetic thing happening having to do with emotions and learning as well as sight. So, I while I agree that it might be better for most people as far as their 'feelings' go...to be gentle lead into an positive aesthetic way of understanding...but I think if they learned not to "feel" so harmed....they could do what "non Sum" did...and peel away the 'aesthetic' white noise...in order to 'hear' more clearly. Like the wall, I have trouble with visually. I am aware that my aesthetics of 'dead center' are not correct. I know that mathematically, dead center is not where it should be...in my visual "judgment.' So I move it...no biggie. But I don't move it thinking I am right and math is wrong. I move it knowing I am wrong and math is right. It is with confidence that I am able to say, "I am wrong." Meaning...when tjh or rick or socrates, for that matter, used the Socratic method or the method of entrapment, (as the case may be), they might be saying the same thing....only we fight against tjh and not rick or socrates. Now I ask you...why should that be...if both are correct? Why should we focus on the superfluous nastiness of tjh? Here is a visual of what I mean...I hope you will understand...and I apologize in advance for my crassness....

TJH: You fucking gay idiot....2+2=4....I think arising and rick sleep together!

Rick: I will not ban you because I believe in free speech for all of my forum members....2+2=4.....But I will protect my forum members from threats...so don't make any, please.

If we take away all of the personality/feelings/judgments/aesthetics....we are left with 2+2=4.


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

MB.I'm not sure as to the relevance of this. Care to explain?[/i][/b]

AS:I was getting at the aesthetics of the Socratic method vs. entrapment. Neither of these methods would "break one's legs nor pick one's pocket"...literally speaking. The only damage that would truly be done would be an aesthetic one....meaning our feelings could be hurt. That is why I say that Rick and TJH could say the same thing in very different ways...and because we don't like tjh we might 'feel' harmed. But ...literally speaking...tjh's words...would not 'break our legs nor pick our pockets."

"Remove the judgment and you have removed the thought, 'I am hurt'. Remove the thought, 'I am hurt" and the hurt itself is removed."

Marcus Aurelius

I believe most if not all judgments = aesthetics.

MB:Erm - I think you assume too much. And the original thread was not a sunday sermon...[/i][/b]

AS: I did not see the first thread. I only saw the most recent one. And that one....is much like the example I set above. If we get rid of the superfluous nonsense i.e. the personality of tjh. We are just left with the mere bones of the point he was making...

MB:Again, who is this 'we'.

AS: Oh sorry...the 'we' is me and them (whoever felt harm by tjh's words).

MB:The idea presented I think slightly more complicated than 'humanity is cruel'.

AS:Sorry, I don't know what was presented in the first sermon...only in the second. And it the second I did not think what tjh said was all that complicated. But Perhaps it was and I just did not 'get it.'

MB:The thread, as far as I can remember, was not the simple presentation of an idea; Rick described it as a 'nonsense discussion' - others as trolling; TJH basically instigated a fight.

AS: Yes, that is tjh personality.

MB:However, perhaps we can conclude that the Socratic Method can be defined as entrapment, depending on meaning and context.

AS: I am late for work...what you say in this whole thread I will have to think about. I am one of the types that it takes a long time for the 'light bulb to go off." lol sorry bout that. Perhaps I should read the links you provide again and then read the sunday sermon again. Maybe I will be able to learn more about what you are trying to tell me...as right now...I feel I am in the dark. Too bad I didn't see the first sunday sermon thread. Maybe I would have understood better.

[duszek]

I would be grateful for being trapped in an argument. This is a challenge and an opportunity to find out how such a trap works.
The big advantage here is that everything is written down and one can reread many times and find out what happened and think about it and read again and ask a friend and read again and ask new questions and try some new ways to get out of the trap and so on.

Lovely !

This is how I progress mentally.

[duszek]

We could collect argumentative traps or even open here a trap school.
We could make traps explicit so that general public can see and learn.
It is good if as many people as possible recognize traps and know how to defend themselves.

I will think of a trap and present one here if you are interested.
To make a start.

We could make whole systems of traps, they probably share characteristics and can be catagorized.

[marjoramblues]

Hi MB,

Thank you for the links. A long time ago Tom linked to a page which was a dialogue between Socrates and one of his students so I kinda got the drift. It seemed to me that teaching in the "socratic" method would be very difficult and I don't think it is a talent that many possess and like you, I think that every student might not be able to learn in this manner.

Yes, it was interesting to see the Socratic method in action, as it were - and in modern circumstances. Like you, I note the other issues involved. Teaching/learning methods or preferences may vary according to the individual or 'school' and the subject being taught. Personality, enthusiasm and respect all important. And possibly we might want to query the time spent in the step-by-step understanding here - particularly when most students would use calculators and not feel any need to know the mechanisms. I use my X [fill in the gap] but don't need to know how it works...
The follow-up link describes the Socratic method in Ethics - perhaps more useful ?

AS: I agree. But is there any guarantee that even with exercising the 'proper' Socratic method, the student would still be left feeling like an 'ass'? Sometimes, even when you have the gentlest of teachers....the realization that you had been foolish/wrong in your thinking can make you embarrassed by your behavior.

Yes indeed - but at least the intention starts out from a good place - to help us rise into the light of understanding, rather than to put us down. Learning is all about being challenged; and I guess stretching the brain can be painful at times...perhaps philosophy is a 'violence' - a shake-up of the mind and soul. Broad shoulders and thick skin required.

For example...I have a friend...who was very active in the church. This friend is very funny, intelligent, outspoken and confident, plus she has a very good way of explaining her beliefs and I thought this friend would be great to have in the forum. So I invited her. She told me later that she was "too afraid" to join and she didn't know why. She mentioned that she didn't think she was 'strong' enough to have her convictions questioned. I can certainly understand this...as this is how I was in the past...until I realized that the more I had my beliefs questioned...the more it was no big deal and that I could separate myself from my beliefs in order to know a particular 'truth' /fact....and ...even when proven wrong... I can go back to stupidity at any moment if I so choose...lol. So where is the harm, i figure.

I love your stories, AS - aesthetically pleasing
It is a pity that some are put off philo because of fear of how it might affect their life and beliefs (and then possibly family relationships ). There are other aspects to philo other than religion (aesthetics, logic etc ) - although it might be that one's whole world view is seen through the lens of religion...

AS: Well, I am not a teacher...I am but a mere student.

Depends on how you define 'teacher' - and even teachers are students...'mere student' indeed !

However, like I said before, I have been very embarrassed when learning by the "Socratic" method.

What, when and how did you learn by the Socratic method - and do the quote marks mean that you didn't see it as such ?
It's when the light bulb goes off (and it might even be years later)
Lookee here you got me confused - I talk of the light bulb going 'on' - as in I'm enlightened
and you blush when you finally figure out what the teacher was trying to get at....and then you remembered what you had said and how foolish it was.
Yeah, I've reviewed some past conversations and - but what the heck...

AS: Most of his [Non sum ] 'good' stuff was in the other forum. But he did post a few times on this one. I will try to see if I can get you an example. However, he was just having conversations...and not necessarily in "teaching" mode. lol

I should say here that I remember Non Sum well, but just unsure as to how he proceeded - I didn't think it was any precise 'method'. I remember him as a gentleman who encouraged a leap into the unknown...and did he really leave the PN forum - or is he reborn anew ?

AS:... for me...the aesthetics of a certain person or thing...be it good or bad or neutral....sometimes can lead me on a path of a deeper wisdom. I will try to give you an example...but I am sorry...I don't have a Socratic example at this moment.

OK, I suppose your example will have to do

Let's take a wall. When I am doing a mural, let's suppose I need to find the center of the wall and I will use a tape measure to do so. However, the wall has a certain aesthetic value. aesthetically speaking, let's suppose the entrance to the room is at the other end of room, to the far right. In my mind, if I found the dead center of the wall where the mural is going...and painted it there....visually/aesthetically it would not look like it was centered...even if mathematically it was. This is because aesthetically speaking, the distance between the space between the center of the "mural" wall and where you are standing, is much closer that the (visual) difference of the distance between the center to the wall farthest away from where you are standing.
So in order for the mural to "appear" center from your perspective, it has to be a little off center so that it fools the eye visually.

So, it's all in the eye.

I believe there is this same aesthetic thing happening having to do with emotions and learning as well as sight. So, I while I agree that it might be better for most people as far as their 'feelings' go...to be gentle lead into an positive aesthetic way of understanding...but I think if they learned not to "feel" so harmed....they could do what "non Sum" did...and peel away the 'aesthetic' white noise...in order to 'hear' more clearly.

I think I get your drift here. Is it about letting go of your ego ? Sometimes your self gets in the way - because you already have some defences up ?

Like the wall, I have trouble with visually. I am aware that my aesthetics of 'dead center' are not correct. I know that mathematically, dead center is not where it should be...in my visual "judgment.' So I move it...no biggie. But I don't move it thinking I am right and math is wrong. I move it knowing I am wrong and math is right.

I don't understand where notions of 'wrong' and 'right' come into this ?
Nor how it relates to the stripping away of self ? In this scenario, your dead centre is right for you...

It is with confidence that I am able to say, "I am wrong."
Fine, if you are - but what if I say you are right ? will we argue ? or misinterpret each other ? Is this necessarily a 'fight' ? An instance of 'human violence' ? It might be that the word 'violence' needs to be defined...

Meaning...when tjh or rick or socrates, for that matter, used the Socratic method or the method of entrapment, (as the case may be), they might be saying the same thing....only we fight against tjh and not rick or socrates.
Not necessarily so. Also, the same thing might be said, but the intentions, effects and conclusions might be totally different.

Now I ask you...why should that be...if both are correct? Why should we focus on the superfluous nastiness of tjh? Here is a visual of what I mean...I hope you will understand...and I apologize in advance for my crassness....

No need to apologize - it is not your crassness. And I don't think that all of us did focus on the nastiness of TJH; however it did prove challenging to see beyond it to any merit.

TJH: You fucking gay idiot....2+2=4....I think arising and rick sleep together!
Rick: I will not ban you because I believe in free speech for all of my forum members....2+2=4.....But I will protect my forum members from threats...so don't make any, please.

If we take away all of the personality/feelings/judgments/aesthetics....we are left with 2+2=4.
Agreed, we are more likely to see the message, if the messenger can display clarity and reasonableness. Also, the message is not as clear cut a 'truth' as 2+2=4. I'm not even sure that the initial thread had any substance in it whatsoever...

AS:I was getting at the aesthetics of the Socratic method vs. entrapment. Neither of these methods would "break one's legs nor pick one's pocket"...literally speaking. The only damage that would truly be done would be an aesthetic one....meaning our feelings could be hurt. That is why I say that Rick and TJH could say the same thing in very different ways...and because we don't like tjh we might 'feel' harmed. But ...literally speaking...tjh's words...would not 'break our legs nor pick our pockets."

The result of the 'entrapment' re the original thread wasn't so much about feelings being hurt as just being 'wrong'. Words, and deletion of words, can do damage to trust, respect and reputation.

"Remove the judgment and you have removed the thought, 'I am hurt'. Remove the thought, 'I am hurt" and the hurt itself is removed." Marcus Aurelius
Yeah, I like the guy too
I believe most if not all judgments = aesthetics.
Oh boy, that's a biggie and worthy of a longer debate !!!!

MB:Erm - I think you assume too much. And the original thread was not a sunday sermon...[/i][/b]

AS: I did not see the first thread.
That is a pity, because that is the one this whole thread is based on !

MB:Again, who is this 'we'.
Re : But TJH's personality was not the issue...it was separate and apart from his essay. But we all made it the issue...we allowed that to persuade our reading of a simple thought, which was...humanity is cruel
AS: Oh sorry...the 'we' is me and them (whoever felt harm by tjh's words).
'We' didn't all make TJH's personality the issues or allow it to persuade our reading of a simple thought; or necessarily felt harm. Who do you think did ?

MB:The idea presented I think slightly more complicated than 'humanity is cruel'.
AS:Sorry, I don't know what was presented in the first sermon...only in the second. And it the second I did not think what tjh said was all that complicated. But Perhaps it was and I just did not 'get it.'

Again, it wasn't a sermon - it was the Rick is Arising 'nonsense thread' which was deleted, unfortunately. I think the idea of 'human violence' was thereafter diluted somewhat ?

MB:The thread, as far as I can remember, was not the simple presentation of an idea; Rick described it as a 'nonsense discussion' - others as trolling; TJH basically instigated a fight.
AS: Yes, that is tjh personality.
Is it ? We can all instigate a philo 'fight' but this is not necessarily indicative of our personality.
I should have continued - he instigated a fight, then used the 'fight' as exemplifying what Gray meant by 'human violence' - this concept seems to be one worth pursuing...

MB:However, perhaps we can conclude that the Socratic Method can be defined as entrapment, depending on meaning and context.

AS: I am late for work...what you say in this whole thread I will have to think about. I am one of the types that it takes a long time for the 'light bulb to go off." lol sorry bout that. Perhaps I should read the links you provide again and then read the sunday sermon again. Maybe I will be able to learn more about what you are trying to tell me...as right now...I feel I am in the dark. Too bad I didn't see the first sunday sermon thread. Maybe I would have understood better.

No need to do all the re-reading, nor for any 'sorriness' - you put a tremendous amount of time, thought and effort into all your postings - and make it fun to talk. Thanks !

[marjoramblues]

I would be grateful for being trapped in an argument. This is a challenge and an opportunity to find out how such a trap works.
The big advantage here is that everything is written down and one can reread many times and find out what happened and think about it and read again and ask a friend and read again and ask new questions and try some new ways to get out of the trap and so on.

Lovely !

This is how I progress mentally.

Well go on then, start an argument/debate and someone might come along and apply the socratic method to it.
I have often wondered about where I go wrong -or how I could have expressed myself differently - and some kind of post-discussion analysis might help...

[marjoramblues]

We could collect argumentative traps or even open here a trap school.
We could make traps explicit so that general public can see and learn.
It is good if as many people as possible recognize traps and know how to defend themselves.

I will think of a trap and present one here if you are interested.
To make a start.

We could make whole systems of traps, they probably share characteristics and can be catagorized.

Are you talking about all that fallacious stuff ?