Philosophy Now Forum

majoramblues wrote:... 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. ...

I disagree, he used this as a justification for unsupported assertions about both myself, the mods and the creator of this website. He did it in revenge for being previously banned. It is an example of what Gray talks about but not in the way The Jesus Head claims. He could have used any other method of starting a 'philo fight' or preferably written an actual essay about what he thinks about John Gray's thoughts and he'd have gotten a reasonable discussion going I think, as he can write fairly well, but that's not why he's here.

MB:The follow-up link describes the Socratic method in Ethics - perhaps more useful ?

AS:Yes, I really liked that link better than the first. However, as far as ethics goes...I think maybe sometimes...people don't intend to do the wrong thing...but that they are not good at prioritizing what is the lesser of 2 evils. Like the kids who thought honesty was the most important thing...until their own 'honesty is the best policy' came back to bite them in the ass. It seems to me, those type of people...would have a hard time prioritizing good from bad/right from wrong in a logical way...unless that guy was with them every second of their lives...going through the Socratic method each time they encountered a difficult concept having to do with ethics.

Actually, my best friend (soul mate/like a sister) has alot of difficulty with prioritizing in this sort of way. But it is not because she is a bad person that she chooses the 'wrong ethic's' (for lack of a better word)...it's because she wants to be a social and have fun with people.For example, she was telling me a story about how she played a practical joke on a co worker. It seems my friend went over to the co worker while he was on the phone and starting patting his bald head. While he was busy talking and ignoring her advances, she took out a permanent magic marker and drew a smiley face on the top of his head!

I said, "OMG! You did not!"

She laughed and said, "We always play pranks like that on each other."

I said, "Sweetie...that is a little more than a prank! That is soo mean!* How would you like it if in retaliation, he came over and drew a smiley face on your pretty blond hair with permanent ink? Aren't you worried he will?"

She said, "No...he liked it...he was laughing. I am a different person...I would not like it."

I said, "I don't think he liked it."

She said, "I will ask him."

So she called him right there in front of me and asked him if he thought the prank was funny or 'mean'. He said, "Neither, I thought it was childish."

She got off the phone and said, "Well, I certainly don't like being considered childish...so I won't do that again when I pull my pranks on him"

The thing is I am not so sure that another one of her pranks won't be worse! As she would need someone using the Socratic method 24/7 to help her discern a fun flirtatious practical joke from a mean prank. She just doesn't understand these types of things on here own. When she crosses a border, it is not because she is "mean" or unethical or whatever. Cruel intent is just not there. Good intent is...but she doesn't always know what that is. Like the guy in your link says, it does not work on illogical people (not that she is illogical in every way...just when it comes to pranks...lol.)

MB: I love your stories, AS - aesthetically pleasing

AS: Thanks...aren't you sorry you mentioned it now....considering the story above.


MB: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 ?

AS: Oh no....the quotes were to indicate that the person was not using the "Socratic method" on me in a formal way, like a teacher. It was just used in an informal friendly way by a friend.

RE: 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

AS: Sorry...mixed metaphors...lol Note to self: Light bulb goes on...buzzer goes off.

MB: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 ?

AS: Hmmm...not exactly. But I like what you have to say here. To me aesthetics is more about deceiving yourself with illusions that you hold as logical...when in fact they are not. And that there is no reasoning to believe that they are anything other than the one true reality(whatever that is)...and even when the facade is stripped away...and you see clearly....then possibly you still choose the illogical choice...not because of defenses i.e.you don't want to admit you are wrong...but because you can't imagine yourself not believing in the illusion. The illusion is who you are...it is the basis of your entire existence.

Did you ever see 'The Third Man"? In the movie there is this woman who is in love with this man. She is so strongly in love with him that even when she finds out she is a inhumane monster....she continues to love him in the same manner as before...even though there is no hope for the love to be realized. It is this type of absurdity I am talking about...and it has little to do with ego, i believe. As ego takes a certain pride in things...it knows why it loves and why it doesn't love. Ego wants to show you the logic in it's behavior...even if such logic is illogical it will take pride in defending that logic. What I am talking about is an illusion so intense that it is impervious to logic. It is so strong that it knows no ego. It simply is. This is what I mean by aesthetics/feelings/judgments.

MB:Fine, if you are - but what if I say you are right ? will we argue ? or misinterpret each other ? Is this necessarily a 'fight' ?

AS: It doesn't matter if you say I am wrong or right in the realm of aesthetics...it just 'is' in some cases. Do you think there is a concept that you would not budge on even if Socrates himself came down and proved you wrong using his method? I am just asking. It seems to me, for the people who executed him, this was the case. I don't know if there is anything I hold so intensely. Perhaps I am just a wishy washy person who changes with the better logical argument that I can understand. Perhaps that too is me following aesthetics...because it pleases me to have the light bulb go 'on'. (too bad when it clicks on it casts a spotlight on the emptiness inside my head! lol)

MB:Not necessarily so. Also, the same thing might be said, but the intentions, effects and conclusions might be totally different

AS: How do you mean?

MB: I'm not even sure that the initial thread had any substance in it whatsoever...

AS: Too bad it's gone. I would have liked to know what you meant as the second thread seemed to hold some substance...even if, in my understanding, it was simplistic.

MB:That is a pity, because that is the one this whole thread is based on !

AS:Perhaps you could tie it all together for me. The first thread was a type of 'entrapment'?

MB:'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 ?

AS: I didn't like it's 'tone'. I think reasonvemotion felt harm by some of it...as she asked amod to step in on the name calling. I kinda got the feeling that SOB felt some harm...but I doubt that he would call it 'harm' the same way I mean 'harm'. I simply mean that most replies to tjh's first post...were not about the simplistic content...but more about the way he said it. Most replies felt like 'retaliations' for harm perceived.

MB: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...

AS:Well, this is sort of what I mean by aesthetics...what would be the difference between tjh and "Gray" and his 'human violence' and someone like "Jesus" and his dying on the cross for our sins? I think the difference is...Jesus believed we were worth it...and that flatters us...unlike someone who abuses us with his rhetoric like tjh. Still...the reality is...jesus thought we resorted to human violence too, same as Gray...or why would he feel the need to even die for our sins in the first place? (I hope anyone reading this realizes that I am just using an example here...I do not wish to bring religion into this argument...it's just that I could not think of another example of "goodness" aesthetically speaking that is...)

MB: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 !

AS: Right back atcha! Socrates doesn't have anything over you. You can lead me anywhere anytime!


*I couldn't think of a better word...I didn't exactly mean that she was a mean person...cause she is not...if you knew her you would understand...difficult to describe...

AS:Perhaps you could tie it all together for me. The first thread was a type of 'entrapment'?

AS, it is a pity that the original thread and TJH's Conclusion were deleted. And I agree with Arising that a discussion re John Gray and 'Straw dogs' would be useful to clarify meaning.

I have really gone as far as I want to with this. It is a bit like chewing old gum.
However, I think SOB pulled it together best in the Sunday Sermon 17th June, where I responded on Tuesday Jun 19th at 09.28hrs.

SOB Quote:
First I believe his entire spiel, as to an experiment, as total BS, so as he could save face, a smart chess move, for a deceiver. He merely attempted to push peoples buttons and then say it was an attempt to conduct experiment, but through out his days leading up to this so called test, his buttons were easily pushed as well. I see his whole charade as egoism, so as to make as big a splash as possible, which is probably why he started messing with Rick. I do not see this as having any bearing as to mankind being incapable of furthering his moral sense.

M: I am not sure of TJH's motives - however, I too think that the 'thought experiment' idea was an after-the-event rationalisation.

Everyone has their own perspective on what happened and thoughts re TJH's motivation. I think it's been done to death.
I'm moving on. I'm grateful to TJH for raising some interesting points and provoking thoughts, inspiring this thread.

Thanks to all for the input.

marjoramblues wrote: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.

Kinda, but it's not a crime that they're being lured into committing, rather, self contradiction, so yes in a sense, at least as far as I'm concerned, they're somewhat analogous. But I don't see it as unethical as with a policeman and a crime. What better way to prove a case to someone than to allow him to do so himself.

Does luring someone into unwittingly attacking their idol count as entrapment or is that just the Socratic method in action? Or maybe it's a just a good excuse for a laugh.

John wrote:Does luring someone into unwittingly attacking their idol count as entrapment or is that just the Socratic method in action? Or maybe it's a just a good excuse for a laugh.

Entrapment and definitely a good laugh.

John wrote:Does luring someone into unwittingly attacking their idol count as entrapment or is that just the Socratic method in action? Or maybe it's a just a good excuse for a laugh.

Who are you talking about John? It can't be me, I have no idols.

P.S. God, I can be so brain dead sometimes, TJH and his idol, John Gray. OK that's what I get for skimming.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

John wrote:Does luring someone into unwittingly attacking their idol count as entrapment or is that just the Socratic method in action? Or maybe it's a just a good excuse for a laugh.

Who are you talking about John? It can't be me, I have no idols.

P.S. God, I can be so brain dead sometimes, TJH and his idol, John Gray. OK that's what I get for skimming.

Majoramblues

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"!

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.

reasonvemotion


LOL
That must be almost everyone here.

One sort of trap:

A man says to a woman: Marry me.
She says: No.
He says: It´s because I am .... (whatever: white, black, red, yellow). You are a racist.
She: I am not a racist.
He: Yes, you are, if you are not a racist then marry me.

How can she argue in order to get out of this trap ?

1. The guy over there is .... (white, black, red, yellow) and I do not marry him either. So I am not a racist.

2. One can have hundreds of good reasons for not marrying someone. I wish to stay single.
He: this is only a cheap excuse, a pretext.

duszek wrote:One sort of trap:

A man says to a woman: Marry me.
She says: No.
He says: It´s because I am .... (whatever: white, black, red, yellow). You are a racist.
She: I am not a racist.
He: Yes, you are, if you are not a racist then marry me.

How can she argue in order to get out of this trap ?

Why do we feel the need to argue anyway...she could just say,

"You got it...I'm a racist." (and walk away in the self confidence she isn't)

Or

"I wouldn't marry anyone who calls people racist." (and walk away in the self confidence she wouldn't)

Yes, these two can work too, for people with your personality type.

But would it not be better to show to the manipulator how his or her trick works ?
And to the world at large ?
So that the next girl (or a boy, why not) does not fall into the same trap.

The manipulator establishes what causes what and how to disprove it.

"A black boy refuses to marry a white girl because he is a racist." (an unproven assumption)

"And in order to prove the contrary he should do what she wants." (not the only prove available in such a case, and does the refusing party need to prove anything ? should not the accusing party provide a prove instead of simply affirming an unproven fact ? )

duszek wrote:One sort of trap:

A man says to a woman: Marry me.
She says: No.
He says: It´s because I am .... (whatever: white, black, red, yellow). You are a racist.
She: I am not a racist.
He: Yes, you are, if you are not a racist then marry me.

How can she argue in order to get out of this trap ?

1. The guy over there is .... (white, black, red, yellow) and I do not marry him either. So I am not a racist.

2. One can have hundreds of good reasons for not marrying someone. I wish to stay single.
He: this is only a cheap excuse, a pretext.

If she wants to say No, that's all she has to do and walk away - mentally/actually. Unless she wants to provide him with an explanation, be it true, false or a white lie to sweeten the bitter pill. Why should he (or anyone) feel they have the right to entrap/pressure/bully someone else into a comment/situation which the other person does not want to make or be in, nor should how they react, e.g she didn't marry me because she is racist or xyz, matter to the person they were trying to trap in the first place.

A skillful manipulator can try to trap a weak-willed person into marriage in order to get a residence permit for example.

It does not have to be marriage of course, it can be lots of other things. But the trap works after the same pattern, that is why I wanted to make it clear what the trap is all about. It can only work if people do not understand the mechanism behind it.

duszek wrote:Yes, these two can work too, for people with your personality type.

But would it not be better to show to the manipulator how his or her trick works ?
And to the world at large ?
So that the next girl (or a boy, why not) does not fall into the same trap.

The manipulator establishes what causes what and how to disprove it.

"A black boy refuses to marry a white girl because he is a racist." (an unproven assumption)

"And in order to prove the contrary he should do what she wants." (not the only prove available in such a case, and does the refusing party need to prove anything ? should not the accusing party provide a prove instead of simply affirming an unproven fact ? )

So what you are saying is to 'manipulate the manipulator'? This is fine and dandy if she is interested in prolonging the conversation. As it has been my experience, lessons such as these are not so easily managed. She better be prepared for a very long session of "but why?" from him. Especially, since the logic is not there to begin with in his argument.

Someone who calls another person a racist because they won't marry them has some serious problems in the first place. It is an argument that is hitting below the belt and where there is one argument of this type...there are others. I think the girl would be well advised to walk away as there is no way she will be able to "teach' a fellow like this anything. Now it is one thing if she thinks she might be able to change him because she is in love...then that could be her little "fixer upper" and I would just say "good luck with that!" As I think she will have a life of spinning her wheels....but to each their own.

Anyway, to me this argument is the same as the "if you love me you will" argument that most every woman/girl has to hear. It is a no win situation and the woman/girl has to face the fact that she only really has 2 options here.

1. She can give in and let him have his way.

or

2. She can say no (and possibly lose him)

Personally, no.2 has always worked out better in the long run...both in getting the guy and in keeping my self esteem in tack. It has been my experience if you stay true to who you are , you get the more reasonable sort of fellow...one that won't make your life a living hell with his illogical 'madness,' As to argue with a fellow who has no reasoning skills...like the bully in your example, can bring a girl down to his level.

Plus it is priceless to see the look on their face when you call them on their own game. You can see them gain a certain respect for you and kinda scramble to change their game plan very quickly. But you have to say no seriously. Not no and wait for a response like you want them to talk you out of it. You have to say 'no' sweetly and then close the door. Like...

" I am sorry, I am not the girl for you. You would be better off to marry a girl who you didn't think was a racist."

Then turn and walk away quickly...and let them think about how their stupid illogical bullying lost them the girl....forever. They will not be so quick to use the same 'logic' on the next girl they want to marry.