Philosophy Now Forum

.







....................................







.

I think that to assume ignorance is a very good stand-point in order to find out if something really is the way you perceive it to be, and as a good way to get an overview and find errors in ones assumption that wouldn't be found by not inquiring about the world, its people and its objects.

Socratic dialogues, however, or Plato's dialogues, for all their genius, is not really the optimal style in my opinion. Although less readable (and despite I haven't read any significant amount of writings of the guy) I find Wittgenstein to have a more useful approach. If only he'd taken some interest in politics and stuff like it, I think that could've turned out very nice, with a chance he'd get too critical and with a lack vision ended up just criticising everybody else without making big contributions himself.

.




In the most basic general terms, how whould you say Wittgenstein's style varies from the Socratic method?


For example...from Wikipedia: -

- The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions... -





....................................................




.

Yes, you could possibly say that. The Socratic method takes the for of a dialectical method. Moving forward with knowledge through a process of synthesis, negation and reformulation.

As far as the later Wittgenstein is concerned he is using something like this method. Basically he appears to be holding a conversation with himself. That is to say, a criticism of his earlier work on language. I guess he is like Socrates, trying to progress knowledge.

Having said that, I don't think Wittgenstein is using a dialectical type method as such, although I can see a similarity.

What made you think of that Bill?

.


Well um, I uh,...I guess I started out with a process of synthesis between Wittgenstein and the structure of the Socratic method, then I applied some focused negation and and then finished with a general reformulation.





.............................................






.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:In the most basic general terms, how would you say Wittgenstein's style varies from the Socratic method?

"The Socratic method is a negative method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions..."

Wittgenstein sorts his facts and builds structures of knowledge that are relatively easy to analyse.

In the Socratic dialogues, Socrates is holding an (artificial) conversation, which looks more like a chase than a structural build-up. A problem with Socratic dialogues is that they because of this can easily lead people to believe they've actually thoroughly been through the subject when they instead have barely scratched it and the way they scratched it was to guide the other participant through ones own narrowed interests.

I'm not saying Wittgenstein does not do this either, but with him it's easier to spot and easier to attack an argument of his in relation to the rest of his structure, or expand upon some part of the structure. I can say something against one position he has and if this position underpins another part of his structural build-up and I succeed in persuading through my own argument I could collapse the entire structure. With Socrates I would have to instead chase back the way I went, and it would be more difficult to spot to begin with.

.








.........................................









.

's why you can't help but love him when you get to know him x)