My Ads
Socrates is often held forth as the patron saint of open inquiry. Socrates presented his thoughts in a series of question and answer sessions called the "Socratic Method." The system is often called dialectics.
A primary theme of Rich Theory is the proper use of dialectics. When used correctly, dialectics expands our knowledge. When used in the wrong way, it muddles the waters of discourse. The tools of discourse are much like the power tools in the woodworker's shed. When used correctly, one can make beautiful things. When used poorly, it is easy to lop off a limb.
The standard interpretation of the ancients is that Socrates used dialectics correctly, while they Sophists used the tools of discourse in a manipulative and ultimately destructive manor.
Unfortunately, this case is difficult to make because Socrates was careful not to write down his thoughts. Socrates knew intuitively that anything he wrote would be used by his enemies to discredit his efforts.
One might argue that not writing down the details of inquiry is part of the wisdom of Socrates. When a person is authentically engaged in open inquiry they will consider ideas that they do not believe. Also, when a person is engaged in exploring different sides an issue, they will, by the nature of open inquiry, make contradictory statements.
For example, I might follow the path where I assume A to be true. I then follow the path where Not-A is true. If I published the full details of my open inquiry, some dunderhead would beconme obsessed with the fact that I contradicted myself by exploring more than one path of reason.
The goal of Rich Theory is not to disparage the use of dialectics, but encourage people to be attentive to the way they use different tools. Attention to the form of arguments can help assure efforts are constructive.
The legend of Socrates begins when the Oracle of Delphi answers the question: "Is there any man wiser than Socrates?" to which the Oracle said "No."
Legend holds that Socrates was surprised by this answer, and decided that the source of this prophetic wisdom lay in his acceptance of his ignorance.
The Socratic Method takes the form of a supplicant seeking counsel from the wise Socrates. Socrates would profess ignorance of the matter at hand and begin asking the supplicant questions. The question/answer session would often reveal weaknesses in the supplicant's definitions, or fallacies in the method of thought. In many cases the dialog would end with the supplicant holding a position opposite of what they held at the beginning of the dialog.
For example, the supplicant might come to Socrates with the idea that justice is a matter of punishing one's enemies and rewarding one's friends. The dialog would end with the thought that there was a higher form of justice and that the supplicant's friends were the unjust ones.
I suspect that some people admire the Socratic Method simply for the ability to turn an argument on its head. It is human nature to want one's partisan enemies to look foolish.
A master of rhetoric can use dialectical arguments to move definitions in any direction they desire. It is not difficult to write a dialog where the supplicant starts with a universal definition of justice, and is moved by the dialogue to the position that justice is simply a matter of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. For every Socratic dialogue that changes the definition from A to B, there is a reverse dialogue that moves the definition back from B to A.
In my opinion, the Socratic Method fails as a rhetorical tool. People who try to play the role of Socrates in discourse often do little more than attack the definitions of their opponents while avoiding any clear statements of their position. The game of gaining power by attacking the definitions of one's opponent leads to a terse rational style where terms take on contradictory meanings, and people split into partisan groups that are completely incapable of communicating.
The two keys of the Socratic Method are that the supplicant approached Socrates specifically to help clarify definitions they found troublesome, and that Socrates was not the supplicant's enemy.
It is possible to contrive a Socratic dialogue where a guru destroys their enemy by forcing a change of definition. Most of these fantasy dialogues are little more than contrivances. People who seek influence by attacking definitions often do little more than muddle the waters of discourse.
In this work, I am interested primarily in the form of the Socratic Method. The substance of Socrates is worth investigating. It simply is not a primary concern of this work.
Like the other Sophists of his day, Socrates was more interested in the challenges of civic life than in cosmology. Socrates concentrated on questions of ethics and the nature of the mind. Thoughts of the day seemed to be turning from the monism of Parmenides to a dualism where the mind is separate from matter.
Socrates also appears to be more attentive to the form of arguments and the difficulties in deriving accepted definitions than his predecessors.
Socrates showed that, when done correctly, there is great value in open inquiry.
The legend of Socrates ends when the powerful oligarchy that formed in the Athenian democracy tried Socrates, found him guilty of being a nuisance and had him drink a concoction of poisonous hemlock.
index - y-intercept - Salt Lake - sponsors