3 ms·

A couple of comments: 1) The author complains that the Socratic dialogs are contrived and largely consist of one character explaining something and the other sa

A couple of comments: 1) The author complains that the Socratic dialogs are contrived and largely consist of one character explaining something and the other saying "I see" and so on. Well, that's true, but that's kind of how the format works. You could make a similar complaint about Plato's _Republic_. 2) I think the author totally misses that the reference to not hearing the silverware during 4'33" in a cafe is a joke. Of course it wouldn't work that way.

nabla9 8y ago
This is common problem called "illiterate literary critique". People who don't read books, or have restricted themselves into limited genres, subjects and styles are easily thrown off. It's common to see very good writing as contrived or pretentious if it's not what you are not familiar with. Claims of elitism are used to paint actual skill and quality as negative.
- yakubin 8y ago
  It is is possible to know where the style comes from and still dislike it. E.g. I read Plato’s Republic [sic] and hate it for, among other things, its literary style. I find it artificial and, in the case of Plato, fundamentally dishonest - serving as an argument from authority (see Popper’s critique in “Open society and its enemies vol 1”).
pmoriarty 8y ago
"The author complains that the Socratic dialogs are contrived and largely consist of one character explaining something and the other saying "I see" and so on. Well, that's true, but that's kind of how the format works. You could make a similar complaint about Plato's _Republic_." Plato is widely criticized by philosophers for doing just that. We cut him some slack, however, as he was one of the first to do so. Hofstadter, by contrast, was reusing a well-worn technique and had 2500 years of critiques of Plato and literary innovations to draw on. Socratic dialogs do not have to be so one-sided. It's not difficult to make both sides of the dialog raise relevant, interesting, thoughtful points, and many Socratic dialogs post-Plato do this. It's sheer lazyness, incompetence, or intellectual dishonesty to make them one-sided.
- nabla9 8y ago
  (Socratic dialog as literary device should not be confused with Socratic method/questioning as a thinking device) Socratic dialog's have different uses. On the one end it can be used to consider serious existing counterarguments and provide answers to them. One is to explain one point of view and not to provide balanced opinion. One-sided Socratic dialog that is like a 'happy path' without hairy counterarguments falls into the latter category. Hofstadter uses them to illustrate a concepts, not to go question them. In fact the hole book is just attempt to repeat the same ideas again and again.

nabla9 8y ago

This is common problem called "illiterate literary critique". People who don't read books, or have restricted themselves into limited genres, subjects and styles are easily thrown off. It's common to see very good writing as contrived or pretentious if it's not what you are not familiar with. Claims of elitism are used to paint actual skill and quality as negative.

yakubin 8y ago
It is is possible to know where the style comes from and still dislike it. E.g. I read Plato’s Republic [sic] and hate it for, among other things, its literary style. I find it artificial and, in the case of Plato, fundamentally dishonest - serving as an argument from authority (see Popper’s critique in “Open society and its enemies vol 1”).

pmoriarty 8y ago

"The author complains that the Socratic dialogs are contrived and largely consist of one character explaining something and the other saying "I see" and so on. Well, that's true, but that's kind of how the format works. You could make a similar complaint about Plato's _Republic_." Plato is widely criticized by philosophers for doing just that. We cut him some slack, however, as he was one of the first to do so. Hofstadter, by contrast, was reusing a well-worn technique and had 2500 years of critiques of Plato and literary innovations to draw on. Socratic dialogs do not have to be so one-sided. It's not difficult to make both sides of the dialog raise relevant, interesting, thoughtful points, and many Socratic dialogs post-Plato do this. It's sheer lazyness, incompetence, or intellectual dishonesty to make them one-sided.

nabla9 8y ago
(Socratic dialog as literary device should not be confused with Socratic method/questioning as a thinking device) Socratic dialog's have different uses. On the one end it can be used to consider serious existing counterarguments and provide answers to them. One is to explain one point of view and not to provide balanced opinion. One-sided Socratic dialog that is like a 'happy path' without hairy counterarguments falls into the latter category. Hofstadter uses them to illustrate a concepts, not to go question them. In fact the hole book is just attempt to repeat the same ideas again and again.