5 ms·

> Regardless of what one believes, posting specifically to inflame or upset people is a form of aggression. This is a ridiculous, not to mention untenable, pos

• JeremyBanks 8y ago
  Socratic inquiry and racist trolls are only similar if you refuse to think beyond the shallowest surface description.
  • dvt 8y ago
    I'm not going to defend this straw-man. Refer to what I quoted.
    • PavlovsCat 8y ago
      > posting specifically to inflame or upset people That's not what Socrates did, was it? I thought he was just making observations and asked questions he thought had merit, despite knowing it would upset some people. But the objective wasn't to upset people in the sense of them feeling bad, more like medicine that tastes bitter but is beneficial in the long run. What I do see a lot is that people impute a bad motivation for a question or claim that allows them to dismiss it without actually having to answer or challenge it, so today, Socrates surely would be called a troll by many. Wouldn't make him one though.
      • dvt 8y ago
        Socrates was certainly a provocateur (troll?). I think what the objective of a provocateur is: (1) to get people angry or (2) to create discourse or (3) etc. -- is up for grabs. My point was that claiming it's "aggressive" is nonsense. > Socrates surely would be called a troll by many Exactly. I contend that he would be called a troll by the person I quoted -- which I think is wrong.
        • mcphage 8y ago
          > Socrates was certainly a provocateur (troll?). I think what the objective of a provocateur is: (1) to get people angry or (2) to create discourse or (3) etc. -- is up for grabs. Do you think Socrates' objective was to get people angry? Do you think that's what he was trying to accomplish?
          • dvt 8y ago
            I don't mean to dodge your question, I just think it's very hard to answer. What I do think is that Socrates was trying to point out flaws in deeply-held beliefs. I don't think it's hard to argue that when pointing out flaws in deeply-held beliefs, the subject at hand will get angry -- or at the very least uncomfortable. So, much like "no pain, no gain," anger and discourse often go hand in hand.
            • mcphage 8y ago
              > I just think it's very hard to answer. What I do think is that Socrates was trying to point out flaws in deeply-held beliefs. I don't think it's hard to answer at all—in fact, you answered it right there. No, Socrates objective wasn't to get people angry. His objective was to point out flaws in deeply held beliefs. > I don't think it's hard to argue that when pointing out flaws in deeply-held beliefs, the subject at hand will get angry -- or at the very least uncomfortable. It definitely can, but there's still a difference between trying to inflict anger, and anger being an undesirable possible side effect.
              • dvt 8y ago
                > I don't think it's hard to answer at all—in fact, you answered it right there. I guess I did shoot myself in the foot there :) I was trying to reconcile this: suppose Socrates was a dick and actually did get pleasure out of annoying people -- and the pointing out of the flaws was actually the side-effect. Would his execution somehow have been justified? I still don't think so.
        • anigbrowl 8y ago
  • bloopernova 8y ago
    People do so very much love to dress up their failings and vices in lofty goals and in playing devil's advocate. I guess it helps their ego to feel like they aren't being reprehensible scumbags.
• petty_griper 8y ago
  This has nothing to do with the parent's point. Being the "gadfly" may have value, but it's also inherently aggressive. That's why they killed him, after all. You have to be prepared to defend the value of your particular aggressive provocation- maybe it leads to enlightened self-reflection, but maybe it leads to someone shooting up a mosque.
• jstarfish 8y ago
  ...and he was ultimately executed for it. That behavior is acceptable in an academic setting, but nobody blithely posting contrarian or inflammatory content on a fansite or Facebook is doing it because they're hoping to inspire Socratic discourse.
  • dvt 8y ago
    Let me put it this way. You have a society and in your society you have an annoying Socrates. He provokes people, gets some people riled up, and gets some people to self-reflect. Some people are angry, most people are indifferent, and some people like him. You have two choices: (1) execute Socrates, or (2) accept Socrates as part of the Miltonian "marketplace of ideas" and leave him be. I'd like to think we've started to see that (2) is a better choice than (1). Dismissing Socrates as "aggressive" (and implicitly "dangerous") is, from what I can tell, not the right move.