4 ms·
This reminds me of the Socratic method that Socrates would use to refute someone's claims. He would first make them agree with a series of statements ("truths")
by seesawtron 6y ago
This reminds me of the Socratic method that Socrates would use to refute someone's claims. He would first make them agree with a series of statements ("truths") one after the other and then run into a contradictory result thereby showing them how their original thesis was wrong.
The Wikipedia article [0] does a better job of explaning it than I could.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
- e1ghtSpace 6y agoThis is what I do. Is that normal?
- sswaner 6y agoWho knows? But, it is Socratic.
- ukj 6y agoYou've noticed that other people's narratives/beliefs are internally inconsistent. Perhaps you haven't noticed that this technique can be applied to your own narratives/beliefs? Because your beliefs are inconsistent too. Everybody's beliefs are inconsistent - it's a systemic issue. We know about it. The root cause is the fact that language is recursive and it succumbs to Russel's paradox/liar's paradox. Philosophers have been using inconsistency as a crutch for guilting people into changing their minds for... ever. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. --Walt Whitman