3 ms·

Socrates then, by a series of ignorant-sounding questions, forced the others into such a mélange of self-contradictions that they would finally break down and a

Socrates then, by a series of ignorant-sounding questions, forced the others into such a mélange of self-contradictions that they would finally break down and admit they didn't know what they were talking about. It is the mark of the marvelous toleration of the Athenians that they let this continue for decades and that it wasn't till Socrates turned seventy that they broke down and forced him to drink poison. It's seldom pleasant to be (accurately) instructed in your own ignorance, particularly by someone pretending not to know anything. Asimov's theory that Socrates' death was a result of his habit of patronizing everyone rather than the actual charges is plausible.

the_af 3y ago
Also, in internet arguments, there's nothing more infuriating than the other person appointing themselves as some kind of modern-day Socrates and "teaching" you.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Forgive me, if I may be so kind as to ask, but what makes you think such people are trying to "teach" you?
  - paulluuk 3y ago
    Hm, that's an interesting question. What makes you want to ask this?
tacitusarc 3y ago
There can be a balance here. Often I’ll have a viewpoint and when I hear a different one, I won’t immediately say I disagree. Instead I’ll ask questions to discover where the gap in our understanding lies. Then, it may be helpful to share that I have additional knowledge (I’d I do), or to learn something I was missing, or to recognize we value different things and move on. Immediate disagreement is often far less productive.
- sopooneo 3y ago
  Methods for coming to understanding between parties acting in good faith really fascinates me. One thing I've noticed is the fundamental crux often lies with some assumption each party finds so fundamental that they wouldn't bother to state it, and don't even necessary realize they hold the view *. As a gross example, my wife told me the other day of a buyer of some CraigsList item that called to say she couldn't find our address. They went back and forth each getting more and more flummoxed by the other's statement of what streets were where. Finally it was discovered that the caller was in Cambridge, Ontario, having misnavigated CraigsList, while we were in Cambridge, MA. It is mistakes so fundamental as these that are hard to discover. One help I've often found is to bring in a fresh third party. * Saying to "state your assumptions" seems futile to me. There are too many. The sun will rise, time will continue to tick by at the same rate, your friend didn't change his name yesterday, Coke still sells soft drinks.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  As a counterpoint, people acting in bad faith can continue asking questions. It's usually known as "sealioning" https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/ https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/
mlsu 3y ago
Like many people, I took a college course that talked all about Socrates and we read the Apologia and stuff. I had assumed that it was basically all fiction. That there was some guy who kept being annoying by asking questions, so much so that he was put to death, it's just a little too cute to be historical fact. And that all of us discussing this stuff as if it actually happened is actually just an exercise in reiterating the truthiness of the underlying idea; that if we said it was fiction at the start, we'd be doing lit analysis, rather than philosophy. Right?
- rck 3y ago
  No, there's pretty good evidence that Socrates did exist, though there is debate about what he actually believed and taught, since in Plato's later dialogues the character of Socrates typically was advancing Plato's position. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem
  - mlsu 3y ago
    I don't necessarily mean that Socrates is a totally fictional character. Just that basically everything we know about his "character" is made up. Like, he did exist, but the Socrates that we know doesn't talk like that, didn't have those ideas, wasn't that clever, didn't do any of the stuff described, wasn't put to death in such a fashion, etc. Those were all just made up as a way for Plato to forward his ideas; because in those days you couldn't just dryly talk about ideas, you needed to have characters and a story and so on.
    - olddustytrail 3y ago
      If you're going to assume that, then why not assume that Plato was equally made up and just a story?

the_af 3y ago

Also, in internet arguments, there's nothing more infuriating than the other person appointing themselves as some kind of modern-day Socrates and "teaching" you.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
Forgive me, if I may be so kind as to ask, but what makes you think such people are trying to "teach" you?
- paulluuk 3y ago
  Hm, that's an interesting question. What makes you want to ask this?

tacitusarc 3y ago

There can be a balance here. Often I’ll have a viewpoint and when I hear a different one, I won’t immediately say I disagree. Instead I’ll ask questions to discover where the gap in our understanding lies. Then, it may be helpful to share that I have additional knowledge (I’d I do), or to learn something I was missing, or to recognize we value different things and move on. Immediate disagreement is often far less productive.

sopooneo 3y ago
Methods for coming to understanding between parties acting in good faith really fascinates me. One thing I've noticed is the fundamental crux often lies with some assumption each party finds so fundamental that they wouldn't bother to state it, and don't even necessary realize they hold the view *. As a gross example, my wife told me the other day of a buyer of some CraigsList item that called to say she couldn't find our address. They went back and forth each getting more and more flummoxed by the other's statement of what streets were where. Finally it was discovered that the caller was in Cambridge, Ontario, having misnavigated CraigsList, while we were in Cambridge, MA. It is mistakes so fundamental as these that are hard to discover. One help I've often found is to bring in a fresh third party. * Saying to "state your assumptions" seems futile to me. There are too many. The sun will rise, time will continue to tick by at the same rate, your friend didn't change his name yesterday, Coke still sells soft drinks.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
As a counterpoint, people acting in bad faith can continue asking questions. It's usually known as "sealioning" https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/ https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/

mlsu 3y ago

Like many people, I took a college course that talked all about Socrates and we read the Apologia and stuff. I had assumed that it was basically all fiction. That there was some guy who kept being annoying by asking questions, so much so that he was put to death, it's just a little too cute to be historical fact. And that all of us discussing this stuff as if it actually happened is actually just an exercise in reiterating the truthiness of the underlying idea; that if we said it was fiction at the start, we'd be doing lit analysis, rather than philosophy. Right?

rck 3y ago
No, there's pretty good evidence that Socrates did exist, though there is debate about what he actually believed and taught, since in Plato's later dialogues the character of Socrates typically was advancing Plato's position. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem
- mlsu 3y ago
  I don't necessarily mean that Socrates is a totally fictional character. Just that basically everything we know about his "character" is made up. Like, he did exist, but the Socrates that we know doesn't talk like that, didn't have those ideas, wasn't that clever, didn't do any of the stuff described, wasn't put to death in such a fashion, etc. Those were all just made up as a way for Plato to forward his ideas; because in those days you couldn't just dryly talk about ideas, you needed to have characters and a story and so on.
  - olddustytrail 3y ago
    If you're going to assume that, then why not assume that Plato was equally made up and just a story?