The Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate rational thinking and to illuminate ideas.[1] It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point.
In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchus is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example, the nature or definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to one general characterization,[6] it has the following steps:
- Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the soul", which Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
- Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example "Courage is a fine thing" and "Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".
- Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis, in this case it leads to: "courage is not endurance of the soul".
- Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that its contrary is true.
While arguing it is second nature for all of us(yeah this is universal; SHUT UP! my blog my truths...) to defend all that we say usually to the bitter/victorious end(at least we remain convinced in our heads that we couldn't possibly have been wrong). A sure fire way to end most arguments (and start some(stupid) fights)(with strangers) would be showing "the finger", along with some invectives(qty: to taste).I have 26 hours and 30 minutes before my end sems start and all I can think about is the prolonged discussion(argument) I had with my friend for the last two hours(topics ranged from nationalism, terrorism, etc. to mallus & coconuts and hyderabadis and so on and so forth.....the original idea was to study.(very common occurrence, this(at least happens to me time and again), sit with your friends {night out} to group study{biggest academic sham there is} and end up talking nonsense.(I have paid the price for this in full, now writing after seeing the results of the said end semester exams)
Refusing to get goaded in an argument is a trick of mind, I've learnt this the hard way.
[ Its essentially involves to presume, before anything at all is said, that
the one goading will be spouting supreme bull crap, consciously listening to which itself
is self demeaning in the extreme.(This approach is not becoming in a
proper debate where ignoring your opponents opinions is a strategic
disadvantage and indicative of ignorant arrogance(besides being plain stupid,else what is the point of the entire exercise?), but the incidence under consideration is not a proper debate, just another innovative way to waste time.).]
Goading is an art, some have an inborn ability to goad and others have an inborn ability to get goaded.The latter is the breed which puts a lot of store in righteous anger and its efficacy(delusional at best).
The exchange itself is charming by its very nature, endearingly entertaining due to the classic crassness of the content, skilled presentation and delivery of the points of argument, and of course the sheer volume(courtesy occasional incoherence of the participants involved)
In senseless arguments like these it is important to "get to" your opponent. Repeating what he just said in a ridiculous imitation is a classic albeit somewhat primitive trick.
to be continued..........
