Socratic Merhod Useful for Examining Spiritual Ideas?

So the gal from Seattle *is* still about!

And welcome aboard Spockrates.

To the OP, sounds like fun, but I'm inclined to agree....mileage may vary. In any such discourse, there will be those who are *determined* to win, thereby breaking the rules (or not understanding them). A rather common conundrum.
 
Actually, I have a qliphoth working coming up tomorrow, and since I'm so much of a retard when it comes to bringing the results into consciousness from this sort of depth psychology, I could probably use a good Socratic grilling in the spirit that Job's three friends grilled him in the Book of Job. (Which I really suspect refers to Qliphoth work in a metaphorical manner.)

I volunteer to be grilled! :D
 
Wil finds a comfortable pillow and sits off to the side in the dim lights, mumbling under his breath, "Now this is worth the price of admission, I know I can learn something here."
 
OK then, from the site linked in the OP:

According to Vlastos,[5] it has the following steps:
  1. Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the soul", which Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
  2. Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example "Courage is a fine thing" and "Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".
  3. 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".
  4. Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that its negation is true.

One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being considered, in this case it invites an examination of the claim: "Courage is wise endurance of the soul". Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of elenchi and typically end in puzzlement known as aporia.
 
syllogism

n.
1. an argument of a form containing a major premise and a minor premise connected with a middle term and aconclusion, as “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”
2. deductive reasoning.
3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.
 
spockrates said:
Hi. I'm new here.
Click to expand...
Hi, and welcome.

spockrates said:
I wonder what people of different faiths think about the idea of using the Socratic Method to determine the likelihood that what their religion teaches is true.
Click to expand...
In the Catholic Tradition, what is 'true' is that which is Revealed.

The Socratic method is then used to argue the reason and rationality of those revealed truths, but it does not in itself determine those truths.
 
Thomas said:
The Socratic method is then used to argue the reason and rationality of those revealed truths, but it does not in itself determine those truths.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Which to me reinforces the variable nature of the term "truth," in practice there is such a wide variety of meanings attached to the word "truth."
 
OK, my first thesis: One must not repress ones dark side. Repression is like throwing a bandage over a wound without cleaning it out, allowing it to fester and build poisons. Instead, one must examine ones dark side intelligently in order to find a resolution to the repressed problems.
 
Dang it!

Is examining expressing?

(As opposed to letting out/not repressing...dark side as to sinful nature? Harm, abuse, rape murder?)

I'm lacking definition....dang it sit wil...sit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top