did socrates invent the socratic method?

[Akrazotile]

no dude i think sophistry is the art of persuasion. it's more like propaganda than what you describing which is more like demagoguery or a bunch of other things.


they taught like lawyer jargon tactics to rich people

Yes and the Socratic method exposes their underlying fallacies.

[Akrazotile]

hello

hey you

[Akrazotile]

that shit you posted earlier sounded serious. you alright?

I cant talk about it here - it's too dangerous.

PM me.

[Dresta]

It wasn't wrong. Oratory is more artistic. Its a show of language and pursues a point with artistic tools that you will unwittingly describe below. The Socratic approach is less show, and more incisive and scientific in its approach. Help me out here, you're saying it was more artistically refined. I'm saying it was approached more scientifically to bear out intent, fact or important detail.

What you just described in the first parenthesis is particular to Oratory, a predecessor of the Socratic method. It can be a feature used in the Socratic method but not essential to it at all.

What are you talking about for God's sake? That is the Socratic method.

Seriously, compare the philosophy of Democritus (as found in De Rerum Natura - his writings were destroyed in the Middle Ages - remarkably well-reasoned pieces of empirical and logical deduction) to the cobweb-spinnings of Socrates and tell me again that the latter was recognised for its scientific merit over the former. Socrates' method is effective for exposing rhetorical blowhards - saying it differentiates itself from what came before by being 'very scientific' is just false, and a demonstration of your ignorance of the pre-Socratics.

Democritus was a mechanistic materialist, Socrates and Plato weren't - they were masters of the word, pedantic rhetoricians exposing the fallacies of other rhetoricians by demonstrating linguistic and logical contradictions; they were also believers in absolute truth (despite claiming to be ignorant of everything at the same time); what 'facts' did they unearth exactly?

The distinction of pre-socratic is largely made because the teachings of Plato and Socrates were those absorbed by the Church.

edit: here, just for you:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/presocra/

Take a look and learn something. The first paragraph effectively rubbishes your claims:

The application of the term “philosophy” to the Presocratics is somewhat anachronistic, but is certainly different from how many people currently think of philosophy. The Presocratics were interested in a wide variety of topics, especially in what we now think of as natural science rather than philosophy. These early thinkers often sought naturalistic explanations and causes for physical phenomena.

But then, what am i thinking? I'm arguing here with a guy who thinks the library of Alexandria wasn't Greek.

[navy]

Yes and the Socratic method exposes their underlying fallacies.

You never miss a chance to get high on a conservatism crusade. it's to the point of gimmick and not logic in which you rant you espouse. Kinda funny really

Anyways, would you not say that Socrates takes an argument to the point that it no longer serves a practical basis and solutions cant be offered even by the one "taking on the role of socrates"?

[Pointguard]

What are you talking about for God's sake? That is the Socratic method.

Seriously, compare the philosophy of Democritus (as found in De Rerum Natura - his writings were destroyed in the Middle Ages - remarkably well-reasoned pieces of empirical and logical deduction) to the cobweb-spinnings of Socrates and tell me again that the latter was recognised for its scientific merit over the former. Socrates' method is effective for exposing rhetorical blowhards - saying it differentiates itself from what came before by being 'very scientific' is just false, and a demonstration of your ignorance of the pre-Socratics.

Below you provide a link that says Democritus [I][b][SIZE="2"]]"There are also historical difficulties with the term. For example, the atomist Democritus

[NumberSix]

You just screw up everything. Its content was largely Egyptian which is why the Library had to be stationed in Africa and not Greece.

Some was, some wasn't.

And I really don't know what you mean by "had to be stationed in Africa". It didn't "have to be" stationed anywhere. Believe it or not, by this point in time, they had figured out shipping. They could have built the library anywhere. It just so happens that they wanted the new city of Alexandria to be the capital of their empire. It's no different that when Constantine made Constantinople the new capital of the Roman Empire.

Its like saying James Brown performed at the Opera House so the music could not have been Funk. Everybody in the World knows what the music is, except those who don't know the content they are dealing with.

No, that's exactly what YOU are saying. Because where it takes place ("Egypt") it can't be Greek. Everyone in the world knows its Greek, except those who don't know the content they are dealing with.

[Pointguard]

Some was, some wasn't.

And I really don't know what you mean by "had to be stationed in Africa". It didn't "have to be" stationed anywhere. Believe it or not, by this point in time, they had figured out shipping. They could have built the library anywhere. It just so happens that they wanted the new city of Alexandria to be the capital of their empire. It's no different that when Constantine made Constantinople the new capital of the Roman Empire.

Scrolls deteriorate very quickly in Greece, it wasn't like they had an option. Everything was about the scrolls. The Egyptian Scrolls and the content they wanted out of them.

No, that's exactly what YOU are saying. Because where it takes place ("Egypt") it can't be Greek.

This is at least the fourth time I explained to you that the scrolls are evident of the content. 4th time. Egyptian material (scrolls), Egyptian skill (Greeks hated writing on it), Egyptian maintenance (scrolls behave with an indigenous biochemistry of keeping good in Egypt).

[NumberSix]

Scrolls deteriorate very quickly in Greece, it wasn't like they had an option. Everything was about the scrolls. The Egyptian Scrolls and the content they wanted out of them.

This is at least the fourth time I explained to you that the scrolls are evident of the content. 4th time. Egyptian material (scrolls), Egyptian skill (Greeks hated writing on it), Egyptian maintenance (scrolls behave with an indigenous biochemistry of keeping good in Egypt).

Lol. You're so clueless?

Why do you think stuff tends to last in Egypt? Is it that you think they have some secret recipe for preservation?

Things naturally preserve in Egypt for 1 simple reason. Climate. The only real force of erosion they have to deal with is sand. Other than that, there's no maintenance required.

[Dresta]

Oh, shut up Pointguard: you've just turned i slight comment into a pointless long discussion that serves no purpose. No, oratory is not categorised as a science, so give up, and shut up. Oratory and rhetoric were always referred to the Greeks as arts, and the current dictionary definitions call them arts.

You clearly haven't read Lucretius's De Rerum Natura, so i don't know why you are pretending to know what you're talking about. And i just posted something that expresses the fact that the methods of the pre-Socratics were what would be called natural science today - if you can't accept something so blatant, then it shows how pointless it is to discuss anything with people like you. Socrates was completely unscientific in many of his deductions, making assertions that could only be made on the basis of belief or faith. As in the Apology:

The fallacious character of Socrates' next maneuver against Meletus is perhaps the most difficult to spot but once seen, cannot be denied. After setting out some preliminary truisms (everyone prefers to be benefited by others rather than harmed, and it's better live in a good rather than a bad community, etc.), Socrates gets Meletus to say that Socrates corrupts the youth "intentionally" rather than unintentionally. Socrates then goes on to bellow that he would never intentionally corrupt the young and so it must be that he either does not corrupt the young or he does so unintentionally. Socrates then adds that the proper procedure for unintentional wrongdoing "is not to summon the culprit before the court, but to take him aside privately for instruction and reproof, because obviously if my eyes are opened, I shall stop doing what I do not intend to do." (26a). Clearly Socrates is being disingenuous here, for nothing will convince him that his mission corrupts the youth and nothing will deter him from his mission.

But the truth is that Socrates deliberately performs his elenchus. Meletus regards this as youth-corrupting and so contends, rightly, that Socrates deliberately corrupts the youth. That is, Meletus is claiming here that Socrates intentionally performs the actions which Meletus deems corrupting, i.e., the elenchus. The point in dispute then is whether Socrates' elenchic activities corrupt the young. No one cares that Socrates does not intentionally perform actions he himself regards as corrupting. Indeed, as Socrates himself says, only a fool would do such a thing. Meletus is not then, claiming that Socrates is deliberately doing something which he, Socrates, regards as youth-corrupting. As such, this entire episode about deliberateness is little more than a red herring to try to make Meletus look silly. Not exactly the sort of behavior one expects from someone on a mission from God (but then again, it depends on one's notion of God; some there are who regard their God as a trickster).

The bottom line however is that since Socrates would readily allow that he performs his elenchic activities intentionally, deliberately, the only way for Socrates to convince the jurors that he does not corrupt the youth intentionally is to show that his elenchic activities do not, Meletus' contentions notwithstanding, corrupt the young. At the very least, it ought to be agreed that the whole "either I do not corrupt or I do so unintentionally" maneuver smacks of sophistry, not to mention hypocrisy, and ought not be a part of any honest attempt to meet the charges before Socrates.

http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~jp6372me/ap...RepublicAnchor

That is Socrates: a twister of words, a master of dialectic (again, defined as 'the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions'). Stop pretending you know anything about the Greeks, geez! You're that blimmin afro-centrist who thinks Aristotle stole everything, and other completely baseless and conspiratorial inanities.

As for your absurd assertion about Papyrus and Egypt - ha! You evidently do not know that there was a library Pergamum, which housed, at a conservative estimate, 10s of thousands of Papyrus rolls. It was established by the Greeks, and directly to the east of Athens:

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=173

Now shush, and stop being an annoying dumbass.

[Pointguard]

Oh, shut up Pointguard: you've just turned i slight comment into a pointless long discussion that serves no purpose. No, oratory is not categorised as a science, so give up, and shut up. Oratory and rhetoric were always referred to the Greeks as arts, and the current dictionary definitions call them arts.

You had a problem with me saying Socrates was "very scientific in his approach." Oratory was an Art form. After Socrates's method people are using the same principled approach for thousands of years. One of the most applicable theories and methods in that whole age as it relates to modern society and the court room. Consistent application and methodology is more reflective of a scientific approach. Oratory is an art form, if you are persuasive you've done good. Music is an art form. But the scales of music are scientific: They work as for thousands of years the method is applicable.

I'm supposed to say "my bad, you have a problem with me saying Socrates had a scientific approach," and I should let it fly. You're only real response is to show me somebody who had a more scientific approach to oratory and court room tactics. All this other stuff is useless.

You clearly haven't read Lucretius's De Rerum Natura, so i don't know why you are pretending to know what you're talking about. And i just posted something that expresses the fact that the methods of the pre-Socratics were what would be called natural science today - if you can't accept something so blatant, then it shows how pointless it is to discuss anything with people like you. Socrates was completely unscientific in many of his deductions, making assertions that could only be made on the basis of belief or faith. As in the Apology:

You keep going off into useless tangents.

Show me the pre-Socratic philosopher that was more scientific in his approach and application and had a superior method of court room verbal pursuits. Simple. Nothing else is needed, idiot.

You want to go back to the books but now you are in a corner right. Things don't compute because reality goes far beyond the books. We aren't using the Socratic method thousands of years later because of his faulty science, dumbass.

Think for your yourself sometimes.

[Pointguard]

Lol. You're so clueless?

Why do you think stuff tends to last in Egypt? Is it that you think they have some secret recipe for preservation?

You went from stupid to incredibly dumb in a one sentence response.

Egyptians were among the greatest preservationist on the planet. For you to say it was one reason is a total lack of knowledge about chemistry, history, architecture, biology and even the sun. Your local library is having a preservation problem because of the sun and oxidation. The old books in your house are turning brown because of oxidation - yeah, slowly being burnt.

You still see Egyptian paint from 4000 years ago. You think that's climate.

Even their graffiti could last 3000 years

You still see their structures from 3000 years ago.

Even underground tunnels were perfected like this.

They preserved human flesh and organs from 3000 years ago. You think that's climate.

It survived assaults from foreign leaders that had a problem with antique value. You think that climate.

Just like with Papyrus, Egyptians knew their climate but they still had a remarkable sense of Chemistry. Thank goodness the Papyrus scrolls deteriorated when they got to Greece.

Things naturally preserve in Egypt for 1 simple reason. Climate. The only real force of erosion they have to deal with is sand. Other than that, there's no maintenance required.

I love how you come on here acting like you are preservationist, historian, and even a thinker. You simply don't know the first principles on half the stuff you talk about. And worse than that you don't know when to stop.

[RidonKs]

You went from stupid to incredibly dumb in a one sentence response.

He just broke his own record!