BF2S Forums D&ST - Science

Dilbert_X wrote:

Interesting, you've deleted another post where you've tripped yourself up, and we were discussing Socrates not Plato.

Is the Socratic method to attempt to 'bludgeon to death' the 'uneducated and pig ignorant'? I hardly think so, you're projecting again.
If not then why did you bring it up when you meant Plato?

I was really looking at your own contradictory statements, not wiki expecially, in relation to the 'digging a hole' comment.
Why is it so hard to admit you've made a mistake?

i haven't deleted any posts. get a moderator to check. this is where your hilarious lack of knowledge comes through again.

NO WRITINGS OF SOCRATES EXISTS. there are no books by socrates. only a few broken scripts of dialogues, fragments here and there. ALL OF SOCRATES' thought is received in the writings of PLATO. the socratic method is most clearly expounded by plato. again, here we have the pitfalls of you trying to 'debate' (and even have the temerity to say i'm 'wrong') when you clearly haven't read a single fucking thing. no, i haven't deleted any posts. no, i haven't tripped up or made an inconsistency. anyone with a HIGH SCHOOL level knowledge of ancient philosophy knows that plato and socrates are pretty much interchangeable. socrates is the implied figure in all of plato's famous dialogues: it's socrates' method (taught directly to plato), and it's socrates' thought.

"contradictory elements". rolling on the fucking floor laughing. even with wikipedia at your disposal you mess up the absolute basics. look i just got up the wikipedia of socrates, and this is in the VERY FIRST paragraph:

Credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy, he is an enigmatic figure known chiefly through the accounts of later classical writers, especially the writings of his students Plato and Xenophon, and the plays of his contemporary Aristophanes. Many would claim that Plato's dialogues are the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity.[2]

i am literally laughing out loud. PLEASE stop trying to call out someone with postgraduate degrees in philosophy-related subjects, when you clearly haven't even read THREE lines from a wikipedia. it is embarrassing. this is not d&st. this is you clutching at straws. feel free to report this post and get a moderator's attention to find the fabled 'deleted' posts of mine in this thread. mods can see them. i think you'll find.... 0.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-31 07:33:31)

let me break this down for you and make it really simple, snookums:

the first point about "convincing people they are wrong" was facetious. if you had ever read any of the famous ancient greek dialogues, you would commonly know that they take the format of 'a bunch of wise philosopher dudes walk into a scene, and begin discussing with a few stereotypical agents/actors (i.e. a military man, a market trader, a young man in love, a young noble who likes arts etc.', basically the whole point of the dialogue format is to draw out and test the young person's beliefs/values and then to instruct them through a dialectical method. do you understand what dialectics are? it's not the form of treatment people go for at scientology clinics - there's a hint. but yes, these young people are like "the young greek youths" who are "foils" in platos dialogues:because that's all they are, for the purpose of the philosophy/writing that has been passed down: they are foils, figures, devices with which to tease out the 'true' philosophy.

in this sense, the socratic dialogue, being dialectical, and being instructional, is normally always just a (narratively interesting and socially engaging) way to instruct people on the philosophers' key beliefs. this is how all philosophy was taught in ancient greece, mostly, because it was very persuasive and finely-honed rhetoric. the dialectic method (or 'the socratic dialogue', interchangeably) were extremely effective because they put people's views under the close microscope, teased them out with a series of fine distinctions, and then basically curveballed them around into antithetical statements. they are rhetorical (and hence logical) games that normally invariably end up with the philosophers' key ideas being disseminated and taught. ancient greek was pre-literal, for the most part, so the philosophical 'schools' that were set up in gardens and quiet spots on the edge of the city were mostly places where tempestuous young intellectuals went to talk. hence 'dialogue' being the main form of INSTRUCTION. hence also why if you had read a few, you'd know why it is funny to call the 'socratic method' a "way for philosophers to show the interlocutors why they're wrong". it's funny. it's a joke. because that's pretty much what always happens. over your head, though...

just like the plato/socrates thing. no, i never "made a distinction between the two". the quotation you just used of me shows me using them exactly interchangeably, perfectly comfortably, with no distinction or effort to remark differently on them at all. why would i distinguish between them? i've actually read the philosophy, you know. a mindblowing concept to you. you are arguing in the dark here for no reason other than to avoid admitting you made a rookie mistake/misassumption. plato/socrates are the same thing when you talk about the socratic method and its lessons. their thought is generally considered to be pretty much the same; there are no 'sources' that state socrates' thought as being different from plato's, or plato diverging in any significant way. that's because the only socrates we know, in a systematic and fleshed-out way, is from plato's mouth.

i am going to start charging for these #101 introductions to philosophy courses, you know. it's a terrible labour.

lol ffs. THEY ARE FIGURES. there's probably very little factual evidence that they ever had these discussions. at best ancient historians can piece together several oral/transcribed accounts that place the two figures at the same party, or wine orgy, or festival, or whatever. the "true account", oprah winfrey style, isn't really the point. IT'S PHILOSOPHY. it was a method of TEACHING. lol. "it would be interesting to see what the military man had to say", hahahahahaha. that's one of the funniest things i have ever read on this forum. jesus christ.

and no, i don't see myself as a "wise philosopher" bringing knowledge to you. that's why it was a joke. something you have waspishly overlooked for about 4 pages now, miring yourself in a pointless embarrassment over some ancient philosophy you clearly can't tell from your own ass.

lol ancient greek philosophers being "unemployed" and "pederasts". you really know a lot about ancient greek history. LOL. for one thing, socrates' thought was employed by aristotle as alexander the great's personal tutor. oh and pederasty? the military men were the pederasts, not the philosophers. and homo-eroticism and male philia was a pretty key and accepted part of the greek ruling classes, anyway, so it's not even an insult. hahahahaha. oh man every single post you have made on this topic is a goldmine of stupidity.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-02 03:00:48)

because the value of the ancient greek dialogues is what they teach us and disseminate about that philosophers' thought. it's a method of instruction, again. dialectics. you should really wikipedia this. it's not a political debate for a democratic post. it's a dialectical method. yes, there are two speakers in dialogue. but if you understood a thing about dialectics, you'd know what the real motive force is. and hence why it is instructional. you can't really teach a philosophic system through a series of ambiguous, half-formed, half-concluded 'dialogues' that never resolve anything, can you? oh yeah great thinking.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-02 03:02:26)

if you wanted to exaggerate the rhetoric and make a facetious joke out of it... yes, you could construe it as patronizing (as i did). however, the dialectic method really is just a sound and logical method of instruction between two people. sometimes, in pedagogy, the most effective way to teach someone something new is to fully explore that which they take as a priori or presumptive. it's an ingenious method, and that's why it has pervaded intellectual thought and discourse for 2,500 years.

hahaha "antithesis of dialectics". that's trying to sound smart and makes no sense. go and re-read the post. you have got to be joking.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-02 04:15:43)

i am literally holding my face in my palm

meanwhile in actual science news

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … brain.html

We may not be colonizing Mars or putting another man on the moon, but the Obama administration took its first step toward Big Science innovation on Tuesday when it unveiled the Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative, along with a $100 million kick-start.

The BRAIN initiative’s goal is just as lofty as space travel: understanding and mapping the human brain.

i don't give a fuck about the ideological theories and viewpoints on this, this is an absolutely inspired idea. one of the best and most important scientific initiatives i've seen in my lifetime if it gets the go-ahead.

Illegal.

Macbeth stop being a mong.

Try thinking about all the legal and moral implications of cloning a fucking person.

coke wrote:

Try thinking about all the legal and moral implications of cloning a fucking person.

Oh I forgot science has always acted ethically.

Macbeth wrote:

Serious question: we cloned sheep why hasn't anyone done a human yet?

Coz the sheep died a pretty quick and nasty death.