- TODO: backfill notes
- proceeds by question and answer
- some questions are open ended (especially in the beginning)
- e.g. propose a definition
- the person being questioned is the partner of the inquirer
- focus on consistency of statements
- consistency is probed with the elenchus
- partner should feel compelled to refine their statements or abandon them
- questions should aim to identify the principles behind statements
- then show principle covers things it shouldn’t or omits things it should
- use concrete examples to drive reasoning
- use ordinary examples from everyday interactions
- make headway on hard problems by talking about specific cases
- don’t claim expertise
- Socrates constantly confesses his own ignorance
- dialogues often end at an impasse, without an answer
- denying what someone says is the act of a friend
- the Socratic method should make your more humble and aware of your own ignorance
- means “search”
- testing, refutation, shame, ridicule
- the latter two should be reserved for introspection
- make a claim
- agree to other propositions (possibly logical conclusion)
- demonstrate inconsistencies
- something has to give
- often a modification of the original claim
- finding these inconsistencies is the point
- elenchus is a tool for finding inconsistencies
- falsification, tearing down bad claims (negative logic)
- is it possible to build claims using this technique? (positive logic)
- in science, the strength of our belief in a proposition is proportional to the evidence supporting it and the number of assaults it survives
- Vlastos’ solution
- everyone holds at least some true beliefs (axiom)
- beliefs that survive consistency checks with everything else you believe are likely to be true
- broad agreement within a belief system
- accumulation of a set of mutually consistent beliefs is a worthy project
- cumulative consistency
- internal inconsistency between two ideas means one of them has to be wrong
- persuasiveness
- if ideas conflict with new data, one might doubt the data
- if ideas conflict with each other, can’t attack the author
- persuasiveness
- is consistency enough? what about being consistent but wrong?
- can a repellent set of ideas be internally consistent?
- unlikely: bedrock principles will conflict with some other held truth
- the “pain in the ribs” one feels at embarrassing propositions
- fear of what others will say or think has no place in moral reasoning
- threat to honest inquiry
- the good kind of shame is that which you’d feel by adopting a morally bad position, forcing you to reconsider your claims or positions
- discomfort from:
- realizing you don’t know what you’re talking about
- you were overconfident, too sure of yourself
- teaches humility
- to poke holes in ideas, showing them to be faulty
- to fend off attacks of ideas by showing holes in their counters
- indirect support of a claim
- courage is mental persistence
- would you agree courage is admirable? (yes)
- what about unintelligent mental persistence? (e.g stubbornness)
- isn’t that harmful or dangerous? (yes)
- are harmful things admirable? (no)
- so this kind of persistence isn’t courage? (no)
- conclusion: original claim or definition needs revision
- make a claim, state the principle behind the claim
- show it is either too restrictive or too broad
- by examining expansion and contraction, we arrive at better approximations
- two skills of the mind are required
- detecting similarities among things that seem different
- detecting differences among things that seem similar
- systole: drawing together
- in book: finding commonality, a general case or principle
- diastole: separation
- in book: finding distinction, what separates this from that
- note: the examples given to these words are at odds with the medical meanings
- systole is the contraction of the heart (narrowing)
- diastole is the expansion or relaxation of the heart
- my opinion: probably best not to get hung up on these Greek labels
- better to talk about finding commonality or making distinctions
- priority of definition: the claim that you can’t know something if you can’t
define it precisely
- known (fairly or not) as the Socratic fallacy
- KIWYSI is legitimate: we can often identify examples before we have a good
definition
- we should understand our knowledge to be provisional
- definitions provide clarity, especially useful for hard or edge cases
- putting a subject into one of two categories
- subdividing that category into more categories
- diairesis: a form of classification used in ancient (especially Platonic)
logic that serves to systematize concepts and come to definitions
- perhaps not the best way to define something, but can still be useful to compare things and learn about them
- reflection: might also be useful for finding alternative solutions to problems
- analogies aren’t arguments, but can make reasoning more clear
- they can be used to compare abstract ideas to more familiar ones
- used to show how a claim works
- fill-in-the-blank: start an analogy and let partner finish it
- can move an conversation forward
- begin with distinctions and examples that are easy and familiar, then try to map onto harder examples
- extended analogies compare two things at length to make an idea more vivid
- established analogies can also be turned to make a very strong point
- offering choice between analogies can also be powerful
- analogies look like observations, but actually make claims
- sometimes the best response is to reject the analogy
- epagoge: an argument in which specific examples lead to a general conclusion
- inductive reasoning
- seek truth rather than merely try to win an argument (dialectic not eristic)
- dialectic: formal system of reasoning that arrives at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments
- eristic: given to disputation for its own sake and often employing specious arguments
- examine people (myself and others) not just claims
- it isn’t easy (or desirable?) to separate people from ideas
- care of the psyche, mind, intelligence
- testing consistency is testing the holder of claims as well as compatibility
- judge arguments on their merits, not by their author
- primacy of reason
- “I shall be very grateful if you refute me and deliver me from my foolishness.”
- claims are judged strictly by the quality of the reasoning and evidence that supports them
- speak candidly: say what you think, not what others may want to hear
- you can’t seek truth if you’d shy away from speaking it
- rather than merely agree if you don’t understand, disagree by default unless
you’re sure
- this way the argument can be refined or approached from a different angle until one is satisfied
- it’s better to seem slow than to persist in confusion
- also prevents weasly backtracking “well I never really meant that”
- changing one’s mind in light of persuasion or evidence is fine
- important difference: sometimes the questioner must play “Devil’s advocate” to examine a claim deeply
- numbers count for nothing
- the whole world in favor or against speaks not at all to the veracity of a claim
- Christopher Hitchens: “One person with a right opinion outweighs a majority.”
- interlocutor must be the one to assent
- the crowd is not to be trusted, especially when a horde can be summoned instantly
- Twitter, anyone?
- principle of charity: assume best intentions of the other
- construe their meaning in the most reasonable light
- assume opponent is smart and well-meaning
- work to represent the position of the partner/opponent in the strongest
possible terms
- steel man vs. straw man
- improve the other person’s argument if you can
- come up with the strongest objections to your own views
- run towards the hardest problems, not away from them
- strive not to give nor to take offense
- it’s as bad to take offense as to give it
- takes courage and commitment to seeking truth
- in any case, “I’m offended” isn’t an argument
- people feel strongly about certain issues
- politics, religion, etc
- disagreement when feelings are at stake can be perceived as personal attacks
- avoid lines of argument that tweak personal sensitivities
- use examples that don’t strike close to home
- when people are worried the other side will take offense, they don’t say what they mean
- honest inquiry is difficult (if not impossible) under these conditions
- be polite
- choose words carefully and attempt to convey personal respect
- if the conversation gets heated, nothing wrong with clearing up what you meant
- A gentleman is someone who gives offense only when he means to.
- Socratic inquiry begins with an awareness of our own ignorance
- we begin and end in this state
- along the way, hopefully, there is some progress
- the difficulty of ascertaining truth should teach us humility
- we begin and end in this state
- journey is not from question to answer, but from question to question
- principal project: uproot conceit of certainty in one’s own mind
- Socrates really does have a low opinion of his wisdom
- he has a lower opinion of the wisdom of others only because they have such a high opinion of their own
- knowing one is ignorant is better than being ignorant of one’s ignorance
- this double ignorance is termed “stupidity” in Sophist 229cd
- the remedy is education (perhaps especially philosophy)
- can be used as a tool for exploring ideas that are firmly rooted
- pretend I know nothing, walk me through this point by point
- I will ask questions, some may be naive
- let’s see where the answers go
- intellectual midwifery: eliciting ideas from others
- to be at a loss what course to pursue, where to begin to end, what to say
- an irresolvable internal contradiction or logical disjunction
- literally “without a way”; a sense of disorientation and perplexity
- generally arrive here when all prior ideas have been refuted
- common ending for Socratic dialogues once reason has been exhausted
- we are not perplexed about things we know:
- e.g. I have two eyes
- we are not perplexed by things we know we don’t know
- e.g. I know nothing of ballet
- we are only perplexed by things we thought we knew, but didn’t
- aporia is a sign that we’ve departed the dreaded state of double ignorance
- we must be purged of our prejudices before learning can begin
- can also be powerful motivator, spurring us to think more