IntenseDebate - Kit Deater

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 2 replies · +1 points

I must not be clear about what I'm really questioning. In the dialogues Socrates tends to legitimize things as being oriented toward the Good simply by consensus. If Socrates gets assent from his interlocutors that X is good then they continue in their debate without questioning that X is really good. This semester we agreed that dialogue was oriented toward the Good, and continued in our discussions from their. But is our consensus enough to validate dialogue as good. I mean, now that we have experienced dissent in regards to our dialogue what makes us so sure we were right.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 4 replies · +1 points

But is it the truth? Did we actually solve the problem, or am I just superficially satisfied?

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 6 replies · +1 points

By arguing that one should not necessarily adhere to established doctrine the book in a way undermines itself if it is to be seen as a doctrine. Its not trying to argue that you should follow the path of the main character but rather that you should follow your own path.

So, is dialogue simply self-referential? Is the point just to test one's own view? Or are we actually trying to learn other things. If dialogue is simply a process by which we learn to put one more brick in our wall of arguments, we can say that all experience is experience of the self. And I agree.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 1 reply · +1 points

I don't want to start this debate, but clearly by your definition I could argue that Buddhism maintains a doctrine of solitariness.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 8 replies · +1 points

You are a clever one. We are moving closer to an answer through dialogue. Then again my lack of answers may be contradictory to this. What answers am I not providing? If you want an alternative to dialogue, I'll push my Buddhism idea a little further. If you get the chance you should read Siddhartha by Hesse, in it the main character comes to enlightenment through trial and error, experience, and self reflection. He continually rejects teachings and established doctrines and comes to know the Truth on his own. I may be playing devil's advocate to some extent, but I just want to know why our dialogue legitimately leads to Truth and the Good.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 3 replies · +1 points

Well, we have different ideas of Buddhism and monks then.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 10 replies · +1 points

But how do we know that our dialogue "works." What makes it better at deducing the Truth?

You are right though, that Buddhist monks have an already established quasi-doctrine.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 1 reply · +1 points

All I mean is that we may not have correctly conceptualized justice, fairness, or whats right.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 3 replies · +1 points

I think that "war music" may have been a TERRIBLE choice of words on his part, but I'm not sure it was meant as a threat and I'm not sure it wasn't. That goes back to the issue that Anthony had raised about the death of the author. We don't really know what his intentions are, or how he intended it to be interpreted. Maybe that speaks to the viability of this blog as a medium of discussion. I guess that might have been Anthony's point, I don't remember.

Back to your original response to my response to you. I think you and Tony have touched on this. The rules that we have assumed in our community aren't necessarily reflective of the Good. They're just what we have adopted and purport them to participate in the Good. Now we punish those who brake these rules because it is just or fair or right. But they're not necessarily consistent with Truth or the Good.

14 years ago @ Socratic Politics in D... - To Assume... - The Dig... · 0 replies · +1 points

"Part of the problem with philosophical discourse, in particular, is that it admits of few definite answers."

Just a quick question. When you say this do you mean things like we assume that the truth is Good? That comment just reminded me of Nietzsche's idea that in philosophy the goodness of truth is assumed.

As I commented to Cody below I realized why dialogue is necessitated in our context. It is because we assumed the form of Socratic politics, and as you pointed out a while ago in a post, the political implies the existence of the Other. I guess we are therefore forced into interaction with this Other. In order to accommodate the Other and myself, we employ our dialogical vernacular. The limits of this are, I think, as you said. The gray areas of philosophy are not resolved, while other more practical, maybe is a good word, issues can be decided. I guess the "myopic and uni-dimensional" issues are easier resolved where the "far-sighted," "multidimensional" issues are difficult to penetrate.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Kit Deater

People I'm following

Kit Deater