Lao tse and the Socratic Method

[Rara]

@Zhongyongdaoist @wandelaar I dunno, I still think it's fair to at least draw some similarities between Soctrates' school of thought and that of Lao Tzu if they are seen

[Stosh]

 Reading  a wiki article,

it looks to me that Socratic dialectic is most like our introspection, , as we do testing of a hypotheses ( with an open mind). 
It requires a cooperation and intellectual honesty, but tends to force a conclusion of what is true. 

 

Rhetoric is characterized by an emotional appeal to 'truthiness' and is usually done defensively , without subject of its own origin, and , is not generally, making an affirmative point of its own. The basic point is to obstruct- to defend . 

 

Hegelian dialectic  is most similar to the presentation of lao; 
 Lao relies more  heavily on inference based on similitude as 'proof'.
 But! like Hegelian dialectic , (and in brilliant manner), both thesis and antithesis are presented in a way , that each may be fairly seen as valid...  leading to a synthesis (a rendering of  that which is true) . 
By Lao , thesis is the overtly presented , antithesis is subtly implied , and the reader needs to grasp the synthesis. 

 

Contradiction admitted

Contradiction prevailing

Contradiction nullified

Edited May 10, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

The book I ordered and am reading now is largely about how to discuss within a group of people in the spirit of the Socratic method, so there are big differences with the original Socratic method that - if I have understood it well - only involves two people where one is asking the (critical) questions and the other is trying the best he can to formulate and (if possible) to develop how he thinks about a certain issue. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

19 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

The book I ordered and am reading now is largely about how to discuss within a group of people in the spirit of the Socratic method, so there are big differences with the original Socratic method that - if I have understood it well - only involves two people where one is asking the (critical) questions and the other is trying the best he can to formulate and (if possible) to develop how he thinks about a certain issue. 

Who presents the issue thats going to be discussed ?, and is there a formal presentation of each ones stance ? ... and , What is the procedure when you get to a value based selection ,  like .. say..., the lives of people are more important than that of dolphins? 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

As far as I have read the book now the issue has to be something personally relevant to one of the people involved. The others are then expected to help in critically investigating the issue. Taking personal stances is to be avoided. I don't quite see how that's possible without everyone keeping silent, but maybe that will be explained later on in the book. 

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

What is the procedure when you get to a value based selection ,  like .. say..., the lives of people are more important than that of dolphins? 

 

It is perfectly possible to come to the conclusion that you don't know something. In fact clearing away the false assumption of knowledge is considered one of the basic advantages of the method.

[Stosh]

22 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

It is perfectly possible to come to the conclusion that you don't know something. In fact clearing away the false assumption of knowledge is considered one of the basic advantages of the method.

But I am still going to think I was right , if I had said dolphin hunting was just fine , ( since I value humans more ) theres no discourse to do.. and I wouldn't have reached the promised land of new insight. Nor did you loosen your grip on the idea that it was a destructive or bad practice.  There's got to be something to resolve the issue of opinions. No?

[wandelaar]

14 minutes ago, Stosh said:

But I am still going to think I was right , if I had said dolphin hunting was just fine , ( since I value humans more ) theres no discourse to do.. and I wouldn't have reached the promised land of new insight. Nor did you loosen your grip on the idea that it was a destructive or bad practice.  There's got to be something to resolve the issue of opinions. No?

 

Maybe I am getting ahead of myself because I haven't studied the method enough, but because you want to start let me play Socrates for now. When some professional is ready to take over, I will step back.

 

Quote

But I am still going to think I was right , if I had said dolphin hunting was just fine , ( since I value humans more )

 

Are you saying some action is morally correct whenever it accords with the values of the person who is acting?

 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

1 minute ago, wandelaar said:

 

Maybe I am getting ahead of myself because I haven't studied the method enough, but because you want to start let me play Socrates for now. When some professional is ready to take over, I will step back.

 

 

Are you saying some action is morally correct whenever it accords with the values of the person who is acting?

 

 

Sometimes you just wade in and see if its cold  

Good first stroke . 

No, not that it IS correct because it accords with its originator  , but that I deemed it a correct valuation ,  and still do. 

[wandelaar]

3 minutes ago, Stosh said:

No, not that it IS correct because it accords with its originator  , but that I deemed it a correct valuation ,  and still do. 

 

It is a simple fact that your opinion is what it is. But Socratic questioning wants to find out whether your opinion amounts to knowledge. So it is up to you to give your reasons why you think hunting dolphins is morally correct.

[Stosh]

I , a human , derive my morality from humanity. We are required to eat, and the morality of us humans must allow for our existence for morality to continue. Dolphins are edible, and nonhuman , so we promote morality by eating them. 

[wandelaar]

Thanks! That looks like a reason, but let us see if it suffices. Please answer the following questions:

 

1) Don't the dolphins have a morality of their own, and if so how do we compare the value of their morality to that of humans?

2) Would your life and morality suffer when you didn't eat dolphins?

3) Suppose you would die when you didn't eat dolphins, would that hurt the overall morality of humanity?

4) Would a vegetarian diet diminish your morality?

 

Maybe there are some more questions, but lets start with the above.

[Stosh]

11 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

1) Don't the dolphins have a morality of their own, and if so how do we compare the value of their morality to that of humans?

No they have no morality. 

 

11 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

2) Would your life and morality suffer when you didn't eat dolphins?

Yes , they are tasty, nutritious , and financially within my means.

 

11 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

3) Suppose you would die when you didn't eat dolphins, would that hurt the overall morality of humanity?

Yes, it would hurt , a smidge the overall morality of humanity , since There would be one less moral person eating a morally available resource. So possibly yes or no.

 

11 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

 

 

4) Would a vegetarian diet diminish your morality?

It may , dunno , but the worlds resources are finite , and exploitation of them for profit means that the most financially beneficial sourcing is the most efficient. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Stosh

[LAOLONG]

Socrates was told by the Oracle of Delphi that he was the most wise man in the world. So he thought about it and realized that he is wise because he know that he
Don't know . That not knowing
Is very similar  to the beginning
Of lao tze tao te ching.
Socrates defined him self as philosopher lover of wisdom in Greek
As contrary to the sophists  of his
Time those who know ,very mach
Like the Confucians .

[Stosh]

2 minutes ago, 1313 said:

Socrates was told by the Oracle of Delphi that he was the most wise man in the world. So he thought about it and realized that he is wise because he know that he
Don't know . That not knowing
Is very similar  to the beginning
Of lao tze tao te ching.
Socrates defined him self as philosopher lover of wisdom in Greek
As contrary to the sophists  of his
Time those who know ,very mach
Like the Confucians .

He was mistaken.

[Stosh]

35 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Thanks! That looks like a reason, but let us see if it suffices. Please answer the following questions:

 

1) Don't the dolphins have a morality of their own, and if so how do we compare the value of their morality to that of humans?

2) Would your life and morality suffer when you didn't eat dolphins?

3) Suppose you would die when you didn't eat dolphins, would that hurt the overall morality of humanity?

4) Would a vegetarian diet diminish your morality?

 

Maybe there are some more questions, but lets start with the above.

I have one for you W, if that's allowed ,.. 

If you nor anyone else who wishes to overthrow the 'morality of eating dolphin' conclusion,cannot , will you now freely eat dolphins without moral concern, or be supportive of hunting them as a food source ? 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

7 minutes ago, Stosh said:

No they have no morality. 

 

Explain please. How do you define morality and why wouldn't dolphins have any.

 

Quote

Yes , they are tasty, nutritious , and financially within my means.

 

How are those things morally relevant? 

 

Quote

Yes, it would hurt , a smidge the overall morality of humanity , since There would be one less moral person eating a morally available resource. So possibly yes or no.

 

It depends on how you define the amount of morality. Can you please explain:

a. Can the degree of morality be measured?

b. Is there automatically more morality when there are more (moral) people (is morality additive)?

c. Is there a zero-point of morality so that there are people with a negative morality?

 

Quote

4) Would a vegetarian diet diminish your morality?

It may , dunno , but the worlds resources are finite , and exploitation of them for profit means that the most financially beneficial sourcing is the most efficient. 

 

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions (about economics, ecology, animal welfare) contained in that one sentence. Could you expand on that to prove your point that eating dolphins is morally correct?

 

 

 

[wandelaar]

10 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I have one for you W, if that's allowed ,.. 

If you nor anyone else who wishes to overthrow the 'morality of eating dolphin' conclusion,cannot , will you now freely eat dolphins without moral concern, or be supportive of hunting them as a food source ? 

 

No - that's not in the game. I am not defending any position, only questioning yours. It's also not up to me to overthrow your position but only to investigate if you have any good reasons for your moral position or not.

[Stosh]

 

Explain please. How do you define morality and why wouldn't dolphins have any.

I here define morality as a set of rules made abstractly , which define the right and wrongness of behaviors. 

They are not known to clearly act outside the parameters of their instinct , and so without any proof of having a moral code , I think it logical to presume there is none. Presuming there is none , fits better with observation than presuming there is. 

How are those things morally relevant? 

You asked whether my life would be negatively impacted , not just my morality. But as I have stated , continuation of my life is promotional of morality. This brings in also whether I have a right to a pleasant life , and its another can of worms, is it not? 

 

It depends on how you define the amount of morality. Can you please explain:

a. Can the degree of morality be measured?

Its relative , not quantitative G is greater than F

b. Is there automatically more morality when there are more (moral) people (is morality additive)?

yes , relatively  C-B is less than C

c. Is there a zero-point of morality so that there are people with a negative morality?

yes 

 

There are a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions (about economics, ecology, animal welfare) contained in that one sentence. Could you expand on that to prove your point that eating dolphins is morally correct?

True , is this important to get into ? Its rapidly expanding inquiry , and I thought the game was to find my self contradiction, with so many branches reaching the ground , I'm thinking that finding contradiction on one , will not significantly undermine the morality of eating dolphin. 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Stosh

[Stosh]

If you would like , I could try the side of questioneer , and you can pick which angle you would prefer to defend ,or even change subject ,   this is difficult methodology to get the hang of . 

[wandelaar]

As you can see the amount of questions expands exponentially the further we get into this inquiry. If there would have been any obvious contradictions in your position that you couldn't fix that would be the end of it. And your position would than have been proven to be unfounded. But as you are smart guy you have avoided the more common mistakes and therefore it would take a thorough logical investigation to see whether your position remains consistent when we look at the further consequences of the answers you gave. My guess is that measuring the amount of morality will prove to be very difficult if not impossible, and that would directly undermine the idea that eating dolphins increases the total amount of morality among human beings. There is also the question of animal welfare and vegetarianism and how that relates to morality, and there are also ecological questions (that relate to human survival) to consider. So it would actually be a miracle if your position would also prove to be consistent when al relevant questions and their consequences were taken into account.  But that would take us months of work.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by wandelaar

[wandelaar]

41 minutes ago, Stosh said:

If you would like , I could try the side of questioneer , and you can pick which angle you would prefer to defend ,or even change subject ,   this is difficult methodology to get the hang of . 

 

OK - but it's now already late where I live, so I let you know what position I will defend tomorrow.

[Stosh]

21 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

As you can see the amount of questions expands exponentially the further we get into this inquiry. If there would have been any obvious contradictions in your position that you couldn't fix that would be the end of it. And your position would than have been proven to be unfounded. But as you are smart guy you have avoided the more common mistakes and therefore it would take a thorough logical investigation to see whether your position remains consistent when we look at the further consequences of the answers you gave. My guess is that measuring the amount of morality will prove to be very difficult if not impossible, and that would directly undermine the idea that eating dolphins increases the total amount of morality among human beings. There is also the question of animal welfare and vegetarianism and how that relates to morality, and there are also ecological questions (that also relate human survival) to consider. So it would actually be a miracle if your position would also prove to be consistent when al relevant questions and there consequences were taken into account.  But that would take us months of work.

 

 

Then if Socrates didn't run out of patience , he must've 'cut to the chase' somehow.

Very much faster would be responding from the Daoist position, which would go something like.. There is no such thing as morality and nothing to defend about slaughtering beasts. 

From this end , however , it appears you would need to set up two competing claims ( by me) , that I believed a thing was moral , and that I believed another thing was not , and somehow conjoin them. 

I'll tell you , the toughest question was actually the very first one. 

Are you saying some action is morally correct whenever it accords with the values of the person who is acting?

This would have fit nice in any court cross-examination. 

Ironically perhaps, the path you were following,  was indeed investigating whether my values were consistent, in a single vector , or series of them.

And that's relatively easy to defend even if its 'surrounding' my position.

Asking me Many questions , presents me as being chock full of answers, which bolsters my attitude , that I can handle anything ya got.  Whereas  ,as regards the task of punching hole in the defenses -' taking a yard of earth is far harder than yielding it.'

 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

@ Stosh

 

It may have seemed easy but that's because we stopped before it became difficult. As I said the project of coming up with a consistent measure for the total amount of human morality would have been a very hard nut to crack...

[Stosh]

Impossible to crack. But since I didnt say that it was quantitatively tallyable I think Im safe on that one.. but go ahead with it if you feel its still a good angle. Im still game and if you got a plan you like Ill play it out.  youve got a right to a win playing fair.