Lao tse and the Socratic Method

[Daemon]

@wandelaar

 

Socratic Questioning: Changing Minds or Guiding Discovery?
Christine A. Padesky, Ph.D.
Center for Cognitive Therapy, Huntington Beach, California

 

https://padesky.com/newpad/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/socquest.pdf

 

Socratic Questioning (Essential CBT Skills Series) - 4 DVD Set

http://www.psychotherapydvds.com/epages/colt5155.mobile/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/colt5155/Products/12215&Locale=en_GB

 

Sample Worksheet

 

https://www.therapistaid.com/worksheets/socratic-questioning.pdf

 

☮️

[Stosh]

3 hours ago, Daemon said:

@wandelaar

 

Socratic Questioning: Changing Minds or Guiding Discovery?
Christine A. Padesky, Ph.D.
Center for Cognitive Therapy, Huntington Beach, California

 

https://padesky.com/newpad/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/socquest.pdf

 

Socratic Questioning (Essential CBT Skills Series) - 4 DVD Set

http://www.psychotherapydvds.com/epages/colt5155.mobile/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/colt5155/Products/12215&Locale=en_GB

 

Sample Worksheet

 

https://www.therapistaid.com/worksheets/socratic-questioning.pdf

 

☮️

Dude,   don't you think you can grill someone better than that  

Lemme set the stage, You're at Guantanamo, and while you can't actually put your hands on em ...

there are some adjustments that are in order for the good of themselves, and society at large. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

16 hours ago, Stosh said:

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. 

 

The idea is getting at the truth of the matter. In that light winning or losing the discussion are no longer relevant. Anyway - if we want to continue we have to focus on one thing at a time or else the method will become unwieldy.  Let us focus on the amount of morality for now. You will have to be able to say whether the amount of morality increases, decreases or stays the same when eating dolphins, because only then can the reason you gave be relevant. Do you agree on that?

[thelerner]

4 hours ago, Daemon said:

@wandelaar

 

Socratic Questioning: Changing Minds or Guiding Discovery?
Christine A. Padesky, Ph.D.
Center for Cognitive Therapy, Huntington Beach, California

 

https://padesky.com/newpad/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/socquest.pdf

 

Sample Worksheet

 

https://www.therapistaid.com/worksheets/socratic-questioning.pdf

 

☮️

Haven't looked at the first pdf, but the worksheet is a nice tool. 

And that's how I think of the Socratic Method, a useful tool.  Even more so when people work together with it, using it for constructing material and not as a hammer. 

[wandelaar]

54 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Dude,   don't you think you can grill someone better than that  

Lemme set the stage, You're at Guantanamo, and while you can't actually put your hands on em ...

there are some adjustments that are in order for the good of themselves, and society at large. 

 

I think it is useful background information (and valuable at that), and it is not meant to be part of our current Socratic discussion.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

20 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

The idea is getting at the truth of the matter. In that light winning or losing the discussion are no longer relevant. Anyway - if we want to continue we have to focus on one thing at a time or else the method will become unwieldy.  Let us focus on the amount of morality for now.

Ok , but I want to say that the pdf etc didnt look like truth was of utmost importance , just bending the subject to a more approved approach pre-decided by the therapist as being the right answer to arrive at. 

 

You will have to be able to say whether the amount of morality increases, decreases or stays the same when eating dolphins

 

No I cant prove which mathematical effect on total morality results from my food choice , merely that the food choice which must be made, can include dolphin and remain a morally approvable  choice, and the same goes for every other food. 

 

because only then can the reason you gave be relevant. Do you agree on that?

Sorry no , because.. this is the original quotes here...

 

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? 

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

 

...I do not eat dolphins to increase my morality , I simply do not think my morality is compromised by eating dolphins since I value humans more, and I have to eat Something. 

 

 

[Stosh]

34 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

I think it is useful background information (and valuable at that), and it is not meant to be part of our current Socratic discussion.

 

Its an exaggeration ,, admitted,

its just that what was being called ' Socratic method' is what I would consider just a wandering stimulus for discussion. 

In the case of therapy , there is a presumption that the patient has acted wrongly , come to wrong conclusions, and wishes to kiss up to the therapist.

In the case of Dao bums , you're dealing with people not so undermined ,and not needing to accommodate, and most likely have considered what they are saying or have proposed.  

Edited May 11, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

@ Stosh

 

You are not giving reasons why you feel and think as you do. You are only expressing how you feel and think on the matter, but not telling us why that is the right way to look at it. The Socratic method can only be followed through with people who are ready and willing to give the reasons for their position because they think they know what is the truth of the matter and guess they can prove it as well.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

32 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

@ Stosh

 

You are not giving reasons why you feel and think as you do. You are only expressing how you feel and think on the matter, but not telling us why that is the right way to look at it. The Socratic method can only be followed through with people who are ready and willing to give the reasons for their position because they think they know what is the truth of the matter and guess they can prove it as well. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Wandelaar is essentially correct, but needs to have develop a better sense of what type of questions to ask.

 

I don't have time to be an active participant in this discussion, but I will try to contribute by quoting from my posts that I consider relevant.  This was the follow up post to my discussion of "Socratic Method" as cathartic ritual:

 

On 10/21/2015 at 6:57 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

The idea of catharsis introduced in my previous post is why I posted this:

 

On 10/3/2014 at 1:24 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

I have said elsewhere several times that I 'believe' that the most profound and useful form of introspection and self-inquiry is the inventory of beliefs. To take advantage of what Manitou has posted take an inventory of all the things that you do believe and then assume that you are wrong about them. Then take an inventory of everything that you don't believe and then assume that you are wrong about them. Then ask yourself why do I believe this, why don't I believe that.

It's no good saying that 'so and so', whether great mystic, prophet or teacher said it, because then you have to ask why do I believe what they said. You can't say that it is scientific, or 'church' doctrine because then you have to answer why do you believe that science or the 'church' can be considered authoritative. Eventually you come down to the decisions that you have made about what you believe and why you believe it.

Some people try to short circuit this process by saying "I don't believe it, I know it", but then the question is 'Why do you believe that you know it?' and what beliefs do you have about 'knowledge' that allows you to claim it?

I could go on, but I have said enough to get the general point across, however, I anticipate a criticism that such an inquiry is all about words and beliefs and I should get 'out of my head and into my heart and belly.' Since I have recently had reason to mention General Semantics on the Tao Bums and have mentioned it elsewhere in the past, I will quote an interesting story told about its founder Alfred Korzybski:

  Quote

One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter. (Wikipedia on Alfred Korzybski: Anecdotes)

We all 'ate' a lot of words growing up and a lot of them are there in our hearts and our bellies and the they determine who we think we are and how we act. Maybe we should get to know what they are.

and similar sentiments elsewhere on the Dao Bums.

 

This gives some idea of the types of questions that need to be asked and also the importance of words and ideas as influencing our emotions and feelings.

 

Someone who says its OK to do something because it feels OK to them needs to be asked, "and why is your feeling enough of a reason", people will say that they feel it is wrong to do what you say is alright because it "feels" alright to you, given these differences in peoples feelings, how are we to create a general guide to moral action?

 

I will try to post some other pointers from my previous posts that may be helpful.

 

ZYD

 

 

 

 

Edit: Corrected "Someone how says" to "Someone who says" in the penultimate paragraph.

[Stosh]

49 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

@ Stosh

 

You are not giving reasons why you feel and think as you do. You are only expressing how you feel and think on the matter, but not telling us why that is the right way to look at it. The Socratic method can only be followed through with people who are ready and willing to give the reasons for their position because they think they know what is the truth of the matter and guess they can prove it as well.

Ah, gimme a minute to consider ,,,, why I am making a value judgement in that direction ... ? hmm

 

In accord with the general moral code, my conscience and logic , there is no prohibition on my part regarding eating the dolphin , considering that I must 'emotionally think' the dolphin is less important than a human fits. 

The mode of getting these parameters to agree, resolves potential internal conflict over it, and I value my morality such as it has become. 

Forgive my difficult wording , having to explain why I make value judgements is a difficult thing to make brief. 

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Stosh

[wandelaar]

On 11-5-2018 at 7:24 PM, Stosh said:

Ah, gimme a minute to consider ,,,, why I am making a value judgement in that direction ... ? hmm

 

In accord with the general moral code, my conscience and logic , there is no prohibition on my part regarding eating the dolphin , considering that I must 'emotionally think' the dolphin is less important than a human fits. 

The mode of getting these parameters to agree, resolves potential internal conflict over it, and I value my morality such as it has become. 

Forgive my difficult wording , having to explain why I make value judgements is a difficult thing to make brief.

 

I'm sorry, but you are still only describing how you come to  supposedly moral conclusions. You don't give any reasons why your approach should be the correct one. As I said before the Socratic Method tries to arrive at knowledge (or better: wisdom) by interrogating people who believe they have it and think they can sort of prove it. Because you avoid the issue by only describing what you do (to come to  supposedly moral conclusions) instead of giving arguments why that is the right thing to do, the further application of the Socratic Method is blocked. But perhaps Zhongyongdaoist knows how to proceed in such a case?

Edited May 12, 2018 by wandelaar

[Daemon]

@wandelaar

 

The way to proceed is probably to be more selective in your choice of Socratic partners?

 

☮️

[Stosh]

11 hours ago, Daemon said:

@wandelaar

 

The way to proceed is probably to be more selective in your choice of Socratic partners?

 

☮️

Nah, Im willing to answer IF I know whats expected in this.

[Stosh]

I try to act morally, I was raised to value that. I think we all are. Eating isnt immoral ,it sustains us. The burden is to say why one shouldnt eat a particular thing. Isnt it? 

I am compelled to choose humans over animals even if humans are often crappy because humanity shares more with each other than with beasts, things we all value. 

Deciding on the animals we exploit, one looks at sustainability and so forth , some try to decide based on cuteness or intelligence or rarity, but with each other there is other criterion ideally. 

[wandelaar]

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

I try to act morally, I was raised to value that. I think we all are.

 

That is just giving a description of what you do, not the reasons.

 

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Eating isnt immoral ,it sustains us.

 

Yes - without eating we would perish, and our morality with it. So you have a point there. But there still is a problem here: is it inconceivable that there could be situations where getting food would involve acts of such immorality that it would be morally preferable to die of starvation?

 

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

The burden is to say why one shouldnt eat a particular thing. Isnt it? 

 

When you can answer to my question above, the next thing would be finding out which food would be morally allowed. It isn't up to me to defend that you shouldn't eat dolphins, but it's up to you to prove that it's morally OK to do so. That is the game we are playing now.

 

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

I am compelled to choose humans over animals even if humans are often crappy because humanity shares more with each other than with beasts, things we all value. 

 

Being compelled is again describing what you do, not giving reasons why that would be the right thing to do.

 

6 hours ago, Stosh said:

Deciding on the animals we exploit, one looks at sustainability and so forth , some try to decide based on cuteness or intelligence or rarity, but with each other there is other criterion ideally. 

 

You could become a vegetarian, so exploiting animals isn't necessary to survive. So here again to prove your point you have to give reasons why eating animals is morally allowed and if you have succeeded in proving that you should reason your way to which animals we are morally allowed to eat.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

As I have mentioned I do not have time to be an active participant in this discussion, in part that is because you both need a lot of work in this type of thing, though wandelaar has at least realized that Stosh's long statements need to be broken up into "bite sized morsels" to be chewed on and digested.  I have been thinking since yesterday of how best to best to contribute here and the following from my thread Plato and Platonism 101, from which I have already quoted, seems to be a useful starting point, which is the difference between knowledge and opinion:

 

On 7/30/2015 at 5:52 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

I want to talk about "knowledge" and "opinion".  One of the useful distinctions that I got from reading Plato was a good understanding of the relationship between knowledge and opinion.  This distinction has a lot of practical importance because just about everything that is bandied about in ordinary discourse as knowledge is nothing but opinion.  Now opinion in and of itself is not bad, it is in point of fact for most things in life all that we have, however opinion also varies in value, whereas knowledge is always useful and therefore valuable, opinion can vary from very useful, to useless to downright harmful.

 

One of Plato's dialogues that deals with knowledge and opinion is called the Meno after Socrates chief interlocutor, Meno, and it was here that I learned a very useful beginning distinction between knowledge and opinion and also about the important concept of "right" opinion.

 

The ostensible object of the discussion is "virtue" and can it be taught, which leads to the question of knowledge, Socrates and Meno have reached the agreement that the person who "knows" is the person who can guide, but then Socrates continues, as he was wont to do:

 

[97a]

Socrates
But our assertion that it is impossible to give right guidance unless one has knowledge looks very like a mistake.

Meno
What do you mean by that?

Socrates
I will tell you. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or any other place you please, and walked there and led others, would he not give right and good guidance?

Meno
Certainly.

[97b]

Socrates
Well, and a person who had a right opinion as to which was the way, but had never been there and did not really know, might give right guidance, might he not?

Meno
Certainly.

Socrates
And so long, I presume, as he has right opinion about that which the other man really knows, he will be just as good a guide—if he thinks the truth instead of knowing it—as the man who has the knowledge.

Meno
Just as good.

Socrates
Hence true opinion is as good a guide to rightness of action as knowledge; and this is a point we omitted just now in our consideration of the nature of virtue,

[97c] when we stated that knowledge is the only guide of right action; whereas we find there is also true opinion.

Meno
So it seems.

Socrates
Then right opinion is just as useful as knowledge.

Meno
With this difference, Socrates, that he who has knowledge will always hit on the right way, whereas he who has right opinion will sometimes do so, but sometimes not.

Socrates
How do you mean? Will not he who always has right opinion be always right, so long as he opines rightly?

 

And the discussion continues from there, but it does establish a point that "right opinion" can be useful, but also that it differs fundamentally from knowledge, the analogy that I made was that right opinion was like having a very accurate map to Larisa, without having actually made the journey, but that knowledge was something that only a person who had made the journey and experienced the journey would have, with the implication that someone who had made the journey could make the most accurate maps and also correct inaccurate ones.

 

In order to understand anything about the distinction between Knowledge and Opinion, it is necessary to understand this:

 

On 7/24/2015 at 11:46 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

To get some insight into Platonic "Intellectualism" and to distinguish it from modern "intellectualism" you need to read this:

Plato's divided line from the Republic

And Download this:

Higher and lower Reason

 

As a hint of the direction to go, since all of Stosh's statements represent his opinions and thus his beliefs about "morality", many of the statements that wandelaar has started breaking down into an "edible size", can be simply coated with the my secret sauce and served up in this form the form of questions about beliefs, but it is first necessary to at least define, or attempt to define what it is that you are talking about, thus, "You have mentioned 'morality' in general and then also made references to a 'Standard Morality', can you be more specific about what you, believe these things to be, for example do you believe that 'standard morality', is like "the Standard Model' in physics, something that is agreed upon by a group of specially trained experts in a field, or if not, what do you believe it to be?"

 

Even this is a little advanced and should have been preceded by,  What type of subject do you believe  'morality' to be?  By which I mean is it a study such as mathematics that confers a specific skill such as accurate calculation?  Or a skill such as persuasion such as one learns from studying rhetoric?  Is is a study like biology that classifies living things, does it classify things according to certain criteria of similarity and difference?

 

These are the types of things that should be asked at the beginning of a "Socratic Inquiry" into morality.

 

I hope that this is helpful, and also demonstrates why I don't have time to be an active participant in this discussion.

 

As an amusing aside, I will point out that having read all of Plato's dialogues except the Laws, sections of which I have read because of their general importance, I don't ever recall "morality" being mentioned at all, there is a lot of talk about Wisdom, Virtue and Happiness, but "morality" just doesn't seem to come up anywhere.  I wonder why that is?

 

ZYD

[Stosh]

Im not sure where to start, temporally in order I guess. 

Yes , some situations could override morally my justification for eating things. 

No I dont have to prove its assertively moral to eat, thats just not requisite...

I dont feel like being restricted to a vegetarian diet , physiologically its a poor decision. 

 

My Viking ancestors, and theirs before them ate dolphins thousands of years before China was even a place, or Flipper was put on TV. It reminds me of happy summers at my grandparents house in Russia and tending the smokehouse. 

[wandelaar]

I give up.

[Lost in Translation]

How did you guys from "Socratic Method" to "Eating Dolphins"? That is impressive!

[thelerner]

Yeah I'd been thinking 'eating dolphins' was an exercise in logic vs Socratic method, not that people were actually eating them. 

 

I guess we all have to draw our lines somewhere.   I don't eat dolphins or primates or parrots because they're all very intelligent.  Ofcourse that opens me up to criticism and hypocrisy for eating pigs that show emotion and are quite intelligent.

 

Maybe part of being human is looking down at those who draw their lines lower then yours.  All claiming there line is correct.  Yet while we all have to eat, we don't have to eat everything.  And logical or not, no smart creatures or veal on my plate. 

 

And my kudos for those who are vegetarians.  Though I don't keep it, it would be seem in most places, not all, to be a more ethical sustainable diet. 

[wandelaar]

Now that the Socratic Discussion has ended I'm free to post this story from the Lieh tse that seems relevant :

 

Quote

A banquet speech

Mr T'ien, of the Ch'i State, was holding an ancestral banquet in his hall, to which a thousand guests were bidden. As he sat in their midst, many came up to him with presents of fish and game. Eyeing them approvingly, he exclaimed with unction: "How generous is Almighty God to man! He makes the five kinds of grain to grow, and creates the finny and the feathered tribes, especially for our benefit."

All Mr T'ien's guests applauded this sentiment to the echo; but the twelve-year-old son of a Mr Pao, regardless of seniority, came forward and said: "You are wrong, my lord. All the living creatures of the universe stand in the same category as ourselves, and one is of no greater intrinsic value than another. It is only by reason of size, strength or cunning that some particular species gains the mastery, or that one preys on another. None of them are produced in order to subserve the uses of others. Man catches and eats those that are fit for food, but how can it be maintained that God creates these expressly for man's use? Mosquitoes and gnats suck man's blood, and tigers and wolves devour his flesh; but we do not therefore assert that God created man expressly for the benefit of mosquitoes and gnats, or to provide food for tigers and wolves."

 

Source: http://oaks.nvg.org/lieh-tzu.html

[Stosh]

Why should intelligence have anything to do with food sourcing? Chimps will eat other monkies With RELISH! Chinese eat dogs, Peruvians eat Guinea pigs , falcons eat pigeons. 

Most cultures have explored cannibalism.. its problematical, but within a culture ,it may be perfectly functional.

 

[thelerner]

10 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Why should intelligence have anything to do with food sourcing?

 

It may not be logical, but seems somehow they're closer to me, kin. 

course if starvation loomed, such sentiment may well be discarded.

 

also.

I get the horrible feeling mankind is destroying ecco systems of the earth with knife and fork.  maybe his health too. 

 

[Stosh]

If it turns out that ants are more important to the ecosystem than we are,.. 

[thelerner]

Its not so much importance as.. destructive.  

 

Nature finds balance.. mankind.. not so much.. we disrupt systems without much notice.  Too much and dominoes fall back on us. 

Still, I'm hopeful.  We're smart, technology is an awesome tool.  But we need to be careful, set borders and limits on our polluting and intrusions.