.
teslacoils, is your understanding of Socratic Dialectic grounded in reading Plato or Wikpedia?
I should know, because I think I am arguing with the characterization in the Wikpedia entry, and you seem to keep defending this one point in it that the dialectic has to happen between two people for moral reasons. It can and does. But dialectical reasoning is the same thing you use when you
think. Your singular thinking takes on this form as well, if it intends to seek and discover.
teslacoils:
you are forcing your own religion into dialectic reason.
See, here is where the dialectic between you and I has already been malfunctioning. You presented an article that explains what Socratic dialectic is. I responded with the beliefs --
Socrates's!! -- upon which I estimate he grounds this idea upon, because I found the article 1. not of depth and inclusive of this, 2. hence not entirely accurate [to my
understanding of Socrates]. I have not made a personal value statement on any of what Socrates is saying yet. I am still working with my understanding of it --
we ought to be working on our understanding of it, dialectically speaking.
In an effort to move that along, I provide you an excerpt in defense of my initial characterization of the beliefs behind Socratic Dialectic.
Socratic Dialectic will indeed do as you say among two people, Socrates indeed employed it, and Socrates is indeed all about the moral and the virtuous in anything (the Form of the Good); the governance not just of debate, but the State. But
intelligence itself is dialectical, and a thinker, a philosopher, uses the same high-process of reasoning when thinking alone. Socrates speaks of this aspect of dialectical reasoning copiously enough in "The Divided Line" from the
Republic; it is the occupation of his philosophers: to
think dialectically. It's the only way to the truth. Dialectical reasoning is not just a social phenomenon.
teslacoils:
Socrates is not talking about mystical knowledge within the body
was I? Yet again,
the Socratic notion of Ideas/Forms in residence, so to speak, in the
metaphysical world and only accessible through the mind [exeunt Socrates] sounds pretty bloody-well mystical to me <<< and
that was my
negative opinion of this, his idea. (First part of this paragraph was his thinking/second part mine, okay?)
teslacoils:
he is simply argueing the fact that without the experience in real life meaning whole body interaction with life you can not learn what you can not see.
There is just simply no way you can be a deep reader of Plato's dialogues themselves if you are presenting Socrates as an
empiricist, which is what you do here when you when you claim he'd say you have to see something to know it. Socrates is a
rationalist thinker through and through, and this means that knowledge is not
seen in the visible world at all, but
thought about (through dialectical reasoning!) in the mind. The only way your "see" is going to work is if you do like Socrates and distinguish the physical eye from the
mind's eye. It is only the mind's eye that can truly
see. The physical eye (according to Socrates) is stuck with viewing the physical world -- the "twilight world of change and decay." Won't find anything lasting (true) there,
according to Socrates.
teslacoils
Dialectical reasoning is an aggreed governance to keep the conversation true.
It is to keep thinking true, too, which is my original disagreement with the article you posted as being depthless and hence not entirely accurate. You're not doing much better, either -- my opinion, of course.
.