Forum Post: Logic, Search for Truth, Clear Forum Goal, Dialectic Method, Socratic Method, Mental Jujitsu
Posted 11 months ago on Jan. 16, 2013, 5:06 a.m. EST by Middleaged
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Logic, Search for Truth, Forum Goal, Dialectic Method, Socratic Method, Mental Jujitsu: Info from Wikipedia. I am not a lawyer, but the Socratic Method looks like what prosecutors or lawyers do in a cross examination or interview. Sophistic art on the other hand is what politicians are doing (Rhetoric). The end goal is Truth.
So I believe what all forums hope to accomplish is the Socratic Method to Reach the Truth and for men and women to grow But if I am the last one to learn this stuff …well...
Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to European and Indian philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter guided by reasoned arguments. The term dialectics is not synonymous with the term debate.
Socrates favored truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē, was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one's life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof.
One way to proceed—the Socratic method—is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis. Another dialectical resolution of disagreement is by denying a presupposition of the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby, proceeding to sublation (transcendence) to synthesis, a third thesis.
In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The outcome of such a dialectic might be the refutation of a relevant proposition, or of a synthesis, or a combination of the opposing assertions, or a qualitative improvement of the dialogue.
This is what we want to accomplish in a Salon or Forum
In Plato's dialogues and other Socratic dialogues, Socrates attempts to examine someone's beliefs, at times even first principles or premises by which we all reason and argue. Socrates typically argues by cross-examining his interlocutor's claims and premises in order to draw out a contradiction or inconsistency among them. According to Plato, the rational detection of error amounts to finding the proof of the antithesis.
Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including India, China, and Greece. In the West, logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric.
In medieval universities, the trivium comprised the three subjects that were taught first: grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
Sublation can be seen at work at the most basic level of Hegel's system of logic. The two concepts Being and Nothing are each both preserved and changed through sublation in the concept Becoming. Similarly, determinateness, or quality, and magnitude, or quantity, are each both preserved and sublated in the concept measure.
Trivium was preparatory for the Quadrivium, which consists of geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music.
Logic is often divided into three parts, inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.
Mental Jujitsu, Gandhi was doing that to politicians. He was a Lawyer in South Africa (before returning to India), and he became a great speaker for civil rights. He spoke in a way that made him a player, an equal, and put him in the same game as the political leaders. I have a couple of simple examples of what I might say to a politician who brings his talking points to the microphone.
A) Sometimes if we ask questions back to the politician he is caught off guard and he loses support, but that is too much to hope for. Speakers all will try to prepare themselves with simple narratives of what their intension is ... and at least 3 main points to repeat to the camera. Sir, what is your intension and what is your position?
B) Questions can redirect the conversation toward a deeper issue or a deeper truth. Like answering a question with a better question, right. We all want fewer gun murders and gun crimes. Sir, why not hold townhalls or national referendums to get the people solutions, feelings, thoughts, and principals more fully revealed? How many people have really been in touch with your office and what are they telling you and how available have you been to record the peoples feelings?
C) Citing clear and appropriate principals applicable to the issue at hand in response to being questioned or berated. We are all people. We all want the best solutions for the community. Public health, principals, prior legal judgments, changes in technology, appropriate staffing, budget, enforcement, and monitoring are all things we should be carefully looking at.
Sorry not much above in my text that is really instructive for mental jujitsu. But probably Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi can still show us a lot… if we can translate it to our current congress and current culture.