Is the Socratic method a valid means of argument in the current age?

Is the Socratic method a valid means of argument in the current age?

Attached: 345634573457.png (750x530, 829K)

wrong on both accounts

What is "wrong"?

Its pretty gay tbqhfam.
>just ask faggots questions
>when anyone can google anything any time

Asking people questions gets them thinking. Simple example is when even the goofy ass gavin asks the bernie chick, who keeps talking about how great socialist countries are, what those countries have in common. He points out they share a common culture and they are overwhelmingly white. The girls almonds are then activated.

You probably read or listened to some kind of jewish "scholar" talk about Plato/Socrates.

Attached: glr.png (361x350, 217K)

It can however force someone standing on a moral soap box to break down what they really are for.

>Why are you for abortion?
>It is a women's right to decide! It is her body her choice!
>Are you for border control?
>No! They are people who need help. People have a right to a better life.
>If a Nation and it's people have a right to control what happens within it and both women and men vote on laws to prevent people from entering without going through a selection process. Why is it ok for a women to kill her child if people deserve a better life? Does the unborn child not deserve a better life?

It is something I see often in Leftist ideals. Using moral outrage to win an argument but contradicting it in the next sentence when the topic has changed.

It's always been an awful and dishonest method, it is much easier to try to waste some else's time asking them a serious of stupid loaded questions than it is to defend your own views, let alone express your own honest feelings (which are very important in the process of getting people to understand each other and come to a solution to whatever the issue is). There are lots of objectively correct statements that can be made to look ridiculous by asking a lot of ridiculous questions based on intentional misinterpretations, realize this and you will realize why truth doesn't sell very well. If you actually want to be an intellectual and improve the world, accept that the actual truth and the established idea of what truth is supposed to look like are not the same, there are many more factors than edgelords and absolutist retards understand.

The fact you think i sit around listening to scholars is hilarious to me.
That shit is so obviously gay as fuck though, like if you have to use faggot tactics to argue with faggots, then fine, but its clear whats going on here.

This faggot gets it.

>Ask people loaded and annoying questions where they are basically forbidden from saying what they really think due to social pressures and unwritten 'intellectual' rules, as well as the knowledge that you won't stop talking long enough for them to explain it
>When they give you a brief answer (because you really don't deserve a whole essay from everybody just because you asked a question) that conforms to the social limitations on expression and it has some holes in it just jump down their throat and pretend not to understand connotations or be able to read between the lines
>Claim victory
>Lose the respect and friendship of everyone within earshot

Attached: 1546787472333.png (1440x1557, 738K)

Thanks baby. It took me years of being an edgy faggot to figure that out, I hope some of you guys can figure out the same thing before it ruins relationships for you and makes you stupider in general.

The only other moral higher ground is claiming your side is more righteous. Yet every single Leftist agenda is all about victomhood. You either have to make them verbally contradict themselves or our victomhood their victomhood. Logic and reason mean jack shit diddily squat today. Being right isn't as important as crying while presenting your argument.

I've seen way more leftists than righties do what I described, conservatives are generally less heated in (friendly) discussions and extend some respect to the other person instead of trying to 'stick em' on everything.

have you ever worked before? you can easily teach someone to do something. you can't make stupid people think, have you ever tried it? you just can't, the mental capacity for it is absent.

Extending respect doesn't work for them. Leftist's entire argument is based on the ideal that they are morally right and we are evil. They do not extend respect because it would validate us and allow people to examine both arguments based on merit and facts. They want to call us nazis and cry to exploit sympathy and the natural conclusion if one person is crying someone must have done something wrong to make them do so.

it is the unmatched best

The fact that you think you can think better than people who literally dedicate every waking hour to thinking isn't hilarious, it's just sad.

GREEKS ARE ALL GAY PEDOPHILES

>Trying to convince stubborn people who you know run on emotions with cute little psuedo-intellectual quips
>Especially when you're clearly a stubborn retard yourself and don't talk to people in real life

Attached: 1537980952949.gif (615x548, 18K)

What are "Greeks"? What is "gay"? What are "pedophiles"?

Pleb thought then and pleb thought now.

Your statement draws from nothing, and also says nothing. Simply a baseless claim, sad and alone.

>argument from authority
First of all, there were other "professional" thinkers who disagree with them. More importantly, everyone knows that professionals set up their field in a way that gives them the advantage against outsiders, the socratic method is a clear example of this. If you have experience asking stupid questions to throw people off you will have advantage in socratic debates, whether or not you are right.

Well, greeks are gay pedophiles. Thats what they are

Attached: 4B879728-2E2B-4A2A-A30B-0854DAB6AB8F.jpg (1432x891, 108K)

Only in a higher tier society where people are bound to society contract and of the same tribe

Attached: 1551031871511.jpg (526x567, 74K)

This, even if your arguement is correct, its some seriously faggot shit.

its is, but what is more important is to understand the original metaphysics, and by metaphysics im not meaning cleaning your chakras by inserting a quartz in your anus kind, but the hardcore "study of what we dont know" kind of way, but sadly most books on ancient greek philosophers were translated by idiot while they "may" understand ancient greek, they had no idea on all the philosophy behind it.

But yeah OP they are worth it.

Attached: 1494897907004.jpg (2124x1492, 742K)

Your id has gay written in it, quite fitting

>Current year!
Rabbi Jesus Christ! You're dumb.

Too dumb to live

Attached: socrates question.png (999x1351, 744K)

Loaded questions that are shallow cannot withstand scrutiny. Btfo sophists.

Go irrumate yourself peasant.

Qrd on meth?

It wasn't even in Athens

Socrates was unsuccessful in Athens

wrong is what goes against nature

>inb4 what is nature
nature is how things are planned to be
>inb4 who planned them
maybe god or the universe itself

So trans and gays?

>having to pick apart each one of an unlimited number of stupid questions when doing so just makes it look like you can't defend your own argument to normal people

Attached: 1537055669901.png (550x543, 25K)

This man speaking some real shit.

Attached: 10764376854213659586.jpg (467x361, 20K)

Thank you based canuck

trans and gays are women souls in men's body
god made them antinatural

>Thinks they are something they aren't
Yea that's not a mental delusion or anything we should totally push someone in that state towards mutilation and life long hormones sold by big pharma.

Bitch, go fuck a kid or something. Socrates wasnt even liked by his own people, kek. Burgers implying a centuries old method of thinking (that was already faulty and pointless in its age) is applicable on modern society is laughable.
In the end just b urself, unless youre Greek that is

Attached: C1173497-8091-48CE-BE07-F4B62D834315.png (935x1440, 1.76M)

It's a method designed to be used by legitimately smart people who respect each other and actually want to find truth, there's good evidence that people like that were rare amongst greek philosophers and we all know damn well there aren't enough people like that to support such a system when literally everyone is part of the debate these days.

god is a master tyrant prankster, he create unnatural people just to laugh

just want to say that i couldn't finish the republic.

it was outrageous how many holes were in all of their arguments and they just kept continuing on with them.

drove me banana wacky

>It's a method designed to be used by legitimately smart people who respect each other and actually want to find truth
>Socrates punchline is literally “me dum dum *wheeze* hehe”
He was a living walking low tier shipost, nobody liked him back then, the ones that do like him now are just smirky fools with greasy smiles and tiny beady eyes

> Socrates wasnt even liked by his own people,
the price of telling the truth

I bet you tell that to yourself every day

Yeah and that doesn't contradict what I said, expecting everyone else to follow a ridiculously high intellectual standard is something retarded edgelords do.

It never was.

It was just a way to demonstrate the flaws in one's perspectives by petarding their own premises with their own words.

In other words, a great way to troll people.

Why? Why? Why?

What is it? What is never? What is was?

Any thought that goes against mine is wrong. Simple as that. Socratic method wprks on humans. It is NPCs we are dealing with. The method assumes the subjects in question have an inner voice like normal humans. That is where it is flawed. He could not predict NPCs sadly.

Isn't this just ad hominem to both Socrates and the people you're arguing against, Irelandnigger?

>POOcrates
Im italian you fucking mongoloid

God does not fuck up that badly. Man does. Man creates a broken system that accepts a man as a women and nurtures it. We do not tell psychopaths they can fly and to jump off building. Nor should we be telling trannies everything is ok and right to to cut your genital off is ok even when it means a near 50& suicide rate.

>It's wrong to use ad hominem against someone who everyone worships just because they were told he is cool and smart
Also that's clearly an Italian flag, retard.

the NPC mob killed him actually

what people like to hear the most? pleasant lies or harsh truths?

>>It's wrong to use ad hominem
That's correct, Malaysia.

Socrates was neither, his whole shtick was that he didnt know and that he wanted to know, hence it would go and annoy actual philosophers with redundant and purposefully warped questions just to make them contradict themselves, he was a punk and a snake. A real bitchboy

he knew nothing and went after people that pretended to know and he found out nobody knew shit, and then the gods congratulated him because he was the only man that knew a thing: that he knows nothing

How do you know that?

How much of a drooling clown do you have to be to actually believe this? Now youre straight up being a fool

It's age old retard premise of "if I point out a fundamental flaw in human beings I am exempt from it".

did Socrates exist?
probably yes

Women's suffrage

>Saying you're 99.99% sure of something is profoundly different from just using word "know" which literally means 100% sure but comes with the social understanding that you could still be wrong

Attached: 1523725909068.jpg (640x591, 37K)

>"if I point out a fundamental flaw in human beings I am exempt from it".
the gods gave us reason to contemplate creation, reason don't depart us from our nature though

>the gods
Holy shit, hes gone

Attached: DAD7F73E-7949-4D6F-8C4A-E3F2778CAEC4.jpg (300x300, 25K)

are you sure 100% that you exist?

Doesn't depart you from your retardation either, evidently

Nope, but I don't feel the need to be an edgy cunt and avoid just saying "I exist" for the sake of convenience when its relevant to more important discussions.

I think therefor I am.
You are a retarded monkey.
You have no place in intelligent conversation. Please go away.

Philosophy is NPC bullshit

Yes I’m pretty real, based on the human concept of “reality”, I’m pretty fucking real.

Harm.

Absolutely, so long as the parties involved are willing to listen and partake in a civilized way.

How do know that thinking makes you exist? How do you know you are thinking?

See, there's never an end to a discussion with the Socratic method. It's useful for making some arrogant people get of their high horses when they act too damn sure about something but it is beyond useless for solving the real mysteries of life or improving the human condition.

So never

>Human concept
No stop you're hurting his tiny socratic brain

If you take issue with the Socratic method, it’s probably because someone has used it to kick your ass in an argument.

The problem then is you and your shitty opinion, not the method that your opponent uses to expose how shitty your opinion is.

impressive

Attached: 1537911582347.png (248x459, 249K)

ok lets say that your own conscience is the only thing for sure you know that exists, does other consciences incarnated (people) exist or not?

You're just showing how stupid the whole things is with these questions, there's no point to a method of reasoning if it's only intended to confuse people and waste time indiscriminately.

How is asking questions dishonest?

How is asking questions not dishonest?

It isn’t. There’s nothing wrong with the Socratic method.

The people who hate it are people who hold logically inconsistent opinions and hate encountering cognitive dissonance.

>Absolutely, so long as the parties involved are willing to listen and partake in a civilized way.
>Socrates, the one who invented the method, was an assblasted unlikable prick that went around telling people he knew nothing
Having 2 actually intelligent people use this method would mean not actually using THE Socratic method but a derivative, and it would also be a waste of 2 good brains

Bugs...

Is there a better way to know the truth?

Maybe? Do I have answer right now? Are you retarded? Are you gay?

Cognitive dissonance would be good if it was accompanied with an actual argument. Simply asking questions indefinitely until the opponent contradicts himself is literally nothing but a waste of everyones time

Yes, it's also the quickest way to discover whether the person you are talking to is worth trying to get through to, as well. Because if they cannot exercise thought in order to grasp something through introspection then they are already lost and must learn to turn on the "lights" to brighten their way first. Image related

Attached: NPCs.jpg (931x486, 148K)

Because a question isn't a claim to truth. Any implication that a question might seem dishonest is erroneous on the part of the interpreter.

Maybe people don't like it because if they asked enough questions they would find that just about everything else is a waste of time.

don't you think we can reach truth through reason? isn't the contradiction just the wrong beliefs and therefore beneficial to the person to perceive it?

>Gay as fuck
Very expressive, much persuasion. Tell me more

Questions are advantagous for catching people in bullshit who are overstepping their expertise. Am I wrong?

I feel like you dont fucking know who/what Socrates was/did. He wasn’t trying to learn or teach anything, he was just fucking around and wasting actual philosophers time, trying to derive meaning and truth out of the Socratic method defeats The Whole purpose and its not the original method in use, so OPs answer is no

Questions are measurements.

But....you literally ripped everything off of them, everything. Couldn't even come up with your own gods