did socrates invent the socratic method?

[RidonKs]

surely he is the namesake and surely he was well known for the method... but at the same time, it's just interrogation which is a natural part of language

and then he didn't even coin the phrase. but at the same time... he is the godfather of the method.

but at the same time...

[Nick Young]

did he?

[RidonKs]

i honestly don't know

no wait i don't think so, plato invented it. but socrates did it..............

[Clifton]

What do you mean by "Socratic method"?

Greek philosophy before Socrates basically splits into two groups:

1. Poets who were sweeping but vague, and who flirted with profound truths and paradoxes but didn't do much to develop their ideas ("Presocratics"); and

2. Orators, most of whom were baldly relativists and profiteers. ("Sophists")

Socrates, by asking questions like, "What do you mean by X?", "What *is* X?", etc., invented real philosophy. Is that what you mean by "the Socratic method" (I assume, "of inquiry"), or do you mean something else?

If you mean the way seminar classes in college are taught, I don't know who invented that, but it wasn't Socrates. I don't know if I ever took a good seminar. BS and rambly, pretentious time-wasting run rampant in that format. At the undergraduate level at least. Others may have different experiences.

[Nick Young]

Were Socrates and Plato Greek?

[KevinNYC]

surely he is the namesake and surely he was well known for the method... but at the same time, it's just interrogation which is a natural part of language

Is interrogation a natural part of language? It is now, but was it before. For example, is interior monologue a natural part of fiction? or did Joyce have to recognize/invent it.

Somebody has to do it first, whether it's Socrates or not. Somebody had to have the insight of breaking a complex concept into a series of simpler questions could help solve the the problem.

Without the Eureka! moment of insight it may not be part of our language or it may have not become part of the language for another few hundred years.

[iamgine]

He did not invent it, he just made it famous.

Just like google did not invent "googling".

[RidonKs]

Is interrogation a natural part of language? It is now, but was it before. For example, is interior monologue a natural part of fiction? or did Joyce have to recognize/invent it.

Somebody has to do it first, whether it's Socrates or not. Somebody had to have the insight of breaking a complex concept into a series of simpler questions could help solve the the problem.

Without the Eureka! moment of insight it may not be part of our language or it may have not become part of the language for another few hundred years.
i don't think your analogy quite fits but having never read joyce and not really knowing what interior monologue is, i have to hold my tongue

this was the point of the thread in a nutshell. it's on odd thing to ask because questioning is so easy for us, it's on the tip of your tongue every time, why.. which then you turn onto other people when you hear them speak. maybe i'm wrong but that is my shitty encapsulation of the socratic method.

[RidonKs]

He did not invent it, he just made it famous.

Just like google did not invent "googling".
:pimp:

[NumberSix]

Recorded history only goes back so far. At some point, it's really just a matter of the oldest case of something being written down.

[KevinNYC]

i don't think your analogy quite fits but having never read joyce and not really knowing what interior monologue is, i have to hold my tongue

this was the point of the thread in a nutshell. it's on odd thing to ask because questioning is so easy for us, it's on the tip of your tongue every time, why.. which then you turn onto other people when you hear them speak. maybe i'm wrong but that is my shitty encapsulation of the socratic method.

My point is that things that look absolutely standard to us still had to be invented. Even things like metaphors and similes were inventions at one point.

Interior monologue is hearing the thoughts inside a character's head. It's pretty basic to storytelling nowadays, but it's only about a 100 years old. It's also known as stream of consciousness. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness_(narrative_mode)) Joyce didn't invent it, but he probably had the most famous use of it in Ulysses. The whole last chapter is one character's thoughts as she lays in bed next to her husband.

[RidonKs]

My point is that things that look absolutely standard to us still had to be invented. Even things like metaphors and similes were inventions at one point.

Interior monologue is hearing the thoughts inside a character's head. It's pretty basic to storytelling nowadays, but it's only about a 100 years old. It's also known as stream of consciousness. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_of_consciousness_(narrative_mode)) Joyce didn't invent it, but he probably had the most famous use of it in Ulysses. The whole last chapter is one character's thoughts as she lays in bed next to her husband.
yeah i've heard of it, i think the reason i have stayed away from joyce for so long is because it sounds awful and i'm scared of the idea. but yeah there is an origin story for everything.

my question is how integral to the functioning of our language is the 'interrogative'? or how fundamental if you like. moreover but totally different how integral to the development of our language has the 'interrogative' been? like in terms of the distillation process for semantics or grammar specifics or stuff like that

[KevinNYC]

yeah i've heard of it, i think the reason i have stayed away from joyce for so long is because it sounds awful and i'm scared of the idea. but yeah there is an origin story for everything.

my question is how integral to the functioning of our language is the 'interrogative'? or how fundamental if you like. moreover but totally different how integral to the development of our language has the 'interrogative' been? like in terms of the distillation process for semantics or grammar specifics or stuff like that
You're probably thinking if Finnegan's Wake which is impenetrable. Ulysses and especially the monologue is quite good. But you can start with early works like his short story collection Dubliners which includes

Araby
The Dead

both of these deliver a punch right at the very end

and an earlier less experimental novel Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

Hell, Ulysses is read in pubs every year it can't be that awful.

[RidonKs]

i have two copies of finnegans wake both unread bought three years apart both times knowing it's something i should read but probably won't :lol

[Clifton]

my question is how integral to the functioning of our language is the 'interrogative'? or how fundamental if you like. moreover but totally different how integral to the development of our language has the 'interrogative' been? like in terms of the distillation process for semantics or grammar specifics or stuff like that
Well, there has always been mythology. Mythology, it seems to me, is a culture's answer to certain questions that present themselves to intelligent but limited beings like us.

[RidonKs]

Well, there has always been mythology. Mythology, it seems to me, is a culture's answer to certain questions that present themselves to intelligent but limited beings like us.
WEAK era

[Clifton]

My favorite Joyce story is Grace.

It's not stream of consciousness, though.

"Eveline" is a touching vignette.

Ulysses is kind of like Shrek. People pick it up without having the background of classical literature and Irish Catholic angst that infuses every line of the book. Just like people watch Shrek having never read a fairy tale. It can probably be done, but I can't see how it can have any meaning.

[Akrazotile]

Socrates did not invent the Socratic method.

I DID.









































:djparty

[Nick Young]

In my country, Europe, the Socratic Method is said to have invented Socrates, not the other way around.

[RidonKs]

In my country, Europe, the Socratic Method is said to have invented Socrates, not the other way around.
continental philosophers getting sucked into another wormhole

[KevinNYC]

i have two copies of finnegans wake both unread bought three years apart both times knowing it's something i should read but probably won't :lol
No. It's not something you should read unless you're a Joyce scholar and speak several languages. But you should read some Joyce if you have the inclination.

It's like Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, it's nice to read an article about Finnegan's Wake, but there's no need to experience it firsthand.

There's an Italian writer writing now who is being compared to Joyce, Elena Ferrante (http://elenaferrante.com/) whose books have just come in English.

This education site just named their 50 best short stories (http://www.onlineclasses.org/resources/the-50-best-short-stories-of-all-time/) of all time.

Speaking of the heights of culture. Bugs Bunny turned 75 today.

[KevinNYC]

My favorite Joyce story is Grace.

It's not stream of consciousness, though.

"Eveline" is a touching vignette.
I have to check those out.

Check out what I just found. Someone used the lyrics engine genius.com to annotate James Joyce
http://genius.com/James-joyce-the-dead-annotated/

[Lebowsky]

No. It's not something you should read unless you're a Joyce scholar and speak several languages. But you should read some Joyce if you have the inclination.

It's like Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, it's nice to read an article about Finnegan's Wake, but there's no need to experience it firsthand.

There's an Italian writer writing now who is being compared to Joyce, Elena Ferrante (http://elenaferrante.com/) whose books have just come in English.

This education site just named their 50 best short stories (http://www.onlineclasses.org/resources/the-50-best-short-stories-of-all-time/) of all time.

Speaking of the heights of culture. Bugs Bunny turned 75 today.

I hardly ever agree with any list of this sort (be it literature, music or whatever), but this one was actually not bad at all.

[RidonKs]

Speaking of the heights of culture. Bugs Bunny turned 75 today.

bugs ****ing bunny there's an icon

he's reached mickey mouse and elmo level no doubt

mount rushmore of cartoon charcters. goddamn that's tough so much of me wants to include cartman and lisa and doug funny

[Pointguard]

Socrates was pure, incisive and very scientific with his approach. I think that was what made it so separate from prior orators and writers.

[navy]

I feel like Socrates disciples mystified him in their tales to be honest.

[bladefd]

Keep in mind that everything we know of Socrates stems from what Plato knew or heard of Socrates. It is impossible to draw a line between what comes from Plato and what is from Socrates.

Even if Plato says "this is what Socrates said ... blah blah", we have no way of checking as Socrates' writings we never found.. supposedly, he never wrote anything, but that is horse$hit. A philosopher on the genius level of Socrates HAD to have written something. Maybe it will be found later but for now we have only Plato and what Plato told his own students about Socrates (mainly Aristotle).

[Nick Young]

Keep in mind that everything we know of Socrates stems from what Plato knew or heard of Socrates. It is impossible to draw a line between what comes from Plato and what is from Socrates.

Even if Plato says "this is what Socrates said ... blah blah", we have no way of checking as Socrates' writings we never found.. supposedly, he never wrote anything, but that is horse$hit. A philosopher on the genius level of Socrates HAD to have written something. Maybe it will be found later but for now we have only Plato and what Plato told his own students about Socrates (mainly Aristotle).
Xenophon also wrote a bunch of Socratic dialogues, bro

[RidonKs]

Even if Plato says "this is what Socrates said ... blah blah", we have no way of checking as Socrates' writings we never found.. supposedly, he never wrote anything, but that is horse$hit. A philosopher on the genius level of Socrates HAD to have written something. Maybe it will be found later but for now we have only Plato and what Plato told his own students about Socrates (mainly Aristotle).
no way bro socrates might have been more of an orator, and its different to organize the thoughts in your head than words on a page. he was probably too hyper to sit down and make any of his rabid interrogations coherent in a larger way. or too bored with his own brain, he needed somebody else to bounce shit off otherwise he'd just go mad. i'm sure socrates was a total scatterbrain. plato cleaned him up and crystallized his method, but no human could live up to that fictional characterization.

[Dresta]

There are a few sources on Socrates, not just Plato: Antisthenes, Xenophon, Aristophanes, all wrote of him, and would have known him personally (the remarkable General Alcibiades was also a pupil of his, and Plato claims they fought together, with Socrates saving his life). It is perfectly understandable him not leaving written works considering the oral tradition in Athens at the time. Basically, there is a fair amount of corroborating evidence that give you an idea of the man, his ideas and behaviours, but nothing certain, as is true of more or less everything that happened back then.


Nor was he more "scientific" from many of the pre-Socratics that came before (whatever that means - many of them sought truth, but Democritus probably came closest to the ideas of modern science - Socrates was not a materialist). And no, i don't think Socrates 'invented' such a method: he just refined it into an art-form.

[IGOTGAME]

Socratic method in practice is egotistical endeavor

[RidonKs]

Socratic method in practice is egotistical endeavor
boooo booooooo

don't listen to him everybody

boooooooooo

[Akrazotile]

Socratic method in practice is egotistical endeavor


True, it def makes you feel smarter than the majority of people, who are too scared to engage in it.

[Akrazotile]

Socrates has been a figure of great interest to me since I was a little kid. One of the first people I looked up to since my first cursory introduction to him in like fifth grade. I know a lot of the stuff surrounding the real person Socrates is apocryphal, but just in terms of the idea of him and his legacy, I've always found fascinating. I've also strongly, strongly identified with him as a thinker, so I def have a special attachment and admiration for ol Socrates Johnson.

[Pointguard]

There are a few sources on Socrates, not just Plato: Antisthenes, Xenophon, Aristophanes, all wrote of him, and would have known him personally (the remarkable General Alcibiades was also a pupil of his, and Plato claims they fought together, with Socrates saving his life). It is perfectly understandable him not leaving written works considering the oral tradition in Athens at the time. Basically, there is a fair amount of corroborating evidence that give you an idea of the man, his ideas and behaviours, but nothing certain, as is true of more or less everything that happened back then.


Nor was he more "scientific" from many of the pre-Socratics that came before (whatever that means - many of them sought truth, but Democritus probably came closest to the ideas of modern science - Socrates was not a materialist). And no, i don't think Socrates 'invented' such a method: he just refined it into an art-form.
Are you referring to me? I never said more scientific. I said very scientific in his approach. Oratory was always a refined art form (whatever that means - certainly an Art form in Egypt and China long before Socrates and existed as a refined art form long before Greece or Roman were recognized states).

[Dresta]

You said his being "very scientific" was what differentiated him from prior writers: that is simply not true. Don't get all huffy because what you said was wrong, just admit it and move on.

Nor was i talking about oratory, or rhetoric, but the Socratic method, as mentioned in the thread title (i.e. dialectical interrogation, almost always suffused with a sense of diffident irony for the sake of persuasiveness). That is what he made into an art-form particular to himself, his modus operandi (though i guess Plato had a lot to do with this as well).

[IGOTGAME]

You said his being "very scientific" was what differentiated him from prior writers: that is simply not true. Don't get all huffy because what you said was wrong, just admit it and move on.

Nor was i talking about oratory, or rhetoric, but the Socratic method, as mentioned in the thread title (i.e. dialectical interrogation, almost always suffused with a sense of diffident irony for the sake of persuasiveness). That is what he made into an art-form particular to himself, his modus operandi (though i guess Plato had a lot to do with this as well).

I went through this in law school. Its totally different than what you get in undergrad and its not fun. Anyone who engages in this type of method in casual conversation is a douche. It can be fine for work or mentoring but its condescending to do to a peer.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Socrates has been a figure of great interest to me since I was a little kid. One of the first people I looked up to since my first cursory introduction to him in like fifth grade. I know a lot of the stuff surrounding the real person Socrates is apocryphal, but just in terms of the idea of him and his legacy, I've always found fascinating. I've also strongly, strongly identified with him as a thinker, so I def have a special attachment and admiration for ol Socrates Johnson.

You are so, so, so, so special. Your momma must be super proud of raising such an incredibly bright boy.

Every child is unique and amazing but you were born with a brilliance that really shone way above your peasant classmates. How splendid that when others sought guidance from the likes of He-Man and Hassellhoff, you courageously led the way choosing such a unique and special and true character! So so so unique and special and amazing. Man, next thing you'll be enlightening the crowd on how dumb they are with their comic book movie tastes and glorifying losers in the media. A sheep you most certainly are not!

Happy now you ****ing ******. F*cking bigger pansy than the rest of us combined. F*cking more of a liberal try-hard than everyone. F*king in need of more reassuring praise than a fatherless little girl who cuts herself.

The dried up smegma of a fukking illiterate Medieval Serf has more intelligence than your entire lineage will EVER have, sh!thead. The slight deviation of posture the most obedient silent Nazi has a more original creativity persona than you will ever have.

Thank you for proving case in point what a f*cking hypocrite you are and being EXACTLY the kind of persona you so eloquently speak out against.

[Akrazotile]

I went through this in law school. Its totally different than what you get in undergrad and its not fun. Anyone who engages in this type of method in casual conversation is a douche. It can be fine for work or mentoring but its condescending to do to a peer.


It's how you expose people who are purporting false truths. Who cares if it's condescending. If someone doesnt like getting their bullshit rung out like a damp towel, they shouldnt trumpet shit opinions.

[Akrazotile]

You are so, so, so, so special. Your momma must be super proud of raising such an incredibly bright boy.

Every child is unique and amazing but you were born with a brilliance that really shone way above your peasant classmates. How splendid that when others sought guidance from the likes of He-Man and Hassellhoff, you courageously led the way choosing such a unique and special and true character! So so so unique and special and amazing. Man, next thing you'll be enlightening the crowd on how dumb they are with their comic book movie tastes and glorifying losers in the media. A sheep you most certainly are not!

Happy now you ****ing ******. F*cking bigger pansy than the rest of us combined. F*cking more of a liberal try-hard than everyone. F*king in need of more reassuring praise than a fatherless little girl who cuts herself.

The dried up smegma of a fukking illiterate Medieval Serf has more intelligence than your entire lineage will EVER have, sh!thead. The slight deviation of posture the most obedient silent Nazi has a more original creativity persona than you will ever have.

Thank you for proving case in point what a f*cking hypocrite you are and being EXACTLY the kind of persona you so eloquently speak out against.


:oldlol: Sorry to send you into meltdown mode bro.

I didnt wanna have to make shit get real, you know I'm cool with whatever people wanna say on the internet, but I dont like people playin on my phone. Then I gotta keep it real.

Get it in while ya can tho!

[RidonKs]

It's how you expose people who are purporting false truths. Who cares if it's condescending. If someone doesnt like getting their bullshit rung out like a damp towel, they shouldnt trumpet shit opinions.
but isn't that just sophistry? i'm all for embarrassing somebody if i have something funny to say but going out of my way to prove they overstepped their bounds on some subject.... i do that when i'm drunk and only with people i instinctively don't like.

goddamn j$ v starface taking over everywhere. that was indeed a good rip.

[Akrazotile]

but isn't that just sophistry? i'm all for embarrassing somebody if i have something funny to say but going out of my way to prove they overstepped their bounds on some subject.... i do that when i'm drunk and only with people i instinctively don't like.

goddamn j$ v starface taking over everywhere. that was indeed a good rip.


No, it exposes sophistry.

Sophists are folks like Clinton and Obama, speakers who invoke emotional triggers, tell you what they know you want to hear - but subtly tailored to advancing their agenda. They encourage cults of personality and mob agreement.

Socratic truth exposes these mirages for what they are - hypnotic window dressings on fundamentally illogical concepts.

[RidonKs]

no dude i think sophistry is the art of persuasion. it's more like propaganda than what you describing which is more like demagoguery or a bunch of other things.


Greek philosophy before Socrates basically splits into two groups:

1. Poets who were sweeping but vague, and who flirted with profound truths and paradoxes but didn't do much to develop their ideas ("Presocratics"); and

2. Orators, most of whom were baldly relativists and profiteers. ("Sophists")
they taught like lawyer jargon tactics to rich people

[Pointguard]

You said his being "very scientific" was what differentiated him from prior writers: that is simply not true. Don't get all huffy because what you said was wrong, just admit it and move on. It wasn't wrong. Oratory is more artistic. Its a show of language and pursues a point with artistic tools that you will unwittingly describe below. The Socratic approach is less show, and more incisive and scientific in its approach. Help me out here, you're saying it was more artistically refined. I'm saying it was approached more scientifically to bear out intent, fact or important detail.


Nor was i talking about oratory, or rhetoric, but the Socratic method, as mentioned in the thread title (i.e. dialectical interrogation, almost always suffused with a sense of diffident irony for the sake of persuasiveness). That is what he made into an art-form particular to himself, his modus operandi (though i guess Plato had a lot to do with this as well).
What you just described in the first parenthesis is particular to Oratory, a predecessor of the Socratic method. It can be a feature used in the Socratic method but not essential to it at all.

[RidonKs]

It wasn't wrong. Oratory is more artistic. Its a show of language and pursues a point with artistic tools that you will unwittingly describe below. The Socratic approach is less show, and more incisive and scientific in its approach. Help me out here, you're saying it was more artistically refined. I'm saying it was approached more scientifically to bear out intent, fact or important detail.

i think you can easily say the socratic method is very similar to the scientific method... it's a vocal and therefore naturally stylistic demonstration but it follows the same principles in process.

[Akrazotile]

no dude i think sophistry is the art of persuasion. it's more like propaganda than what you describing which is more like demagoguery or a bunch of other things.


they taught like lawyer jargon tactics to rich people


Yes and the Socratic method exposes their underlying fallacies.

[Akrazotile]

hello

hey you

[Akrazotile]

that shit you posted earlier sounded serious. you alright?

I cant talk about it here - it's too dangerous.

PM me.

[Dresta]

It wasn't wrong. Oratory is more artistic. Its a show of language and pursues a point with artistic tools that you will unwittingly describe below. The Socratic approach is less show, and more incisive and scientific in its approach. Help me out here, you're saying it was more artistically refined. I'm saying it was approached more scientifically to bear out intent, fact or important detail.

What you just described in the first parenthesis is particular to Oratory, a predecessor of the Socratic method. It can be a feature used in the Socratic method but not essential to it at all.
What are you talking about for God's sake? That is the Socratic method.

Seriously, compare the philosophy of Democritus (as found in De Rerum Natura - his writings were destroyed in the Middle Ages - remarkably well-reasoned pieces of empirical and logical deduction) to the cobweb-spinnings of Socrates and tell me again that the latter was recognised for its scientific merit over the former. Socrates' method is effective for exposing rhetorical blowhards - saying it differentiates itself from what came before by being 'very scientific' is just false, and a demonstration of your ignorance of the pre-Socratics.

Democritus was a mechanistic materialist, Socrates and Plato weren't - they were masters of the word, pedantic rhetoricians exposing the fallacies of other rhetoricians by demonstrating linguistic and logical contradictions; they were also believers in absolute truth (despite claiming to be ignorant of everything at the same time); what 'facts' did they unearth exactly?

The distinction of pre-socratic is largely made because the teachings of Plato and Socrates were those absorbed by the Church.

edit: here, just for you:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/presocra/

Take a look and learn something. The first paragraph effectively rubbishes your claims:


The application of the term “philosophy” to the Presocratics is somewhat anachronistic, but is certainly different from how many people currently think of philosophy. The Presocratics were interested in a wide variety of topics, especially in what we now think of as natural science rather than philosophy. These early thinkers often sought naturalistic explanations and causes for physical phenomena.

But then, what am i thinking? I'm arguing here with a guy who thinks the library of Alexandria wasn't Greek.

:banghead:

[navy]

Yes and the Socratic method exposes their underlying fallacies.
You never miss a chance to get high on a conservatism crusade. it's to the point of gimmick and not logic in which you rant you espouse. Kinda funny really :lol

Anyways, would you not say that Socrates takes an argument to the point that it no longer serves a practical basis and solutions cant be offered even by the one "taking on the role of socrates"?

[Pointguard]

What are you talking about for God's sake? That is the Socratic method.

Seriously, compare the philosophy of Democritus (as found in De Rerum Natura - his writings were destroyed in the Middle Ages - remarkably well-reasoned pieces of empirical and logical deduction) to the cobweb-spinnings of Socrates and tell me again that the latter was recognised for its scientific merit over the former. Socrates' method is effective for exposing rhetorical blowhards - saying it differentiates itself from what came before by being 'very scientific' is just false, and a demonstration of your ignorance of the pre-Socratics.
Below you provide a link that says Democritus [I][b][SIZE="2"]]"There are also historical difficulties with the term. For example, the atomist Democritus

[NumberSix]

You just screw up everything. Its content was largely Egyptian which is why the Library had to be stationed in Africa and not Greece.
Some was, some wasn't.

And I really don't know what you mean by "had to be stationed in Africa". It didn't "have to be" stationed anywhere. Believe it or not, by this point in time, they had figured out shipping. They could have built the library anywhere. It just so happens that they wanted the new city of Alexandria to be the capital of their empire. It's no different that when Constantine made Constantinople the new capital of the Roman Empire.


Its like saying James Brown performed at the Opera House so the music could not have been Funk. Everybody in the World knows what the music is, except those who don't know the content they are dealing with.
No, that's exactly what YOU are saying. Because where it takes place ("Egypt") it can't be Greek. Everyone in the world knows its Greek, except those who don't know the content they are dealing with.

[Pointguard]

Some was, some wasn't.

And I really don't know what you mean by "had to be stationed in Africa". It didn't "have to be" stationed anywhere. Believe it or not, by this point in time, they had figured out shipping. They could have built the library anywhere. It just so happens that they wanted the new city of Alexandria to be the capital of their empire. It's no different that when Constantine made Constantinople the new capital of the Roman Empire.

Scrolls deteriorate very quickly in Greece, it wasn't like they had an option. Everything was about the scrolls. The Egyptian Scrolls and the content they wanted out of them.



No, that's exactly what YOU are saying. Because where it takes place ("Egypt") it can't be Greek.
:lol This is at least the fourth time I explained to you that the scrolls are evident of the content. 4th time. Egyptian material (scrolls), Egyptian skill (Greeks hated writing on it), Egyptian maintenance (scrolls behave with an indigenous biochemistry of keeping good in Egypt).

[NumberSix]

Scrolls deteriorate very quickly in Greece, it wasn't like they had an option. Everything was about the scrolls. The Egyptian Scrolls and the content they wanted out of them.

:lol This is at least the fourth time I explained to you that the scrolls are evident of the content. 4th time. Egyptian material (scrolls), Egyptian skill (Greeks hated writing on it), Egyptian maintenance (scrolls behave with an indigenous biochemistry of keeping good in Egypt).
Lol. You're so clueless?

Why do you think stuff tends to last in Egypt? Is it that you think they have some secret recipe for preservation? :roll:

Things naturally preserve in Egypt for 1 simple reason. Climate. The only real force of erosion they have to deal with is sand. Other than that, there's no maintenance required.

[Dresta]

Oh, shut up Pointguard: you've just turned i slight comment into a pointless long discussion that serves no purpose. No, oratory is not categorised as a science, so give up, and shut up. Oratory and rhetoric were always referred to the Greeks as arts, and the current dictionary definitions call them arts.

You clearly haven't read Lucretius's De Rerum Natura, so i don't know why you are pretending to know what you're talking about. And i just posted something that expresses the fact that the methods of the pre-Socratics were what would be called natural science today - if you can't accept something so blatant, then it shows how pointless it is to discuss anything with people like you. Socrates was completely unscientific in many of his deductions, making assertions that could only be made on the basis of belief or faith. As in the Apology:


The fallacious character of Socrates' next maneuver against Meletus is perhaps the most difficult to spot but once seen, cannot be denied. After setting out some preliminary truisms (everyone prefers to be benefited by others rather than harmed, and it's better live in a good rather than a bad community, etc.), Socrates gets Meletus to say that Socrates corrupts the youth "intentionally" rather than unintentionally. Socrates then goes on to bellow that he would never intentionally corrupt the young and so it must be that he either does not corrupt the young or he does so unintentionally. Socrates then adds that the proper procedure for unintentional wrongdoing "is not to summon the culprit before the court, but to take him aside privately for instruction and reproof, because obviously if my eyes are opened, I shall stop doing what I do not intend to do." (26a). Clearly Socrates is being disingenuous here, for nothing will convince him that his mission corrupts the youth and nothing will deter him from his mission.

But the truth is that Socrates deliberately performs his elenchus. Meletus regards this as youth-corrupting and so contends, rightly, that Socrates deliberately corrupts the youth. That is, Meletus is claiming here that Socrates intentionally performs the actions which Meletus deems corrupting, i.e., the elenchus. The point in dispute then is whether Socrates' elenchic activities corrupt the young. No one cares that Socrates does not intentionally perform actions he himself regards as corrupting. Indeed, as Socrates himself says, only a fool would do such a thing. Meletus is not then, claiming that Socrates is deliberately doing something which he, Socrates, regards as youth-corrupting. As such, this entire episode about deliberateness is little more than a red herring to try to make Meletus look silly. Not exactly the sort of behavior one expects from someone on a mission from God (but then again, it depends on one's notion of God; some there are who regard their God as a trickster).

The bottom line however is that since Socrates would readily allow that he performs his elenchic activities intentionally, deliberately, the only way for Socrates to convince the jurors that he does not corrupt the youth intentionally is to show that his elenchic activities do not, Meletus' contentions notwithstanding, corrupt the young. At the very least, it ought to be agreed that the whole "either I do not corrupt or I do so unintentionally" maneuver smacks of sophistry, not to mention hypocrisy, and ought not be a part of any honest attempt to meet the charges before Socrates.

http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~jp6372me/apologycomments1a.htm#RepublicAnchor

That is Socrates: a twister of words, a master of dialectic (again, defined as 'the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions'). Stop pretending you know anything about the Greeks, geez! You're that blimmin afro-centrist who thinks Aristotle stole everything, and other completely baseless and conspiratorial inanities.

As for your absurd assertion about Papyrus and Egypt - ha! You evidently do not know that there was a library Pergamum, which housed, at a conservative estimate, 10s of thousands of Papyrus rolls. It was established by the Greeks, and directly to the east of Athens:

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=173

Now shush, and stop being an annoying dumbass.

[Pointguard]

Oh, shut up Pointguard: you've just turned i slight comment into a pointless long discussion that serves no purpose. No, oratory is not categorised as a science, so give up, and shut up. Oratory and rhetoric were always referred to the Greeks as arts, and the current dictionary definitions call them arts.
You had a problem with me saying Socrates was "very scientific in his approach." Oratory was an Art form. After Socrates's method people are using the same principled approach for thousands of years. One of the most applicable theories and methods in that whole age as it relates to modern society and the court room. Consistent application and methodology is more reflective of a scientific approach. Oratory is an art form, if you are persuasive you've done good. Music is an art form. But the scales of music are scientific: They work as for thousands of years the method is applicable.

I'm supposed to say "my bad, you have a problem with me saying Socrates had a scientific approach," and I should let it fly. You're only real response is to show me somebody who had a more scientific approach to oratory and court room tactics. All this other stuff is useless.


You clearly haven't read Lucretius's De Rerum Natura, so i don't know why you are pretending to know what you're talking about. And i just posted something that expresses the fact that the methods of the pre-Socratics were what would be called natural science today - if you can't accept something so blatant, then it shows how pointless it is to discuss anything with people like you. Socrates was completely unscientific in many of his deductions, making assertions that could only be made on the basis of belief or faith. As in the Apology:
You keep going off into useless tangents.

Show me the pre-Socratic philosopher that was more scientific in his approach and application and had a superior method of court room verbal pursuits. Simple. Nothing else is needed, idiot.

You want to go back to the books but now you are in a corner right. Things don't compute because reality goes far beyond the books. We aren't using the Socratic method thousands of years later because of his faulty science, dumbass.

Think for your yourself sometimes.

[Pointguard]

Lol. You're so clueless?

Why do you think stuff tends to last in Egypt? Is it that you think they have some secret recipe for preservation? :roll: You went from stupid to incredibly dumb in a one sentence response.

Egyptians were among the greatest preservationist on the planet. For you to say it was one reason is a total lack of knowledge about chemistry, history, architecture, biology and even the sun. Your local library is having a preservation problem because of the sun and oxidation. The old books in your house are turning brown because of oxidation - yeah, slowly being burnt.

You still see Egyptian paint from 4000 years ago. You think that's climate.

Even their graffiti could last 3000 years

You still see their structures from 3000 years ago.

Even underground tunnels were perfected like this.

They preserved human flesh and organs from 3000 years ago. You think that's climate.

It survived assaults from foreign leaders that had a problem with antique value. You think that climate.

Just like with Papyrus, Egyptians knew their climate but they still had a remarkable sense of Chemistry. Thank goodness the Papyrus scrolls deteriorated when they got to Greece.


Things naturally preserve in Egypt for 1 simple reason. Climate. The only real force of erosion they have to deal with is sand. Other than that, there's no maintenance required.

I love how you come on here acting like you are preservationist, historian, and even a thinker. You simply don't know the first principles on half the stuff you talk about. And worse than that you don't know when to stop.

[RidonKs]

You went from stupid to incredibly dumb in a one sentence response.

He just broke his own record!
http://media.giphy.com/media/FQ7Y4WoBHcN6o/giphy.gif