slowthinker84 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 8:14 pm
I have decided to use a Socratic method youtube video to find or discover my life's purpose however I just don't understand how to do the second step so I cant go any further with this until I do. Could you perhaps provide a different way of saying how to do step 2? is step 2 just asking you to form any question based on the definition or idea in step one? the video is located here, please view it or at least view where it explains the second step of the socratic method>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB4MYGInRl4
The video's initial statement is partly misleading. The socratic method IS a form of 'rhetorical' appeal ("Rhetoric" is just the collective techniques to get approval or convey ones thoughts via communication that include affection versus simply logic.)
Socrates lived in a time where Athen's "democracy" was in full swing. People were permitted to propose charge against anyone for anything (unlike this today in which police or court officials do). As such, the tendency to get charged and convicted by the mob had the tendency to use any effective technique in communication that WORKED rather than to appeal to logic.
Socrates had to be careful not to upset anyone himself or risk similar consequences (in which he still ended up being charged for his own methods anyways) So, in stead of stating one's position nor negating it, both of which creates a problem when attempting to appeal to anyone regardless of logic or presently known tactics of rhetoric in his day, he carefully asked questions so that the listener would themselves come to the conclusion desired. It is a kind of psychological manipulation but not necessarily faulty since it is most effective when it appeals to the listeners own logic or emotive appeal.
Instead of trying to understand the formal way the video's author is trying to formulate, practice with someone you know about some issue you feel they have some strange rationale in logic to you. Instead of taking letting your own voice be heard, ask the person questions as though you are a child looking up to a parent for understanding. That is, ASSUME they have the knowledge/wisdom of the issue with clarity and limit your own contribution other than to guide the listener to sincere questions to understand their point of view.
If you are sincere, you can't expect to succeed necessarily because it may be you who may be incorrect should you differ from their view.
Example: I had a problem with someone close to me who was strongly into the Network Marketing concepts of the 1980s. The person was emotionally charged and thought that I was offending him for coming across so negative in opposition to the system. I could assert some problem with it but couldn't get far because the tactics used in such cons are aware of the skepticism in the same way a cult would be of others. One way they operate is to INOCULATE their listeners to outsiders' potential LOGICAL appeals against the concepts or to strong EMOTIONAL ones that the 'victim' of the con to the scheme holds themselves internally that might make them run away themselves.
So, getting frustrated of the constant barrage to be compliant towards him, I thought to play dumb and took up one issue of contention: the 'pyramid' exponential math involved. You are told by the scheme that you ONLY need to find two other people to sign up beneath you, who then each find two of their own to make a 'level'. The promise is that only after a few such levels down, those people at the bottom will end up making you potential millions.
So I focused on asking him about how to do the literal math out of 'curiosity'. At first he thought it was already expressed within the literature but I still could not follow and asked him to help me understand with clarity. He complied because I gave HIM the very authority to resolve the problem rather than DENYING his own intelligence. He finally proved TO ME that the pyramid scheme led to a mathematical impossibility and improbability of being sustainable because within only a few levels down, you'd require the whole population of the world.
Questioning the person you want to understand with SINCERITY of the logic is important but has one major problem: it may be as manipulatively used by the very kind of methods of those scammers because the technique actually GIVES CONFIDENCE to the listener up front. As such, it comes across as 'manipulative' when others discover you had some preconceived position rather than sincere ignorance as you asked the questions.
As such, Socrates had himself lost trust that he was actually sincere about his own 'ignorance' when asking questions. This lead to others charging him with being relatively 'athiest' in a predominant climate of some minimal common faith in at least SOME 'god' where he would question people upon their strongly held beliefs.
So be warned that if you intend to use such techniques, this can backfire today even where effective among those sharing the technique in philosophical dialect (two-way conversations). The original Socrates was actually just a character many people used in written dialogues as an effective style popular in literature. It works in that format where the author already can LEAD the conversation effectively as both the questioner and responder. In reality most people can sense when one is attempting to 'lead' and why court lawyers use the charge of "leading" upon another opponent's representative using such tactics upon an unsuspecting witness, such as is famously used in practice where a lawyer wants his opponent witness to indirectly APPEAR to admit guilt of admission:
"So, Mr Soandso, a 'yes' or 'no' is all we need to know, have you stopped beating your wife?" as a question to a defendent being charged for the very question of abusive.
The question manipulates the respondent to a yes or no question which "(mis)leads" the defendent into a trap. If he answers this at all, he is admitting to beating his wife in the past.
So, while it can be functional to use, be SINCERE and practice by asking others so THAT you may first understand them sincerely. This is advisable regardless of whether you have a different or better argument against their view. You need to understand their position as though you could literally be IN their own position. If you only have a pretense of understanding, you are still not as appropriate to challenge with fairness, especially to those you care about. So make sure you understand them such that YOU TOO would do as they would given what they can explain to you.
Then you will discover the method by practice and not by stict formulas that would MORE certainly make you look like a manipulator for not understanding the process in practice.
[edit: "lead" to "led", improper spelling]