Evan Prodromou
So, I'm qualified no. I think it's a bad way to engage in dialogue with someone.
Primarily because you're presupposing that you have something to teach to your conversation partner, not something to learn together. You move from discussing to teaching.
It's also deceptive, and manipulative. It's very dependent on people taking you in good faith and answering your questions honestly, even though they've been posed dishonestly. And it shifts all the intellectual labour onto your partner.
Evan Prodromou
It's a *qualified* no because I think it can be a good way to illustrate your reasoning for a single statement that's part of a larger conversation. Like, making the statement, and then leading the conversational partner through your reasoning, all while acknowledging that they don't have to buy into your thoughts at all. Shifting the *entire* conversation into the Socratic mode, though, is pretty manipulative.
Evan Prodromou
If you think that the nature of piety must be absolute, just say it, and you can discuss it from there. Don't hide your premise and then barrage someone with questions trying to get them to admit to the inevitability of your position.
Evan Prodromou
@passthejoe I mean, it didn't end up great for Socrates.
Steven Rosenberg
@evan It helps if you're Socrates, or on his level. Otherwise it can be annoying.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.