Bringing Wisdom of Socrates to Modern Dialogue - Karen Armstrong

[jhall38]

Sickening sweet offal seems to come out of this woman's mouth whenever she speaks.  She is Mohammed's biggest defender, Islam's most popular kaffir. May God rebuke her and bring to an end the tyranny of Islam in the world.

[jhall38]

Yes, Karen, I can imagine how gentle Mohammed was. Oh, how he gently lectured his wonderful followers! "Now be nice, guys, when you raid that Jewish town. When you capture the tribal head, be sure to tie her legs & arms to the camels gently. She is old you know. And give her time for any last words she might have, before you rip her body apart. Oh, yes, Abdul, I have a question, my Socratic student. How will you ship her head to me over in Medina.Yes, Bader? Do you have something to add?"

[jhall38]

First error...Socrates is not the sole founder of the Western Rational Tradition. Aristotle represents a different stream just as important and antithetical to Socratic interest. Second error...the assumption that gentleness must accompany the expression of opinions.  How gently ciykd Plato have expressed his doctrine of infanticide when members of the Bronze class mated with those of the Golden class, only to produce children which were to be abandoned on hillsides? How you gloss over facts.

[S2Cents]

She's thinking of the Hitch.

[kitasenju48]

=at=to

Tokyo

[Da0YiN]

could fora tv change their slogan... it feels like they were saying they are the only smart people on the internet makeing everyone else think!!!

[ahmedzahir12345]

this women is a traitor... 

[rmeddy1]

Karen Armstrong doesn't have to worry about ostentatious exoteric religious people.

That's why she thinks with such luxury and presupposition.

[socratus1]

God as a Scientist

Can a Rational Individual believe in God ?

In other words:

Can God be atheist, governed by scientific laws?

Of course

Because, if God exists, he must work in Absolute

Reference Frame and have a set of Physical/ Mathematical laws to create everything

And if we find this God’s Absolute House then we can understand Cod’s Physical Laws

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

[jacksawild]

Oh come on. Socrates was pretty scathing if you had the intelligence to understand him. He had an excellent way of making you feel stupid, and he did it with a smile. He believed he was on a mission from God, or so he said. He obviously upset important people by publicly revealing their ignorance because they found him guilty despite his eloquent defence. I love his style, but he did make fools out of people often and well.

[XXGDUBSXX]

@jacksawild They made fools out of themselves I think.

[fred5399]

"the world was made for those who lack self awareness"

[nickharvey7]

neat video on Socrates!!

[Pigroota]

0:45 - 1:14

That's such a relevant anecdote for today's society and in particular how it relates to politics

I come from a country that is run by a COMPLETE bonehead, where the senate and house of reps banter across the floor and get paid big money to solve nothing... and create new mistakes! Perhaps K.Rudd and his minions (and the libs) should adopt the Socratic mentality, because it's just too obvious that they know nothing

I wonder if today's politics are similar to Athenian

[xerosisonek]

Not in the US. He'll get put on a no fly list or sent to an undisclosed location to be "questioned" himself. Or lambasted in the media by poorly educated blowhards.

[garvess]

We aren't automatons that can sit prudently, and emotionally unaffected in debates that are important and meaningful to us. Our passion, our forceful emotions, our anger , playing off that of others with differing opinions drives us closer to wisdom.

[suzhouhe]

If Socrates were on the internet I bet he would get fuckn pwnd.

[cat22203]

No man, he would be on twitter by now and all of us would get pwnd!

[Bassist21050]

Being a philosophy major I have to seriously question her reading of Plato. The Socratic dialogues have nothing humble in them, except for the sake of irony. And while she's right that most of the dialogues end in aporia, it's not as even-handed as all that; Socrates completely discredits and humiliates his opponent, and then by admitting his own ignorance manages to save face very neatly. But it's still quite condescending if you read it closely.

[AtSwimTwoBricks]

Those he talks to usually start out giving perfectly valid ostensive definitions.

His game is to try and force everything into a very math-inspired synthetic system. In fact, he's always going to math to explain what he wants. He wants necessary and sufficient conditions. He wants a single common feature present in all X and nothing but X.

And when nobody can fit things into his mold, it's obviously their fault. Never that he's demanding more than the concepts themselves can deliver, no!

[Bassist21050]

Math or the immortality of the soul, definitely. His insistence on differentiating knowledge from belief, and that learning does not in any way rely on being convinced, is entirely reliant on the binary relationship between the Forms and the empirical world. And he all too often tends to disparage the empirical world accordingly.

Another thing Karen Armstrong would do well to note is that modern dialogue seeks something other than an aporetic ending. Socratic dialogue isn't well suited to that.

[ToddAllenGates]

> The Socratic dialogues have nothing humble in them, except for the sake of irony.

Well said!

A classic example is when Euthyphro criticizes those who know little of what the gods think about piety and impiety, and Socrates then asks Euthyphro if he in turn knows the will of the gods. When Euthyphro responds that he has "exact knowledge," Socrates' reply is:

"Rare friend! I think that I cannot do better than be your disciple."

The "humbleness" is little but a ploy.

[Bassist21050]

Exactly. Brilliant staging and (dare I say it?) rhetoric on Plato's part, but that doesn't redeem it from the subtle sense of smugness that resides in most of the dialogues.

[ToddAllenGates]

I listened to this video again, and I'm taken back by how such an educated woman gets it so wrong. From 2:10 to 2:18 she says the Socratic Method is about "gentleness" and how "nobody is trying to defeat the other."

If Socrates were really as pleasant as Armstrong made him out to be, it seems less likely that his fellow Athenians would have brought him to trial for "corrupting the youth" and sentenced him to death!

[Re5Publica]

I bought a book by Karen Armstrong on Muhammad, she makes him out to be a gentle prophet, who despite this, becomes a military leader, and ruler, who conquered all of Arabia and inspired his companions to conquer and subjugate half the known world after his death.

She romanticizes nearly everyone, because she can't seem to bring herself to be negative due to her view that everything should be nice and fluffy otherwise someone might get offended by the truth.

[mutemenot]

socrates was a hateful and emotionally-unstable person

[lynchmobb2000]

As Stanley Rosen my teacher in Graduate School at Boston University told me, Socrates is a goddamn liar.

[cat22203]

STanley Rosen is an old fool! Don't trust old fools because they do not know what they are talking about all the time no matter their position. So don't take for granted what he says, you need to to question. Socrates is the man!

[aleshkai]

I LOOOOOOOOVE KAREN ARMSTRONG ^.^

[dallasINtokyo]

i'm Dallas and I approve this message

[angryislander56]

someone tell inmendham

[stengevarsel]

Whenever I detect cognitive dissonance in a fundie, I think "My work here is done" and let him/her off easy. Whenever that happens you want to keep them on the edge long enough to let it sink in.

[notToast]

nice teeth lol

[AtSwimTwoBricks]

It's just not going to happen with political debate. In an academic setting, where truth is paramount, sure. But politics isn't about discovering the truth, it's about manipulating things to your advantage.

Political interests often find the truth to be less than helpful. They're more than willing to throw it away once they've found it.

[EuroInvicta]

Agreed!

[Redfingers]

Modern high school level debates are literally performed by debaters that speak constantly over 400 words per minute. They literally read what are called "cards," or basically cut quotations from experts in the field, one after the other. The reason they speak so fast is so that they can read more cards in the alotted time (usually around 8 minutes to 7 minutes for opening case/rebuttal).

It's vastly different from the kind of debate you'd see from politicians or on television or on the street.

[Redfingers]

They prepare two cases, one for the negative side of the proposition to be debated, and one for the affirmative side. The sides they have to debate in favor of are randomized. In every debate, each debater debates both sides of every issue, sometimes multiple times over a span of time.

It's not about finding the truth, it is literally a competition designed to develop debate "skills" that basically revolve around thinking quickly and cramming the largest case into the allotted time.

[kshackleton]

This method works when both parties are interested in learning something rather than teaching someone.

[mattghtpa]

Yes of course that works, in a utopian society.

An idealistic position I would prefer.

But try using the enlightened path of knowledge rhetoric on an individual who believe in mythical beings, demons, and magic.

[marvinvarela]

Well, on those individuals this line of argumentation has as much effect any other: none.

But this rethoric is something we should at least have in the back of our minds whenever we are having any serious debate. We should be willing to accept that the other position on the debate may be right, or the debate is useless to start with.

[andid]

Agreed 100%. Armstrong makes the assumption that the person talking back has a "beautifully expressed opinion" to share. This Socrates-style of conversation is a great ideal to strive for, especially if both parties are striving for it. But that's rarely the case, and even if it were, our lower brain emotional instincts will still get the best of us sometimes.

[Redfingers]

Matt, I suggest you search Google for a guy named ToddAllenGates on Youtube and his video series "Using the Socratic method with Christian proselytizers."

I've found it to be by FAR the most effective means not just of engaging and persuading a stubborn-ass Christian, proselytizer or otherwise, but also by far the most effective means of establishing knowledge. The most important thing is to get the Christian (the claimant) to reveal his source of knowledge (usually subjective).

[mattghtpa]

Hey Red...but you're assuming they are even going to listen.

The denial is deep.

A great example of this was Richard Dawkins conversation with Wendy Wright "Richard Dawkins interviews Wendy Wright (Part 1)".

The source of knowledge is ultimately the Bible, Quran, or Torah.

However non-theist must concede they cannot be a 100% certain there is no God, just no evidence one does exist.

[Redfingers]

I am perfectly satisfied with conceding either of those things.

I am not a strong atheist, I am a weak atheist.

If someone told me their ultimate source of knowledge was the Bible, I would laugh in their face. A science textbook isn't the ultimate source of scientific knowledge despite holding many, many truths which can be independently demonstrated and verified. Just being written down doesn't make something true. There is not a single demonstration of anything in the Bible.

[mattghtpa]

I would say I am a rationalist, like Sam Harris. I refuse to legitimize a belief simply because I refuse to acknowledge it.

Its unfortunate that strong atheist seem to gravitate toward hard line skeptics. If a fundie is the right, then the hard line skeptic is the left which I find as absurd as the right.

Science is my guide as well, but quantum physics is a conundrum and I believe the standard model is flawed or at least incomplete.

[humanist7117]

I use this technique constantly with "fundies.: I never try to argue with them or pursuade them to my view. I just sew doubts.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

I beg to differ sir. I've never met a Muslim proselytizer in my life but I've met plenty of Christians and I have them in my family.

My mother is a Christian and she brought me up in the church and read me Bible verses as a child and invited me to watch Jesus of Nazareth with her on cable television, which I often did. And even she absolutely cannot stand her sister sending her lunatic cultish doomsday and anti-pornography tracts, which she often does.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

Nope. I'm an atheist and I've never met a Muslim personally in my life, nor have I ever read a single page of the Koran. Nor have I ever owned a Koran or seen one in person to my recollection. I do however own a copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible, and I have a New International Version in my former bedroom at my parents' house.

I've been to church many, many times, and I've never seen a mosque. With the exception of my brother, my entire family is Christian.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

Never having met a Muslim or a Muslim proselytizer are not mutually exclusive because a Muslim proselytizer is simply a type of Muslim.

If I've never met a Muslim, it proceeds logically that I've never met a Muslim proselytizer.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

Of course they are. They're proud that I'm an intelligent, educated, independent thinker, and as a result, they love and value me.

Why do you pity me? Is that part of being a Christian? That's called projection, sweetheart, it's a psychological technique. You are upset that you are a self-pitying pile of Christian shit unworthy of the love of Jesus and thus project that emotional distress on me as a means of release. Sort of like how you scapegoat your sins onto Jesus.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

Fuck God. He is a faggot.

[pmoyer50]

@Redfingers : You can't be very intelligent to use words like that.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

Thanks for the tip, bud.

Imagine how you look.

[pmoyer50]

@Redfingers: I don't have to use crude vulgar language to get my point across and by the way, God bless Israel. Did you attend Reverend Phelps church as a youth? He likes people who think like you.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

Bud, I'm just talking down to your level. I sensed this conversation was going nowhere from the very beginning.

So what I'm trying to tell you is, if I'm talking to you this way, how do you think I see you? How seriously do you think I take you? Do you not know how fucking easy it is to see through your phoniness? As though I'd never talked to a Christian before?

And by the way, fuck Israel.

Nice touch misrepresenting Fred Phelps, BTW. It's "God hates fags" not "god's a faggot." NTT.

[pmoyer50]

@Redfingers: I've heard your spiel from atheists before. They try to pretend how intelligent they are and claim they are talking down to people they communicate with. I love Israel and so does God. Goodbye. I'll just delete any further comments that you send to me. I'm calling you a fool - though God states that those who claim there is no God are fools. You will have to answer to Him one day. He knows what you called Him. But I'm sure this line of reasoning amuses you. God bless Israel.

[Redfingers]

@pmoyer50

God is a faggot and can suck my dick. I'm sure he'll enjoy it.

[pmoyer50]

@Redfingers

[jhall38]

@Redfingers You suffer from a distorted sense of self. Surely, your proportions would not interest most of the people you encounter, not to mention God. Comments like this remind me why the idea of God is indeed necessary, if just to counter your focused, male self interest. You are not God and your penis is not that interesting.

[Redfingers]

@jhall38

I am not God, if I was God, that would suggest I was sucking my own penis. No, as a matter of fact, God is a faggot and he is in fact sucking my dick, right now. That's what I'm trying to establish to you. That is the problem with you God lovers is that you're sucking the God cock so hard you have no capacity to realize not only that you're getting fucked but also that God loves it. You have no capacity to understand that God might give you the reacharound if you'd only ask.

[jhall38]

@Redfingers Karen is a pretty good Muslim proselytizer, by spreading misinformation, getting people thinking Moh was basically Jesus reincarnated.  Jesus' ethic was no better than Moh's as far as she's concerned. As for me, I'd rather the idiots of the world follow a pacifist than a man teaching people to cut off thieves' hands, to rape captive women, steal from highways in religious conflicts, to behead people at the drop of a hat, etc. As you see, I'm not a Muslim proselytizer like Karen.

[Redfingers]

Then you really just have to berate the son of a bitch when he reveals his source of knowledge is "personal revelation" or faith or some such nonsense until they submit and crawl up in the corner in the fetal position.

Remember, just ask them if they have any objective arguments regarding theism. There's like 7, total, that have ever been proposed in the history of theism, and refutations can be found all over the internet. When you're done with that, it's easy peasy.

[Kinkspace]

@mattghtpa It works for me :)

Its your baggage you carry it.

[justinvanelsberg1989]

@mattghtpa For one who speaks in symbols, convert your rhetoric to their symbolic terms. "So that together you achieve enlightenment." Are you treating those with whom you speak with respect?

We can also ground the unreal in the real. That is, without condescension but the purpose of mutual learning, the strategic questioning can cause the other to confront logical flaws. This can bring defensiveness in the other, but your stability and complete open acceptance of the other can help calm them.

[justinvanelsberg1989]

@mattghtpa If you can pull this off successfully, you'll become on persuasive person, ironic as it sounds. This aspect usually has to do with individuals who have not developed internal stability and empowerment. Intellectual religious leaders seldom speak of such icons as referents. Because they understand the nature of the symbols. One who actually takes the symbols for physical things is set in delusion.

[justinvanelsberg1989]

@mattghtpa Thus you can help your friends to develop by little more than openness, questioning and active listening (an art form and discipline). We have to simply accept that the defensive and delusional are no less intelligent that we, simply misguided, and we can assist in their liberation (and they in ours, which is never ending and is also called learning and development, particularly of the spirit). If symbols help in this (gods, demons, etc.) the symbols will evolve with the perspective.

[arshsingh1984]

I'd like to see her take on Christopher Hitchens...

[ElectricityNow]

Haha, I LOLed so hard when I saw this comment!

[faelismaegnus]

What a useless blabbermouth!

[cat22203]

she is the most amazing living historian of religion today!

[whispers83]

14th