I had always considered what I understood the Socratic Method to be somewhat simplistic and unsatisfying, but was not quite able to precisely formulate why I felt that way. Part of this may have been due to I had never seriously studied philosophy and part of it may have been due to my hesitancy to question something about which I felt I didn't have a complete grasp of other than having read some of the Socratic dialogs.

After reading what Vox Day had to say about it on his blog http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/03/mailvox-on-socrates.html, the light bulb finally clicked on and I felt rather pleased that my initial vague dissatisfaction with Socrates was not only vindicated, but now I actually had some reasons for feeling that way.



In FIBs open shouts I see a lot of simplistic Socratic rhetoric, which is probably why I don't find shouts very satisfying either.

This is clearly where I fall.


Yes, the distinction between dialog and debate is very important.

I do wonder though how wiki would define a purported debate where the object of the exercise is not really a debate but a speed test to see how fast a shouter can google-cut-paste (GCP) quotations I suspect they themselves don't fully comprehend.

Forget rational debate, what's your GCP per minute?

Some about retoric of Plato/Socrates quoting http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/#PlaDiaRhePoe

6. Plato's Dialogues as Rhetoric and Poetry

 Plato's critique of writing on the grounds that it is a poor form of rhetoric is itself written. Of course, his Socrates does not know that he is “speaking” in the context of a written dialogue; but the reader immediately discerns the puzzle. Does the critique apply to the dialogues themselves? If not, do the dialogues escape the critique altogether, or meet it in part (being inferior to “live” dialogue, but not liable to the full force of Socrates' criticisms)? Scholars dispute the answers to these well-known questions.[32]

 There is general agreement that Plato perfected—perhaps even invented—a new form of discourse. The Platonic dialogue is a innovative type of rhetoric, and it is hard to believe that it does not at all reflect—whether successfully or not is another matter—Plato's response to the criticisms of writing which he puts into the mouth of his Socrates.

 Plato's remarkable philosophical rhetoric incorporates elements of poetry. Most obviously, his dialogues are dramas with several formal features in common with much tragedy and comedy (for example, the use of authorial irony, the importance of plot, setting, the role of individual character and the interplay between dramatis personae). No character called “Plato” ever says a word in his texts. His works also narrate a number of myths, and sparkle with imagery, simile, allegory, and snatches of meter and rhyme. Indeed, as he sets out the city in speech in the Republic, Socrates calls himself a myth teller (376d9–10, 501e4–5). In a number of ways, the dialogues may be said to be works of fiction; none of them took place exactly as presented by Plato, several could not have taken place, some contain characters who never existed. These are imaginary conversations, imitations of certain kinds of philosophical conversations. The reader is undoubtedly invited to see him or herself reflected in various characters, and to that extent identify with them, even while also focusing on the arguments, exchanges, and speeches. Readers of Plato often refer to the “literary” dimension of his writings, or simply refer to them as a species of philosophical literature. Exactly what to make of his appropriation of elements of poetry is once again a matter of long discussion and controversy.[33]

 Suffice it to say that Plato's last word on the critique of poetry and rhetoric is not spoken in his dialogues, but is embodied in the dialogue form of writing he brought to perfection.