Socrates Cafe

From wikipedia:

Socrates Cafe is the name used by a number of philosophy discussion groups, which take their model from the book of the same name by Christopher Phillips.

A typical group meets in a public place, is open to anyone who wishes to attend, and uses the Socratic method to discuss a question which is chosen by vote or which is announced shortly in advance. Typically there are no prerequisites, and no reading or other preparation is required (end of wikipedia quotation).


About a month ago I read the Book that is described above, and I think we should start a Socrates Cafe here in Mofo. For those unfamiliar with the Socratic method...it basically revolves around the idea that everything can and should be questioned. You take a question with philosophical implications such as: "What is truth?" or "Why is life worth living?" and examine it as much as you possibly can. You attempt to view the issue from every possible perspective and leave no possibility untouched. Often you end up with more questions than answers...but you uncover a lot of ideas that probably wouldn't have occured to you along the way. Keep in mind...this is a collaborative effort, so while you're encouraged to disagree with others, the ideal response is to propose an alternative viewpoint in a way that won't dissolve into argument.

If I haven't been clear enough about this whole thing...then let me know what I could do to explain better.

With all that out of the way...how 'bout someone proposes a question and we can try to get this underway. We'll discuss it for a while and then I suppose We'll decide when it's been exhausted and the time has come to move on. Luckily there are millions of questions so we're unlikely to run out. I'll leave things open for someone else to propose the first question, and if no one does after a day or two I'll come up with my own...but it can be any question that might yield interesting discussion. The more broad the better (because it can go in more directions) I urge everyone to give this a try...in the book it seemed to be very stimulating.

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

I like Socrates and all, but I can't help it when I think of it as Prehistoric Philosophy. Of course I don't mean literally, but it's just to old for me. It just really isn't my cup of tea. Sure if there was no Socrates, Aristotle, or Plato, philosophy wouldn't be what it is today. Im more of a Friedrich Nietzsche fan. Yeah sure existentialism, but im a pessimist at heart.

I like his concept of "Eternal Return" (which really stems out of Hindu theology...or mythology if you prefer) but I prefer Socrates since his method allows us common men (and women) to engage in some DIY philosophizing at a moment's notice, and participants really need no experience or education in philosophy. It really is "of the people".

Nietzsche in particular and modern philosophy in general tends to focus on specific problems, specific POVs and I have found it extremely limiting in that aspect. Modern philosophy very much stems from a specific point of view, or attacks a specific issue, this is where I find the Socratic method useful and freeing.

Prehistoric philosophy isn't burdened by this, it asks the big questions and through deduction and reason it is the precursor.

The problem is that the questions are many, where to start?

Pros and cons of living in an industrial society? Too vague. Race vs. Class? Same. Does either exist? That may be a topic worthy of this method and an interesting jumping off point since we are all affected by the topic in some way. Any takers.

Does race and class exist in the country where you reside, how is it defined differently and what are its implications? Pare it down if you like, but that is my topical proposition.

__________________
"You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know. I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do." -David Cronenberg

Ok...Othelo. The first thing Phillip's usually did with his groups in the book...was to define the major terms in question. We have to think about what we each mean when we use the words "race" and "class" I know that these are basic terms, but the groups often found that each individual put their own spin on the words they were discussing which often reflected the bias of their perspective. Often this also unlocked some interesting perspectives on the nature of the subjects that most people had not explored before. How about this as the question we ask:


[TOPIC]"Do race and class exist? And if so how do they affect us?"[TOPIC]

Now remember...Don't just jump in and say "Of course race and class exist!" Think about it a bit first and keep in mind that we're trying to examine really closely things that we normally take for granted. Since I guess I'm kind of the moderator of the discussion by default, the way that will operate is: Someone makes a point...I may try to take their point a step further, I may raise a question based on what they say that guides things in a new direction or I may propose an alternative viewpoint. Feel free to bring any perspective to the topic that you want too, because as I said we're trying for a democratic consideration of all possible ideas...and don't be afraid to pose a question that will add something to the disscussion or change its course. That's what the Socratic method is, after all, Questioning absolutely everything...and then questioning the questions.

I want to bring up a question about race to kick things off.

Think about this... Race is a division usually made in many societies based on physical characteristics (even though truly it stems from genetics, we usually see it in physical terms...because honestly that's usually how we become aware of another person's race). So why is this division such a huge barrier in many places? Most other divisions based on aesthetic characteristics don't have nearly as huge an impact as race. We divide fruits into different sections, because we know what they look like, and that based on their appearance: their composition, flavor and nutritional value will be different. I don't think We can automatically say that two people of different races will be as different as two foods, and yet the division is of such greater consequence. What causes this fixation we have on the physical? Is that because our senses are how we relate to the world? And if so, does this mean our senses have more influence over us than our minds? Does that mean we are more primative than we think? How much do we really reason? Using reason would tell us that we don't know much about a person we've never met...yet we often make judgements based on appearance. Is our ability to reason often overridden by things like instinct?

I'll just do a quick post because I like this thread and thought I'd post at least something to get the ball rolling, otherwise chances are I won't find it again.

Race where I live isn't such a dividing characteristic. I live close to the city in Melbourne, Australia. One thing that Melbourne prides itself on, and indeed Australia, is that it is multicultural. I can't speak for the rest of Australia but race seems to be more like a culture-based entity now. Where cultural characteristics like dress, food, likes/dislikes and language lean people to form impressions of people not so much the colour of their skin.

e.g. If you consider my friend from China who dresses like me, dislikes Asian food, loves footy and has a strong Aussie accent. Then he is treated the same as everyone else. However my friend Francis wears designer clothes, has a very strong accent and spends most of his time in "asian" areas, hates sport and loves anime. Thus for some reason when he is around my anglo friends he feels alienated and disconnected. It's not because he is Chinese though it's because of his cutural indicators I reckon.

My example isn't the best but it seems to me from my experience that in Australia It seems that cultural cues ascribe a kind of "race" to people. Complete with its own sterotypes and all. It's all become subgroups now and the word race doesn't seem fit to be a description of division in communities. I know a guy who is brilliant at business and math but insists he is still a 'wog' (word given to greek/itialian people who are sterotypically great with women, tough and dangerous). He's trying to put himself into the racial sterotype because that's how it worked in the past but realistically nobody treats him like a 'wog' at all, most see him as a bit nerdy which he himself admits is somewhat the case.

That's just a few ideas on race for now.

__________________
Concert Tab!! MOFO poetry Been Dreaming Lately?

WHAAAAAAAAA??????

Somebody please dialectic with me!

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Sounds cool...I feel kinda unprepared though...

__________________
But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet, Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W.B. Yeats

Well... according to the Socratic method, the questioner doesn't need to have any knowledge about the topic. Only the "expert" makes claims to knowledge. All the questioner has to do is ask yes/no questions, keep track of the answers, and attempt to find flaws in the expert's positions.

And then the loser has to drink hemlock, right?

But...the person who knows the most is the one who knows they know nothing...

Seems like the opposite, since Socrates almost always "won" or at least succeeded in his dialectic. In the end, I think he still "won", because he chose to troll the jury instead of complacently appealing to them, thereby renouncing his views and actually "losing".

---

@rose: the person who knows that (s)he knows nothing is merely "wise" as the Oracle at Delphi declared of Socrates. Most people are not wise because, while they know some things, they think that they know much more than they actually do (Apology).