I don't know about y'all, but sometimes I feel like I can edit the life out of a paper, but can't actually write one. Reading Plato this week, especially in book I, I feel like Socrates is very similar. He can tear down other people's arguments, but then fails to throw out his own ideas. Sometimes I wonder what the point is in merely tearing down ideas. I understand that it is beneficial to change your views on life if they are wrong, but this is a circular argument that seems to not really impact ones actions. Or does it? But the negativity and futility demonstrated but the approach of Socrates somewhat bugs me. What is the point to cynicism? Yes, it stretches the mind, and broadens your perspective, but ultimately how does it benefit society? Truly, it isn't the red marks on a paper that inspire, but the words. Wouldn't the same concept be true when it comes to ideals?
P.S. I threw in my bit on Caleb's post :)
I agree with you about Socrates consistent argument of isolating the subject and reasoning around it explicitly in order to refute it; it was getting quite annoying. I wanted Socrates to offer a solid statement, one that wasn't preceded with an intense interrogation.
ReplyDelete