Socratic dialogue

Je mehr Möglichkeiten der Lebensführung wir erkennen, desto dringlicher wird die Frage: Wie lebe ich gut? Wer allerdings in der gegenwärtigen Philosophie die Klärung seiner Frage erwartet, wird zunächst enttäuscht. Er wird ein Nebeneinander gegensätzlicher Gründe eines guten Lebens vorfinden: Verwirklichung der menschlichen Natur, Erfüllung aller Wünsche, vernünftige Pflichterfüllung.
Diese Abhandlung sucht nach einem Ausweg, nach einer rationalen Grundlage für die persönliche Lebensentscheidung. Die Hauptpositionen der gegenwärtigen Debatte werden auf ihre Vordenker – Kant, Aristoteles und Sokrates – zurückgeführt und nach dem Vorbild der sokratischen Prüfung immanent entfaltet, um sie schließlich an ihren eigenen Voraussetzungen zu messen.
Der Nachvollzug des jeweiligen Denkens verdeutlicht Begründungsstrukturen, die auch in der Gegenwartsdebatte herangezogen werden: Aristoteles sieht den Grund des guten Lebens im richtigen Ziel der menschlichen Tätigkeiten; Kant hingegen im zwecksetzenden Vernunftvermögen. Bei beiden Konzeptionen zeigen sich immanente Schwierigkeiten. Die sokratische Prüfung in Platons Tugenddialogen eröffnet eine nichtskeptische Alternative jenseits dieser Dichotomie.

This article argues that the Socratic Dialogue in the Nelson and Heckmann tradition will prove a considerable contribution in training teachers. A review of the literature and empirical research supports the claim that the Socratic Dialogue promotes student teachers' interpersonal sensitivity while stimulating conceptual understanding. The article provides a new definition of the Socratic Dialogue and introduces the idea of common concept formation. A concrete Socratic Dialogue in the context of teacher education is discussed by way of illustration. Finally we suggest a manner of integrating Socratic Dialogue in teacher education and propose a line of further research.

This book develops for the readers Plato's Socrates' non-formalized "philosophical practice" of learning-through-questioning in the company of others. In doing so, the writer confronts Plato's Socrates, in the words of John Dewey, as the "dramatic, restless, cooperatively inquiring philosopher" of the dialogues, whose view of education and learning is unique: (1) It is focused on actively pursuing a form of philosophical understanding irreducible to truth of a propositional nature, which defies "transfer" from practitioner to pupil; (2) It embraces the perennial "on-the-wayness" of education and learning in that to interrogate the virtues, or the "good life," through the practice of the dialectic, is to continually renew the quest for a deeper understanding of things by returning to, reevaluating and modifying the questions originally posed regarding the "good life." Indeed Socratic philosophy is a life of questioning those aspects of existence that are most question-worthy; and (3) It accepts that learning is a process guided and structured by dialectic inquiry, and is already immanent within and possible only because of the unfolding of the process itself, i.e., learning is not a goal that somehow stands outside the dialectic as its end product, which indicates erroneously that the method or practice is disposable. For learning occurs only through continued, sustained communal dialogue. Reviews "Through a keen philosophical exegesis of Plato's Socrates and his teachings, Magrini addresses and attempts to correct the problematic and long-standing doctrinal interpretation of the Socratic "method." In doing so, Magrini brings back to life Socrates' original pedagogical vision and resuscitates education's long-deceased concern for the being of its students. This text is a touchstone for all educators concerned with the ethical and ontological disposition of their students." ~ Dr. Matthew D. Dewar-Author of Education and Well-Being: An Ontological Inquiry "With Plato's Socrates: Philosophy and Education, James M. Magrini has succeeded in writing a book that reflects his in-depth knowledge of Plato's philosophy and how Plato's Socrates is important for thinking through the present day educational situation. By adopting a non-doctrinal perspective in his reinterpretation of Plato, Magrini's book speaks to students and educators who are looking for new ways to engage with the Socratic method of learning-through-questioning. Magrini is thorough, succinct, and scholarly in his analyses, and he provides a critical and refreshing view on modern education. This is an excellent book." ~ Elias Schwieler, Associate Professor of Education, Stockholm University, Sweden "The relative absence of philosophical questioning in schools is not only an intellectual and pedagogical problem; it poses risks and consequences for our broader society. To help combat this problem, James M. Magrini argues that we should appropriate Plato's

This separatum (80 pages) deals with my "Le dialogue socratique" (2011). Discussants: Dr. Gerardo RAMIREZ VIDAL (UNAM) and Dr. Cristiana CASERTA (Palermo). Their lengthy -- and deep, if I can -- analyses give rise to a final note prepared by myself.

Unità Didattica sul tema "La morale di Socrate". Valutata con il massimo dei voti al concorso reclutamento docenti del 2018. Usata attivamente con successo in classe negli ultimi due anni scolastici. Richiede poco meno di tre ore per essere svolta in maniera adeguata.
Per contatto scrivere a info@intellettualecollettivo.it

On chercherait en vain dans l’œuvre de Platon des développements explicites sur le silence. Mais le génie littéraire de Platon lui fait une place, et la mise en scène des dialogues, comme les interactions des personnages, mettent en jeu différentes figures du silence par lesquelles se dévoilent d’autres aspects des réflexions socratico-platoniciennes sur le langage. Les silences du philosophe s’opposent, en effet, à ceux de ses interlocuteurs, autant que la pratique philosophique du dialogue aux discours sophistiques. Car le silence véritable, celui du philosophe, n’est pas que l’absence de voix, ni même simplement l’attente d’une parole à venir, mais, en dernière analyse, un retour à la source du logos : la pensée et l’être même.

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über h ttp ://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

"The opening pages (3-16) are available here. They are meant to account for the contents as well as for the related 'objects': two booklets and a floppy disk.
The introductory essay (pages 17-79) has been translated into French and included in "Le dialogue socratique" (2011) as its chapter four.
NB/ for the third Appendix, that gives a list of thirty-one passages whose interpretation has been judged unsatisfying by the interpreter himself, and tries to explain why (as such, it seems to have remained so far a unique feature of this commentary) PLEASE GO TO A SEPARATE ENTRY..
A revised and expanded version of the hyper-text centered in Plato's Euthyphro has been published in 2006."

The aim of this chapter is neither a detailed analysis nor a systematic interpretation of Antisthenes’ speeches Ajax and Odysseus but rather a study of their integration into the broader context of Socratic literature and the narrower context of Antisthenes’ testimonia. I would like to ask a simple question: Is it possible to read Antisthenes’ speeches as texts belonging to what we call the Socratic literature? If it is possible to interpret the speeches in terms of the Socratic dialectical reasoning that we find in Plato or Xenophon, then Ajax and Odysseus could represent an alternative form of the Socratic search for a good life—an alternative to the genre of Socratic dialogues as a whole…

The study of the figure of Socrates is necessary not only for understanding the work of Plato and the platonists of every time, where it is a fundamental piece, but also for the study of the so called “socratics”. Then, necessarily we must appeal to the work of his famous disciples in order to try to retain the concrete images of his legacy. And, although this could discourage the search of a personality that does not have direct evidence, its wealth of anecdotes and semantically homogeneous allusions within the classical culture would help us to glimpse, if not a picture, a non-evanescent watermark: there is some continuity in the various descriptions of Socrates that allow us to affirm stable traits in his personality and his professed philosophy.
However, with a specifical Hellenistic stream, the Academic skepticism, the legacy of Socrates and certain Socratics folds itself to a very peculiar history: that of the Academy and the unwritten teachings of Plato. That is, the latter should be treated in a double way, as for Pyrrhonism and as for Academic skepticism. Certainly, it is the latter that has more to do with the teachings of Socrates and Plato as well as with the historical transformation that these teachings had. Yet, Pyrrhonism through its primal figure, Pyrrho, although it has no direct relations with Plato or Platonism, is related to Socrates and the Socratics. And also is linked to the mentioned through Arcesilaus of Pitane, suggesting a triple connection between this stream and the ideas of Socrates, the teachings of Plato and those of the Academy throughout its changes.

We sketch a theory of creativity which centres on the framing of activity by repetitive thinking and action, and sees creativity as divergences from these routines which is thereby framed against them. Without a repetitive frame creativity is impossible. Mere repetition is not creative, even if new. Creativity disrupts a frame, purposefully. Socratic Dialogue is an ancient technique of engaging a student in a dialogue by asking non-leading questions, aimed at revealing to the student how much knowledge he or she already has on some topic: Socrates' demonstration to the slave-boy (and the audience) that the boy already knows geometry (without any schooling) is the founding example. We aim to illustrate that internalising the Socratic kind of reflective self-questioning and co-questioning is intimately related to the view of creativity as the reframing of routine. Therefore, we have qualitatively analysed primary and secondary school pilots in Greece, Austria and the United Kingdo...

Martin Puchner, contemporary German critic, is a prominent figure in modern drama studies. Achieving certain elements of diegetic dramas is his best accomplishment, which can be applied for other dramatic systems. In this research we have studied the relation of Iranian drama of 1332-1357 with closet dramas by using these elements. In order to do that, first the concepts of mimesis and diegesis are defined. Then we focused on the relation of modernism with theatre which intrinsically is a mimetic art. Through this contradiction, we have come to closet dramas which are decoded by Puchner. Then the relation of Iranian drama of 1332-1357 is discussed with closet dramas. As national drama generated in this period, it is historically important. Also, drama was influenced by political conditions of coup d’etat of 28th of Mordad, which is in relation with the structure of closet dramas. To discuss this assumption, a play by Saedi is analyzed to show that drama of this period is an appropriate structure for cultivating closet dramas.

Cada vez más se demuestra la importancia del trabajo por proyectos en las aulas de educación primaria, sobre todo en lo que respecta a la formación de competencias y habilidades básicas a las que esta etapa principalmente se orienta. Más allá de las características básicas que lo conforman, debemos tener en cuenta que el trabajo por proyectos a) nace de una motivación b) se vertebra mediante la colaboración entre los estudiantes c) implica la formulación de preguntas y respuestas y d) pretende conseguir un aprendizaje significativo.

Por ello, en primer lugar, indagaremos en la curiosidad epistemológica propia de la infancia y aportaremos algunas ideas sobre cómo motivar a los alumnos en la primera fase del proyecto. En segundo lugar, destacaremos el papel del diálogo como el principio esencial de la colaboración, apoyándonos en las nuevas formas de aprendizaje que vienen a tender un puente entre el currículum de la competencia y el currículum de la felicidad. Por último, bajo el lema “aprender a pensar”, exploraremos las posibilidades concretas de la dinámica dialógica, que tiene su origen en el método socrático. Mediante la correcta formulación de preguntas y respuestas, así como la adecuada instrucción del maestro, el alumno podrá llevar a cabo un esfuerzo cognitivo que le ayudará a construir su propio conocimiento significativo.

This article argues that the Socratic Dialogue in the Nelson and Heckmann tradition will prove a considerable contribution in training teachers. A review of the literature and empirical research supports the claim that the Socratic Dialogue promotes student teachers' interpersonal sensitivity while stimulating conceptual understanding. The article provides a new definition of the Socratic Dialogue and introduces the idea of common concept formation. A concrete Socratic Dialogue in the context of teacher education is discussed by way of illustration. Finally we suggest a manner of integrating Socratic Dialogue in teacher education and propose a line of further research.

Here are a collection of notes for a five-day discussion of Plato's Apology of Socrates. The goal is for these notes to serve as the basis for a module on the Apology, which can then be placed within a longer syllabus introducing students to philosophy, ancient history, or a related field.

Uno de los aspectos menos estudiados de la obra de Walter Benjamin es el papel que desempeña el mito en sus escritos de juventud. Entre 1915 y 1916, años tan cruciales como oscuros en la biografía de Benjamin, este interés por la mitología aparece asociado a consideraciones sistemáticas sobre la filosofía de la historia. La oposición entre mitología y mística,  será el presupuesto de estas reflexiones sobre la lectura del Simposio de Platón que Benjamin lleva a cabo en 1916 y plasma en un ensayo titulado “Sokrates”, cuya copia manuscrita ha sido conservada por Scholem. El propósito de este trabajo es mostrar que Benjamin, analizando la función del personaje de Sócrates en los diálogos platónicos, no considera a éste ni como el origen del logos ni como la muerte del mythos, sino más bien como el pasaje de la enunciación del uno al otro o, según sus propias palabras, “como el argumento y el muro de Platón contra elmito” . En su retrato de Sócrates como seductor de los jóvenes griegos, es posible ver de qué manera Benjamin se aparta a la vez de las interpretaciones tradicionales y de la dada por Nietzsche en Die Gebürt der Tragödie, donde presenta el eídos socrático-platónico como antagonista de la sabiduría trágica. Mientras estas posiciones establecen una identificación o continuidad entre Sócratesy Platón, Benjamin señala una diferencia, una cesura entre la discursividad del maestro y la del discípulo, que puede comprenderse a la luz de una idea mística de la filosofía (“teología”, la llamará en 1918) concebida como metacrítica de la razón.

This paper aims to show the connection between beginnings of Plato's dialogues and activity which can be presented as part of philosophical practice done with individuals or groups. There are certain repetitions in Plato's dialogues at the beginnings where Socrates and other characters walk together at some point or sit together to discuss the topic of the dialogue. If we were to mimic this kind of behavior in modern day philosophical practice, we can organize interesting public gatherings and activities and call it a Socratic walk. This paper will investigate how Plato's characters conducted these walking dialogues and later present a proposition on how Socratic walk can be done with individuals and groups.

This is the very first book-length treatment of the topic.
This book is formally made out of  previously published articles (the book originated from the suggestions of Professor François Roustang, Paris, who wisely prefaced it).
After a survey of the most ancient Socratic literature (basically, Plato and his companions, not just Plato and Xenophon), some sophisticated dialogic units (Xen. Mem. IV 2 and III 8, Plato's Euthyphro) are scrutinized. These are dialogues portraying Socrates 'at work', they uncover some features of his habits, esp. his attitude at provoking his interlocutor while governing the exchange. This, in turn, is the starting point for a new analysis of the personality of Socrates and especially of his concealed rhetoric. I conclude that, in order to preserve a sound understanding of what Socrates did and was, we need to pay a very special attention to his peculiar rhetoric.
A final chapter is meant to open the avenue to what has been submitted to a much more refined investigation in my 2015 book, "La filosofia non nasce con Talete, e nemmeno con Socrate" (and then elsewhere).

is a 22 year-old Greek American male, of Greek Orthodox Religion (Eastern Christianity) diagnosed with Mild Mental Retardation (IQ 65) and Expressive Language Disorder living with is father at a small apartment in Astoria, NY. He is the only son of Greek immigrants, both diagnosed with depression and his father also with sleep disorder. He is fluent in both English and Greek with a better command of English as his first language. He doesn't have obvious signs of his condition, except that he does not speak very clearly or confidently express himself in any language, though his problem is mostly in written rather than oral language.

This book deals with the Greek cure of the soul, focusing in particular on Socrates, who turned this idea into the core of his own philosophy. The first chapter offers an overlook of the different meanings of psyche from myth to Homer, Orphism, and the Presocratics (until Diogenes of Apollonia). The following chapters deal with Socrates’ peculiar understanding of the cure of the soul. Chapter two introduces to the “Socratic question” from the viewpoint of the Socratic cure of the soul. Chapter three focuses on the dialogues attributed to Plato (Apology, Phaedrus, and the First Alcibiades). Chapter four on Xenophon’s Memorabilia. The study shows that one common thread among these different accounts is the relationship between the soul and the divine: the Socratic cure of the soul implies an openness to both the world and its cosmic order.

This is a brief summary of the I book of Plato's "Republic", with some critical notes and a detailed diagram of the argumentation/dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus about Justice.

Il presente testo riporta una breve sintesi del I libro della "Repubblica" di Platone, con alcune note di critica ed una analisi dettagliata dell'argomentazione così come si svolge nel dialogo tra Socrate e Trasimaco avente per oggetto il tema della Giustizia.

Plato is known as the theorist of universal ideas, yet he writes dialogues about particular situations; he is known as the philosopher who wishes to expel the poets, yet he writes philosophical dramas; he is known as the seeker of unchanging truth, yet he seems to argue for the appropriateness and necessity of the ‘noble lie’ in his greatest work, Republic. This study is an attempt to harmonize the contradictions between these different portraits of Plato through an analysis of the drama of Republic. The concept of truth is given special attention: how it is defined and in what way Plato’s Socrates pursues it.

What emerges from the dialogue is a distinction between factual and moral truth; moral truth, or truth in the soul, is less a matter of statements than of virtues. The ‘noble lie’ is not only compatible with moral truth, but even encourages it; rather than being an instrument of political control, it is a poetic device which Socrates uses to foster the love of justice in his interlocutors against tyrannical passions. The arguments for the expulsion of the poets are ironic and highly qualified; while they alert readers to the possible dangers of poetry, they reach out towards a reconciliation of poets and philosophers. The account of children’s education in Book II-III presents the arts as no less than indispensable.

Lastly, a brief response is given to a question raised in the dialogue: whether a god would ever appear in a form other than divine, i.e. in disguise. This seems impossible when the attributes of divinity are considered in isolation, but it is argued to be at least possible, desirable and ethically irreproachable when the needs and follies of humanity are taken into account.

Plato's Laches is a dialogue in which the Athenian political history seeps through the conversation creating a rich dramatic setting. Plato's allusions to Thucydides' account of the events related with the dramatic setting of the dialogue (the years after the defeat of the Athenians at Delium in 424 BC) show that he is influenced by the historian's assessment of the political, military, and moral failings which resulted in Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War. The portrayal of the characters in the Laches is also influenced by Aristophanes' comedies, with implicit allusions to Euripides' plays, thus creating a tragicomic effect. At the same time, in the Laches Plato puts forward ideas which point to historical events closer to the actual date of composition, related to his own personal history and particularly his experience from his first two travels to Sicily. The philosophical arguments refute doctrines accepted as valid in the Protagoras and the Gorgias, pointing to ideas which are also found in the Charmides, the Republic, the Theaetetus, and the Seventh Letter. This suggests that the Laches should not necessarily be regarded as an early dialogue, but as a dialogue of the middle to late period, which dramatizes Plato's bitter realization that theory can fail in practice.
Ο Λάχης τοῦ Πλάτωνα εἶναι ἕνας διάλογος μὲ ἔντονο δραματικὸ στοιχεῖο. Συνδυάζοντας μοτίβα καὶ ἰδέες παρμένες ἀπὸ τὴ δραματικὴ ποίηση, ὁ Πλάτων συνθέτει ἕνα φιλοσοφικὸ δράμα μὲ κωμικοτραγικὸ χαρακτήρα σὲ τρεῖς πράξεις. Ταυτόχρονα, ὁ Λάχης εἶναι ἕνα ἔργο μὲ ἔντονο ἱστορικὸ ὑπόβαθρο· τόσο οἱ βασικοί του χαρακτῆρες, ὁ Νικίας καὶ ὁ Λάχης, δύο σημαντικοὶ στρατηγοὶ ποὺ πρωταγωνίστησαν στὸν Πελοποννησιακὸ Πόλεμο, ὅσο καὶ τὰ γεγονότα ποὺ ὑποκρύπτονται στὴ συζήτηση, δείχνουν πὼς ὁ Πλάτων συγκροτεῖ τὰ ἐπιχειρήματα τῶν βασικῶν συνομιλητῶν κάνοντας διαρκῶς ἔμμεσες ἀναφορὲς στὴν ἱστορία τοῦ Θουκυδίδη. Ὁ Πλάτων ἑστιάζει ἰδιαιτέρως στὴν ἀποτίμηση τῶν γεγονότων ἀπὸ τὸν σπουδαῖο ἱστορικὸ καὶ στὶς αἰτίες ποὺ βρίσκονται πίσω ἀπὸ τὴν σταδιακὴ παρακμὴ ἕως καὶ τὴν τελικὴ συντριβὴ τοῦ μεγαλείου τῆς Ἀθηναϊκῆς δημοκρατίας καὶ κυριαρχίας. Οἱ διαπιστώσεις αὐτὲς συμπλέκονται μὲ τὰ βασικὰ φιλοσοφικὰ ἐρωτήματα τοῦ διαλόγου, τὴν ἔννοια τῆς ἀνδρείας, τὸ διδακτὸν
τῆς ἀρετῆς, τὴ σημασία τῆς ἀντιστοιχίας μεταξὺ λόγων καὶ ἔργων καὶ τοὺς περιορισμοὺς τῆς γλώσσας νὰ ἀποτυπώσει τὴν οὐσία τῶν ὄντων. Ἡ πραγμάτευση τῶν ζητημάτων αὐτῶν ἐμφανίζει ἀναλογίες μὲ κείμενα συγχρόνων τοῦ φιλοσόφου, ὅπως τοῦ Ἰσοκράτη καὶ τοῦ Ξενοφώντα, δείχνοντας πὼς ὁ Πλάτων ἐμπνέεται καὶ προβληματίζεται γύρω ἀπὸ γεγονότα καὶ τῆς δικῆς του προσωπικῆς ἱστορίας, καὶ ἰδιαίτερα τὶς ἐμπειρίες ἀπὸ τὴ συναναστροφή του μὲ τὸν τύραννο Διονύσιο Α΄ τῶν Συρακουσῶν καὶ τὸν γιὸ καὶ διάδοχό του, Διονύσιο Β΄. Παράλληλα, τὸ προωθημένο στάδιο τοῦ φιλοσοφικοῦ στοχασμοῦ –στὸν Λάχητα καταρρίπτονται φιλοσοφικὰ συμπεράσματα καὶ θεωρίες ποὺ γίνονται δεκτὰ ὡς δόκιμα σὲ διαλόγους, ὅπως ὁ Πρωταγόρας καὶ ὁ Γοργίας, ἐνὼ διατυπώνονται στοχασμοὶ ἀνάλογοι μὲ αὐτοὺς ποὺ συναντοῦμε στὴν Πολιτεία καὶ τὸν Θεαίτητο– ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ ἀντιστοιχίες ποὺ διαπιστώνονται μὲ τὴν Ζ΄ Ἐπιστολή, συνηγοροῦν πὼς πρόκειται
γιὰ ἕνα ἔργο ὡριμότητας, ποὺ ἀποκαλύπτει τὴ στροφὴ τοῦ φιλοσόφου σὲ μιὰ πιὸ πραγματιστικὴ θεώρηση τοῦ κόσμου.

A combination composed of a sacrifice has more immediate effect upon the person playing over the game in which it occurs than another combination, because the apparent senselessness of the sacrifice is convincing proof of the design of the player offering it. Hence it comes that the risk of material, and the victory of the weaker material over the stronger material, gives the impression of a symbol of the mastery of mind over matter. Now we see wherein lies the pleasure to be derived from a chess combination. It lies in the feeling that a human mind is behind the game dominating the inanimate pieces with which the game is carried on, and giving them the breath of life. – R. Reti, Modern Ideas in Chess

This is the second of two mock-Platonic dialogues I wrote back in the mid-aughts. The other is "The Advantages and Disadvantages of Theory For Life". This is the sequel, although it's stand-alone. The idea: consider the algebraic notation of a classic chess game, the so-called "Immortal", as a poem. Now knock various theories of poetic language and meaning against this case and watch them fall to pieces. Probably I should rewrite it as an essay. But then what would become of all the Macbeth jokes? (There are a lot!)

Students and lifelong learners have been requesting me to develop some structured resources to aid them in carrying out self-directed study in the History of Philosophy.

In this particular module, I have students begin with a sequence of dialogues by Plato -- specifically, the Meno, Ion, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, and then discuss where they might decide to go from there.  I also have produced a video specifically discussing self-directed study of Philosophy and of Plato's dialogues, available here:  http://youtu.be/Ngk0tLuls1w

I will be adding more essay writing prompts here on these dialogues as time goes on.  Handouts on some of these dialogues can be found in my "Teaching Documents".  I also have produced many videos discussing these dialogues, which you can find organized into a Plato playlist here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB0AE9449D5B07340

In this meta-philosophical study I commence with an investigation of Wisdom. I then continue with an exploration of the institutionalization of the subject and the professionalization of those involved in it. This I contrast with original and creative philosophizing. In then sows that philosophizing resembles and attempts to do theorizing. The 9 questions, etc of the Socratic Method and details of the Philosophical Toolkit occur throughout different stages of theorizing as one level and one dimension of it. Linked books are FREE for download.
1 Seeking, development and realization of wisdom                                          4
2 Institutionalization, Professionalization of ‘philosophy’                                  5
3 Original and Creative Thinking Philosophizing                                37
4 Philosophizing resembles Theorizing
                                                        38
(i) Socratic Method              41
(ii) Philosophical Toolkit    145

BSTRACT
So far in my books and articles I have dealt with the following‭ (‬I hope I do not commit self-plagiarism by referring to my previous work and ideas expressed therein‭! ‬Lol‭)‬:

My own discussions or‭ ‘‬philosophizing‭’ ‬follow right at the end after the numerous and very lengthy quotes from philosophers.‭ ‬The nature of the subject-matter of philosophy,‭ ‬the methodology,‭ ‬methods,‭ ‬techniques and tools of doing philosophy or philosophizing,‭ ‬the nature of the different steps or stages of the process/es of theorizing,‭ ‬the fact that doing philosophy are some of the stages of theorizing,‭ ‬the fact that philosophers lack meta-cognition and/or meta-reflection of these things.‭ ‬If they had awareness of what and how they are doing philosophy they might not become involved in quibbling over concepts and the differentiations of these concepts.‭ ‬It is as if philosophers are blind to what they are doing and have been doing for thousands of years,‭ ‬with the result that they continue repeating the same thing‭ – ‬arguing with words over the use of words and in the process creating more and more‭ –‬isms.‭ ‬They are seemingly unable to escape from such‭ –‬isms and their implications.‭ ‬Instead of getting or going anywhere they way they conceive‭ (‬of‭) ‬problems and express their questions they end up with conceiving of notions that cannot be solved or dissolved.‭ ‬They enclose themselves in an insular world or bubble of their own making,‭ ‬compared to sciences investigating humans and the different features and systems of the human body who find irrelevant the problems that philosophers have with things such as the brain,‭ ‬cognition,‭ ‬mind,‭ ‬consciousness,‭ ‬perception,‭ ‬thinking,‭ ‬etc.‭ ‬Sciences deal with these things on many levels and multi-dimensional while philosophers try to restrict them to a single level in one dimension by their words and the way they use those words.‭ ‬Consequently they lose sight of their objects and are unable to question them or express questions about them in a meaningful manner.

In my articles and books on the subject-matter I dealt with the traditional branches of philosophy and that with the differentiation of other disciplines and discourses the discourse of philosophy lost subject-matter.‭ ‬I mentioned newer areas of‭ ‘‬philosophy‭’‬,‭ ‬such as X-Phi,‭ ‬Philosophy’s interdisciplinary involvement in for example cognitive sciences,‭ ‬that there exists a philosophy of every discipline possible‭ (‬eg philosophy of science,‭ ‬art,‭ ‬music,‭ ‬sport,‭ ‬social sciences,‭ ‬etc‭)‬,‭ ‬that discourses such as Logic,‭ ‬Critical Thinking,‭ ‬Argumentation and argument maps,‭ ‬Reasoning,‭ ‬etc are relevant to and employed by many if not all disciplines and many discourses and are not uniquely subject-matter of the discourse of philosophy and does not have to form part of or be taught as subject-matter of philosophy.

I identified and discussed the methodology,‭ ‬methods,‭ ‬techniques and tools of doing philosophy and some underlying or implicit transcendentals such as pre-suppositions,‭ ‬suppositions and assumptions.‭ ‬I explore the nature of the different features,‭ ‬aspects,‭ ‬characteristics,‭ ‬steps and stages of the processes of theorizing.‭ ‬I showed that doing philosophy or philosophizing employ and/or consist of some of these features,‭ ‬steps and stages of theorizing.

As I involuntary have‭ (‬am‭)‬,‭ ‬seemingly endless‭ (‬a stream of consciousness like‭) ‬philosophically-‭ (‬question or problem and insight‭) ‬related‭ ‘‬intuitions‭’‬,‭ ‬it is difficult,‭ ‬painful and frustrating to me for that to be interrupted by social interaction,‭ ‬talking to people,‭ ‬phones,‭ ‬executing all sorts of‭  ‬mundane activities,‭ ‬etc.‭ ‬To understand or cope with this‭ ‘‬mental state‭’ ‬is one of the reasons why I need to explore meta-cognition or thinking about thinking,‭ ‬especially one’s own thinking and related‭ ‘‬activities‭’‬.

TRASÍMACO Platón resumen: josé Saed Ayub ofrece una traducción fresca del famoso primer libro de la Repú blica de Platón, en el cual Sócrates dialoga con Trasímaco, el calcedonio, sobre si la definición de justicia, como el interés del más fuerte, es la óptima.

The book reexamines evidence for Greek dialogue between the mid-fourth century BCE and the mid-first century CE – that is, roughly from Plato’s death to the death of Philo of Alexandria. Although the genre of dialogue in antiquity has attracted a growing interest in the past two decades, the time covered in the book has remained overlooked and unresearched, with scholars believing that for much of this period the dialogue genre went through a period of decline and was revived only in the Roman times. The book carefully reassesses Post-Platonic and Hellenistic evidence, including papyri fragments, which have never been discussed in this context, and challenges the narrative of the dialogue’s decline and subsequent revival, postulating, instead, the genre’s unbroken continuity from the Classical period to the Roman Empire. It argues that dialogues and texts creatively interacting with dialogic conventions were composed throughout Hellenistic times, and proposes to reconceptualize the imperial period dialogue as evidence not of a resurgence, but of continuity in this literary tradition.

This collection offers the revised versions of the papers presented at ‚Socratica III – a conference on Socrates, the Socratics, and the ancient Socratic literature‘ (Trento, Italy, 2012).

The volume approaches the Socratic question from a viewpoint that radically departs from mainstream lines of interpretation. It focuses on the issues the Socratics were able to develop in the fierce struggle among themselves, i. e. on the dynamic context in which these issues were posed, discussed, and eventually fixed in dogmatic theories within the philosophical and non-philosophical Greek literature of the 5th  and 4th centuries B.C.

The following topics are examined: 1. the ‘intellectual movement’ around Socrates; 2. the literary context in which the texts of the Socratics are framed; 3. major topics discussed within this movement, their development within and outside the Socratic circle, and their reception in Late Antiquity; 4. the state of the art of the ‘Socratic question.’

"Poets would make pronouncements about these Movements in an expansive tone of voice, like that used when offering one another drinks, and as a rule they could look after themselves. But when an earnest logical student takes up this line of talk he gets bogged down very rapidly; I have seen it happen." - W. Empson

Way back in the mid-aughts I slaved hard to produce two brilliant, polished, patently unpublishable mock-platonic dialogues, this being the larger of the two. The other is "Poems and Problems". (Why didn't I notice these were unpublishable? Perhaps I wrongly supposed 'aughts implies can'. It was another time.) At any rate, this is some of the best philosophy I ever wrote. It's a parody of Plato's "Phaedrus" (I'm looking at you, Derrida!) I thought about calling it "Big Pharma", on account of its bulk. Basically, it's a Socratic deconstruction of 'Theory', in the literary studies sense. I think it's great. How did it ever get into my head to write it? But no one will ever publish it. But you can read it. Maybe someone will.

What, if anything, is the correlation between the specialized or technical ideas of the philosopher and the rest of his existence? His everyday life outside his philosophical role.
In the specialized reality and reality constitution, when employing the discourse and discipline of philosophy, the philosopher subscribe to many things in an explicit manner and he employs a number of implicit things and assumptions that are not stated explicitly.
These things concern the different branches, areas and domains of the philosophical discourse, for example metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, ontology, cognition, consciousness, mind, perception, thinking, etc.
Is there a relation between these technical 'beliefs' of the philosopher and other, not philosophical areas of his existence? Does and can all of his non-philosophical existence reflect his philosophical beliefs, statements and expressions? Is it possible that the everyday existence or life world of the philosopher can resemble, confirm and express his philosophical ideas? If this is not the case, what are the factors that are involved in such discrepancies?

Do they imply a lack of integrity, of wholeness of integration on behalf of the philosopher? What are the causes of such an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between these sets of two or more facts? What are the things that we can look for in such a lack of compatibility – things such as the following? -
inconsistency, difference, disparity, variance, variation, deviation, divergence,

disagreement, dissimilarity, dissimilitude, mismatch, lack of similarity, contrariety, contradictoriness, disaccord, discordance, incongruity,

lack of congruence, incompatibility, irreconcilability, conflict, opposition?

I illustrate the above by means of four examples.
1 Let us assume that the embodied human person consists of both voluntary and involuntary processes and activities. Do the philosophy of an individual reflect or express these activities or is it completely or partially unrelated to them? Do the voluntary processes and activities or the voluntary aspects of perception, cognition, brain processes and other activities resemble or express the philosophy of a thinker? 2 Some thinkers are seriously concerned about the importance of discourse and dialogue and the equality of all those involved. We find their concern about the ideal discourse and dialogue described in their written work and talks, but to what an extend do their own discursive and dialogical actions and behaviour reflect the ideal situation they preach?
3 Ethics and morality can be find in and are emphasized in all sorts of disciplines, of course they are major subjects in providing ways to live off for philosophers and we even find institutions devoted to their teaching and investigation. Do the lives, the lived morality and ethics of those individuals who preach the ideals of ethics or ethical ideals reflect the ideals they preach and that provides them with ways to earn a living? Or, is it the case that morality and ethics are merely faked by those individuals living off their preaching of ethics? And, that they merely employ the values, norms, customs and attitudes of a culture, sub-culture, community, group or another social grouping? In other words are the preachers of ethics really more ethical than the rest of the community and society?
4 When the philosopher expresses his ideas by means of all sorts of philosophical tools he is aware of the fact that he employs them, or at least aware of some of them being intentionally employed by him while he is unaware of others that he employs. Do the tools the philosopher employs to theorize (identify problems, the nature of the questions he asks, the nature of his ways of questioning, the assumptions he makes, the forming and testing of hypotheses, the making of generalizations, etc) or philosophize (perceive things, think, think about things, reason, argumentation etc) resemble what he beliefs, asserts and says about thinking, perception, cognition, understanding, subjects, objects, relationships between subjects and objects and other features and processes of epistemology?
In short – does the lived philosophy, ontology, epistemology, ethics etc of the philosopher resemble, represent, confirm, substantiate, back, endorse, support, authenticate and corroborate the ideas, assertions and speculations that are expressed by the statements his philosophy or philosophizing consist of? Does he walk the walk of his talk? Are they similar and identical, the same things and merely expressions of the same things in different mediums?

Non solo Platone. Attorno a Platone ci furono gli altri socratici, con i loro dialoghi e le loro dispute. Tutti insieme formarono un circuito culturale così vivace da occupare il campo della filosofia, fino ad affermarsi e far ombra ad ogni altro filone, dai sofisti agli anassagorei, dagli eleatici ai democritei, che non a caso ebbero crescenti difficoltà a sostenere il confronto con loro.
Da qui una spinta ad allargare il quadro e tentar di guardare all'insieme dei Socratici e all'insieme della loro vastissima produzione letteraria, resistendo alla tentazione di trattare i compagni di strada di Platone come fratelli minori e figure umbratili per definizione.
Questo percorso di ricerca ha preso il via nel 2005 con il convegno di Senigallia. Gli atti propongono contributi di Alderman, Bargeliotis, Casertano, Dinapoli, Grasso, Hourcade, Narcy, Ney, Notomi, Rossetti, Schorn, Sharp, Spinelli, Stavru, Trabattoni, Tulli e Vegetti.
V. ancne www.socratica.eu

She has always existed and is more than a citizen of multiverses,‭ ‬most likely the ground of all.‭ ‬In the West she was introduced around C.570‭ ‬and since then many individuals have searched for her,‭ ‬tried to become familiar with her and created all sorts of,‭ ‬frequently ridiculous,‭ ‬things in her name.
Once someone has a passion for her it cannot be extinguished but increases.‭ ‬Objectively this need for her is referred to as‭ ‘‬love of wisdom‭’‬,‭ ‬the need for wisdom,‭ ‬while personally it is a need of some individuals.

This passion and need has become institutionalized and it has developed a discourse and became a socio-cultural practice of its own.‭ ‬Fairly recently it has even become a discipline at,‭ ‬mostly higher,‭ ‬institutions of learning.‭ ‬Previously those searching for and attempting to interact with her came from many walks of life and all kinds of professions,‭ ‬while in the last century or so many people began to live off her as they are remunerated for talking about,‭ ‬about the history of searching for and investigating her and saying all sorts of things about her.

Many things are done in her name and all sorts of neologisms are fabricated to label them,‭ ‬such as analytic,‭ ‬continental,‭ ‬idealism,‭ ‬rationalism,‭ ‬empiricism,‭ ‬and all these labels are again specified and specified ad infinitum with terms such as materialism,‭ ‬physicalism,‭ ‬weak naturalism,‭ ‬speculative and new realism,‭ ‬etc.

Individuals from many other disciplines and areas of life,‭ ‬such as sociology,‭ ‬the arts,‭ ‬humanities,‭ ‬cognitive sciences,‭ ‬sport,‭ ‬etc got on the bandwagon so that we now have a philosophy or love of wisdom,‭ ‬epistemologies,‭ ‬ontologies etc of everything under the sun.‭ ‬Even if you were to write some theses or do some study you will stipulate your epistemology,‭ ‬ontology,‭ ‬methodology,‭ ‬etc.‭ ‬Just as those who live off philosophy become involved in every area of humanity and all its socio-cultural practices produce so-called peer reviewed publications,‭ ‬articles,‭ ‬essays and books on philosophy of art,‭ ‬sport,‭ ‬humanities,‭ ‬cognitive sciences,‭ ‬religion,‭ ‬gods,‭ ‬sex,‭ ‬rock‭ ‘‬n roll,‭ ‬language,‭ ‬words,‭ ‬ideas,‭ ‬how words and ideas and concepts do their thing,‭ ‬etc,‭ ‬etc.‭

The way these subject-matter are treated will usually consists of some form of reasoning,‭ ‬the use of arguments or argumentation and some kind of logic and a process that resembles the features,‭ ‬steps,‭ ‬stages and processes of theorizing,‭ ‬the construction and development of models,‭ ‬short term,‭ ‬medium or large theories.‭ ‬The latter is often presented in the form of entire‭ ‘‬metaphysical‭’ ‬and speculative systems such as those of Plato,‭ ‬Aristotle,‭ ‬Kant,‭ ‬Hegel,‭ ‬Marx,‭ ‬Husserl,‭ ‬Habermas et al.‭ ‬While Socrates and to some extent the later Wittgenstein attempted to be more authentic to the original principles of trying to follow and developed the ideal of identifying,‭ ‬capturing by verbal interaction‭ (‬be it discourse,‭ ‬or dialogue‭) ‬and becoming one‭ (‬like mystics of all religions who are passionate about‭ ‘‬the one‭’‬,‭ ‬the Beloved,‭ ‬the one Real Self,‭ ‬etc and attempt to become one,‭ ‬united with or‭ ‘‬oned‭’ ‬with their object or subject of desire‭) ‬with Sophos‭ – ‬by exploring and investigating or applying and executing practical use of language,‭ ‬and thereby to uncover and capture her.

The effects of the institutionalization of the discipline are far-reaching and the professionalization of the role of philosopher as a‭ ‘‬profession‭’‬,‭ ‬an employee of an institution and a representative of the status quo are discussed in a number of articles being cited.

The methods of the philosophical discourse vary,‭ ‬first of all between the so-called Continental and Anglophone Analytic philosophies,‭ ‬its movements,‭ ‬schools and institutions,‭ ‬such as research universities,‭ ‬journals,‭ ‬communities and book publishers.‭ ‬It seems as if increasingly philosophizing employs some of the stages and steps of the processes of theorizing.‭ ‬Other aspects of her methods are heuristic devices,‭ ‬the use of metaphors and analogies,‭ ‬philosophical logic,‭ ‬informal and other types of logic,‭ ‬arguments and argumentation.‭ ‬This involves the creation of fallacies in thinking and reasoning and the causing of all sorts of fallacies or crooked thinking.

The nature and changes of philosophical subject-matter are discussed as the socio-cultural practice lost most of its traditional‭ ‘‬objects‭’ ‬with the social and cultural differentiation of other,‭ ‬specialized disciplines.‭ ‬In turn the discourse attempts to fabricate other subject-matter,‭ ‬for example the development of so-called Experimental Philosophy,‭ ‬inter-disciplinary studies such as cognitive sciences and philosophies or meta-level explorations of and speculations about other disciplines,‭ ‬professions and domains‭ (‬for example normative,‭ ‬instrumental and subjective aesthetic‭ – ‬this the terminology and distinctions according to the working class obsessive Critical Theory of the so-called Frankfurt Schule.‭ ‬One always wonders what degree of personal experience their educated,‭ ‬middle class academics have of‭ ‘‬the working class‭’‬,‭ ‬whatever that is meant to be‭?)) ‬of human activity.‭ ‬Such as philosophy of medicine,‭ ‬sport,‭ ‬art,‭ ‬religion,‭ ‬just name it and it is bound to exist.‭

Another‭ ‘‬extension‭’ ‬of or interest in‭ ‘‬philosophy‭’ ‬is that of certain individuals,‭ ‬schools or movements in other disciplines,‭ ‬for example social‭ ‘‬sciences‭’ ‬such as sociology and supporters of the above mentioned‭ ‘‬Schule‭’‬.‭ ‬They frequently use philosophical words such as ontology,‭ ‬epistemology,‭ ‬multi-dimensional,‭ ‬many-levels,‭ ‬contexts assumptions,‭ ‬pre-suppositions,‭ ‬immanent,‭ ‬transcendent,‭ ‬etc.‭  ‬Is this intended to be an extension of philosophy and the doing of philosophizing or merely cognitive bias of the form‭ ‘‬authority bias‭’‬.‭ ‬In this case the authority being‭ ‘‬the discipline of philosophy‭’‬,‭ ‬as well as the‭ ’‬use of the word philosophy‭  ‬and terms from the philosophical discourse‭’‬.‭