Socrates vs Stalins

Those interested in conversational journeys towards understanding truths—they may employ that which, in the West, has been labeled “the Socratic Method,” whereby one of two conversational loops serves to define and clarify a given matter:

Loop 1: proposition-acceptance-synthesis.

E.g.: person A proposes an idea, often in the form of a question; person B accepts the idea (at least provisionally, i.e. “for the sake of argument”); persons A & B then synthesize: determine how acceptance of the idea Must or Might (MoM) affect their perspective more generally—as individuals or as a group.

Loop 2: proposition-rejection-synthesis.

E.g.: person A proposes an idea, often in the form of a question; person B rejects the idea; persons A & B then synthesize: determine how rejection of the idea MoM affect their perspective more generally—as individuals or as a group.

Deduction or Induction (MoM: The importance of accurate synthesis)

In the case of both loops, the singular goal is to build upon at least one of two foundations: the deductive foundation; the inductive foundation.

(1) the deductive foundation must be accepted immediately and totally—the deductive foundation necessarily follows;

(2) the inductive foundation might be accepted—cautiously and with a willingness for flexibility.

Revisions to the two foundations

The deductive foundation: accept the deductive foundation immediately and totally—yet remain open, mindful that a previous misunderstanding or miscalculation could lead to a faulty deductive foundation. “Humility always outshines stubbornness.”

The inductive foundation: accepted with an eagerness to be proven wrong. The correct goal is not to be persuasive—the correct goal is to be right: for all but frauds, being the most persuasive is only ever a consequence of being the most right. “Bending wrongly, or failing to bend rightly, is to prepare for being broken by reality.”

Socialists and other sociopaths

Outside of the “Socratic Method,” and far beneath it, sprawl the myriad mires of Socialism, Libertarianism, and other sociopathic tyrannies born of vanity, cowardice, and deception.

Only sociopaths can endure in these toxic, unnatural states. There, no human conversation exists—only posturing; prostrating; and deafening choruses of narrow-minded grunting, twisted in the collective mind of the fallen to seem like thoughtful argumentation and analysis.

Slithering through life

Most socialists, libertarians, and other sociopaths live only to die—proudly and with their limp pretense of certainty. (The best of them—those who “mean well” but have been swept away by lies and cowardice—they are always only one conversation away from rejecting their sociopathy: they need only be reminded of the difference between socially normal and factually natural—and the difference between meaning well and doing right.)

In the meantime; Socialists, Libertarians, and all other sociopaths—their moods and methods forever forged in fatuous falsity and fickle fear—waste away their lives staring at each other’s faces, while waiting for the other to stop talking; taking account of the other’s words only to inject keywords from the other into a template of flattery and placation (if it is a friend); else, if it is a foe, the keywords are injected into a template of mischaracterization, accusation, and defamation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s