Comments by "Don Taylor" (@dontaylor7315) on "How To Make An Aggressive Person Respect You" video.

@whatabouttheearth the charge that he was "corrupting the young men" stemmed from the fact that the family values of Athens were patriarchal and authoritarian. The young men who chose to attend Socrates's classes were learning to seek truth objectively and think. When they went home and actually examined their values and assumptions instead of unquestioningly accepting the word of their fathers ("It's true because I said so!") the hierarchy was threatened. He wouldn't recant his teaching but wouldn't flee Athens because he believed in the rule of law. The law ordered him to drink poison so he did.
17
@codymadison9993 That bird's been flying with one wing, the corporate wing, for at least a couple of generations with the result we have full corporate ownership of government instead of government by the people. Finally we're starting to grow a people's wing - a bloc of lawmakers who weren't afraid to run for office without accepting corporate funding and take their seats without owing favors to anyone but the people. It's still too small a wing for the bird to start flying straight but it's a start.
6
@Nerdycopia I hadn't thought of that but come to think of it nearly all we know about Socrates's method is Plato's version. So who knows?
5
@lulu1night4ever not if you get out quick like Snowdon. Just don't be a stationary target like Socrates.
4
@gloriagwynne4254 Interesting, since she asked for a reply but may not have been interested in knowing what that reply might be. You're very kind to give her the benefit of the doubt; perhaps I ought to take the same attitude. I visited her channel and discovered she's struggling rather bravely with difficulties of her own as a foreign student having trouble finding a job in our country so maybe I should be a little more understanding.
2
@Rasburry97 dialectic is the more precise term but it's mostly understood by people who took at least a smattering of philosophy. Thus it shuts out the average person and can make them feel you're talking down to them. Discussion is a close enough term and may make it easier for some to engage.
2
@damienjoseph7540 Tiger Woods is a better golfer.
1
@Propella This is a very long thread but I just scrolled through it trying to find what in the world I could have said that prompted your question. All I found was some posts about Socrates, Plato and Snowden. I don't know what you were responding to but I DON'T think people in underdeveloped societies or nations automatically or necessarily respond to questions with violence and I have no idea what I said that gave you that impression.
1
@gloriagwynne4254 Thank you for clearing that up. It's been three days since I informed @Propella that I said no such thing (and two hours since you also informed her) and she still hasn't acknowledged, so I guess she's still wrongfully blaming me.
1
@yaircelis1175 The two go hand in hand though. I'm not sure a person can reach common ground or understanding and be offended at the same time.
1
@werrkowalski2985 But if you're using the Socratic method it's impossible to debate, because in debate each person takes a side and starts with a case to prove. In Socratic discourse both parties have to reach agreements on how to define each term before they even start, and stick to those definitions. If the discussion turns into a debate the discourse is automatically over. Once it's a debate it's no longer discourse.
1
@werrkowalski2985 Ok maybe the definition could be stretched to include debate but one thing I feel very sure of is it can't be outright adversarial. Both parties have got to be making a good faith effort to reach a resolution, and they've got to be mutually invested in establishing what the truth is, otherwise it's outside the Socratic method.
1
@ilonacheema6088 It's the difference between wanting to find out what's true and wanting to make you say that I'M RIGHT.
1
@87togabito Lol at the worst bar in town though...I hear those hemlock cocktails are so bad nobody orders a second round.
1
Trevor does this all the time and it works within the interview but it drives the YouTube audience crazy. There are always infuriated comments that he's a sellout, that he's on the bad guys' side, that he softballed the interviewee and should have stomped on him/her instead, etc etc. There's something about the YT viewer mentality that wants to destroy not engage, to hate and not to dialogue. A YT comment thread that isn't infested with types who hate subtlety is a rare thing and a treasure to find.
1
@Rasburry97 absolutely. If they want to. Some do, some don't.
1
@Rasburry97 It shouldn't. If discussion and dialogue seem like really bad choices by all means use dialectic. To each his own.
1