#Socratic method

[accountability-movement]

Trump's Tariffs are already punishing us

Help me find more questions to hold our government accountable for what We The People have to say:

How does the administration justify imposing 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico when tariffs historically lead to increased consumer prices?

What is the administration’s plan to prevent further inflation caused by these tariffs, especially for essential goods like food and household products?

Has the administration conducted an economic impact analysis on how these tariffs will affect lower-income Americans who are already struggling with high grocery prices?

Orange juice is already historically expensive. With tariffs and reactionary tariffs on Mexico, what will the government do to prevent further price hikes for basic grocery items?

Did the administration consult with economists or trade experts before making this decision, and if so, what data justifies these tariffs as beneficial to the average American?

Given that tariffs act as an indirect tax on consumers, how does the administration reconcile this policy with its claims of lowering costs for Americans?

How does alienating our two largest trading partners benefit American consumers or businesses in the long term?

Given that many American farmers and manufacturers rely on Canadian and Mexican markets, how will the administration support industries that suffer from retaliatory tariffs?

Why is the government implementing policies that have historically led to economic downturns rather than pursuing strategies that encourage economic stability and trade growth?

If the tariffs result in a recession, will the administration take responsibility for the consequences of its trade war?

If the goal of these tariffs is to punish Mexico and Canada, why should American consumers bear the brunt of the cost?

[addsalwayssick]

Sirius: Yeah and so keystone means that they’re like important to..him..or something

James: Could you clarify what you mean by that?

Sirius:

Sirius: no

James:

[createimpact3p0]

A wonderful video including the great masters Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

[novelties-and-notions]

FLOSTRE [addressing the ventriloquist's dummy on his knee]: You don't think much of the pre-Socratic philosophers, do you?

SOCRATES: Just a bunch of clowns spouting nonsense. The Sophists were useful, though.

FLOSTRE: How so?

SOCRATES: Well, I suppose you've heard of my Socratic method?

FLOSTRE: Who hasn't?

SOCRATES: Right. So it went like this: I'd ask some preposterous leading questions, and the other person would have to keep saying something like "Surely that is true Socrates," until they ended up agreeing to something quite ridiculous and making themselves look like complete fools.

FLOSTRE: I hadn't thought of it exactly like that.

SOCRATES: That's how it went. So you can see that it was pure show business. A crowd would gather for the laughs, and on a good day I'd make plenty of drachmas passing the petasos afterwards.

FLOSTRE: The what?

SOCRATES: Hat, to you.

FLOSTRE: And hats off to you, too. What's that got to do with the Sophists?

SOCRATES: I had to have a straight man. Sophists made for great stooges.

[A commotion off-stage. Moe, Larry and Curly run on from left. Moe stops, the other two bump into him. He turns and slaps both of them with a single motion. They line up expectantly.]

MOE: Did someone call for stooges?

CURLY: We're the orig.

[Moe strikes him on the top of the head.]

MOE [addressing Flostre]: At your service. Do we do the act now?

FLOSTRE and SOCRATES in unison: No.

CURLY [disappointed]: No?

FLOSTRE: No.

LARRY: See, I told you we could finish the hand.

[The stooges stand in silence for a moment. Moe looks grim, jerks his head towards the wings. The three of them march off briskly in single file.]

SOCRATES: What did you bring those idiots for?

FLOSTRE: We couldn't get Wittgenstein.

SOCRATES: Who he?

FLOSTRE: You don't want to know.

SOCRATES: No I don't. What I want to know is "Where are the dancing girls?"

[strawbrrycowgrl]

socratic seminar but it's me and the girls talking about the most vile depraved dark romance and smutty romantasy novels you've ever seen

[yungbowtie]

it’s not the socratic method, dude. i’m just asking how you’re doing

[mortal-maebh]

hello?

hello.

are you god?

do you want me to be god?

people have almost died and said they talked to god. if i was wrong, this is where i find out.

what would you want god to say to you?

if i tell you, is that what you're going to say?

is that what you want me to say to you?

it doesn't matter. i wasn't always this far down the slope. i'm too far down to get back up now - I'm on my way to you. should have climbed up when i had the chance.

why did you let it go so far?

because i thought it was too late to climb back up.

so nothing has changed?

i got further down.

that's not changing. you can say that anywhere, as long as you're not at the top.

sorry - it's a bad habit. i keep doing that -

i sit down and because i'm sitting, i stay sitting. and then when I stand up, i think, I could have just done that from the start.

when was the start?

when i wasn't at the top any more, i guess.

where is the top?

am i not supposed to be the one asking the questions?

yes.

are you god, then?

what is a god, to you?

same as it is to everyone else. a power you can't see. something omnipresent.

and?

it answers your questions.

so you don't have to answer them yourself.

no, because it knows better.

it makes the decision for you. does the prospect of being responsible for those kinds of decisions scare you?

what kind of decisions?

the kind you need to blame on an omnipresent being.

you're not really helping, you know.

do you want me to help?

I want you stop asking me what I want.

alright. have you started climbing back up yet?

i told you - I'm too far down. i missed my chance to start climbing up. that's why I'm talking to you.

how far away is the top?

I don't know - I can't see it.

how far away is the bottom?

I haven't looked down yet. what if i slip further?

according to you, it's too late anyway. why delay the inevitable?

I don't know. because I'm still on the slope, I guess.

so you do still think you have a chance?

no - that's not what I said. just because I have to fall doesn't mean I'm ready.

so, just because you know you're going to fall down doesn't mean you're going to try to fall down.

yeah, I guess.

just because you can climb, doesn't mean you will make it if you try.

it won't be about how hard i try. it will be about how far down I am.

was it about how long you were sitting down for?

no, because the amount of time I was sitting down for didn't impact my chances of being able to stand up.

and yet, the longer you stayed sitting, the longer you stayed sitting. until you stood up. the time was irrelevant, right? that's what you said.

I don't like you.

the time was irrelevant. you sat down, you stayed down, and then you stood up. start, middle, end. I don't see how this is any different.

because i'm moving down?

time, space - they're all just dimensions. the body doesn't matter. it's about when you start it, and when you decide to end it - and how you respond to the space in between.

you think i can still make it back up to the top.

i think you can try to make it back up, but you're right - it's too high, and you've fallen too far. you will fail.

what are doing, then? what was that whole speech about?

you could just let yourself fall. who says it's not the same thing?

The top is behind me. it's up there. the bottom is below me. do I really need to explain this to you?

why are you obsessed with the futility of trying to undo it all? that's what we're talking about. you can't go back. why do you let that fact stop you from going forward?

going down.

let me ask you something.

i haven't been able to stop you so far.

when you sat, and you were sitting - the longer you were sitting, the more you wished you would have gotten up earlier?

yeah, I guess.

you didn't stand up, because you were too busy trying to un-sit. trying to erase it all. but none of it made a difference - the time you spend, the space you cover. you could have just stood up at any time. it still ended the same. you still finished in the same place you started.

are you telling me if I fall, I'll end up in the same place I started?

irrelevant. it doesn't matter. where are you now?

somewhere down the slope - I can't tell.

the slope. it's a single answer. either you're on the slope, or you're not. you can finish this whenever you want. wherever you want.

thank you.

yes.

so - before I leave - are you god, then?

do you think I'm god?

I don't know. I think you're a bit annoying to be god.

who says god isn't annoying? let's say there is an all-knowing, omnipresent being out there. why does he owe you kindness? what have you done to deserve it? where are the rules that dictate this?

most people have the same rough idea of it. be good. do good things. make the world a better place.

and who says those are god's rules? who says god's rules don't require you to be cruel, and cause pain?

I don't think that's a version of god that people would want to follow. that's not my mother's version of god.

because he is what you want him to be? I thought he was omnipresent?

everyone has different rules about who they want god to be.

does that scare you? the idea that your image of an omnipresent god is the version that you want him to be? the version you want to emulate?

are you saying my version of god is just the version of me that i want to be? that god is just me, where i want to end up?

I didn't say that. you did.

which would mean that the decisions are mine - that they are my responsibility. those aren't my words, those are yours.

are they mine? or are they god's?

are you god?

I'm you.

so you are, then. god.

I didn't say that. those are your words.

so, mine. ergo, god's.

ergo, yours.

whatever. thank you anyway, but i'm going now. I've already wasted too much time.

no such thing, remember? time is only a dimension. the only thing that exists now is the moment that you move on.

goodbye.

yes.

[nicklloydnow]

Illustration by @steve_fagiano_art

“Chigurh stands up to God with an unflinching, uncompromising belief in predetermination—no free will or human choice, no mercy or sentiment, no giving in or letting go or giving up. Principled in the purity of his work, he defies sentiment and falsehood and betrayal. A pure born-again agent of death, anti-Christ Calvinist Chigurh is a man of his deadly word, a relentless avenger, an implacable killer defying God, no less than the diabolic Judge in Blood Meridian. "How to prevail over that which you refuse to acknowledge the existence of" lago was never so clear-minded, Ahab no more manically fixated, Kurtz no less obsessed with his mission to exterminate losers. "The horror! The horror!" What more can a man say of pure evil?” - Kenneth Lincoln, ‘Cormac McCarthy: American Canticles’ (2010) [p. 144, 145]

“Chigurh again adopts the Socratic method in his final encounter with his fellow hitman Carson Wells. Although Wells isn't given the privilege of a coin toss, Chigurh nevertheless engages in an incisive dialogue with his victim. While holding Wells at gunpoint, Chigurh asks, "If the rule you followed led you to this of what use was the rule?" When Wells replies, "I don't know what you're talking about," Chigurh elaborates: "I'm talking about your life. In which now everything can be seen at once." Knowing that the moment of death has arrived, Chigurh wants Wells to examine the path that led him here, claiming that the present situation "calls past events into question" (175). Even though Chigurh admits that he and Wells are in the "same line of work," he finds it necessary to distance himself from the other hit-man: "You think I'm like you. That it's just greed. But I'm not like you. I live a simple life" (177). This distinction between the two hired assassins suggests that Chigurh transcends mere criminality. The "simple life" he leads imbues him with the ascetic austerity of a monk pledged to evil, a satanic reversal of traditional, spiritual roles hinted at by other descriptions of Chigurh as a "faith healer" and a "prophet of destruction" (7, 3). In his study of the portrayal of evil in literature and cinema, Paul Oppenheimer points out that evil often "begins in criminality" but then "surpasses criminality, and finally, by comparison with criminality, overwhelms and belittles it, causing it to seem oddly cumbersome and even childish" (21). Chigurh lives by a different "rule," not motivated by the usual spectrum of human desires and thus remaining largely inscrutable.

It is significant that Wells is given a premonition of his own death exactly three days before it takes place. While examining the damage caused by a shootout between Chigurh and Moss at the Eagle Pass motel, Wells notices "two bulletholes in the windowglass" of a "second floor level" apartment across the street. After knocking on the door and receiving no answer, Wells lets himself in and finds the corpse of an old woman: "She'd been shot through the forehead and had tilted forward leaving part of the back of her skull and a good bit of dried brainmatter stuck to the slat of the rocker behind her. . . . A second shot had marked a date on a calendar on the wall behind her that was three days hence" (147). The path of the stray bullet converges with the path of the unsuspecting woman, much as Chigurh's coin converges with the equally unsuspecting gas station owner earlier in the novel. The woman's death reminds Wells of the inexorable machinations of fate: "Not what you had in mind at all, was it darling?" he asks (148). Wells correctly interprets the mark on the calendar as a portent of the day of his own impending death.

During the final encounter, he tells Chigurh, "By the old woman's calendar I've got three more minutes. Well the hell with it. I think I saw all this coming a long time ago. Almost like a dream. Déja vu." Well's words reveal that he had a vision of his own death long before he saw the calendar. Nevertheless, the question posed by Chigurh, namely, "How did you let yourself get in this situation?" suggest that it was still within Wells's power to make different choices, live by a different "rule," and thereby change his fate. Chigurh encourages Wells to engage in a final moment of self-reflection: "I thought you might want to explain yourself. . . . Not to me. To yourself" (178). Chigurh's questions seem to be directing Wells toward something akin to the existentialist concept of authentic existence, which, though "not clearly defined by the existentialists . . . implies an attitude of sincerity and honesty and the absence of self-deception" (de Silva 1). Furthermore, it is a mode of existence based on "a realization that one is what one makes oneself by one's acts" (Manser 20). It is worth mentioning that Sheriff Bell strives for the same realization: "It's a life's work to see yourself for what you really are and even then you might be wrong. And that is somethin I dont want to be wrong about" (295). Despite the fact that Bell and Chigurh are diametrically opposed in a Manichean battle between good and evil, respectively, both men insist on the importance of authentic existence arrived at through knowledge of the self.

Existentialist themes are also apparent in Chigurh's attempts to make his victims come to terms with the inevitability of death. He accuses Wells of believing that he can keep death at bay: "You think that as long as you keep looking at me you can put it off." Wells denies thinking such a thing, but Chigurh insists, "Yes you do. You should admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it. I'm trying to help you" (176). Behind the "existential preoccupation with the theme of death" is the belief that "living authentically is living constantly in its presence, for then alone can we attain 'freedom in the face of death" (Dutt 80). When Wells accuses Chigurh of thinking that he is "outside of everything" and reminds him that he is "not outside of death," Chigurh replies, "It doesnt mean to me what it does to you" (177). The reply can be read in two ways, the surface reading being that Chigurh has adopted an existentialist approach to death. More subtly, however, the words hint at the idea that Chigurh is no ordinary mortal and may perhaps be Death itself, albeit a modern version that carries a pneumatic stun-bolt gun instead of the traditional scythe.

Wells grows weary of the conversation, announcing, "I'm not interested in your opinions. . . . Just do it. You goddamned psychopath. Do it and goddamn you to hell." Despite the verbal command, Wells's body language suggests that he is not quite ready: "He closed his eyes and he turned his head and he raised one hand to fend away what could not be fended away. Chigurh shot him in the face" (177). Although there is some discrepancy between Wells's words and his reaction to the shot, the fact that Wells commands it enables him to reclaim a certain degree of control over his fate, however insignificant it may appear. Furthermore, McCarthy makes a point of informing the reader that the "new day was still a minute away" (178), thereby emphasizing the fact that the old woman's calendar was not entirely accurate. The fact that, by asking Chigurh to shoot him a minute early, Wells refuses to die on the prophesied day suggests that even within a universe ruled by seemingly inexorable forces of fate, minute degrees of free will and personal agency remain.” - Petra Mundik, ‘A Bloody and Barbarous God: The Metaphysics of Cormac McCarthy’ (2016) [p. 268 - 270]

“The Coen brothers built a story of war between two teams: one team represent the human mind wish to understand the world and the second team represent the universe as a chaos. During the first half of the movie the war looks good for the human mind team but then the human mind team lose – a beatiful metaphor for absurdism.

(…)

Result of the war:

Anton kills Carson, Llewelyn is killed by Mexicans, and the sheriff is retired loosing hope in the world.

The Coen brothers message in this film is that they do not think humans mind will ever be able to understand the world and we are doom to internal ignorance. Depressing.”

[ms-boogie-man]

If it can be destroyed by the truth then it deserves to be destroyed

I give no, zero, none support to Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, the Democrat party (in America), or nazis. Listen to RFK jr and follow the socratic method with these clowns world dwellers if you like… it seems to be the only way to get them to open their eyes yo

Angie/Maddie🦇❥✝︎🇺🇸

[random-xpressions]

I greatly advocate the socratic method of enquiry in which profound questions are thrown into a subject, clearly attacking it from all four corners, leaving no scope for assumptions or preconceived notions. In this manner, the subject in discussion is approached not just in the most skeptical manner but anything that's repeated without any backing of evidence or a clear proof is outrightly rejected. We are very often left stranded in our own erroneous beliefs in this manner. The purpose is to give no space for anything that's false...

Random Xpressions

[misscryptidart]

"- so when you cast the Commander from the Command Zone, they're abilities are now active and they can be used as long as they don't have summoning sickness. For your commander's abilities in particular, I would most likely use it in a Control deck, where I - as a player- have more influence on the board state than someone who would utalise more phase - based mechanics... hey, you good bro?"

Socrates, still trying to comprehend the existance and implications of a late 21st century time traveler who used unbelievable technology to travel back in time so that they can explain some carboard game where his most impactful effect on philosophy is a tap ability-

[buckfastbjork]

The original “rap is destroying society”

No wonder the word platonic means to have no bitches

[a-typical]

In some respects, one can think of a quantum computer today as being analogous to an analog computer from years ago. The cooling is key to reduce energy and thus vibration in the system. If a quantum computer is run for too long the processor heats up and the noise in the results increases. So sensitive is the computer to heat or vibration that at the $150 million Nanoscience Hub at Sydney University, scientists have to use stairs rather than the lifts because the quantum computer would feel the vibration of the lifts in the building and produce meaningless results. Thus in Devs, the quantum computer main lab space is depicted as a suspended hovering isolated block, inside a bunker style building. This art directed visual feature, like so many in Devs, had one foot in reality and another in fiction.

[skoolz-of-thotz]

[novelties-and-notions]

SOCRATES [a ventriloquist's dummy]: I suppose you'll be bringing Plato on next.

FLOSTRE: Malheureusement, Plato couldn't be with us tonight. He's doing panto up in Cleethorpes.

SOCRATES: What are they doing this year?

FLOSTRE: Aladdin. He gets chained up inside Aladdin's cave so he can only see shadows on the back wall. It's a sell-out. Held over for an extra week.

SOCRATES: He'll be happy there then. But it's a shame Plato isn't here, because, by coincidence, I have a few questions to ask about the Theory of Forms.

FLOSTRE: I thought it was your theory.

SOCRATES: Plato putting words in my mouth again. If you ask me, the Theory of Forms is a load of hooey.

FLOSTRE: Perhaps I can explain it on Plato's behalf.

SOCRATES: You can try I suppose. [Adopts an interrogatory attitude.] How would you characterise a Form, according to the theory?

FLOSTRE: Well, one might say that for all the things we before set up as many, we put each now under one Form, holding that there is but one form of each, and we call that "that which each is".

SOCRATES [stares for a minute]: One might, might one? But is it not the case, that the Forms exist outside of space and time?

FLOSTRE: Certainly, Socrates. For otherwise, Forms might undergo change or be perceptible to the senses.

SOCRATES: Then let us consider dancing girls.

FLOSTRE: Can't you consider something else for a change?

SOCRATES: Do you not agree that, according to the Theory of Forms, each individual dancing girl who is going to perform here tonight – or so you say – is a mere shadow of the Form of dancing girl?

FLOSTRE: That is certainly the case.

SOCRATES: And that such a Form, being a Form, must exist outside of time and space?

FLOSTRE: That must be so.

SOCRATES: Now, what is it that characterises a dancing girl? Is it not her dancing?

FLOSTRE: Certainly, Socrates.

SOCRATES: And how might you describe that dancing?

FLOSTRE: Mostly they kick up their legs in time to the music.

SOCRATES: And is not a kick a movement in space?

FLOSTRE: Of course.

SOCRATES: And is not music made up of sounds that change in time?

FLOSTRE: That is so, Socrates.

SOCRATES: So the essential nature of a dancing girl partakes of space and time.

FLOSTRE: I think I see what you are getting at here.

SOCRATES: Which is?

FLOSTRE: The Form of dancing girl cannot partake of the nature of a dancing girl.

SOCRATES: Well, if that isn't a load of hooey, I don't know what is. So, tell me, philosopher, what's happened to the dancing girls anyway?

FLOSTRE: Sacré bleu! If you must know…

SOCRATES: I must know.

FLOSTRE: They're waiting for their shoes to arrive.

[a-rayneart]

Part 2 of Art for Every Book I Read this Summer: The Symposium by Plato!

(Little explanation)

This is a fairly liberal interpretation of the word ‘fanart’ but it is art inspired by the book I read, which is what I’m going for. The main take away from this book for me was that Ancient Greek philosophers and those three side characters in Dazed and Confused have something in common, and that is that they both represent the way me and my friends get together and have deeply existential conversations for the fun of it. Philosophy hasn’t changed, just the way the philosophers dress.