The scene is the agora, outside the
office of the magistrate. Socrates is on his way to answer charges
of impiety. There he meets Thermippos holding forth confidently
amidst a gathering of young men. Naturally, since death is on his
mind, Socrates seizes the opportunity to discuss the subject with a
man who seems certain of everything.
Socrates. You agree, Thermippos, that
all men are mortal.
Thermippos. I do.
Socrates. And you agree furthermore
that I am a man.
Thermippos. I have no reason to doubt
it, Socrates.
Socrates. Surely then you agree that I
am mortal.
Thermippos. I didn’t say that. You
did. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Socrates. I beg your pardon,
Thermippos, but I have simply drawn what follows.
Thermippos. Strawman.
Socrates. But no true reasoner could
fail —
Thermippos. Ah, the no-true-Macedonian
fallacy.
Socrates. But, Thermippos, given the
logical form . . .
Thermippos. Define “logical form”.
Socrates. . . . you must either accept the
conclusion or reject at least one of the premises.
Thermippos. False dichotomy.
Socrates. I see, Thermippos. You’re an idiot.
Thermippos. And that’s an ad hominem.
Socrates ad-hominems Thermippos with a
brick. The charges of impiety are dropped.
good to see you're back!
ReplyDeleteA welcome return.
ReplyDeleteHuzzah!
ReplyDeleteNow that was invigorating!
ReplyDeleteExcellent. I was trying to express this in Thought Prison by my comments on public debate and the way that sound bites rule out three-step logic (if this, and this, then that).
ReplyDeleteThree-step logic in modern discussions causes glazed eyes, comments about 'hair-splitting' and a general sense of 'yeah, well, anyway).
Women in public life, in particular, seem to hate it - regard it as either evidence of Asperger's syndrome or 'patronizing'.
On the other hand, it may simply be consistent with the (approx) 1SD decline in average intelligence over the past century - people smart enough to consider both a and b to infer c are now statistical outliers.
Hello, all!
ReplyDeleteBGC,
"Mere word-games" and "Occam's Razor" are two of my favourite Thermipposan defences, but none is so impenetrable as the shrug or the general attitude of "yeah, well, anyway" --- a nuclear-bunker dug deep under a mountain-side of granite indifference.
"On the other hand, it may simply be consistent with the (approx) 1SD decline in average intelligence over the past century - people smart enough to consider both a and b to infer c are now statistical outliers."
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a matter of intelligence, nor decline thereof. I think it's that 'modern education' is designed to train its captive audience to scorn and hate critical thought.
As the same time, not only does Thermippos not know (or care!) what 'ad hominem' means, but he probably can't be bothered to actually spell the term out, opting instead for 'ad hom'.
ReplyDeleteSo glad you're back. Thought I was going to have to learn german to ever read you again.
ReplyDeleteA young man of my acquaintance is studying "critical thinking" at college.
ReplyDeleteI have exhorted him to apply his new learning to himself, as well as to others. And to be critical of the subject itself.
A warm welcome back.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of Socrates framing the debate with a brick. I suppose he took the brick from his premises?
I may not be back for long!
ReplyDeleteAs for the brick: last argument of philosophers.
"I suppose he took the brick from his premises?"
ReplyDeleteThat's how you can tell it was a solid argument.
If you absolutely have to leave us for a second time please don't make it quite so long - I could hardly hold my breath this time!
ReplyDelete"As for the brick: last argument of philosophers": and there was me thinking that that role was played by a poker.
ReplyDelete. . . when a poker is not at hand.
ReplyDelete