The Socratic method was created to uncover the truth, or lack there of, in rhetoric - persuasive speech. An old-fashioned fact check. In the OT rhetoric was called The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Or the combination of Truth and Lies as opposed to Wisdom.
My definition is not different than yours. Today, there is more emphasis placed on persuasive speech than speaking wisdom. Neil is my poster child for this.
What do you mean you place no value on these? [That’s a rhetorical charge - not a question -because you obviously very much do place a value on these!] Invent whatever new words you want, but you obviously have a better team and a worse one … hence some of these being called “wisdom” while the others are called “rhetoric” which we now learn is a mixture of lies and is what the tree of good and evil was!
I feel like we’re leaving a trail of unexplained inconsistencies or claims without support behind us, but instead of addressing those you are then tour-guiding us down a meandering path to yet something else that will need explaining! I agree with you that Rhetoric (like every academic discipline, profession, or field] is quite the mixed bag. We all share in collective exasperation with “lawyer types” who are more concerned with winning cases than with truth or justice. I get it. But I’m pretty sure that “Rhetoric” (or “debate” or whatever its modern equivalents now would be) is not taught or intended to be a method of deceit with evil intention. Sure there are too many that use it that way, but rhetorical skills do have a good use too … learning to listen and to express oneself to make one’s case with maximum clarity and to contribute toward a mutual understanding of truth.
His work did not get published before his death. I have his final draft in German of you are interested. Have you ever studied Plato and Socrates? I have and make my own judgement that this body of knowledge is complementary to the Old and New Testament, discussing the characteristics of Eros (the Love of God), Sophia (the Wisdom of God) and Logos (the Word of God). The romans rejected this by their destruction of Origen’s Stromata, and as you see I do not agree with their judgments.
You placed value on the makers and the takers calling the good guys and bad guys. I place not value judgement on either. If you are a taker, you think the makers are the bad guys and visa versa. I was just establishing behavior patterns for two opposing groups.
I agree, this format is not practical for addressing multifaceted issues like we have. I have put this all into one place in under 20,000 words if you want to read it. I am not trying to be evasive, and definitely not rhetorical.
How can it be that people who, with no personal motives, provided a great service to mankind? A study of the case of Ludwig von Beethoven exemplifies the mechanism used to turn a truly great person into a highly questionable eccentric. But, since we still have access to so much information about Beethoven, it is possible today for the careful researcher to rediscover the true genius and soul of the man who left mankind with his timeless works.
What does this even mean? Beethoven was revered during his own lifetime, even though he did some questionable deeds.
Call it what you want. You appear ready enough to inject something into the waters from some particular “minority report” without showing evidence (at least not here) of having engaged with any “majority reports” that form some of the main currents of intellectual discourse today. It makes it appear as if you’ve set those aside for no reason except for an apparently unwavering commitment you have to a peculiar historical interpretation.
You are correct, of course, in knowing that there are many problems with mainstream views today - anyone can see that all is not well. I also applaud and join with your pursuit and veneration of wisdom (that’s called making a ‘value judgment’, by the way - I’m not dodgy about doing that and freely express that when it’s what I’ve done.) But you seem to think that such good pursuits have been abandoned apart from some particular intellectual regime (your minority report as you call it). And I won’t follow you into that narrowly provincial approach. For one thing, I don’t agree that wisdom (much less Christ) is gained by simply tweaking the philosophical knobs in some corrective direction - exchanging out or upgrading one set of heroes for an ostensibly better set. Such tasks may be important, to be sure, and may help in lots of ways. But in the end, are the orphans and widows fed? the powerless in society attended to? Tongues bridled? Those will be some of the important measures of a religion - whether of this strain or that. If I’m not mistaken you also seek to do those things based on a comment or two you’ve made, and it is in that obedience to Christ that we all begin to approach wisdom found in Him, the true source of our salvation. I celebrate that brotherhood already and pray daily to be strengthened in it. May all that helps us pursue that be blessed.
“…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” from Phillip. 4:8
Dear Mervin, You hit the nail on head for me specifically here at Biologos. My hopes for cooperation between science and religion is to help solve some of the major social issues that Christianity should be focused on: the poor, the sick and the downtrodden. Whether Adam was born 6,000 or 200,000 years ago has no impact on any of these. The topic of origin sin would be important for these topics, but not in the manner discussed here.
In my writing I attempt three main goals: 1) Get Christians to question non-Christ-Like beliefs that lead to suffering and conflict. 2) Help everyone to understand the underlying motivations of religion, that leads to oppression and conflict. 3) To help everyone, especially scientists, to accept the existence of the spirit and the soul so that they will start looking at the spiritual illnesses many suffer from and stop medicating them.
I know that I am often unsuccessful, but comforted by the few who are able to change their way of thinking through something that I wrote. Most all Christians I have met reject what I have to say, because it is against the doctrine they learned. It seem to be the only ones who find wisdom in my words are those who have already left the church. They have knocked and a door is open to them. I have already accepted that Jesus saved all of humanity and focusing my efforts on the high goals He set for us.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.(Matt 5:44–48)