When reading the banter between Socrates and Euthyphro I couldn't help but be reminded by my experience with mock trial and classic debate. The point of both being to get the opposing side to agree with you over simple logical facts, before unleashing your main contention in such a way that it would be completely hypocritical for the opposing side to contradict you.
The cross-examination process, as Law would call it, scared me the most during my first year on mock trial as a witness. I was so afraid to accidentally agree with everything the prosecutor said and thus dig a hole for myself from which I had no plan to escape. But I soon learned how vital it was to listen to the actual format and key words of such questions and find away to get around a definitive "yes, it is so" in my answer. For I knew if I agreed with everything, without defending myself, the last question, the crucial point would already be won.
Socrates is having his own little cross-examination session with Euthyphro, Euthyphro is agreeing with what Socrates says until he gradually states his really argument and purpose, to which Euthyphro has no choice but to agree. Now, if only I could figure out how serious in his answering Euthyphro acting, or for that matter, how serious Socrates is in his question. Is it only a game? Or for actual truth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
What a great experience! It takes a lot of nerve to participate in that. Law school professors are famous for using the Socratic Method. Hmmm. I think I see connections...
Post a Comment