Socratic Method a Good Way to "Test the Spirits"?

[Dave-W]

Yes, makes sense to me. So would it be OK to consider a specific passage of scripture so I may see for myself how adductive reasoning is more useful than inductive reasoning and the Socratic Method in discerning it's intended meaning? If so, I have one in mind.

I do not have the time to do that here.

Please read thru the links and I think they should give you sufficient examples. Especially the one "Adductive Logic in Torah."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...


Please briefly define Semiotics. Are you talking about Jesus' use of parables and figures of speech?

...it can include these as objects of study, but more specifically I'm referring to the basic Merriam-Webster definition which also ties into the overall study and application of Hermeneutics:

SEMIOTICS
: a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics​

Yes, let's assume for the sake of discussion both I (who finds a biblical passage ambiguous) and the one I speak to (who has a firm opinion about the meaning of the same passage) both have God involved in our illumination.

...if we're going to assume that, then we'll need to assume a whole bunch of things, and even propose that there are some factors for which we'll not be able to account for.

My intended point is that it is possible for BOTH interlocutors to be wrong and/or incomplete in their understanding of Scripture. In fact, I'd say that no one person other than God Himself has, or has had, a perfect understanding of God's intentions in Scripture. But, that doesn't mean we can't come to some semblance of understanding, even without God's Help.

Yes, Socrates himself had the same misgivings about Stohic philosophers who adopted his methods to win arguments rather than discover the truth. He even went toe-to-toe with a few of them from time to time. Let's say I'm interested in using the method the way Socrates intended.

...and you're welcome to use it as far as I'm concerned. I like to use it sometimes myself.

I didn't know this was possible. Please give one example of deductive reasoning showing no doubt about the meaning of an ambiguous biblical passage.

...I think you've misunderstood the connotations of my use of the term 'explore.' But that's ok, no harm done. By 'explore,' I simply mean that we are all on the Titanic together, out at sea, waiting for God to rescue us epistemologically.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[spockrates]

I do not have the time to do that here.

Please read thru the links and I think they should give you sufficient examples. Especially the one "Adductive Logic in Torah."

No worries. Do you have the time to tell me if this is the major difference between inductive reasoning and adductive reasoning?

1. If some postulate has certain necessary logical implications, and these implications are found to be in accord with experience, the postulate is thus far confirmed, though not necessarily proved (Positive Law).

2. If some postulate has certain necessary logical implications, and these implications are found to be in discord with experience, the postulate is disproved, and not merely weakened (Negative Law).​

Or is there more to it than this?

 

[spockrates]

...it can included these as objects of study, but more specifically I'm referring to the basic Merriam-Webster definition which also ties into the overall study and application of Hermeneutics:

SEMIOTICS
: a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics​

...if we're going to assume that, then we'll need to assume a whole bunch of things, and even propose that there are some factors for which we'll not be able to account for.

My intended point is that it is possible for BOTH interlocutors to be wrong and/or incomplete in their understanding of Scripture. In fact, I'd say that no one person other than God Himself has, or has had, a perfect understanding of God's intentions in Scripture. But, that doesn't mean we can't come to some semblance of understanding, even without God's Help.

...and you're welcome to use it as far as I'm concerned. I like to use it sometimes myself.

...I think you've misunderstood the connotations of my use of the term 'explore.' But that's ok, no hard done. By 'explore,' I simply mean that we are all on the Titanic together, out at sea, waiting for God to rescue us epistemologically.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Yes, that helps me apprehend what you're saying, thanks. Unfortunately I'm the kind who usually needs to experience something to comprehend it sufficiently.

But that would take up to much of your time to teach me how to apply semiotics.

 

[Halbhh]

Wonderfully, in this epistle, in chapters 2 through 4 (and especially chapter 4), John instructs us in *precisely* how to know what is true to Christ, and what is against Him.

I even feel that in modern times, full reading of 1 John is becoming crucial for Christians. We need to know what John teaches, especially if we are tend to reasoning and thinking.

So, you got to read it through, and really pay attention carefully in parts of chapters 2 through 4. There are many pieces. Together, they are very complete.

Then you'll have just what you need on that.

 

[spockrates]

Wonderfully, in this epistle, in chapters 2 through 4 (and especially chapter 4), John instructs us in *precisely* how to know what is true to Christ, and what is against Him.

I even feel that in modern times, full reading of 1 John is becoming crucial for Christians. We need to know what John teaches, especially if we are tend to reasoning and thinking.

So, you got to read it through, and really pay attention carefully in parts of chapters 2 through 4. There are many pieces. Together, they are very complete.

Then you'll have just what you need on that.

Thanks. If there's something I don't understand about 1 John, may I ask you to explain it?

 

[Halbhh]

Thanks. If there's something I don't understand about 1 John, may I ask you to explain it?

Yes, certainly. I was just looking at chapter 4 again myself, and noticed for instance verse 8 is another touchstone-like criteria we can remember. It connects back to chapter 2 verse 9. If I encounter someone clearly showing love to all around them, I must search myself if we disagree on something, and try to be sure I have removed the "plank"(s) from my own eye for instance, or even just at the moment to recall Christ's teachings that might apply and be sure I'm applying them to the topic. (of course, some topics are only trivial in a way, like factual stuff that is worldly, and unimportant to us to decide upon together past merely saying what we know or think in a friendly way; I even include man made global warming for example -- it's enough for me to merely mention what I think and I could never think to vehemently insist on my view on such to my brother or sister, but merely to discuss it in a friendly loving way only, if ever; it's just part of the temporal -- "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." He said.)

 

[spockrates]

Yes, certainly. I was just looking at chapter 4 again myself, and noticed for instance verse 8 is another touchstone-like criteria we can remember. It connects back to chapter 2 verse 9. If I encounter someone clearly showing love to all around them, I must search myself if we disagree on something, and try to be sure I have removed the "plank"(s) from my own eye for instance, or even just at the moment to recall Christ's teachings that might apply and be sure I'm applying them to the topic. (of course, some topics are only trivial in a way, like factual stuff that is worldly, and unimportant to us to decide upon together past merely saying what we know or think in a friendly way; I even include man made global warming for example -- it's enough for me to merely mention what I think and I could never think to vehemently insist on my view on such to my brother or sister, but merely to discuss it in a friendly loving way only, if ever; it's just part of the temporal -- "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." He said.)

Yes, I love discovering those connections, myself. So I have a question about the verse you just mentioned:

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
​

What do the words, "God is love," mean? I mean, I've read this before, but I just don't get it.

 

[Dave-W]

No worries. Do you have the time to tell me if this is the major difference between inductive reasoning and adductive reasoning?

That is not it at all. Adductive block logic is very different.

If you are familiar with Einstein's General Relativity, you will know what a "frame of reference" is and how it works. I wonder (since he was raised orthodox Jewish) if that did not come from the "blocks" of block logic. I see similarities.

EDITED TO ADD:

Probably the biggest difference is Hebraic logic is NEVER abstract; it is ALWAYS relational. That is how the blocks are set up - as differing types of relationships.

I will give you one example off the top of my head. The plagues in Egypt just before the Passover and leaving in the book of Exodus.

On some of the plagues it said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart against the Israelites; while in other places it said God hardened his heart. Which was it? Both. On the block of human to human relationship - he hardened it himself. On the divine to human block GOD hardened it. So it was (on one block) fully God, while (on another block) it was fully man. Not a contradiction.

 

[spockrates]

That is not it at all. Adductive block logic is very different.

If you are familiar with Einstein's General Relativity, you will know what a "frame of reference" is and how it works. I wonder (since he was raised orthodox Jewish) if that did not come from the "blocks" of block logic. I see similarities.

The it seems Socrates was correct when he said writing shared one great flaw with painting.

 

[Halbhh]

Oh, and by the way, I think the Socratic method way of discussing is great, and we generally it often in these discussion at least in part without trying to, but it's good to have that mutual search for the truth.

 

[spockrates]

Oh, and by the way, I think the Socratic method way of discussing is great, and we generally it often in these discussion at least in part without trying to, but it's good to have that mutual search for the truth.

In what way is the Socratic Method not a mutual search for the truth?

 

[spockrates]

...

EDITED TO ADD:

Probably the biggest difference is Hebraic logic is NEVER abstract; it is ALWAYS relational. That is how the blocks are set up - as differing types of relationships.

I will give you one example off the top of my head. The plagues in Egypt just before the Passover and leaving in the book of Exodus.

On some of the plagues it said that Pharaoh hardened his own heart against the Israelites; while in other places it said God hardened his heart. Which was it? Both. On the block of human to human relationship - he hardened it himself. On the divine to human block GOD hardened it. So it was (on one block) fully God, while (on another block) it was fully man. Not a contradiction.

Is it possible that with all but the last plague pharaoh hardened his own heart, but in the last plague God did he hardening?

 

[Dave-W]

Is it possible that with all but the last plague pharaoh hardened his own heart, but in the last plague God did he hardening?

That is how we who are tied into Aristotelian logic try to reconcile it, But that is not how it actually reads in the Hebrew.

In block logic there is nothing to reconcile.

 

[Halbhh]

In what way is the Socratic Method not a mutual search for the truth?

Yes, that's my point also -- it's so good because of how it's the mutual search for truth.

 

[spockrates]

That is how we who are tied into Aristotelian logic try to reconcile it, But that is not how it actually reads in the Hebrew.

In block logic there is nothing to reconcile.

Yes, I think I see. Now let me try and tell me if I correctly used the Hebrew Block method:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
​

Catholics tell me Jesus meant, "this is my [actual] body". Protestants tell me he meant, "this is [a symbol of] my body."

Were I to apply Hebrew Block logic, I'd have to say, "You're both right!"

Right?

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, I love discovering those connections, myself. So I have a question about the verse you just mentioned:

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
​

What do the words, "God is love," mean? I mean, I've read this before, but I just don't get it.

For me, the a key way I see God is love is first from the greatest commandment, and the 2nd. Together they are the (fulfilled, perfected) law --

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Christ told us:
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

This is such a wonderful thing, the wonderful comfort, peace, rest, love one has when one does the greatest commandment. Nothing on Earth compares.

 

[spockrates]

For me, the a key way I see God is love is first from the greatest commandment, and the 2nd. Together they are the (fulfilled, perfected) law --

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Christ told us:
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."

This is such a wonderful thing, the wonderful comfort, peace, rest, love one has when one does the greatest commandment. Nothing on Earth compares.

Yes, but perhaps you missed my question? I asked what these three words mean: God is love. Do they mean God is loving? Or do they mean love itself is God? Or do they mean something altogether different?

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, but perhaps you missed my question? I asked what these three words mean: God is love. Do they mean God is loving? Or do they mean love itself is God? Or do they mean something altogether different?

God is love, and I think love in the profound way we all long for before we come to Him and obey Christ. Put another way, the human love, the infatuations, and later the flawed reality, they are so much less, and not enough. His is the....full love. When John wrote "God is love" in 1 John 4:8 I think he's pointing out that if we are obeying Christ, it's about love, and love is the result also. The complete verse helps make the meaning there. And then consider also what Christ said in John 14:23 together with that.

 

[Dave-W]

Were I to apply Hebrew Block logic, I'd have to say, "You're both right!"

Right?

That is a step in the right direction, but still a bit too abstract. Make it more relational. What are your blocks?