Socrates the jive turkey

I remember that, when we were reading The Republic of Plato in my Perennial Questions in Education class my sophomore year of college, I kept getting the impression that Socrates was just a total shyster. It seemed that he always knew exactly where he was going to take the conversation, that he always knew exactly how to get you to agree to whatever he was saying. I sensed mischief hiding behind that ugly mug of his. He would ask questions that you couldn't disagree with that would ultimately add up to a position that was in direct opposition to what you believed. There wasn't anything specific at any point that you could really take issue with without seeming like you were quibbling over some insignificant aspect of the question. At one point, you may think you've caught him in an inconsistency, but he manages to turn it around on you.

I love to play checkers, and in my opinion, I can play pretty well, as long as I don't have to take whatever jumps are available to me. A good strategy is to look at least 5 or 6 (or more) moves ahead, and figure out how to set up the board in a way that will look to your opponent that he will soon have the upper hand, while in fact the one piece you let him jump may set up an arrangement that lets you triple jump him. I think that's a lot like what Socrates did. He would lead you down paths you thought looked good but which eventually led you to a place you didn't want to be. Which, I guess you could say, is good for intellectual stimulation and development of critical thought and deeper understanding. But my main beef is that you're left no room for further discussion. The position set up demands refutation, but the only way of doing so is through attacking the arguments upon which it was built, which are unassailable. Maybe the point is to hone one's own thinking skills. I don't know. I loved a lot of the guy's thoughts and arguments, but I didn't trust him completely.

Anyway, I just read a piece by Raymond Smullyan about free will (and numerous other things!) that reminded me of the way Socrates would talk. It's a dialogue between a mortal and God which is, if nothing else, quite humorous, and thorough. I can pick out some places along the way where I would have to disagree, and the very end of the piece has what seems to me to be a possible contradiction. But anyway, give it a read. It's entertaining and thought-provoking, which you often don't get in the same place at the same time.