Reviews of Books

OK, so I already read these books and articles, but felt I should give a review at this point. (these aren't in order, by the way)

First is The Philosophers Toolkit and Socrates Cafe. I highly recommend these books to anyone who is interested in Philosophy and needs a starting point. Both give alot of general information for someone to pursue further. I'd also recommend the Plato and Platypus series.

Next was Dialectical Inquiry. It wasn't quite what I thought it would be, but is still worth the read. The article is about using the Dialectal Method to conduct corporate research. In it, they took already existing data (in this case, opinions on why technology transfer was difficult for the company in question). They outlined the method as comprising 4 steps, though I think 6 is more accurate for the way they used it. The steps are:
1. Identify scripts and models.
2. Define models
3. Assumptions and Counter assumptions
4. Define Contradictions
(these are my additions)
5. Define Results
6. Check internal and external validity

Now, the scripts are what is actually said, with models being broader more inclusive sentiments. For instance 'you cannot transfer technology, only people' is a script, related to the model called 'people centered'. Easy enough? Good, it should be. In the identifying stage, you're simply trying to find out what the model is ('people centered'). In defining, you're actually writing down the specifics of what the model includes ('the people centered model is based around the view that only with the transfer of skilled users of a technology can the use of it be possible). In each model are certain assumptions, and certain counters to other model's assumptions.

Now, what are the 'contradictions'? Simply put, in any kind of philosophical or theoretical discussion, all views will hold a grain of truth. The parable of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind at this point. Basically, a group of blind men was gathered to examine an elephant, and say it was. Each man picked a different part, and identified what they thought it was based off of their experiences and what they were physically examining. The man who looked at the leg said a column. Another the body, who said a wall, and so on. The same is true here, each perspective contains some grain of truth, and should thus be respected, and examined for it's own truths, and failings. If the man who said an elephant is a column had looked at the body, he would likely not be able to say that an elephant is a column anymore, which would be the contradiction. This parable is actually the origin of my interest in Dialectics.

So, how do define the results? Basically, you look for where one model will solve the problems of a different model. This tends to create slightly more complex results, but that may be needed. And yes, it is possible to come to the conclusion that one of the models is infact correct, and no contradiction can be made. The internal consistency you are looking for is any contradictions within the new model, in which case you need to go back and do a review of your research and process. The external validity is the ability to apply the results. If it does not work in real application, preferably in multiple settings, you likely have a problem with the theory, or your process more generally.

Next, on to Plato! The Apology is a good read which seems to me to be the less about philosophy itself, and more about the role of a philosopher. Not even that really. To me, it seemed like Plato wanted us to know about the trial of Socrates, and he injected into it the role of a philosopher, which can summed up in Socrates referring to himself as a gadfly (think mosquito), constantly challenging Athens, making it examine itself over and over again.

Crito is, so far, my favorite Dialog. The discussion takes place in Socrates's jail cell while he waits to be executed. The discussion is initiated when friends of Socrates try to convince him to run away, since they can get him out and to safety in another city if he so desires. He refuses and lays the groundwork for what will later become the Social Contract. Although, structurally, this dialog is unexciting.

Charmides is an ok dialog. It is about what is temperance. I am ashamed to say that the dialog came to no conclusions, and was generally, not as interesting as I had hoped. That being said, it does arise a few interesting points about what is and what is not temperance.

Euthyphro is another dialog of little interest from a structural stand point, and moderate interest from a philosophical stand point. In it, Plato and Euthyphro are arguing about the definition of piety. A number of definitions are presented, and refuted. In the end no conclusion is met. It seems to me that the point is that we cannot know what is piety.

The above is true of Ion as well. In this one, they're basically discussing if rhapsodes have a legitimate skill, or are metaphysically possessed.

Laches is about courage. Sorry, not much to say about this one. Although the ending is similar in certain ways to that of Euthyphro.

Protagoras is an interesting dialog. While the structure is of this one remains mostly uninteresting, is of worth reading for it's philosophical and historical value. This one is about whether or not it is possible to teach virtue, and what in general can be taught. This seems to be one of the better dialogs for historical value, since it covers the nature of the Sophists as much as the philosophy.

Phaedo is the first structurally interesting dialog. This one is actually told by a narrator. Plato uses the character of Phaedo (who was at the actual discussion) to repeat what was said, and give his opinions of what he thinks both sides meant, and the emotions and actions of the speakers. He also converses with Echecrates, who occasionally asks questions about what he thinks the speakers mean. In essence, giving the Elenchus method used by Plato a meta-structure similar to the one used by Berniker in the article linked above. This dialog, by the way, is about the nature of the after life. I think the subject is interesting, don't get me wrong, but it's not something I'm interested in.

Finally (for now) is Meno. Like with Protagoras, this one is about the teachablity of virtue (though Socrates comes to conflicting answers), and is to me interesting mostly for it's philosophical value, not it's dialectical.

Have fun!