There's an error in the above. It should be Philosophy hasn't continued to be done in the form in which Socrates started.

I hear you, Ross. I prefer the current version: dialogue via written media. It gives the participants more time to ponder and then put their thoughts in order and finally compose an opinion. In speech the loudest and most vehement will hog the floor. Not necessarily the smartest or the dumbest. It is nice to have enough time and peace and quite to compose a text of what one really wants to say.

Well, philosophy as understood by Socrates and Plato certainly was a way of life, far from just intellectual pursuit.

A key aim of philosophy was the acquisition of practical knowledge regarding what is right and what is wrong and how the philosopher can act rightly at all times.

In addition to opinion, reason, and personal experience or insight, knowledge was also acquired through conversation or dialogue with others.

The first thing to be considered is why Plato wrote dialogues. It was a choice that cannot be explained away by considerations of time and place. Aristotle, after all, did not write dialogues. Philosophy in the Socratic tradition is not simply a matter of thought abstracted from the life of the thinker. The participants are not faceless names. Desires, ambitions, motivations, all come into play. The character of the participants, and by extension, the character of the reader is fundamental to understanding the dialogue.

Pierre Hadot criticizes modern philosophy for becoming an abstract, theoretical enterprise, an ivory tower pursuit, unlike a living public forum like it was in ancient — Ross Campbell

Bit of a strange remark, considering on could say it's precisely Socrates and Plato that set philosophy on this path towards to much abstraction, i.e. Ideal Forms.

In the history of Western philosophy Socrates and Plato are amongst the few thinkers who conducted philosophy through dialogue. — Ross Campbell

I would point out that Plato laid out his theories (or not) after a fictionalized dialogue (with examples and mythological stories) between Socrates and whomever he was interrogating. We could take Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations as a modern version of that fictionalized (mythologized, example-ridden) back-and-forth. There are at least three voices in that dialogue. The Interlocutor (as he is commonly referred to), who asks questions and makes statements (confessions) basically from a metaphysical standpoint or as Witt's stand-in from the perspective of his younger self who was driven by the desire to find one theory of meaning in the Tractatus--the voice of temptation in reaction to skepticism; next would be the voice of correctness, which is commonly taken as common sense or as a solution to skepticism, but is only pointing out the grammar of our concepts for contrast; and Wittgenstein himself, only rarely (say #426; p. 192), with the attempts to learn the lessons in threading the needle between.

Where Socrates in a sense knew the answer to the question he was asking, I have found that Wittgenstein posed his questions to, say, these parts of himself, but sometimes left the questions unanswered, I think so that we might answer them for ourselves, that his description would hold no weight unless we could see it for ourselves. And if that is the case, then the lectures by Heidegger ("What is Called Thinking?") and J.L. Austin ("How to Do Things With Words") are also in the vein of open questions/questioning, at least to the extent they are asking us if we can see what they see, along with Stanley Cavell, who almost seems to be musing out loud, following his interest, allowing you to follow yours (to finish off an enquiry in a different direction). Also Nietszche writes is a style that is not telling or explaining but more storytelling, examples, analogies, mythologies (as Plato famously pictured with caves and chariots), that we must shift our perspective to/from.

Socrates method of doing philosophy which he seems to have pioneered has given rise to The Socratic method which has become famous and to my knowledge is even used today in some educational settings and in some areas of discourse. If as you say other philosophers use a similar dialogue method or other questioning method as in the examples you give, why is it that Socrates gets so much credit for this approach to philosophy, ie The Socratic method is named after him. You were saying that Socrates knew the answer to the questions he asked , is that really true. He called himself a metaphorical midwife , because he was "giving birth" to new ideas, then I don't see how he could already have known the answer. Didn't Socrates famously say "I don't know anything".

why is it that Socrates gets so much credit for this approach to philosophy, ie The Socratic method is named after him. — Ross Campbell

I think Socrates rightly deserves credit for the method. I think the modern philosophy that builds on that is just less well known. Also, the connection is methodological but not reflected in exactly the same style. The fact that Nietzsche and Austin and Heidegger are relying on the answers from the reader make it hard to see it as the same investigation where we see where the other (us) goes (in conversation with Socrates). And, even with his "Interlocutor" Wittgenstein seems to be talking to himself. Socrates is, in a sense, both playing the other side (the other side is part of his own thoughts) and involving the reader to question the discussion themselves.

You were saying that Socrates knew the answer to the questions he asked , is that really true. He called himself a metaphorical midwife , because he was "giving birth" to new ideas, then I don't see how he could already have known the answer. Didn't Socrates famously say "I don't know anything". — Ross Campbell

It is a good point to bring up the midwife analogy. He does say he is "barren", but also too old to conceive; not pregnant with the desire of those he engages. In other words, he has nothing to tell--to add as new or better than the other--and that he has no dog in the hunt (both of which Plato hedges). He is not trying to convince you of anything he feels strongly about, but only claims that examining a subject will make you a better person. This goes hand-in-hand with the oracle's answer (which is not Socrates' statement of himself) in the Apology, which begins “ 'not mine is the story' that I will tell; rather, I will refer it to a speaker trustworthy to you. Of my wisdom, if indeed it is wisdom of any kind, and what sort of thing it is, I will offer for you as witness the god in Delphi... Chaerephon.. asked [the oracle] whether there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythia replied that no one was wiser."

I take the point to be (as does Cavell), that no one is in a better position than Socrates. That the philosopher is not wiser than the ordinary person (he does not even claim or tell us this himself). Socrates does not know anything that anyone else cannot see for themselves; that in fact the point is that we must all see for ourselves whether a claim has merit; come to it ourselves. That we all have equal authority to make and accept claims.

Socrates will say we already have the answer in that we were born with the idea of the forms; that acquiring knowledge is simply remembering them (as will Heidegger). In Austin and Wittgenstein's terms, we can each provide examples that shed light on our practices. In one example, Witt points out that we can all walk, but we would have to bring up what counts as walking, compared to other things we do on two human legs. That we already have an intuition of how, say, an apology or an excuse works, and that we just need to make it explicit (Emerson will say into tuition). We can each remember the implications of saying "I know" or correct another when making that claim. That I know my phone number; I know New York; I know you are in pain; each are different claims with different types of justifications. This makes us a better person in the way Socrates promises in that if we are aware of the terms upon which we speak, we, in a sense, know ourselves better, can better understand what we are getting ourselves into, how it will reflect who we will become.

The Interlocutor (as he is commonly referred to), who asks questions and makes statements (confessions) basically from a metaphysical standpoint or as Witt's stand-in from the perspective of his younger self who was driven by the desire to find one theory of meaning in the Tractatus--the voice of temptation in reaction to skepticism; next would be the voice of correctness, which is commonly taken as common sense or as a solution to skepticism, but is only pointing out the grammar of our concepts for contrast; and Wittgenstein himself, only rarely (say #426; p. 192), with the attempts to learn the lessons in threading the needle between. — Antony Nickles

That is an interesting description. I like the Tractatus because it wrestles directly with the reader. A dialogue one can leave at any time. During dialogues, one has to perform rather than just explain.

That is an interesting description. — Valentinus

I should note that the idea is from Stanley Cavell in The Availability of the Later Wittgenstein.

Unfortunately don't understand everything you say in the blog. I can follow some of it. I'm not as knowledgeable about Wittgenstein as about Socrates. Ancient Greek philosophy is one of my favorite areas and more knowledgeable in and some modern continental philosophy. I didn't follow whether you think Socrates method is better than the other philosophers' method. I didn't understand you're comparison between Socrates and the others.
I have a question which has puzzled me for a long time. Why does Nietszche dislike Socrates so much. He criticizes him for setting Western thought on the wrong path. Nietszche preferred the presocratics. Isn't there a little bit of similarity between the two of them in the sense that both are skeptical of system and theory building in philosophy and neither are propounding any doctrine. I think Socrates method is a very good one , the idea that philosophy should be lived, that it takes place in the discourse between people, not an academic pursuit

Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

I have a question which has puzzled me for a long time. Why does Nietszche dislike Socrates so much. He criticizes him for setting Western thought on the wrong path. Nietszche preferred the presocratics. Isn't there a little bit of similarity between the two of them in the sense that both are skeptical of system and theory building in philosophy and neither are propounding any doctrine. I think Socrates method is a very good one , the idea that philosophy should be lived, that it takes place in the discourse between people, not an academic pursuit — Ross Campbell

I don't remember in reading Nietszche of any specific animus, but the ways in which Socrates questioned a person to have them characterize, say, the good, led to drawing out what ordinary ways we consider it, the criteria that count in judging it. This investigation and its goal of our betterment would be what Nietszche admired about Socrates. Walter Kaufmann claims that Nietszche held Socrates in so high regard he had to differentiate himself. I can conjecture based on his reacting to Kant that Nietszche put, at least Plato, in the same category of desiring a foundational certainty for our claims of knowledge. And this goal was what caused Socrates to ultimately discount, in most cases, the answers given, as they did not meet his criteria. Nietszche would take this dismissive attitude toward our ordinary criteria as a rejection of the human in preference to something that does not include our interests, our possibility of failure, our history, the circumstances. His examples and imagined histories give something like Socrates' universal generalized forms, a context in our lives. Now Nietszche's style is to inject a motive and personalize an intellectual disagreement, I suppose in the same way he wants to humanize our epistimology with a greater sense of knowledge than what is true or false; to include our interests and our temptations and hopes and fears into our approach to morality. So he would admire Socrates' method but not the effect of his prejudice for a certain goal.

Is it something to do with society of the city state that Plato was alive in, where philosophy was discussed in an open public forum . Pierre Hadot criticizes modern philosophy for becoming an abstract, theoretical enterprise, an ivory tower pursuit, unlike a living public forum like it was in ancient times. — Ross Campbell

Yes, if it can be done in a pure form. Debate in a public forum quickly turns into a performance in the context of a contest. Philosophy should want to be done in the same fashion the beginner learns to play chess. Both players want to be right or want to win but it's understood the process of making moves and collecting losses is what builds intelligence. I think it can be studied on an individual basis, but if there is some way to conduct it without having to separate egos and good arguments then that is the best way to learn. Or simply if your chess teacher is always cheating then there's no reasonable expectation of progress.

I didn't follow exactly your analogy with the chess game. The fundamental critique Pierre Hadot makes of modern philosophy is that it has become divorced from the real life of real people and become a theoretical enterprise, an analogy with modern physics might be appropriate here. The man on the street does not understand quantum mechanics and modern physics. The same perhaps is the case with a lot of modern philosophy which is being done mostly by academics and written for other academics. Its probably due to the institutionalization of philosophy which started in the middle ages with the first appearance of universities and it was only an educated elite within the Church who were doing philosophy. This academic approach seems to have continued in the Western tradition till today. This is partly responsible I think for the popular conception of the philosopher today as somewhat of an ivory tower figure engaged in highly abstruse and abstract thought of little relevance to ordinary people's lives. I think there has recently been an attempt to bring philosophy back into the streets , with the emergence of many books on popular philosophy like the bestseller Sophies World. This is the way philosophy was conducted in the Ancient world, there was the Roman slave Epictetus who became a philosopher and The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius also a famous philosopher and their writing is accessible to the ordinary reader. So are we seeing a return to Philosophy as it was done in the Ancient world, as a way of life.

I didn't follow exactly your analogy with the chess game. The fundamental critique Pierre Hadot makes of modern philosophy is that it has become divorced from the real life of real people and become a theoretical enterprise, an analogy with modern physics might be appropriate here. — Ross Campbell

Interesting, I'm not sure what it looks like from the position of a professional. I suppose recognizing philosophy being a subject of public interest would lead to some observations. But, I would question whether the public ever stopped doing some form of searching and questioning as part of being human.

My observation wasn't in regard to the demographic but rather the method and the disconnect with reality. The OP mentioned philosophy as an actual dialog between individuals and I recognized that as the "Ancient World", where inquiries into phenomenology and this focus on introspective frames of reference weren't the matter at hand. When philosophers are left to their own devices; the more subjective and preferential of their own cherished ideas they become. But, doing philosophy in a way that tests every sentence against a different point of view actually promotes an evolutionary process. So, instead of "being a way of life" to me it is more a matter of being useful again. In a way that is directly applicable to the interpretation of physics. It is no longer an exercise done for it's own sake, but with the aim of discovery. The belief that a philosophical discussion could stumble upon something relevant to a real problem.

The amount of online argumentation has also made the notion of fallacy a topic for individuals that would in the past stick only to rhetoric or "bumper sticker" depths of understanding. Noticing the man on the street is talking about something that's recognizable in the tower might be a different view of the world.