While I can understand and appreciate what this tandem (more likely single individual) was able to accomplish in early philosophy, he is of little use for any true understanding. Throughout his dialouges, he is nothing more than the sophists he condemns with the small exception that he did not ask for payment for his services. More importantly, he has no actual philosophy (yes, it's debatable that The Republic had some political desires, it lacked any true philosophical movements).

Instead of a true philosophy, he has provided us with a method for reasoning/questioning; the Socratic method commonly used in law school and becomming increasingly popular in the university setting. Yet how useful is this method in practice? While I would like to think it should be the ideal method for instilling knowledge, it often backfires due to the apathy of many who are too lazy to critically examine the texts assigned for reading.

So I suppose my question is two-fold:
1. Did Socrates/Plato actually provide a useful/lasting philosophy.

2. Is the Socratic method an effective process of instruction for all, some or none?

quote:

Originally posted by ItalianStallion:
So I suppose my question is two-fold:
1. Did Socrates/Plato actually provide a useful/lasting philosophy.

2. Is the Socratic method an effective process of instruction for all, some or none?

Both Socrates and Plato were philosophers, by defintion. Philosophy is not just theory, but also pursuit of wisdom and search for knowledge, both of which are things Socrates and Plato believed in and practiced. I believe their real lasting legacy is their astute observations about their environment, and their bravery in questioning authority, questioning religion in a time of strict conformity. (Of course, Plato's creativity goes a long way. I happen to be fond of his Symposium.)

For the second question, I absolutely believe that's effective, but only for some. Nobody's learning processes are the same. Some need to be fed knowledge; they can absorb all you tell them. Others find the Socratic method tiresome because of its unrelenting nature.

However, what you believe and assert is true is questioned, you begin to think outside of your first thought. You defend your belief, you question your knowledge, and slowly the thing you thought you knew unravels to reveal more than you thought.

I'm done rambling.