Was Socrates Autistic?

Post Reply New Topic

that's a bit ignorant of you to say. I'm simply speculating that Socrates was autistic based on observations of something I read. Answer me this, why would I care if Socrates was autistic, more importantly why would I want him to be? What would anyone get out of Socrates being autistic? Nothing.

As for Socratic Questioning, yes I've done it, it is fun, but as for classes that use it I tend to reserve myself; the Socratic questioning I have done is usually 1 on 1.

A friend of mine shared with me how to use Socratic Questioning on antagonistic people and it does confound them. So whenever someone becomes antagonistic toward me, that's when I start Socratic Questioning, then they are like, "huh?"

That sounds great.

Well, yes, the Socratic method is actually the most aggressive tool in the rhetorical arsenal. 1. the questioner appears passive by giving the majority of the discussion time to the orator 2. the orator is forced to be consistent in viewpoints 3. the questioner, while still appearing passive gets to direct the conversation 4. the orator, having more discussion time and therefore, subliminally dominant, is forced into a defensive position and appears weak. The Socratic method subconsciously influences the audience's social instincts: the strong are not supposed to be defensive, and are penalized thus.

Apart from that, it's exceptionally hard to stay 100% consistent in an argument-- even science, with a higher threshold for accuracy than communication, deals in percentages and not absolutes. Even if an orator consistently defends a position every answer begets another question.

Since when is having an obsession enough to "fit the AS diagnosis?"

This "was x celebrity autistic?" stuff has become absurd. Next we'll have a thread about whether or not Jesus was autistic.

I had this job as a phone psychic once and every caller got three free minutes at the beginning of the call. I would try to get the callers to start talking about their lives, hoping the minutes would fly by while I listened but they never fell for it. They would do nothing but ask very brief questions so I was stuck doing most of the talking.

So the questions are a great way to get others to talk and to take on the role as a more, but not completely, passive listener. Ultimately, the questions should extract answers and knowledge but sometimes, this isn't the case. Sometimes, they allow for the others to provide filler words.

Agreed, especially when talking about history. All we have from history are opinions from the authors of history-- what could be a normal idiosyncrasy could have been blown out of proportion by the author of said history depending on their viewpoint. Did Socrates have any other clinical symptoms, or was he just socially awkward-- because being socially awkward alone does not make one a part of the spectrum. Did he have sensory issues, did he have motor skill deficits, did he have any other number of other symptoms? The same goes for about any historically diagnosed person: they may have had traits, but is the information we're getting through history accurate #1, and #2, do a few behavioral traits alone verify existence of autism? I accept the possibility any number of historical people had a form of autism, but I also accept that it's impossible to diagnose with any kind of certainty through the lense of history.

On a side note: as for Jesus, your comment made me realize Socrates was in fact the Greek version of Jesus. 1. like Socrates, Jesus' best lessons arose from questions 2. both despised by their local authorities for fomenting dissent 3. We have nothing either wrote, all information is second hand 4. they both chose martyrdom to galvanize their followers.

Yeah, but questions alone don't make the Socratic method, making people adhere to consistency does. Just having a conversation and phishing for clues is different-- there's nothing to be consistent about, you're learning about a person not making an argument.

I'm sorry but I have never encountered someone that was so crippled by social awkwardness that they had to displace themselves from the social situation entirely, or possibly prepare for it alone in reflection.

And again, its speculation, its fun. I am not here claiming to have a diagnosis for him.

"I am extremely uneducated on this matter, but I am just bringing it up out of interest of "what if.""

I am posting in the philosophy section, am I not?

Also hearing more about Socratic questioning, I am not sure if I have ever done it. I know I have tried, but I am not sure if it was successful, more than likely not.

When people are antagonizing me I start asking those Socratic Questions about what they say that's annoying me and they think something's up but they aren't sure what unless, of course, they are familiar with Socrates. Still fun though. Sometimes, they say something sarcastic and they shush.

It can be humorous. It points out how silly some of the stuff they say is. Like if someone says something obnoxious and critical, just ask a question about it, not just one but ten. Like, if someone says you should wear nail polish, which has happened to me, ask, "And if I wear nail polish, what do you think will happen?"

And then if he says, "you will get more dates..." ask, "what about nail polish do you think gets people dates?"

If he then says, "because men like the look of nail polish." ask, "why do men like that odorous stuff so much?" This should be the last question that needs asking since by now the person being annoying has usually caught on, though doesn't know exactly what is going on unless they are well versed in philosophers, they just know it's some kind of game and they don't want to be a part of it.

I could ask five hundred questions on nail polish alone if they would keep it going but most the time, they don't want to answer all the questions and give up.

I need to try it some time.

I don't believe autists really think more logically than non-autists. As far as I can see, 'weak central coherence' frequently causes autists to make 'logical connections' that are contextually inappropriate, regardless of whether they are engaging in small talk or writing an essay on philosophy.

Wait,what?
That is by far the most provocative and fascinating sentence in this whole thread and I am super curious. How does one get that job? How did you decide what answers to give? Answering these questions would derail the thread but if you can think of another thread topic that would involve phone psychics, I'll be there.

You're assuming based on a third person historical account that he was "so crippled by social awkwardness that he had to displace himself from the social situation entirely, or possibly prepare for it alone in reflection". Why?

He could just have had an epiphany at an opportune moment and wanted to dwell in it for a while.

Also, there are other types of people who are not on the spectrum who don't take social interactions too well such as schizoids.