From The Sophists to Socrates to Plato to Aristotle

The 'Socratean' Dialectic seems to be the earliest usage of the term 'dialectic' in Western philosophy. It was connected to the philosophy of Socrates and in particular with the 'Socratean Method' which was a method that Socrates used -- very much like a prosecutor in a court of law -- whereby he asked the person he was debating with a series of directed, pointed, often rhetorical questions using logic, aimed at exposing the weaknesses and contradictions in this person's particular philosophical point of view until at the end the person is left with either the opposite point of view (Socrates' perspective) or at least having to rethink his particular point of view over entirely based on exposure to Socrates' persistent logical questioning.

I view Socrates as the first major western 'deconstructionist' as that is primarily what he seemed to do -- deconstruct other people's perspectives and arguments.

In  this regard, a group of philosophers before him called 'the Sophists' did much the same thing -- i.e. practised the 'art of persuasion, rhetoric, and deconstruction'. However, there is a major difference between the type of deconstruction that the Sophists practised and the type of deconstruction that Socrates practised. Specifically, the Sophists can be viewed as 'intellectual, philosophical, and rhetorical mercenaries' -- they were 'paid narcissists' (much like most of today's lawyers) who were prepared to take any side of an argument, and were good enough in their techniques of rhetorical argument and persuasion that they could usually win the argument whichever side they took.

In contrast, Socrates used much the same method but seemed to stand more for 'ethical idealism' rather than 'paid narcissistic relativism'. 

Thus, an important distinction can be made here between a 'narcissistic, relativist deconstructionist' (who is prepared to argue whatever side pays him or her the 'almighty dollar') vs. a more 'ethically aimed deconstructionist' who might be viewed as chasing 'the good' in human thought and behavior.

This distinction can otherwise be stated as 'deconstructionism for a fee or for the nihlistic fun of it' vs. 'deconstructionism of the epistemologically and/or ethically bad in mankind'. We need to carry this distinction with us on our philosophical journey here.

In this regard, Socrates can be viewed as the 'philosophical bridge' between The Sophists and Plato with one further distinction that I will mention before we move on.

Whereas Socrates can be viewed more as an 'ethical deconstructionist' (without a seemingly 'definite idealistic epistemological and/or ethical goal that he was trying to communicate), Plato can be viewed more as an epistemologically and ethically aimed 'constructionist and rational idealist'.

I may not like much of Plato's rational idealistic philosophy -- his philosophy of 'The Forms' (which I am starting to think more positively about now in 2011), and his political philosophy of 'Communism' which I simply don't like. (It is elitist and classist in a way that lacks the flexibility to encourage human growth and evolution to the potential height of 'their internal Forms'.)

I consider myself to be a 'rational-empiricist' and thus continue to search for a 'dialectic balance' between Plato (rational idealist) and Aristotle (empirical idealist) in their respective philosophies.

This is my Post-Hegelian, Multi-Dialectic (Quantum)-Integrative, Humanistic-Existential Paradigm that I work within.

dgb, Sept 26th, 2006; updated August 13th, 2011.