Socratic Seminar Quotes

Sometimes we find ourselves searching for answers, When really what we need Is the discernment To ask the right questions.

As an undergraduate at Stanford, I took a seminar that profoundly changed my life. It was called “The Ethical Analyst,” and it was conducted in the form of a Socratic dialogue by an extraordinarily gifted professor, Ronald A. Howard.1 Our discussion focused on a single question of practical ethics: Is it wrong to lie?

Kensi Gounden - Ten Vintage Ideas to Spark Innovation in Your Classroom Kensi Gounden says, Vintage innovation happens when we use old ideas and tools to transform the present. Think of it as a mash-up. It’s not a rejection of new tools or new ideas. Instead, it’s a reminder that sometimes the best way to move forward is to look backward. Like all innovation, vintage innovation is disruptive. But it’s disruptive by pulling us out of present tense and into something more timeless. This isn’t meant to be nostalgic. There are certainly horrible things in the past that we don’t want to repeat. However, in the ed tech drive toward collective novelty, we often miss out on the classic and the vintage. According to kensi gounden, here are ten ways you can embrace the vintage in your classroom. Sketch-Noting Commonplace Books Prototyping with Duct Tape and Cardboard Apprenticeships The Natural World Play Socratic Seminars Games and Simulations Experiments Manipulatives A garden is valuable but students can videochat with an expert at a greenhouse. It’s powerful to bring in World War II soldiers to talk face-to-face about their experiences. There’s something amazing about the vintage element of human connection. If you need more help regarding vintage innovation you can contact kensigounden, he will definately help you in acieving your goals. #kensigounden #kensi #gounden #sports #education #vintageinnovation #classroom #student #kenseelen business gounden innovation Kenseelan kensi Kensigounden kensigounden kensi gounden business innovator smartwork sports study tips

If the analysand becomes a lover, it is because he comes to believe that something in us corresponds to the lack in him. And like Alcibiades, he may even come to see still more in us, what Lacan calls object a, just as Alcibiades sees what he calls the precious, shiny agálmata in Socrates. Indeed, it is precisely these agálmata that first allow Lacan to formulate the notion of object a as we find it in all of his later work, the object that makes one person incommensurate with all others, nonfungible, irreplaceable. Alcibiades says, “I had a glimpse of the figures (agálmata) Socrates keeps hidden within: they were so godlike – so bright and beautiful, so utterly amazing – that I no longer had a choice – I just had to do whatever he told me” (216e). We analysts, however, realize that it is love for object a that we have managed to incite, not love for ourselves as living, breathing human beings with our own personalities. We do not seek to be loved “for ourselves” in analysis: we seek to set the analysand ablaze so that he will do the difficult work of analysis.

In this way we give our lack, we give what we do not have, Aristophanes’ claim that such a thing is impossible notwithstanding. Men in Western culture generally seem to have a harder time than women do admitting to lack, a harder time verbally admitting that they are missing something, incomplete in some respect, limited in some way – in a word, castrated. (The reader will, I hope, allow me to momentarily associate men with obsession here, and women with hysteria, in a way that vastly overgeneralizes things, in order to highlight something schematically at first.) I do not mean simply admitting that they do not actually know how to drive somewhere in particular or that they do not know some specific fact about something that has come up in a conversation – I mean a lack that is more far-reaching than that! To love is to admit to lack (Soler, 2003, p. 243), and Lacan even goes so far at one point – and here I am jumping ahead some 15 years in his work – to suggest that when a man loves, it is insofar as he is a woman (Lacan, 1973–4, class given on February 12, 1974). Insofar as he is a man, he can admit to desiring the so-called partial objects he sees in his partner, but he generally feels that perfectly good partial objects of much the same kind can be found in many different partners. Insofar as he is a man, he contents himself with the enjoyment he derives from the partial objects he finds in a whole series of interchangeable partners, and avoids like the plague showing that he lacks.But unlike desire, “Love demands love,” as Lacan (1998a, p. 4) puts it in Seminar XX; love insistently requests love in return. When one is fascinated by or lusts after a sexual partner, one’s desire does not necessarily wither or disappear if one does not feel desired in return. Even if “desire is the Other’s desire” (a claim often repeated by Lacan; see, for example, Lacan, 2015, p. 178), in the sense that we wish to be desired in return by the object of our desire, desire can do just fine without being requited. But “to love is to want to be loved” (Lacan, 2006a, p. 853): to love – at least in our times – is to implicitly ask the beloved for love that can make good or somehow compensate one for one’s own lack, the hollow or emptiness one feels inside. In this sense, all love seems to constitute a request for love in return. (In Alcibiades’ case, this takes the form of a pressing demand for Socrates to prove that he returns Alcibiades’ passion for Socrates.) Since to love is to show and declare one’s lack, love is feminine, as Colette Soler (2003, p. 97) says, following Lacan’s statements to their logical conclusion.