This article, for all of it's words, doesn't really justify it's thesis at all. In one hand, it declares that we all must put aside our differences to pursue lives of ethical piety, and in the other hand it demands that we cannot ask questions to get there. At no point along the essay does it seem that the author entertains a middle ground between the two, which frankly confuses me even more. And for all the Socrates-bashing they indulge in, they seemingly forget that the purpose of a Socratic Seminar is not to walk away feeling personally dejected, but mentally enlightened. If all you can take away from it is offense, then why bother learning anything in the first place?
Persuasion is a two-way street. Rhetoric is not. If you dislike the way someone says something, then don't conflate that with the actual thing they're saying.
Persuasion is a two-way street. Rhetoric is not. If you dislike the way someone says something, then don't conflate that with the actual thing they're saying.