Socratic Seminar-Preparation

I. Part One: Preparing Your Answers

Directions: Below you will find the three anchor questions for your discussions. Prepare arguments and
evidence for at least two to use to support your position and discredit counter-arguments.
1. How much of the technology from 1984 became a reality in our world today? Could what we
have be used to monitor us? To what extent should we use our technology for surveillance and
safety? At what point does it go too far and we enter the world of Big Brother?
Argument Evidence Counter-Argument Rebuttal

Everyone here wrote The instrument (the

Phones may not be But the CIA was
this on a device telescreen, it was state mandated yet found out, and after
capable of anything in called) could be everyone and their being admonished it
1984. The only dimmed, but there was mother has one. Not is no longer legal to
difference between the no way of shutting it only is a microphone use the information in
technology we have off completely. necessary for a phone court cases (under
and that in 1984, is to operate, but now certain conditions).
that theyre not There were no most cellphones have That leads me to my
permanent, and telescreens, of course, cameras too. Perfect second point. Though
theyre not federally but there was always telescreens, even the physical limits for
mandated. These two the danger of better than the surveillance may have
facts keep us concealed orwellian ones surpassed 1984 the
reasonably far from microphones by which because they go with legal system through
the Orwellian world of your voice might be you wherever you go. which the government
1984. Assuming that picked up and And the CIA is must act upon to
the government had a recognized infamous for incriminate us is 10
surprise 180 and monitoring calls. The times as stringent.
began pouring all of it US has come close to Once more the
resources into such a Orwellian levels of national government
surveillance system it surveillance, All that's does not control all
would still take a few left is to act on the the courts and would
years to achieve the information in a find a hard time
exact system. A good stricter manner. rigging them for
point to bring up is guaranteed success.
that Orwell himself
didnt specify how the
party came to power
and just hinted at it
through the flashbacks
of the protagonist.
2. What is the nature of reality? Could any government decide what is real and what is not? Is it
possible for a governing entity to control the thoughts of its citizens so thoroughly? Is it possible to
have scientific progress with this definition of truth?
Argument Evidence Counter-Argument Rebuttal

I want to cover this But in a physical The nature of reality Well Winston is in
last question in more sense war involves can be claimed to have the unique problem of
depth than the very small numbers of already been trying to contest with
previous ones. But people, mostly discovered, at least as someone who is, in
let's start with the highly-trained far as human relative terms, insane.
overarching one. What specialists, and causes understanding is The ultimate problem
is the nature of comparatively few capable. Some grapple with arguing someone
reality? An interesting casualties. The with the problem, who is insane is their
way to phrase this fighting, when there is while others, the ones adherence to a selfish
question, the Nature any, takes place on the to whom I believe are logic. Their
of reality. Nature by vague frontiers whose at the closest arguments must make
its definition, is whereabouts the humanly possible sense to them,
known as being the average man can only answer to the wordplay, jargon,
order of reality, so guess at, or round the question. They answer whatever it takes to
what is the order of Floating Fortresses it through resigning to justify to themselves
reality of reality? I which guard strategic a psychological ideal, that their ideal is
believe the answer to spots on the sea lanes. Nihilism, right. In this example
this is closest covered In the centres of and/or Religion. Many OBrien resolves to
by Thomas Bayes. His civilization war means religions point humans the concept of the
most notable no more than a to the idea that the party as a collective
accomplishment is the continuous shortage nature of reality is solipsism. So long as
Bayes Theorem which of consumption goods, simply for the purpose the party exists than it
in its absolute simplest and the occasional of god, whoever that and the universe will
form states that we, crash of a rocket might be. And if it continue to exist. This
over the course of bomb which may was so simple to loop in logic is
entire human cause a few scores of dismiss with a paradoxical in nature.
existence, will get deaths. theorem then why A logical argument
infinitely close to the does Winston grapple that is paradoxical is
sum of all knowledge and struggle with it in called a false cause. If
but never actually OBriens interview? Winston truly wanted
achieve it. This leads to beat OBrien in a
into the other question contest of minds than
I wanted to cover, he could simply claim
how far could we personal solipsism. In
progress under such a this way any
government argument that
 scientifically? One of OBrien made to
an Orwellian systems prove that collective
most notable feature is solipsism is true
its tendency to Winston could claim
consume more than it as applying to his
produces, this is personal solipsism
unavoidable in an making both points
Orwellian government moot.
and as such scientific
study will either
gradually decline or
remain constant or
even progress for a
time, and suddenly
drop off.

Socratic Seminar Reflection

Working on the research went just fine, although I didnt find a lot of outside sources on

the internet. I researched a few key ideas, enough to have a base for argument and the

knowledge of a few terms necessary for my argument. Most of my dedicated evidence came

from instances in the book, especially near the end, when a lot of ideas related to my topic were

being analyzed. The end conclusion for my argument came from a discovery of probability,

called the Bayes Theorem. This research I was unable to use, due to my inability to attend the

discussion. Looking back on the research for the second topic socratic seminar, I understand a

few issues, chiefly my running off topic. The argument I wrote is more of a line of thought, and

as such it diverts and changes slightly as it goes on. This is similarly present in the argument for

the first topic that I eventually did participate in. My written argument was also paired with poor

textual evidence from the book.

As far as strengths go, I believe improvisation was a rather excelled argumentative

device, as you cant prepare for everything that happens in an argument some improvisation is

necessary. No one thinks the same, however I believed I could keep up with these changes
while keeping my main point. Although this may have also been slightly impairing as in caused

me to rely less on my prepared evidence. I also pride myself on listening to others arguments

and building on them, its hard to say whether I did this or not during the socratic seminar, for

that you would have to ask the others I was debating with.

Lastly comes improvement's but I think I covered a few of those in both my strengths

and especially weaknesses. Providing better evidence from the book, and relying too much on

improvisation and not on my prepared material. Its hard to reflect on what I should improve on

alone, especially for one as narcissistic as I, unbiased. Of course it didnt go perfectly, and I did

find some areas from improvement, but for further discretion I would rely on my peers.