SOCRATIC METHOD / SOCRATIC THOUGHT Socrates, although little is remembered of him, has a majority in the significance of ideas. His admirer, Plato, virtually invented ideas. That suggests a potency that is super-ordinary, as his place in Plato's life was very singular on that subject. Socrates asked large questions, and made use of the strategy of deep implication. For example, metaphysics was an analysis. That is a Socratic statement. This could be developed (if one had the mind to do so) into a deep implication: metaphysics was an analysis ---> The question of the universal world ---> Maybe the world isn't universal. This is already the Copernican revolution. However, notice how this thought, easily managed by Socrates, suggests a total eclipse of prior beliefs. Analogize, and nature becomes naturalism (another Socratic thought), but this is merely supplementary, because the idea is had by Socrates. This would be considered fundamental for understanding. The universe or concept of a larger world would in the sense of these prior aspects be considered as a possible one-to-one analysis, which could in turn be considered as a metaphor, or again metaphysics, or some other new idea emerging from the old ---another Socratic idea similar to dialectical materialism and evolution. As Socrates is presumed to have jumped into each topic independently, as though he were a different person, he was in fact the same person, the best philosophical person. If there is something missing, it is the failure of other people to preserve his complete influence. An additional Socratic pursuit: Every assumption is wrong in some way. We act creatively to interpret any one thing --- then we are somewhere else! That location has NO location! That second location is the real location, the location called NO LOCATION. I can argue that when we understand everything, we understand NOTHING. Everything is nothing, in that second location. However, right HERE, where we ARE, there IS NO TRUTH. We cannot KNOW unless we GO THERE. THERE IS NOWHERE! [Divinatory note: but think of it as an acronym. Focus on the first part first, and the last part last----]. ADDITIONALLY, WHAT IS JUSTICE FOR SOCRATES? I don't know. But, I have written something fairly significant on Socrates (at least I think so). Based on my writing, I can attempt to surmise the following: 1.Socrates' first view might be the premise that Justice is from the gods. 2.Socrates would then argue that if the gods are just, so be it. 3.Socrates might then argue that only one of the gods is named Justice. 4.Socrates might then make an expostulation about how divine justice might be different from justice for mortals. 5.At this point it explodes into a lot of different questions, like 'is Justice absolute?' 'Does Justice rule over mortals?' and 'Does Justice rule justly?' The conclusion leads back to answering the question of whether divine justice is different than justice for mortals. 6.Socrates now raises the question of 'What is justice for mortals?' Since we cannot know divine justice, we must concern ourselves with justice of this kind. 7.Justice for mortals must be some relative kind of justice. It is not justice at all, but an appearance of justice. 8.If justice is the appearance of justice then we must concern ourselves with the good life, for the good life is all that has the appearance of justice. That's my sense of it. REFERENCES Coppedge, Nathan. “Assumptions of Coherentism / Categorical Deduction.” Academia. ----- . “The Equal Arguments”. Quora, Academia. -----. Systems Theory. Charleston: CIP, 2016. Coppedge, Nathan 2016/04/21, p.