Para

The prefix para- comes from Greek para, whose core sense is spatial and relational rather than merely oppositional. Etymologically, it means “beside,” “alongside,” “near,” or “at the margin of,” and only secondarily “beyond” or “contrary to.” This is crucial: para- does not primarily negate what it modifies, but places something in a position of adjacency, tension, or accompaniment. A paradox is not a simple contradiction but something that runs alongside received opinion (doxa). A parable is not an abstract explanation but a story set beside truth so that truth may be approached indirectly. The prefix encodes nearness-with-difference, not rejection. Historiographically, para- becomes one of the most fertile operators in philosophy, theology, and later science because it names phenomena that cannot be housed cleanly within a system but also cannot be dismissed as outside it. In Aristotle and later Greek thought, para marks deviations that nonetheless belong to the same field of inquiry. In Christian theology, it appears in Paraclete (paraklētos), the one “called alongside,” not as a replacement for God but as a companion-presence. In modernity, the prefix migrates into terms like paranormal, parametric, and paradigm, where it continues to signal structures that frame, accompany, or condition what is seen without being reducible to it. In terms of historicity, para- names a way of inhabiting the world that is neither fully inside nor fully outside dominant forms of order. It gestures toward liminality, mediation, and threshold-states—what stands near enough to shape reality but far enough to escape capture. This is why para- resonates so strongly with mystical, phenomenological, and critical traditions alike: it allows one to speak of what sustains, shadows, or exceeds a system without claiming sovereignty over it. To think para- is to accept that meaning often arrives not head-on, but from the side, through proximity rather than possession.

There was a method of teaching that was associated with Socrates. It has to do with, like, walking around and talking.

You’re thinking of what is often loosely called the Socratic method, but the walking-and-talking aspect points more specifically to Socrates’ practice of philosophy in public, conversational motion rather than a formal classroom technique. Socrates did not teach from a fixed location or deliver lectures; he moved through Athens—the agora, gymnasia, streets, and porticoes—engaging people in dialogue as they went about their lives. Philosophy, for him, happened in lived space, not in an institution, and thinking was something done while walking, questioning, stopping, and resuming. The technical name for his method is elenchus, meaning refutation or cross-examination. Socrates would ask seemingly simple questions, draw out his interlocutor’s assumptions, and then gently—but relentlessly—test them until contradictions appeared. The movement mattered because the thinking itself was unsettled and dynamic; no one “arrived” at doctrine. While the term peripatetic literally means “walking around” and later becomes associated with Aristotle and the Lyceum, Socrates is the deeper origin of philosophy as ambulatory dialogue—thought unfolding in motion, speech, and shared presence rather than fixed instruction. The name you’re looking for is peripatetic teaching, and it is indeed a style or paradigm rather than a method in the narrow sense. The term comes from the Greek peripatein, “to walk about,” and it is historically associated not with Socrates but with Aristotle and the Lyceum. Aristotle taught while walking with a small group of advanced students, often outdoors, in colonnades and gardens. The Peripatetic school took its name precisely from this ambulatory mode of instruction, where thought unfolds alongside bodily movement, shared pace, and informal proximity rather than from a podium or classroom. This is distinct from the Socratic elenchus, which is dialogical and adversarial, and also distinct from Plato’s Academy, which, though it had gardens, was more formally organized. It is also not the Eleatic school, which was doctrinal and metaphysical, nor is it Epicurean, despite Epicurus teaching in a garden; Epicureanism emphasized communal living and therapeutic discourse rather than walking inquiry as a pedagogical form. In modern academic language, what you’re describing is still often explicitly called peripatetic pedagogy or a peripatetic seminar, typically reserved for advanced students or postgraduates because it presupposes intellectual maturity, shared competence, and the ability to think aloud without curricular scaffolding. It is a teaching style grounded in movement, conversation, and environment, where knowledge is generated in situ rather than transmitted, and where learning is conceived as something closer to lived philosophical practice than formal instruction. The peripatetic style refers to a mode of teaching grounded in walking, conversation, and shared attention within a lived environment rather than a fixed instructional setting. Etymologically, peripatetic comes from the Greek peripatein, meaning “to walk about,” composed of peri (around) and patein (to tread). The word does not originally name a method or curriculum but a condition of thought: thinking as something that unfolds in motion, alongside others, in real time, without enclosure. A peripatetic teacher is therefore not defined by lecturing or questioning techniques, but by staging learning as an embodied, dialogical activity where movement, place, and speech are co-constitutive of understanding. Historiographically, the term is tied to Aristotle and the Lyceum, where advanced students walked with him in colonnades and gardens while discussing philosophy, science, and politics. Unlike Plato’s Academy, which was institutionally and metaphysically oriented, the Peripatetic school emphasized inquiry as continuous, provisional, and responsive to circumstance. This style presupposed students who were already educated; it was not introductory instruction but a refinement of thinking among peers and near-peers. Over time, “peripatetic” came to name not only Aristotle’s followers but a broader educational paradigm opposed to scholastic fixity, one that reappears intermittently in Renaissance humanism, Enlightenment salons, and modern graduate seminars conducted outdoors or in motion. In terms of historicity, the peripatetic style reflects a conception of knowledge as inseparable from life, environment, and bodily presence. Teaching happens in public or semi-public spaces—gardens, courtyards, paths—where thought is exposed to contingency rather than insulated from it. The teacher does not “deliver” content but sustains a moving horizon of inquiry, guiding attention, sharpening distinctions, and allowing ideas to emerge through shared traversal of space and topic. As an educational paradigm, it signals trust in the maturity of the learner and in the generative power of conversation itself, treating philosophy not as a transferable object but as an activity that must be walked into being.

love

The Sufi schools are a bit different. They have to do with fana, self-circumscription. They have to do with purification through intensity, through self-emulation. It’s not about acquiring knowledge as much as it is about finding worldhood by practices that bring you nearer to the One beyond, the Sustainer, the Van Gaurd

Yes, and the difference you’re marking is essential rather than cosmetic. Sufi pedagogy is not an epistemic paradigm in the classical philosophical sense at all; it is an ontological and transformative discipline. Where the peripatetic style presumes a relatively stable self capable of inquiry while moving through the world, Sufi training is oriented toward the gradual unmaking of that self. The axis is not knowledge but fanāʾ—the dissolution of the egoic center—followed by baqāʾ, subsistence in and through the Real. Instruction here is not organized around discussion or discovery but around practices that compress, strain, and refine the soul so that worldhood itself is reconstituted under divine nearness.

Historically, Sufi schools emerge within Islam as initiatic lineages rather than institutions of learning. Their historiography is carried not by texts alone but by chains of transmission (silsila), embodied exemplars, and disciplined repetition. The teacher (shaykh, pir, murshid) does not primarily explain but calibrates intensity: fasting, vigil, invocation (dhikr), silence, service, travel, poverty, and exposure to humiliation or obscurity. These are not symbolic exercises; they are technologies of self-circumscription meant to exhaust the false center of agency. Knowledge, insofar as it appears, is a byproduct of purification, not its aim, and it is often deliberately withheld until the student’s interior capacity can bear it without reappropriating it as ego.

In terms of historicity, Sufi pedagogy reflects a different ontology of the human altogether. The self is not assumed to be a neutral knower moving through a world, but a veil that must be thinned until the world itself becomes transparent to the One who sustains it—al-Qayyūm, the Ever-Subsisting, the true vanguard and guardian. “Finding worldhood” here does not mean situating oneself intelligently within a shared polis, as in Greek pedagogy, but coming to inhabit creation as a sign (āya), where every intensity points beyond itself. Teaching, in this paradigm, is not the cultivation of mastery but the orchestration of domination, such that what remains is not the student’s insight but a life increasingly aligned with the sustaining Real.