Why is Socratic Method so Effective?
Most dabblers in philosophy, myself included, are the contentious sort. We assert our opinion and reject others’ offhand, without giving any reason as to why our opinion is better. Consequently, discussions tend to end in futility, with both sides going away unaffected and unimpressed. By contrast, the Socratic Method often ends in unanimous consensus among the interlocutors, with others agreeing with Socrates and seemingly unable to muster any intellectual resistance, as if they are stunned by a torpedo fish.
How does Socrates conquer his opponents time and time again? The short answer is that he turns his opponents against themselves. If anyone can do that, he’ll never suffer defeat. Socrates is able to show that his opponents opinions are self-contradictory. The long answer is that the Socratic Method has three outstanding characteristics that distinguish it from all other methods of argument.
Establishing Consensus
If my questioner were a professor of the eristic and contentious sort, I should say to him: I have made my statement; if it is wrong, your business is to examine and refute it. … The more dialectical way, I suppose, is not merely to answer what is true, but also to make use of those points which the questioned person acknowledges he knows. And this is the way in which I shall now try to argue with you.
–Meno 75d
First. A dialectician must know and make use of those things which his opponent acknowledges to be true. The Socratic Method must start with a consensus, in order to reach a consensus by causal reasoning. In battles, two parties take up their positions opposite each other and struggles to conquer the other side by force. By contrast, in dialectics, Socrates always establishes a common ground with his interlocutors first, as a starting point of a joint journey and inquiry, and gradually leads them to a higher ground. This requires a tremendous amount of patience and genuine goodwill, which most debaters lack, who are only intent on winning arguments.
Intellectual Honesty and Humility
Any one who has an intellectual affinity to Socrates and enters into conversation with him is liable to be drawn into an argument; and whatever subject he may start, he will be continually carried round and round by him, until at last he finds that he has to give an account both of his present and past life ; and when he is once entangled, Socrates will not let him go until he has completely and thoroughly sifted him.
–Laches 187e,188a
Second. Absolute intellectual honesty is necessary in order for the Socratic Method to be effective. Socrates likens this to a physical examination by a doctor. The patient must answer honestly the doctor’s probing questions about his body, so that any illness can be properly diagnosed. The interlocutor must be willing to bare his mind and soul, undergo cross-examination by others and answer questions with an unequivocal Yes or No. This precludes any evasion or indecision. The interlocutor must make a plain admission of what he knows and doesn’t know, what he believes and doesn’t believe.
Learning as a Journey
Third. Socrates likens teaching to leading a person on a path from one position to another. In order to lead others, the teacher must have walked the path himself and can retrace his steps. This is analogous to making a chain of logical inference from one point to another. The admission of Yes and No is analogous to making a choice at a crossroad. The Socratic Method thus enables the interlocutor to construct for himself and follow a chain of causal reasoning. He’ll ultimately and certainly discover whether or not the logical consequences of his opinions are self-contradictory.
The Socratic Method is both negative and positive. Negative in the sense that it exposes the ignorance of some of the interlocutors; Positive, because it cannot expose ignorance unless it can prove that the ignorant opinion contradicts true knowledge, which one must possess in the beginning and arrive at in the end. The method won’t be effective, if none of the interlocutors have knowledge, or if they have exactly the same opinion.
Related Posts:
Related External Articles