The Socratic Method

is a form of cross-examination, a dialogue, a series of searching questions and answers, an intellectual process whose aim is to arrive at clear definitions. In this process, ideas must pass through various people's minds reflecting different perspectives before an idea becomes clear. ¹

It is my argument that the Socratic Method (otherwise known as the Dialectic) is suitable for use in the intermediate/secondary classroom as a unique teaching tool that can encourage critical thought. That is, it has the ability, when done right, to facilitate the growth of the critical spirit in students and nurtures the development of skills necessary for reason assessment. Some people may object to that last statement, indicating that a critical spirit cannot be grown - either one has it or one doesn't. Without going deep into this matter, it is safe to say that there has never been a person who was entirely with or without some degree of critical spirit; that is, everyone has at least a partial disposition to question the world around him - it is an essential part of what it means to be a human being. Take for example the three year old who constantly and forever asks "why," and no matter what the response, there still remains the inquisition. Of course a three year old is not skilled in reason assessment, but the spirit is there at least. The child is actively engaging the world, searching for answers, or more appropriately, for reasons and definitions. "Whereas for us, a definition is one kind of analytically or necessarily true proposition, for Socrates, it was a description of a mentally visible and eternally true object." ² He believed that it is vital to define things for the simple reason that to define is to distinguish and separate things from one another. Definition sets limits to substance, which is a pivotal notion when it comes to understanding (and therefore having a true knowledge) of anything. Without definition, says Socrates, we will always end up in a contradiction where no head-way can be made and where the dialectic itself becomes useless. Somewhere, in the years that follow, much of the purity of the child's critical spirit seems to fade - ironically, this happens in correlation with a person's entry into the school system. The traditional "transition model" of teaching facilitates a passivity that only serves to negate the critical spirit.

While the spirit fades, it doesn't disappear entirely but only seems to sleep, as it were, and awakens only at times when we are faced with serious moral dilemma - should I steal that chocolate bar?… try those drugs… lie to my parents… etc. In these cases, the spirit awakens but most often it does not have the powers of reason assessment behind it, and therefore, it is liable to falter. Siegel claims that critical spirit has to do with "dispositions, habits of mind and character traits." ³ Character was of extreme importance to Socrates and was indeed one of the reasons why he proceeded with his unique method. He held that the soul "was the structure of personality… the capacity for intelligence and character… it was one's capacity for knowing and for recognizing lurking contradictions ⁴ [and that its activity] was to know and influence or even direct and govern a person's daily conduct." ⁵ This is strikingly familiar to Siegel's discussion of what it means to be "appropriately moved" by the probative and normative forces behind reasons and argument - it seems that Socrates aimed toward both being a critical thinker himself and facilitating both the spirit and skills of reason assessment in others, for when he talks of the soul, he does not mean his soul or your soul, but the Form - the universal concept of soul that is within each of us as human beings. Siegel recognizes this; he writes:

Socrates is perhaps the clearest example of a philosopher who urged that education and society strive to imbue in all students and persons, to the greatest extent possible, the skills, dispositions, and character traits constitutive of critical thinking. ⁶

Was Socrates, then, a critical thinker? My answer is yes, however, I have yet to prove it sufficiently. We have merely shown that it was his aim to be one and to participate in the birth or creation of knowledge. Knowledge for Socrates was virtue and it was located within humans "The interior life, [he] said, is the seat of… the activity of knowing, which leads to the practical activity of doing." ⁷ Thus, the dialectic is a method of arriving at truth that links knowing to doing. Unlike the sophists, who we will discuss in a moment, his goal was not to impart knowledge, but to locate it.

But teaching, as we have noted, was not Socrates' purpose; he desired "only to talk with [people] and perhaps to help to birth any good notions that they might themselves bring forth." ⁸ Thus he refers to himself as an intellectual midwife and that "the most significant feature of this art… is its capacity to distinguish a worthy "offspring" - an idea that is genuine and true - from an unproductive "false phantom," an idea that ought to be abandoned." ⁹

What is important here is that Socrates himself does not make claim to the knowledge, but merely claims to have facilitated the person's endeavor to locate or remember it. He explains this process in a dialogue called the Theatetus:

Those who frequent my company at first appear, some of them, quite unintelligent, but, as we go further with our discussions, all who are favoured by heaven make progress at a rate that seems surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear that they never learned anything from me. The many admirable truths they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven's work and mine. ¹⁰

Socrates did not claim to teach, only to facilitate the birth of knowledge. While this is true, I hold that as an effect of participating in the Socratic Method, the interlocuters (as they are sometimes referred to) are introduced to critical thinking - they are guided through the process of critical thought, which is why Socrates seems to dominate many of the dialogues so fully. There are even points, like the Crito dialogue, where Socrates seems to be arguing from two perspectives, assessing the probative force behind each proposition himself and only referring to the interlocuter for verification of the truth of what is posited.

For this reason, and others, Socrates was not a sophist. Most people associate sophistry with a pejorative meaning but this is not entirely justified.

The word is connected with sophos, commonly translated "wise" but often better rendered as "clever." Sophos covers any kind of skill or dexterity, physical or intellectual, artistic or political, and is often a term of commendation. As the intellectual life of Greece blossomed there came into being a class of people who can be compared, at any rate in their effect on society, with the intellectual gurus of our own day. To these people the name "sophists" came to be especially applied; it means that they themselves were clever, and yet that they could impart this cleverness, especially rhetorical skill, to young men who were prepared to pay them handsomely enough. In the Protagoras 'sophist' is defined as a master of the art of making people into clever speakers. ¹¹

Socrates did not claim to teach rhetorical skills, and he never accepted money. However, he was himself educated by sophists and shared many of their attributes - indeed, many of the interlocuters that appear in the dialogues are sophists or one of their "students." It is important to note that "between the Sophists and Socrates there was a fundamental difference… Unlike the Sophists… Socrates engaged in [the] dialectic not for ends destructive of truth or to develop pragmatic skills among lawyers and politicians, but to achieve creative concepts of truth and goodness." ¹² My claim that the Socratic Method can be used to develop the skills of critical thinking is not in any way meant to classify Socrates (or the dialectic) as Sophistic. I do, however, claim that through learning the Socratic Method of inquiry, the dialectic, students will indeed grow as critical thinkers -as thinkers period.

That Socrates himself was a critical thinker ought to be at least somewhat clear at this point. Perhaps the most forceful evidence that can be offered to attest this claim is the fact that Socrates critically examined a situation which he could easily have escaped from but chose to stay in because of moral obligations - it was a decision that came from a disposition to use the skills of reason assessment in a non-self-interested way, the result of which was the end of his life. Can there be any more of a non-self-interested act? In the face of various arguments that he should escape (an act that would have been all too easy, for even though it was ruled by the court that he be put to death, the people of Athens did not want to kill him) Socrates held true in his disposition of critical thought and reasoned his way to the conclusion that to disobey the laws of Athens would be evil and, as his chief aim was to life "the good life," he chose to obey them and to drink hemlock (a poison) - to accept a sentence of death.

Socrates speaks for the laws in the Crito:

Listen, then, Socrates, to us who have brought you up. Think not of life and children first, and of justice afterwards, but of justice first, that you may be justified before the princes of the world below. For neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or juster in this life, or happier in another, if you [escape and run away] as Crito bids. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil; a victim, not of the laws but of men. But if you go forth, returning evil for evil, and injury for injury, breaking the covenants and agreements which you have made with us, and wronging those whom you ought least of all to wrong, that is to say, yourself, your friends, your country, and us, we shall be angry with you while you live, and our brethren, the laws in the world below, will receive you as an enemy; for they will know that you have done your best to destroy us. Listen, then, to us and not to Crito. ¹³

Socrates sees the defiance of the laws of Athens as an attack on the laws and the State that enforces them, therefore, as an attack on everyone and everything he holds dear. Living the good life cannot include disobeying the law, not even if it means ending the good life. This is the decision of one who has purity of critical spirit and skills of reason assessment that transcend the normal - even when faced with death, Socrates assesses the probative force of the reasons that Crito and others offer for his escape and he is appropriately not moved. He has examined all of the arguments, and understands that the only valid and justifiable one is to obey the Laws and the judgment of his peers and tells Crito that he "highly value[s his] attempts to persuade him [to run away], but [that he] may not be persuaded against his own better judgement."¹⁴ It is clear, then, that the Socratic Method involves the facilitation of critical thought, which makes it a very useful educational tool for any teacher who is interested in doing the same.