☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Hard Talk
What Is The Socratic Method?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Scarlet Pimpernel" data-source="post: 153387" data-attributes="member: 15651"><p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-size: 12px">WHAT IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD?</span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">excerpted from </span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">Socrates Café </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">by </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="color: #00009a"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="color: #00009a">Christopher Phillips</span></span></span></span></p><p></p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">The Socratic method is a way to seek truths by your own lights.</span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">It is a system, a spirit, a method, a type of philosophical inquiry an intellectual technique,</span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">all rolled into one.</span> </p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Socrates himself never spelled out a "method." However, the Socratic method is named </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">after him because Socrates, more than any other before or since, models for us </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">philosophy </span></em><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">practiced </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">- philosophy as deed, as way of living, as something that any of us can do. It is an </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">open </span></em><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">system </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">of philosophical inquiry that allows one to interrogate from many vantage points.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and professor of philosophy at Princeton described</span> <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Socrates’ method of inquiry as "among the greatest achievements of humanity." Why? Because,</span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">he says, it makes philosophical inquiry "a common human enterprise, open to every man."</span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Instead of requiring allegiance to a specific philosophical viewpoint or analytic technique or </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">specialized vocabulary, the Socratic method "calls for common sense and common speech." And </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">this, he says, "is as it should be, for how man should live is every man’s business."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">I think, however, that the Socratic method goes beyond Vlastos’ description. It does not </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">merely call for common sense but examines what common sense </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">is</span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">. The Socratic method asks:</span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">potential?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Vlastos goes on to say that Socratic inquiry is by no means simple, and "calls not only for </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is capable" but also for "moral qualities </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage." Such qualities "protect against the possibility" that </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Socratic dialogue, no matter how rigorous, "would merely grind out . . . wild conclusions with </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">irresponsible premises." I agree, though I would replace the quality of sincerity with honesty, </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">since one can hold a conviction sincerely without examining it, while honesty would require that </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">one subject one’s convictions to frequent scrutiny.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">A Socratic dialogue reveals how different our outlooks can be on concepts we use every </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">day. It reveals how different our philosophies are, and often how tenable - or untenable, as the </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">case may be - a range of philosophies can be. Moreover, even the most universally recognized </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">and used concept, when subjected to Socratic scrutiny, might reveal not only that there is </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">not </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">universal agreement, after all, on the meaning of any given concept, but that every single person </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">has a somewhat different take on each and every concept under the sun.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">What’s more, there seems to be no such thing as a concept so abstract, or a question so </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">off base, that it cant be fruitfully explored at Socrates Café. In the course of Socratizing, it often </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">turns out to be the case that some of the most so-called abstract concepts are intimately related to </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">the most profoundly relevant human experiences. In fact, it’s been my experience that virtually </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">any question can be plumbed Socratically. Sometimes you don’t know what question will have </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">the most lasting and significant impact until you take a risk and delve into it for a while.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">What distinguishes the Socratic method from mere nonsystematic inquiry is the sustained </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">attempt to explore the ramifications of certain opinions and then offer compelling objections and </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">alternatives. This scrupulous and exhaustive form of inquiry in many ways resembles the </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">scientific method. But unlike Socratic inquiry, scientific inquiry would often lead us to believe </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">that whatever is not measurable cannot be investigated. This "belief" fails to address such </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">paramount human concerns as sorrow and joy and suffering and love.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Instead of focusing on the outer cosmos, Socrates focused primarily on human beings and </span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">their cosmos within, utilizing his method to open up new realms of self-knowledge while at the </span>same time exposing a great deal of error, superstition, and dogmatic nonsense. The Spanish-born <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">American philosopher and poet George Santayana said that Socrates knew that "the foregroundof human life is necessarily moral and practical" and that "it is so even so for artists" - and even for scientists, try as some might to divorce their work from these dimensions of human existence.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Scholars call Socrates’ method the </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">elenchus</span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">, which is Hellenistic Greek for </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">inquiry </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">or </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">cross-examination</span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">. But it is not just any type of inquiry or examination. It is a type that revealspeople to themselves, that makes them see what their opinions really amount to. C. D. C. Reeve,professor of philosophy at Reed College, gives the standard explanation of an elenchus in sayingthat its aim “is not simply to reach adequate definitions" of such things as virtues; rather, it also has a "moral reformatory purpose, for Socrates believes that regular elenctic philosophizing makes people happier and more virtuous than anything else. . . . Indeed philosophizing is so important for human welfare, on his view, that he is willing to accept execution rather than giveit up.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">"Socrates’ method of examination can indeed be a vital part of existence, but I would not go so far as to say that it </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">should </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">be. And I do not think that Socrates felt that habitual use of this method "makes people happier." The fulfillment that comes from Socratizing comes only at a price - it could well make us </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">unhappier</span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">, more uncertain, more troubled, as well as more fulfilled.It can leave us with a sense that we </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">don’t </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">know the answers after all, that we are much further from knowing the answers than we’d ever realized before engaging in Socratic discourse. And this is fulfilling - and exhilarating and humbling and perplexing. We may leave a Socrates Café -in all likelihood we </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">will </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">leave a Socrates Café - with a heady sense that there are many more ways and truths and lights by which to examine any given concept than we had ever before imagined.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">In </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">The Gay Science</span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">, Friedrich Nietzsche said, "I admire the courage and wisdom of Socrates in all he did, said and did not say.</span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Nietzsche was a distinguished nineteenth-century classical philosophist before he abandoned the academic fold and became known for championing <span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">a type of heroic individual who would create a life - affirming "will to power" ethic. In the spirit of his writings on such individuals, whom he described as "supermen,’, Nietzsche lauded Socrates as a "genius of the heart. . . whose voice knows how to descend into the depths of every soul . . . who teaches one to listen, who smoothes rough souls and lets them taste a new yearning . . . who divines the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness . . . from whose touch everyone goes away richer, not having found grace nor amazed, not as blessed and oppressed by the good of another, but richer in himself, opened . . . less sure perhaps... but full of hopes that as yet have no name." I only differ with Nietzsche when he characterizes Socrates as someone who descended into the depths of others’ souls. To the contrary Socrates enabled those with whom he engaged in dialogues to descend into the depths of their own souls and create </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">their </span></em></span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">own </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">life - affirming ethic.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Santayana said that he would never hold views in philosophy which he did not believe in daily life, and that he would deem it dishonest and even spineless to advance or entertain views in discourse which were not those under which he habitually lived. But there is no neat divide between one’s views of philosophy and of life. They are overlapping and kindred views. It is virtually impossible in many instances to </span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">know </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">what we believe in daily life until we engage others in dialogue. Likewise, to discover our philosophical views, we must engage with ourselves, with the lives we already lead. Our views form, change, evolve, as we participate in this dialogue. It is the only way truly to discover what philosophical colors we sail under. Everyone at some point preaches to himself and others what he does not yet practice; everyone acts in or on the world in ways that are in some way contradictory or inconsistent with the views </span></span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">he or she confesses or professes to hold. For instance, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, the influential founder of existentialism, put Socratic principles to use in writing his dissertation on the concept of irony in Socrates, often using pseudonyms so he could argue his </span></span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">own positions with himself. In addition, the sixteenth-century essayist Michel de Montaigne, who was called "the French Socrates" and was known as the father of skepticism in modern Europe, would write and add conflicting and even contradictory passages in the same work. And like Socrates, he believed the search for truth was worth dying for.</span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">The Socratic method forces people "to confront their own ogmatism," according to Leonard Nelson, a German philosopher who wrote on such subjects as ethics and theory of knowledge until he was forced by the rise of Nazism to quit. By doing so, participants in Socratic dialogue are, in effect,"</span><em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT'">forcing </span></em><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">themselves to be free," Nelson maintains. But they’re not just confronted with their own dogmatism. In the course of a Socrates Café, they may be confronted </span></span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">with an array of hypotheses, convictions, conjectures and theories offered by the other participants, and themselves - all of which subscribe to some sort of dogma. The Socratic method requires that - honestly and openly, rationally and imaginatively - they confront the dogma by asking such questions as: What does this mean? What speaks for and against it? Are there </span></span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">alternative ways of considering it that are even more plausible and tenable? </span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">At certain junctures of a Socratic dialogue, the "forcing" that this confrontation entails -the insistence that each participant carefully articulate her singular philosophical perspective -can be upsetting. But that is all to the good. If it never touches any nerves, if it doesn't upset, if it<span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">doesn't mentally and spiritually challenge and perplex, in a wonderful and exhilarating way, it is not Socratic dialogue. This "forcing" opens us up to the varieties of experiences of others whether through direct dialogue, or through other means, like drama or books, or through a work of art or a dance. It compels us to explore alternative perspectives, asking what might be said against each.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Keep this ethos in mind if you ever, for instance, feel tempted to ask a question like this one once posed at a Socrates Café: How can we overcome alienation? Challenge the premise of the question at the outset. You may need to ask: Is alienation something we always want to overcome? For instance, Shakespeare and Goethe may have written their timeless works becausethey embraced their sense of alienation rather than attempting to escape it. If this was so, then </span></span></span><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">you might want to ask: Are there many different types, and degrees, of alienation? Depending on the context, are there some types that you want to overcome and other types that you do not at all want to overcome but rather want to incorporate into yourself? And to answer effectively such questions, you first need to ask and answer such questions as: What is alienation? What does it mean to overcome alienation? Why would we ever want to overcome alienation? What are some of the many different types of alienation? What are the criteria or traits that link each of these types? Is it possible to be completely alienated? And many more questions besides.</span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'"><span style="font-family: 'TimesNewRomanPSMT'">Those who become smitten with the Socratic method of philosophical inquiry thrive on the question. They never run out of questions, or out of new ways to question. Some of Socrates Café’s most avid philosophizers are, for me, the question personified.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scarlet Pimpernel, post: 153387, member: 15651"] [LEFT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][SIZE=3]WHAT IS THE SOCRATIC METHOD?[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]excerpted from [/FONT] [I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]Socrates Café [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]by [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][COLOR=#00009a][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][COLOR=#00009a]Christopher Phillips[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/LEFT] [LEFT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]The Socratic method is a way to seek truths by your own lights.[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]It is a system, a spirit, a method, a type of philosophical inquiry an intellectual technique,[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]all rolled into one.[/FONT] [/LEFT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Socrates himself never spelled out a "method." However, the Socratic method is named [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]after him because Socrates, more than any other before or since, models for us [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]philosophy [/FONT][/I][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]practiced [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]- philosophy as deed, as way of living, as something that any of us can do. It is an [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]open [/FONT][/I][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]system [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]of philosophical inquiry that allows one to interrogate from many vantage points.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Gregory Vlastos, a Socrates scholar and professor of philosophy at Princeton described[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Socrates’ method of inquiry as "among the greatest achievements of humanity." Why? Because,[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]he says, it makes philosophical inquiry "a common human enterprise, open to every man."[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Instead of requiring allegiance to a specific philosophical viewpoint or analytic technique or [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]specialized vocabulary, the Socratic method "calls for common sense and common speech." And [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]this, he says, "is as it should be, for how man should live is every man’s business."[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]I think, however, that the Socratic method goes beyond Vlastos’ description. It does not [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]merely call for common sense but examines what common sense [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]is[/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]. The Socratic method asks:[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Does the common sense of our day offer us the greatest potential for self-understanding and [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]human excellence? Or is the prevailing common sense in fact a roadblock to realizing this [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]potential?[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Vlastos goes on to say that Socratic inquiry is by no means simple, and "calls not only for [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]the highest degree of mental alertness of which anyone is capable" but also for "moral qualities [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage." Such qualities "protect against the possibility" that [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Socratic dialogue, no matter how rigorous, "would merely grind out . . . wild conclusions with [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]irresponsible premises." I agree, though I would replace the quality of sincerity with honesty, [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]since one can hold a conviction sincerely without examining it, while honesty would require that [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]one subject one’s convictions to frequent scrutiny.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]A Socratic dialogue reveals how different our outlooks can be on concepts we use every [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]day. It reveals how different our philosophies are, and often how tenable - or untenable, as the [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]case may be - a range of philosophies can be. Moreover, even the most universally recognized [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]and used concept, when subjected to Socratic scrutiny, might reveal not only that there is [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]not [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]universal agreement, after all, on the meaning of any given concept, but that every single person [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]has a somewhat different take on each and every concept under the sun.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]What’s more, there seems to be no such thing as a concept so abstract, or a question so [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]off base, that it cant be fruitfully explored at Socrates Café. In the course of Socratizing, it often [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]turns out to be the case that some of the most so-called abstract concepts are intimately related to [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]the most profoundly relevant human experiences. In fact, it’s been my experience that virtually [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]any question can be plumbed Socratically. Sometimes you don’t know what question will have [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]the most lasting and significant impact until you take a risk and delve into it for a while.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]What distinguishes the Socratic method from mere nonsystematic inquiry is the sustained [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]attempt to explore the ramifications of certain opinions and then offer compelling objections and [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]alternatives. This scrupulous and exhaustive form of inquiry in many ways resembles the [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]scientific method. But unlike Socratic inquiry, scientific inquiry would often lead us to believe [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]that whatever is not measurable cannot be investigated. This "belief" fails to address such [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]paramount human concerns as sorrow and joy and suffering and love.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Instead of focusing on the outer cosmos, Socrates focused primarily on human beings and [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]their cosmos within, utilizing his method to open up new realms of self-knowledge while at the [/FONT]same time exposing a great deal of error, superstition, and dogmatic nonsense. The Spanish-born [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]American philosopher and poet George Santayana said that Socrates knew that "the foregroundof human life is necessarily moral and practical" and that "it is so even so for artists" - and even for scientists, try as some might to divorce their work from these dimensions of human existence.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Scholars call Socrates’ method the [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]elenchus[/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT], which is Hellenistic Greek for [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]inquiry [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]or [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]cross-examination[/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]. But it is not just any type of inquiry or examination. It is a type that revealspeople to themselves, that makes them see what their opinions really amount to. C. D. C. Reeve,professor of philosophy at Reed College, gives the standard explanation of an elenchus in sayingthat its aim “is not simply to reach adequate definitions" of such things as virtues; rather, it also has a "moral reformatory purpose, for Socrates believes that regular elenctic philosophizing makes people happier and more virtuous than anything else. . . . Indeed philosophizing is so important for human welfare, on his view, that he is willing to accept execution rather than giveit up.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]"Socrates’ method of examination can indeed be a vital part of existence, but I would not go so far as to say that it [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]should [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]be. And I do not think that Socrates felt that habitual use of this method "makes people happier." The fulfillment that comes from Socratizing comes only at a price - it could well make us [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]unhappier[/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT], more uncertain, more troubled, as well as more fulfilled.It can leave us with a sense that we [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]don’t [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]know the answers after all, that we are much further from knowing the answers than we’d ever realized before engaging in Socratic discourse. And this is fulfilling - and exhilarating and humbling and perplexing. We may leave a Socrates Café -in all likelihood we [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]will [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]leave a Socrates Café - with a heady sense that there are many more ways and truths and lights by which to examine any given concept than we had ever before imagined.[/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]In [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]The Gay Science[/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT], Friedrich Nietzsche said, "I admire the courage and wisdom of Socrates in all he did, said and did not say.[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Nietzsche was a distinguished nineteenth-century classical philosophist before he abandoned the academic fold and became known for championing [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]a type of heroic individual who would create a life - affirming "will to power" ethic. In the spirit of his writings on such individuals, whom he described as "supermen,’, Nietzsche lauded Socrates as a "genius of the heart. . . whose voice knows how to descend into the depths of every soul . . . who teaches one to listen, who smoothes rough souls and lets them taste a new yearning . . . who divines the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness . . . from whose touch everyone goes away richer, not having found grace nor amazed, not as blessed and oppressed by the good of another, but richer in himself, opened . . . less sure perhaps... but full of hopes that as yet have no name." I only differ with Nietzsche when he characterizes Socrates as someone who descended into the depths of others’ souls. To the contrary Socrates enabled those with whom he engaged in dialogues to descend into the depths of their own souls and create [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]their [/FONT][/I][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]own [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]life - affirming ethic.[/FONT][/FONT] [LEFT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Santayana said that he would never hold views in philosophy which he did not believe in daily life, and that he would deem it dishonest and even spineless to advance or entertain views in discourse which were not those under which he habitually lived. But there is no neat divide between one’s views of philosophy and of life. They are overlapping and kindred views. It is virtually impossible in many instances to [/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]know [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]what we believe in daily life until we engage others in dialogue. Likewise, to discover our philosophical views, we must engage with ourselves, with the lives we already lead. Our views form, change, evolve, as we participate in this dialogue. It is the only way truly to discover what philosophical colors we sail under. Everyone at some point preaches to himself and others what he does not yet practice; everyone acts in or on the world in ways that are in some way contradictory or inconsistent with the views [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]he or she confesses or professes to hold. For instance, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, the influential founder of existentialism, put Socratic principles to use in writing his dissertation on the concept of irony in Socrates, often using pseudonyms so he could argue his [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]own positions with himself. In addition, the sixteenth-century essayist Michel de Montaigne, who was called "the French Socrates" and was known as the father of skepticism in modern Europe, would write and add conflicting and even contradictory passages in the same work. And like Socrates, he believed the search for truth was worth dying for.[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]The Socratic method forces people "to confront their own ogmatism," according to Leonard Nelson, a German philosopher who wrote on such subjects as ethics and theory of knowledge until he was forced by the rise of Nazism to quit. By doing so, participants in Socratic dialogue are, in effect,"[/FONT][I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT]forcing [/FONT][/I][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]themselves to be free," Nelson maintains. But they’re not just confronted with their own dogmatism. In the course of a Socrates Café, they may be confronted [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]with an array of hypotheses, convictions, conjectures and theories offered by the other participants, and themselves - all of which subscribe to some sort of dogma. The Socratic method requires that - honestly and openly, rationally and imaginatively - they confront the dogma by asking such questions as: What does this mean? What speaks for and against it? Are there [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]alternative ways of considering it that are even more plausible and tenable? [/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]At certain junctures of a Socratic dialogue, the "forcing" that this confrontation entails -the insistence that each participant carefully articulate her singular philosophical perspective -can be upsetting. But that is all to the good. If it never touches any nerves, if it doesn't upset, if it[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]doesn't mentally and spiritually challenge and perplex, in a wonderful and exhilarating way, it is not Socratic dialogue. This "forcing" opens us up to the varieties of experiences of others whether through direct dialogue, or through other means, like drama or books, or through a work of art or a dance. It compels us to explore alternative perspectives, asking what might be said against each.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Keep this ethos in mind if you ever, for instance, feel tempted to ask a question like this one once posed at a Socrates Café: How can we overcome alienation? Challenge the premise of the question at the outset. You may need to ask: Is alienation something we always want to overcome? For instance, Shakespeare and Goethe may have written their timeless works becausethey embraced their sense of alienation rather than attempting to escape it. If this was so, then [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]you might want to ask: Are there many different types, and degrees, of alienation? Depending on the context, are there some types that you want to overcome and other types that you do not at all want to overcome but rather want to incorporate into yourself? And to answer effectively such questions, you first need to ask and answer such questions as: What is alienation? What does it mean to overcome alienation? Why would we ever want to overcome alienation? What are some of the many different types of alienation? What are the criteria or traits that link each of these types? Is it possible to be completely alienated? And many more questions besides.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]Those who become smitten with the Socratic method of philosophical inquiry thrive on the question. They never run out of questions, or out of new ways to question. Some of Socrates Café’s most avid philosophizers are, for me, the question personified.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/LEFT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
What Is The Socratic Method?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top