Socratic Method and Reasoning

Socrates and Plato 469-399 BCE 427-327 BCE

Socrates Bricklayer by trade, served in the army Labeled “the wisest man in Athens” by oracle at Delphi Set out to prove the oracle wrong Questioned the sophists who held that success was ability to gain hold of wealth, fame and power Socrates believed moral goodness to be paramount and in order to do this one had to re-evaluate his own moral values

Trial Charged with crimes of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens. Convicted and given the choice between exile and death. Chose death by hemlock

Socrates’ Approach to Philosophy Socrates did not write anything. He pursued values in conversation with others – Goodness, Justice, Truth, Self- Knowledge He criticized the self-satisfied Sophists because they claimed to possess the final answers to all questions – wealth, fame, power

Socrates - His Main Ideas I Our interior life – our “psyche” or “soul” – is the most important part of life Our psyche is “healthy” when it seeks goodness, truth, justice, and self-knowledge A soul in search of wealth, fame, and power becomes weak, sickly, ignorant

Socrates – His Main Ideas II Being ignorant is to mistake the appearance of good for the reality of it All evil is caused by ignorance People who cheat, lie, steal, harm others are always motivated to do so by their own ignorance concerning what is good They don’t know what is important in life, so they seek wealth, fame, power, and in doing so they find they must cheat, lie, steal, and harm others

Socrates – His Main Ideas III “THE UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING” If we spend our lives examining and criticizing ourselves, our psyches become strong In seeking goodness, justice, truth and self- knowledge, we will not become self-satisfied, bigoted, and ignorant We may not find what we seek, but the life we live will be one that strengthens our inner selves

The unexamined life is not worth living Socratic method: technique of probing questions developed fro the purposes of prodding, pushing and provoking unreflective persons into a realizing their own lack of understanding Socratic Irony: Socrates pretends to be ignorant of what the other person is saying. He asks more questions as if interested in learning more. The questions become more difficult exposing the weaknesses of the second person’s ideas. Irony: Literary device that assumes a double audience. First, there is a superficial audience who only understands the literal words and ideas and a second audience who understands both ideas and is in on the joke.

Apology apologia – justification or defense Written by Plato Details trial of Socrates in 399 B.C.E.

The method Ask a question that seems innocent and straightforward (i.e. What is love? What is courage?) The person offers a common sense definition Offer a counterexample that does not fit the definition to illustrate that the definition is incomplete, biased or uninformed. Continue the process until a suitable definition is constructed or the parties agree that the subject is more complex than originally thought. An effective way to respond to a person who claims to be right without being able to explain why. Even if the Socratic method fails to produce a suitable definition, knowing what something is not brings people to a deeper understanding and closer to knowing what something is.

Euthyphro (an excerpt) Socrates: I was not asking you to give me exmples of holiness, Euthyphro, but to identify the characteristic which makes all holy things holy. There must be some characteristic that all holy things have in common, and one which makes unholy things unholy. Tell me what this characteristic itself is, so that I can tell which actions are holy and which are unholy. Euthyphro: Well, then holiness is what is loved by the gods and what is not loved by them is unholy We come back to Euthyphro in Ethics.

Euthyphro: Well I suppose so. Socrates: Very good Euthyphro! Now you have given me the sort of answer I wanted. Let us examine it. A thing or a person that is loved by the gods is holy, and a thing or a person that the gods hate is unholy. And the holy is the opposite of the unholy. Does that summarize what you said? Euthyphro: It does. Socrates: But you admit, Euthyphro, that the gods have disagreements. So some things are hated by some gods and loved by other gods. Euthyphro: True. Socrates: Then upon your view the same things Euthyphro will be both unholy and holy Euthyphro: Well I suppose so. Socrates: Then, my friend, you have not really answered my question. I did not ask you to tell me which actions were both holy and unholy; yet this is the outcome of your view Another fun example of a Socratic dialogue can be found here: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/taylor-swift-a-socratic-dialogue

Characteristics of the Socratic method The method is skeptical It is conversational It is conceptual or definitional It is empirical or inductive The method is deductive The method which Socrates employed in his philosophical analyses has five readily distinguishable characteristics: The method is skeptical. It begins with Socrates' real or professed ignorance of the truth of the matter under discussion. This is the Socratic irony which seemed to some of his listeners an insincere pretense, but which was undoubtedly an expression of Socrates' genuine intellectual humility. This skepticism Socrates shared with the Sophists and, in his adoption of it, he may very well have been influenced by them. But whereas the Sophistic skepticism was definitive and final, the Socratic is tentative and provisional; Socrates' doubt and assumed ignorance is an indispensable first step in the pursuit of knowledge. It is conversational. It employs the dialogue not only as a didactic device, but as a technique for the actual discovery of opinions amongst men, there are truths upon which all men can agree, Socrates proceeds to unfold such truths by discussion or by question and answer. Beginning with a popular or hastily formed conception proposed by one of the members of the company or taken from the poets or some other traditional source, Socrates subjects this notion to severe criticism, as a result of which a more adequate conception emerges. His method, in this aspect, is often described as the maieutic method. It is the art of intellectual midwifery, which brings other men's ideas to birth. It is also known as the dialectical method or the method of elenchus. It is conceptual or definitional in that it sets as the goal of knowledge the acquisition of concepts, such as the ethical concepts of justice, piety, wisdom, courage and the like. Socrates tacitly assumes that truth is embodied in correct definition. Precise definition of terms is held to be the first step in the problem solving process. The Socratic method is empirical or inductive in that the proposed definitions are criticized by reference to particular instances. Socrates always tested definitions by recourse to common experience and to general usages. The method is deductive in that a given definition is tested by drawing out its implications, by deducing its consequences. The definitional method of Socrates is a real contribution to the logic of philosophical inquiry. It inspired the dialectical method of Plato and exerted a not inconsiderable influence on the logic Aristotle.[1]

Socratic circle in the classroom Ask questions! The dialogue opens with a question. Participants are encouraged interchange ideas and seek clarification sometimes using argument in order to reach an agreement Teacher plays role as facilitator to help clarify positions or questions Is not meant to be a debate. Should raise questions to reveal common assumptions and create collective thinking and inquiry. This is a collaborative exercise.

The Rules of a Socratic circle Listen carefully Speak clearly - one person at a time Participate openly Value others opinions, but refer to text when defending your position Avoid side conversations Give others your respect - accept answers without judgment Respond to the opening question Examine the text to support your answer “I agree with… but would like to add…” “I disagree with…because…” “I am confused by…”

Assignment Create a Socratic dialogue (min 2 pages) Due date Oct 16