It is extraordinarily naive to hope to find the truth by asking random questions. Even if we ask lots of questions, there is no the slightest guarantee that we will get closer to the truth. Even Socrates himself never claimed that “the Socratic method” was infallible or foolproof.

What is the proof that I am not exaggerating? Plato’s works themselves provide solid evidence of the weakness of Socrates’ method of inquiry. If we trust Plato, Socrates spent most of his time asking questions right and left, trying to find the truth, but he never was able to build a consistent philosophical system.

Plato’s work “Meno” consists of a conversation between the aristocrat Meno and Socrates about the nature of knowledge. It also revolves, secondarily, around the nature of virtue.

After having to answer a torrent of questions from Socrates, Meno complains that, due to the questions, his ability to think is getting paralysed. He then compares Socrates to an electric ray and accuses him of throwing questions at people, so that they become unable to think clearly.

The metaphor of the electric ray

Meno was correct in accusing Socrates of using a barrage of questions to paralyse people emotionally and intellectually; the conversation and the Socratic method will stop working at that moment, eliminating all possibilities of discovering the truth.

Plato’s works convey an aggressive image of Socrates. I am referring to verbal, not physical aggressiveness, but in real life, the results of both can look similar.

Some victims of verbal aggression become insecure, fearful, and passive. Those symptoms resemble the consequences of physical violence. One type of aggression can prove as hurtful as the other.

For this reason, I am not surprised that Meno would accuse Socrates of behaving like an electric ray. We should not ignore the evidence that supports Meno’s accusation. Plato’s rendering of the conversation between Meno and Socrates provides clear evidence.

At the beginning of the conversation, Meno solidly counters every question from Socrates, but after a while, Meno’s replies become shorter, less elaborate, less vigorous and less effective.

Indifferent to Meno’s reproaches, Socrates continues to ask questions and making increasingly longer remarks; towards the end of the conversation, we see Meno lose interest in debating, and at the very end, he answers by using monosyllables.

A disappointing outcome

I would not excuse Socrates’ verbal aggressiveness if he had arrived at a profound truth at the end of the conversation, but at least, if he had arrived at some profound truth, he could have a semblance of justification for his behaviour.

The problem is that, after bombarding Meno with questions, Socrates puts forward completely bogus arguments. He claims that people learn primarily by remembering, not by studying or observation, and then he goes into a long mathematical diatribe that does not prove anything.

Socrates’ claim that we learn by remembering sounds rather absurd today, but it must also have sounded absurd in Ancient Greece. It didn’t take Aristotle (384-322 BC) long to tear down Socrates’ argument to pieces, and prove that we primarily learn through reason and observation.

Plato’s works, and in particular “Meno,” illustrate a repeated error in the Socratic method, namely, the idea that truth is the outcome of pushing hard, asking many questions, and driving our opponents into exhaustion.

Did Plato actually believe that, the more questions we ask, the closer we get to the truth? And when he recorded Socrates’ conversations in his works, did he not realize that nobody likes to be confronted with a barrage of questions?

Despite my admiration for Socrates and Plato, I must state that the search for philosophical truth demands non-aggressive behaviour. Neither physical nor verbal violence are acceptable.

I am sure that the peacefulness principle must have crossed Plato’s mind, but unfortunately, it failed to stick. Instead of asking dozens of questions, Socrates should have listened more carefully to his opponent, and softly driven the conversation to a logical conclusion.

The correct path to follow

Asking questions is great, but only if they are logical and pertinent. Otherwise, a barrage of questions will only generate irritation and enmity; and will insert noise in the conversation instead of bringing us closer to the truth.

Aggressiveness never delivers beneficial results. As Meno said, it has a paralysing effect, as though the victim had been attacked by an electric ray. Under those conditions, it becomes impossible to conduct a valid philosophical inquiry.

When Socrates heard Meno’s complaint, he failed to supply a solid answer. If he had truly listened to Meno, he should have apologized and turned to a less aggressive debating style.

I find it sad that Socrates, instead of acknowledging that he had made a mistake, argued that he was indeed behaving like an electric ray because he was perplexed by the difficulty of the questions at hand.

That’s obviously not the path to philosophical truth. I wish that Socrates would have known better than behaving like an electric ray, and that Plato would have warned his readers in this respect.

Since they failed to renounce verbal aggressiveness, here is my warning: let’s stay away from aggressiveness in all its ways because, given enough time, it may turn against the aggressor and inflict substantial harm. When it comes to seeking the truth and happiness, let us embrace a peaceful, soft, gentle approach.

If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief.”