I wish that Plato (427-347 BC) had taken the trouble to state the drawbacks of the Socratic method, or at least, to accept that there are few true philosophical victories in Socrates’ debates. Indeed, he had a brilliant mind and a passion for refuting weak arguments, but did he actually reveal the path to follow?
In his work “Apology,” Plato portrays Socrates as a humble man who had built his wisdom on his willingness to accept that he did not know all the answers. In contrast to arrogant or self-serving sophists, Socrates had no problem acknowledging his ignorance.
Socrates (469-399 BC) had realised that, when it comes to solving problems, there are large advantages in having an open mind. If we want to get out of a hole, metaphorically, we need to stop digging and devote our attention to the real issues.
Twenty-six centuries after Socrates’ death, few people want to practise his method because, on many occasions, it can have a lethal effect on one’s career prospects.
If you do not believe me, watch the news on TV and tell me how many people in high office are willing to say “I do not know the answer” or “I do not have enough knowledge in this area.” The examples, if any, are few and far between.
Nevertheless, there are other areas in life where it pays off handsomely to tell the truth. I am referring to creative work and personal relationships, for example. Success in those areas relies on truthfulness. If we do not reveal our vulnerabilities, it’s hard to produce engaging artworks, or to develop close friendships, let alone love.
A double-edged sword
The Socratic method, the willingness to call a spade a spade when it is severely inconvenient, is a double-edged sword. I do not share Plato’s opinion that Socrates was right on everything, an opinion that can be inferred from the fact that Plato failed to criticise even the most egregious mistakes made by Socrates.
I am not exaggerating when I compare the Socratic method to a double-edged-sword. Its strongest advantages, truthfulness and close human connection, can easily become its most lethal disadvantages, and generate endless hostility.
Plato’s work “Apology” contains the famous Socrates’ quote that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” We must bear in mind that Socrates uttered those words during his defence in a criminal trial.
In his defence speech, Socrates was making the point that he was a brilliant philosopher and that, irrespective of the price or the consequences, he had to practise philosophy every day.
I can only assume that Socrates actually said those words since the other chronicle of his trial in Athens, the one written by Thucydides (460-400 BC) does not give a different version of the facts. His refusal to lead “an unexamined life” became, during the trial, a matter of life or death.
Thus, one can only conclude that Plato and Socrates clearly saw the advantages of the Socratic method, but were painfully blind to the disadvantages. The criminal trial against Socrates ended very badly. He was sentenced to death.
A martyr for truth
I wonder if Socrates’ statement about “the unexamined life” had contributed to the final verdict. Plato’s “Apology” turned Socrates into a martyr for philosophy, but should he not rather have acknowledged that, in certain circumstances, the Socratic method can prove severely counterproductive?
In history, philosophers have seldom warned their students about the double-edged characteristic of the Socratic method. I consider it unrealistic to view Socrates as universally wise and his method as a universal standard of virtue.
Those evaluations assume that, in critical situations, people should be willing to commit suicide, just as Socrates did. Plato held Socrates in such a high regard that he elevated him to a paragon of virtue.
In the few occasions that Aristotle mentioned Socrates, he followed the same line as Plato, but his adherence to Socratic morals seems to have been more theoretical than practical. In reality, Aristotle had no intention of committing suicide if he was confronted to a situation similar to the Socrates’ trial.
When Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) passed away, the environment in Athens became hostile against individuals of Macedonian origin, like Aristotle.
Athenians wanted to get rid of the Macedonian rulers and of all Macedonians living in Athens. Aristotle had worked as tutor of Alexander and, in view of the generalised hatred against all things Macedonian, he feared being apprehended, charged with some made-up crime, and promptly executed.
Instead of playing sitting duck and committing suicide like Socrates, Aristotle immediately left Athens and went into exile. I can only speculate about what other philosophers would have done in a similar situation. I personally doubt that Plato would have stayed in Athens and gladly faced a death sentence, if he had been in Aristotle’s shoes.
Severe disadvantages
The potential disadvantages of the Socratic method are real and severe, not abstract and theoretical. Socrates lost his life in part for his asking the wrong questions to the wrong people, or for failing to run away in time instead of continuing to debate.
I have witnessed many cases in which people have suffered the negative consequences of the Socratic method. I am talking about lost jobs, destroyed careers, financial problems, and the general drawbacks of discrimination and ostracism.
In every case, there were strong moral arguments for telling the truth and asking questions that revealed misrepresentations or falsehoods.
I am convinced that every victim of the Socratic method has regarded himself or herself as a hero, but I am also convinced that, more often than not, they thought that they had no real alternative.
Like Socrates and Plato, they only conceived of two options and were forced to choose one or the other. Either staying loyal to philosophy or committing suicide, physically, professionally or financially. Either telling the truth or endorsing falsehoods.
I must express my dismay at their back-or-white ethics, and call instead for a discriminating use of the Socratic method. It’s great to debate with people who favour reason and who desire to engage in a civilised exchange.
There are many people like that in the world, and they offer the correct context for practising the Socratic method. The love for truth, reason and benevolence should be repaid with equal currency. I fully endorse the practice of the Socratic method in those circumstances, and then enjoy the ensuing advantages.
On the contrary, I consider it hazardous to imitate Socrates in environments that are hostile to reason. In those cases, there is nothing to be gained from practising the Socratic method. In the best scenario, the debate will prove a waste of time; and in the worst scenario, it will generate hatred and aggressiveness.
In contrast to what Socrates and Plato believed, there are a vast number of situations where debating and questioning will prove counterproductive.
Socrates had wrongly assumed that evil can be overcome or turned around by means of good arguments. In real life, that is seldom the case. I consider it more prudent to reserve our best debating skills for situations where they are truly appreciated. I hope that, over time, those situations will become increasingly wider and broader.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all kinds of situations, I recommend my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”