When we speak of improving one’s thinking, we don’t mean making individuals more intelligent. Socrates did not invent a method to turn everyone into a genius. His objective was more subdued and modest. He just wanted to disprove exaggerated, arbitrary, contradictory claims.
To the extent that the Socratic method works, it can help us think more clearly and make better decisions. Vast benefits can be derived from higher thinking accuracy and speed, but there is no guarantee that, if we employ Socratic questioning, we’ll always arrive at the correct answers.
The Socratic questioning method is exemplified in works by Plato, works in which Socrates plays the central role and leads a debate on some philosophical subject. For instance, “Phaedo” chronicles a dialogue about the immortality of the soul, and “Phaedrus” records a conversation about love, passion, speech-writing, and rhetoric.
How can the Socratic questioning method make us sharper? How can we apply it in everyday life to solve problems faster, more effectively and at a lower cost? I’m afraid that my answer to these questions does not match the answers given in most philosophy books.
The traditional assumption
The traditional assumption is that, if we emulate Socrates, we will improve our thinking and achieve better results in our own lives. I contest this assumption and posit that the opposite is true: if we emulate Socrates, we might end up ruining our lives just like Socrates did; and for most people, that’s not an attractive proposition.
Plato’s “Euthyphro” is often presented as an example of how to proceed. It recounts a conversation between Socrates and the religionist Euthyphro on the subject of “piety.” I would rather translate the subject as “ethics” instead of “piety,” to render the conversation more relevant to modern readers.
If we emulate Socrates’ questioning, we should always start by restating the subject of the debate. Socrates asked “What is piety?” and Euthyphro replied by means of examples. The next step for Socrates was to probe for inconsistencies and gaps in Euthyphro’s statements.
Socrates asked a series of questions, driving Euthyphro to realise that his examples had been far from perfect. Eventually, after having identified a flaw in Euthyphro’s logic, Socrates is ready to ask a question that goes to the core of the issue.
“Do we consider something pious because the gods love it, Socrates asked, or do the gods love it because we consider it pious?” This question appears in section 10 of “Euthyphro.”
In essence, this question addresses the same issue as the question whether piety is defined individually or universally, something that Socrates had also asked Euthyphro to clarify.
Socrates’ questions were clever enough and touched the key issues of morality, but what was the result of debate? Nothing. After seventeen pages of questions and answers, Socrates does not arrive at a definite conclusion.
Evaluation of the outcome
The only outcome of the debate is that Euthyphro realises that his definition of piety had not been correct, or at least not complete. Socrates then exhorts Euthyphro to continue on his search for wisdom.
I cannot imagine that, in today’s context, the practitioners of Socratic questioning would be much advanced. Euthyphro did not like the end of the debate, and must have found the whole experience rather unpleasant; and Socrates didn’t seem to gain any knowledge from the conversation.
One could argue that, thanks to the conversation, Euthyphro learned that he had been espousing wrong ideas, but Plato does not convey the impression that Euthyphro was eager to debate any further. When Socrates proposes to keep going, Euthyphro says that he is in a hurry and goes away.
I am doubtful that, through the debate, Socrates had attained any desirable goal. Had he made Euthyphro change his mind? I regard Euthyphro’s sudden departure as proof that, although he had been proven wrong, he had no wish to discuss further.
The fact that Socrates had triumphed in the debate might lead Euthyphro to avoid Socrates altogether; and if Euthyphro had been a jury member in the trial against Socrates, I wouldn’t be surprised if he had pressed for condemning Socrates to exile or worse.
An improved approach
Indeed, one should be careful before recommending people to practise Socratic questioning. It’s not beneficial to make new enemies for the sake of winning a debate that will bring us no tangible reward. Nor should we view it as a wise use of our time to engage in long theoretical debates that lead nowhere.
For those reasons, I am sceptical about the traditional view that encourages people to practise Socratic questioning without considering the context and the consequences. I don’t think that asking questions to the wrong people in the wrong setting will do anything to advance truth, wisdom, and peacefulness.
It’s great to hold debates and employ Socratic questioning in situations that call for it. The cross examination of witnesses is one of those situations, and I think that much can be learned by watching good movies and reading good books about trials. Those provide real-life examples of how the Socratic method can improve our thinking.
However, this does not mean that we should submit friends and family members to cross examination, like Socrates did to Euthyphro, just to prove that their ideas are wrong.
Maybe we win the debate and prove our friends wrong, but at the cost of alienating them; and will we really improve our thinking as a result of such debates? I don’t think so.
Socratic questioning can prove advantageous if practised in the right context, but to do so requires discernment. Let us not assume that, if Socrates did it, it must be right. Let us not give excessive credence to great names in the history of philosophy, names like Socrates and Plato, because they also made lots of grievous mistakes.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”