It seems difficult to believe that you can get ahead in life just by asking questions, but is this not what Socrates did? Did he not claim that we can find out the truth just by asking a torrent of questions to other people or to ourselves?
Not exactly. The Socratic method is more subtle than asking random questions. To understand it properly, we need to look at Socrates (469-399 BC) in context.
His method of asking, drilling for details, and eliminating contradictions was revolutionary because, before Socrates, no philosopher had given much thought to the question of how to set truth apart from prejudice and misrepresentations.
The method proved so superior to anything done before that Socrates kept practising it for years. Plato (427-347 BC) does not tell us how old Socrates was by the time he started using his method, but on the other hand, none of Plato’s dialogues is portraying Socrates as a young genius.
My guess is that Socrates must have been between forty and fifty years old by the time he started to practise his method on a consistent basis.
Considering the number of Plato’s works in which Socrates, as a middle-aged or senior man, played the central role, it is reasonable to assume that he must have been using his method at least for a couple of decades.
Structure
What kind of questions did Socrates employ in his method? Plato’s dialogues show that Socrates repeatedly employed the same structure in his questioning. I cannot tell if he had come to this structure consciously or unconsciously, through sheer trial and error.
By means of examples, we can learn the types of questions asked by Socrates. Those can help us focus quickly on the key issues and figure out the truth without having to beat around the bush for hours.
Let us review some key examples that illustrate the types of questions employed by Socrates. In “Euthyphro,” Plato records the dialogue held by Socrates and Euthyphro on morality. Note that classical translations of Plato use the term “piety” instead of “morality,” “ethics” or “values.”
This is not a coincidence because, in the criminal trial held against Socrates in Athens in the year 400 BC, he was accused of “impiety and corrupting the youth.”
However, for modern readers, the term “impiety” is difficult to grasp because most people today do not live in a society where theological differences carry the death penalty. Thus, I prefer to employ the word “morality” or “ethics” to define the subject of the debate between Socrates and Euthyphro.
The crucial question is the philosophical justification of morality. Why should humans behave honestly, benevolently, and peacefully? Why not choose dishonesty, aggressiveness or deceit?
Focus on the key issue
Socrates opts for choosing a general type of question to start the debate. He simply asks “What is piety?” (that is, morality) at the beginning. Then he narrows down the debate by asking whether morality means the same in all circumstances for all people, and whether it relies on divine commands or on human understanding.
That’s the usual sequence employed by Socrates in debates. First, a general question to open the debate. Second, he focuses quickly on the main issue, in this case, whether morality means the same in all cases for all people. Third, a follow-up question to nail down his argument.
It seems easy to do, but in practice, it requires high alertness and sound general knowledge. In a murder case, police would ask first for an alibi, then inquire where the suspect specifically was at the time the murder was committed, and third, ask for details that will reveal whether the suspect is telling the truth.
Socrates got the structure right, but he executed it poorly. In the works of Plato, we do not find linear arguments where one question logically leads to the next, and little by little, Socrates builds an unassailable case.
On the contrary, Socrates seems to get lost all the time, and spends more time on tangential matters than on key issues. The debate presented in “Euthyphro” constitutes a salient example.
Socrates gets right away to the key question in the debate: “What is piety itself? Euthyphro does not give a sound answer. Instead, he gives an example that portrays him in a good light, but that cannot withstand close scrutiny.
At that point, Socrates should have asked whether morality means the same to everyone in all circumstances and addressed the issue of ethical objectivity versus subjectivity. I would love to see a debate conducted by Socrates or Plato on those terms.
Unfortunately, Socrates failed to formulate his question in a clear manner. Instead he focused on one aspect of the answer given by Euthyphro, and asked whether the same logic would equally apply to strangers and family members.
Do not get sidetracked
Socrates wanted to clarify whether Euthyphro’s answer was objective or subjective, but failed to clearly articulate the issue. By asking about the equal applicability to strangers and family members, Socrates got sidetracked and allowed Euthyphro to start talking about knowledge of the divine and whether ethics comes from Zeus.
As of that moment, the debate becomes messy. Euthyphro is no longer ready to return to the key question. Socrates follows up with the question: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or do the gods love it because it is pious?” In fact, he is asking whether morality exists independently of any divine decree or intervention.
Unfortunately, Socrates also failed to formulate his question clearly this time. As of that moment, the debate degenerated in terms of logic and focus. Socrates asked whether pious actions need to be endorsed by all gods or just by some, and whether a partial endorsement would render it impious.
Eventually, Euthyphro incurs in contradictions, but the logic has strayed so far away from the initial question that no sound conclusion is possible. Socrates concludes the debate pointing out that Euthyphro does not know the truth.
Fair enough, but neither did Socrates. The debate meanders, oscillates between several side issues, and finally tumbles into irrelevancy. Nonetheless, it provides us a crucial philosophical lesson, namely, the need to narrow down our questions step by step, so that we can identify the truth without getting lost along the way.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Rational Living, Rational Working.”