Questions lead to different answers depending on how they are asked and in which sequence. Without the right strategy, it is unlikely that questioning will lead to the truth; once a debate starts meandering, it is hard to get it back on track. That’s why it is crucially important, from the very beginning, to devise a sound strategy.
Socrates (469-399 BC) came up with remarkable insights. It is impressive to see the depth of Socrates’s conversations in the works of Plato; to the extent that those conversations do justice to the historical Socrates, one can only conclude that he was a genius.
Nevertheless, the Socratic method is unlikely to succeed if we do not adopt a solid strategy. We need to know what to ask, when, how, and in which sequence. Furthermore, we may need to remake our strategy as the debate goes on, especially if our opponent refuses to give rational answers.
Plato’s dialogue “Meno” pinpoints this issue perfectly: when Socrates tries to find the truth by asking numerous questions, Meno grows increasingly annoyed. First, he compares Socrates to a sting ray because of his tsunami of questions. There are so many of those that Meno cannot process them any more.
Second, Meno cannot understand the Socratic method. Why is Socrates asking him so many questions? What’s the point of inflicting such a high stress on Meno? The questions asked by Socrates seem, to a large extent, random. How can one draw a true conclusion from random questions?
At a certain point, Meno retorts that it is not possible to find an answer that one does not know. He is reproaching Socrates for his seemingly random question.
On the one hand, if the answer was already known, Socrates would not have to ask any questions, reasoned Meno; and on the other hand, if the answer is unknown, how could he expect to stumble upon the truth by asking additional questions?
A problem-solving tool
Meno was puzzled because he did not understand the role played by strategy in the Socratic method. I find it difficult to blame Meno because Socrates had not understood it himself.
No, I am not exaggerating in the least and, as a proof of my assertion, I only need to point to Socrates’ systematic failure to arrive at waterproof conclusions. Plato’s works depict Socrates as a persistent inquirer, but seeking the truth is not enough. We also need to find it, recognise it as such, and verify its validity.
What’s the right strategy to ensure that the Socratic method leads us to the truth? If we answer this question correctly, we will have acquired a tool to solve any problem in life.
Plato admired Socrates because of his elevated morality and exemplary life, but was Plato not just rationalising the gigantic errors made by Socrates? How could Plato fail to see that there was no sound justification for Socrates’ refusing to escape jail? Or that humans do not acquire knowledge by remembering, as Socrates had wrongly postulated?
My reproach to Socrates also applies to Plato. None of them ever adopted a sound epistemological method. None of them is to be reputed as successful in finding the right answers, even if we can only praise their enormous contributions to philosophy in other areas.
When it comes to the Socratic method, an effective strategy requires that we define the issue or question to be addressed. In addition, we need to identify the relevant aspects for answering the question, gather the necessary information, compare all the answers, select the most promising, and verify them.
If we master these steps, we can use the Socratic method to solve most problems in life. I am not talking only about simple questions such as purchasing a home or a new car. Bigger, life-or-death issues can also be addressed in this manner.
Why the method works
Meno, visibly annoyed, had retorted “how will you find the truth, Socrates, if you don’t know it?” At that moment, Socrates should have explained why his method can deliver the truth.
Socrates should have answered to Meno “truth can be found by employing reason; if we devise a correct strategy, we’ll find truth at the end of the path, but to do so, we need to walk all the necessary steps.”
Furthermore, I would have loved to see Socrates outline the steps required by a solid philosophical strategy. I mean, a sharp definition of the key issue, identifying the relevant elements, gathering the necessary information, assessing the details and eliminating all contradictions.
If we do all that, we’ll see the correct answer emerge right in front of our eyes. Reason is the ingredient that Socrates failed to underline. He should have done so, instead of wasting hours on end discussing the gods, the soul, and immortality.
Take for instance Socrates’ conclusion in Meno. Instead of underlining the role of reason in knowledge acquisition, Plato reports Socrates’ conclusion as “Since the soul is immortal and has been born many times, it has already learned everything.”
I can only categorise Socrates’ conclusion as inane. It entails so many mystifications and falsities that, to tear it apart, I can start anywhere. However, I will limit myself to illustrating the correct strategy, the one that Socrates should have provided but never did.
Using the method correctly
Let’s take a simple question such as “which vehicle should I purchase?” The right strategy for the Socratic method requires that we identify the key issue first. For instance, are we going to purchase a vehicle or should we consider leasing it? Are we talking about purchasing a car, a motorcycle, or a truck?
Once we have defined the central question, we can identify the relevant factors in the decision. How big is our budget for this matter? What do we need the vehicle for? Is it just to drive to work or are we going to do transcontinental driving? Do we need to transport a large family or just a couple of people?
For a simple question like purchasing a car, we may end up with a list of ten relevant factors, but from all those, only a few will stand as essential or non-negotiable.
Reason should drive the process, not emotions. If we let our emotions take over, we will end up making horrible choices. In the absence of a cool, calculating mind, decisions get made on the basis of feel-good elements, first impressions and mood.
Socrates should have known all that, but Plato’s works lead me to believe the contrary; they lead me to regard Socrates as a great but incomplete innovator; as someone who gained deep insights but never put them into practice consistently.
In Plato’s dialogue “Laches,” we see Socrates debate about the definition of courage. He started with a general question of the type “what is courage.” So far, so good. However, it did not take long for Socrates to lose focus and get sidetracked. His poor strategy becomes apparent a few lines later, as the debate shifts into side issues.
Socrates never managed to define courage in a waterproof manner. It would still take two generations before Aristotle (384-322 BC) seriously undertook this task. Instead of giving a precise, complete definition, Socrates went into tangents.
For instance, he debated questions such as the link between courage and knowledge, that is, whether more educated people will display more intense courage.
Socrates was also wrong on this one. As history has proven many times, there is no causality relation between courage and knowledge. Heroes are characterised by strong moral values, not by their general knowledge of the world.
“Laches” provides for entertaining reading, but doesn’t lead to definitive insights. At the end, Laches declared Socrates to be remarkably wise, but there are no final conclusions. Despite the vast efforts invested in the debate, Socrates did not arrive at the truth.
Luckily, we do not need to repeat Socrates’ mistakes. All we need to do is to spend some time at the beginning, defining the key issues, identifying the relevant factors, and gathering data. If we do all that, we can remain confident that, at the end of the process, the fog will clear and the truth will be revealed.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”