Philosophy historians praise Socrates for having conceived an original method of inquiry. They claim that his approach to philosophy was far superior to anything attempted before him.
They regard the Socratic method as a key epistemological innovation that still proves valuable nowadays in areas such as education, courtroom cross-examinations, cognitive therapy or coaching in general.
I will not contest the strengths of the Socratic method, but I would not want to exaggerate them either. In practice, there is little resemblance between the ancient Socratic method and the methods employed today by educators, lawyers and therapists.
The fact that they all ask questions does not mean that they are doing the same as Socrates, not that we should attribute to Socrates the sophisticated techniques of today’s educators and lawyers, or the healing influence exerted by therapists on their clients.
I will also not stay silent about the weaknesses of Socrates as a debater and logician. Some aspects of the Socratic method are particularly dark and deserve to be negatively categorised.
Socrates’ answer to Meno
For example, the fact that Socrates would choose to pretend ignorance instead of presenting his counterarguments in a clear and organized manner.
In his work “Meno,” Plato (427-347 BC) supplies a salient example of Socrates pretending to be ignorant. After Meno had complained that Socrates was overwhelming him with a torrent of questions, Socrates should have explained his purpose.
If Socrates expected to find the truth by asking one question after another, he should have explained the logic and objective of his method; however, he refused to do so; instead, he replied to Meno, saying that he asked lots of questions because he was also ignorant and wanted to know.
I find it a pity that Meno did not follow up on Socrates’ poor answer. Meno could have torn it apart with little effort. What’s the point of asking questions to someone who doesn’t know the answers, especially if we are equally ignorant? Even if we get to hear the truth eventually, how will we know that it’s the truth and not some random answer?
Those questions received no answers in Plato’s works, but a debater in our century won’t allow his opponent to make such weak statements and go on unchallenged. In today’s context, it is unimaginable that a debater could just claim ignorance in the middle of debate, and that people would take such a statement seriously.
An unbalanced focus
I also find it questionable that Socrates placed a strong emphasis on virtue and very little on metaphysics, aesthetics, epistemology and politics.
In “Apology,” Plato recounts that Socrates regarded having daily conversations about virtue as the greatest good in life, but how many people actually fall in this pattern? The fact is that the majority of daily conversations in the world do not revolve around virtue, not now and not in the times of Socrates.
In the next sentence, Socrates goes as far as saying that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” but does he mean a life that is not punctuated by ceaseless conversations about virtue?
In this respect, the Socratic method seems nothing but a vast annoyance. Imagine how inefficient it would be if, every single day, we were questioned about the virtuousness of our actions and intentions?
I do not know anyone who has opted for such a lifestyle, even if it literally corresponds to Socrates’ requirement for the examined life. Neither do I know anyone who placed as much emphasis on virtue as Socrates did.
Ethics are important, no doubt, but not to the extent of that Socrates was implying. If we followed his recommendations, I doubt that we would have time to work, cook, or maintain our car, just to mention a few of the hundreds of activities that we do throughout the year.
The Socratic method, as practised in Plato’s works, revolves around ethics most of the time, with occasional excursions in other areas, such as in “Republic,” where Socrates narrates a debate on politics and social organisation.
Socrates’ epistemology
Why does the Socratic method focus so strongly on virtue? Because it tries to create knowledge out of ignorance. Socrates had assumed that, by asking lots of questions, he would get his opponent to recognize what’s bad and good, what’s incorrect or correct.
In doing so, Socrates was assuming that his questions would prompt his opponent to “remember” knowledge that each of us possesses automatically, maybe inherited from our ancestors or implicit in our human nature.
The focus on ethics comes from Socrates’ epistemology, that is, from his reliance on remembrance instead of logic. For this reason, educators, lawyers and therapists no longer imitate the questioning patterns presented by Plato. If they did so, nobody would take them seriously.
When employing the Socratic method in our century, logic should place the central role, not abstract virtue. Questions are to be focused on the essential aspects of the subject, whether it is social organization, politics, metaphysics, epistemology, art, or any other subject.
If we remove its deficiencies, the Socratic method can help us get to the point quickly and effectively during a debate, but if we keep practising it in the manner described by Plato, I fear that the results will leave a lot to be desired.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief.”