The Socratic method employs pre-Aristotelian logic, that is, a logic that is not structured in syllogisms. Socrates didn’t start his debates with a general statement and then, little by little, in a sequence of steps, built a waterproof philosophical argument.

After Socrates’ death in 399 BC, it took two generations to arrive at the Aristotelian syllogism, where a major premise (all men are mortal) and a minor premise (Socrates is a man) leads to an inevitable, waterproof conclusion (Socrates is mortal).

Plato (427-347 BC) presented the Socratic method in his works “Apology,” “Republic,” “Euthyphro,” “Theateus,” and “Meno,” amongst others. None of them follows the rigorous logic of Aristotle (384-322 BC). None of them fulfils the strict requirements of syllogistic reasoning.

Nevertheless, the logical structure of the Socratic method constitutes an immense advancement; compared to all previous philosophers, Socrates stands a giant. Neither Thales of Mileto, Parmenides or Heraclitus had demonstrated a passion for truth based on structured thought.

Socrates was the first philosopher in history to build all his arguments upon the same structure, namely, non-contradiction. He did not yet know exactly how to draw flawless conclusions, but he knew enough to reject contradictions.

In contrast to Aristotle, Socrates never stated the principles of formal logic; however, all his debates rely on informal logic. Socrates did not know how to build a straight logical line from beginning to end, but he was remarkably good at detecting the slightest contradiction in a person’s arguments or actions.

Informal logic

I categorise Socrates’ debating structure as “informal logic” because of its unequal strength and accuracy; by employing the principle of non-contradiction, he often came up with accurate conclusions, but on other occasions, he got sidetracked or lost.

The problem with using informal logic is that it’s fairly easy to get sidetracked, go on a tangent, and end up nowhere. We can see this phenomenon clearly in “Meno,” where Socrates is clever enough to dismantle Meno’s inconsistencies, but then he puts forward the incorrect idea that we learn by remembering.

For example, “Apology” shows Socrates’ vigorous, strong, and bright refutation of the criminal charges against him. His rhetoric is far more powerful than the speeches made by his two accusers, Anytus and Meletus.

Nonetheless, the lack of formal logic prompts Socrates to make, from time to time, some poorly grounded statements. I am referring for instance to his statement that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

When Socrates stated that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” he provided a remarkable quote for posterity, but in a criminal trial, I think he did himself a disservice. He conveyed the impression that he was guilty of the charges (impiety and the corruption of youth), but that he should be set free because he had been following his ethical convictions.

Syllogistic logic

I am not surprised that the jury, that is, the Athenian citizens that attended the trial, ended up condemning him. If Socrates had employed syllogistic logic, he would have analysed all the facts and proven that they didn’t constitute a crime. Unluckily, his informal logic proved insufficient to convince the public.

The same can be said of Socrates’ argument based on the Oracle of Delphi. Plato’s “Apology” recounts Socrates’ attempt to prove his wisdom by quoting the Oracle of Delphi.

Socrates does that by recounting that his friend Chaerephon had once asked the Oracle of Delphi who the wisest man on earth was; the Oracle had allegedly answered that no man was wiser than Socrates.

At that point, Socrates must have realised that his argument was extremely weak, especially in a criminal trial, but instead of letting it go and coming up with a stronger argument, he gives an abstruse explanation for his wisdom.

Socrates explained that he was the wisest man on earth just because he knew what he didn’t know and was humble enough to acknowledge his ignorance. In contrast, other people would claim to possess knowledge that they lack, and as a result, they will make mistake after mistake.

Effectiveness

By equating intellectual humbleness with wisdom, Socrates provided interesting food for thought for posterity, but failed to convince the public attending the criminal trial.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) did not recommend meandering and going on tangents while making a philosophical argument. In a university debate, one would lose points by getting sidetracked and going on tangents; and in a criminal trial, it is a sure recipe for disaster.

The structure of the Socratic method was much stronger and resilient than anything employed until that time, but not strong enough to withstand persistent attacks in a criminal trial.

Anytus and Meletus lacked Socrates’ acumen, philosophical sophistication and subtlety, but proved relentless in depicting Socrates as a disturbing element. Plato’s “Apology” shows that they must have personally hated Socrates, and this must have been the reason for their vigour in attacking Socrates.

The Socratic argument needs syllogistic logic in order to get to the truth quickly and effectively. Philosophical logic needs a strong structure and, unfortunately, Socrates paid a high price for his failure to devise a waterproof structure in his defence at the criminal trial in Athens.

If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”