Socrates used to start every debate by asking “What exactly do you mean?” He was prompting his opponent to define his ideas and terms of engagement. Was the debate about ethics, or only about courage in war? Are we discussing only a specific case, or are we talking about general truths?
When the opponent showed reluctance to define his terms, Socrates simply played dumb. He pretended not to know at all the subject at hand, and in this way, he cleared the path for his opponent to state his point of view.
Plato’s “Meno” constitutes a salient example. Socrates says that he does not know what virtue is, and that he has never met anyone who knew. Then he invites Meno to define virtue, or to quote Gorgias, a travelling sophist, who had claimed to know.
Meno takes the bait and makes several attempts at defining virtue. Initially, he defines virtue as seeking good things in life and having the power to acquire them, but Socrates soon takes apart Meno’s definition.
What happens if an individual performs evil actions to seek a good outcome? And who decides what a good outcome is? Is the same definition of goodness applicable to a man, a woman, and a child?
And what about age? Does a person’s age play a role in the definition of goodness? Should we define virtue exactly in the same way for a young person as for an older person?
Purpose of the Socratic method
Meno does not know how to answer all those questions and, seemingly annoyed, he compares Socrates to a sting ray. He is asking so many questions that Meno feels mentally paralysed, as though he had been stung by a sting ray.
The above example shows the two main approaches used by Socrates to start a debate. Either he asks his opponent to define its terms, or he plays dumb and invites his opponent to explain the subject. In either case, Socrates is allowing his opponent to take the initiative.
What’s the Socratic questioning technique? It is the method employed by Socrates to counter false claims. Upon hearing a definition that is deficient, incomplete or arbitrary, Socrates is going to demolish it systematically by asking his opponent for clarifications.
The Socratic questioning technique constitutes the basis for cross-examinations in court procedures; by asking a long series of questions, an attorney will probe if a witness is staying loyal to the facts. Is he telling the truth or misrepresenting the facts?
“Meno” devotes several pages to defining virtue, that is, to Meno’s unsuccessful attempt to define virtue. He tried to do it from several angles, but it was to no avail. In each case, he was confronted with the Socratic questioning technique.
When Meno posited that virtue depends on a person’s role, Socrates immediately started to drill. His questions pointed to the discrepancies in Meno’s definitions, and by playing dumb, Socrates pushed Meno to contradict himself.
Meno maintained that a man’s virtue revolves around social interactions, work, achievement, public office and the like; and that a woman’s virtue revolves around child rearing, household matters, and the like.
Socrates simply pointed out that Meno’s definition of virtue was too concrete, and in the course of the conversation, he led Meno to admit that virtuous action must entail moderation and justice, not simply the performance of a role in society.
I think that anyone can practise the Socratic method to stop misrepresentations. It requires a fair amount of diplomacy and subtlety, but those are great qualities to have. In addition, those who practise Socratic questioning will increase their sharpness, alertness and self-confidence.
Where Socratic method works best
Does the Socratic questioning technique lead to success in life? Not necessarily. I am afraid that success in life requires more than contesting falsehoods, refuting fallacies, or rejecting misrepresentations.
In his dialogues, Plato kept suspiciously quiet about the fact that the Socratic questioning technique, on its own, rarely leads to the truth. In “Meno,” Socrates tore apart every definition of virtue offered by his opponent, but failed to supply a workable alternative.
In a cross-examination, a defence attorney might regard his task as accomplished if he manages to get a witness to incur in contradictions. His goal in the court procedure is to show that the evidence is insufficient, contradictory or inconclusive.
If the attorney succeeds in doing that, his client should be cleared from the charges. To dismantle the accusation means, for a defence attorney, mission accomplished. The case against his client will be dismissed, and normally, it cannot be brought to trial again.
However, the context of a criminal procedure is the opposite of normal life. In a criminal procedure, the state attorney must prove his case. He must provide conclusive evidence of every charge that he has brought against the culprit.
In those cases, a brilliant defence practitioner of Socratic questioning might succeed in tearing apart the evidence, or at least, creating sufficient doubts in the jury’s minds, so that they will not categorise the evidence as conclusive.
In normal life, we are called to do the opposite, that is, if we make a claim, we need to back it up. It is not enough to contest what someone else is saying. If someone applies for a job as an engineer, he needs to prove his qualifications and experience.
Similarly, if someone claims to have delivered a package, it is up to him to provide proof of delivery. He will have to produce the signature of the recipient, taking possession of the package. Or he will have to provide witnesses, pictures, electronic mail, video footage, or some other type of proof.
I would not rely on the Socratic questioning technique in a situation where it is my responsibility to prove my claim. If I’m selling a complex item, I will have to provide evidence of what it can do for the customer. If I am selling a long-term service, I will have to convince the customer of my ability to deliver it.
The missing element
Plato’s “Meno” contains a remark showing that, in contrast to Socrates, Meno had grasped that it is not enough to destroy the opponent’s arguments. Socrates had indeed managed to tear apart the definitions of virtue offered by Meno, but had not led to a workable outcome.
At one point, Meno tells Socrates that “if humans can learn to become virtuous, there must be some people who can teach them how.” That was a fair rebuttal, but unfortunately, Socrates continued to play dumb, saying that maybe Gorgias knew what virtue is, but that he himself had forgotten Gorgias’ ideas.
I don’t recommend anyone to imitate Socrates in this respect and ignore a solid rebuttal during a debate. I wish that Socrates had paused for a moment, and consider the implications of the question raised by Meno.
In life, it is not sufficient to prove that other individuals are wrong. We also need to figure out the truth, put it into practice, and surmount any opposition we may encounter along the way.
For all ends and purposes, Socrates had opted for staying away from the intellectual fray. He had achieved a rhetorical victory, but nothing else.
I have never seen anyone get ahead in life just by playing dumb or by throwing questions at other people until they walk away from a debate. That’s an experience that I always keep in mind when I practise the Socratic questioning technique.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all kinds of situations, I recommend my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”