Who was Socrates?
Apparently Socrates was a snub-nosed lover of wisdom who may or may not have actually existed. As the star protagonist of Plato's dialogues, many scholars believe that the great Greek philosopher was nothing more than an impressive character used to enrich the work of others - especially since he refused to write anything down!
Regardless of whether or not Socrates' acclaimed thoughts were his own, his authentic approach to philosophy is worth mentioning. Unlike some sophists (often referred to as phoney philosophers), Socrates was genuinely interested in learning about the truth of things, and he spent most of his time searching for it (usually barefoot) with the help of his peers.
Being perpetually disposed to attempt to reach a full understanding of the things he claimed to know nothing about (which was pretty much everything), Socrates was consistently engaging in dialogue with those who otherwise claimed to know things - or at the very least sought to achieve aporia in regard to the truth of whatever thing was being discussed. The latter is what his discussions tended to result in, with the majority of his interlocutors proving that they never really knew what they had claimed to know.
What is the Socratic method?
Looking carefully at Plato's "Meno", the Socratic method shall be understood as the means by which false claims to knowledge are exposed through the power of conversation. Also known as elenchus, the Socratic method works to enhance everyone's comprehension of the impenetrable nature of the subject at hand. This is what is meant by achieving aporia: to accept the impasse of the dialogue and approach further questions on the topic so as to not give an answer just for the sake of it.
It is recognizing and ridding the faults of our previous conceptions of something - that is to say, our understanding is improved through acknowledging what that something is not, and what it is most akin to as far as things that we are confidently able to articulate our full understanding of.
The Socratic method can be executed with three steps: first, a question about a certain concept is brought forward, and an attempt to define the concept in question is given with examples. Second, counterexamples are used to expose the insufficiency of whatever definition has been given to explain the concept. Finally, an improved definition is identified, though typically imprecise, therefore shepherding the conversation closer to the truth by way of aporia.
Step One: A question about a certain concept is posed.
In this particular dialogue, Meno asks Socrates if virtue can be taught. The concept is brought forward; the true meaning of virtue now sought.
In response to Meno's question, Socrates claims that he does not know what the concept of virtue is because he is unable to define it. After all, if he is unable to define something, how is he to form an opinion on it, let alone whether or not if he thinks it can be taught? In other words, if someone were to ask me if I thought Meno was cute, but I have never seen what he looks like, I would not be able to give a genuine response - no matter how often Socrates insists on how good looking he is.
Continuing with the first step, Socrates' interlocutor attempts to define the concept in question by listing examples and instances of what he thinks it is. In this case, Meno gives Socrates an ambiguous explanation of the many types of virtue that are attributed to the many different types of people that exist: "First, if you want the virtue of a man [...] of a woman [...] a child [...] a slave [...] a free man [...] and so on."
Step Two: A rejection that exposes the faults of the first definition is given.
As Socrates points out, Meno has failed to give a precise definition of the single concept of virtue because instead of saying "virtue is x", he gives us several examples of its supposedly various types. Following the second step, Socrates remarks that although he feels lucky that Meno has provided a swarm of definitions of virtue when he was really only looking for one, this still does not reveal the meaning of virtue itself. Thus in order to elucidate the significance of definite meaning, Socrates offers an analogy.
"Meno," he says, "if I were asking you what is the nature of bees, and you said that they are many and of all kins, what would you answer if I asked you: 'do you mean that they are many and varied and different from one another in so far as they are bees? Or are they no different in that regard, but in some other respect, in their beauty, for example, or their size or in some other such way?' Tell me, what would you answer if thus questioned?" To which Meno responds, "I would say that they do not differ from one another in being bees."
Basically, there are many different types of bees: honey, bumble carpenter, cereal mascot buzz, the mascot of honey nut cheerios... but that is not what Socrates is interested in. He wants to know what it takes for any of these species of bees to fall mutually under the definition of bee, or in this case, what it takes for each type of virtue thereby presented by Meno to be a virtue.
In the second step, Socrates makes Meno aware of what is required in a correct definition. Meno is pushed into dialogue so that he may realize that he was mislead to assume that virtue is different for every person in the same way that other general concepts do not differ for each person. For example, says Socrates, if a man is healthy and a woman is healthy, they are both healthy in the same sense of the word.
What Socrates means by this is that the definition of these words do not erratically change when we relate them to a particular subject. The same goes for virtue. There is only one underlying form of virtue, thus only one underlying definition.
Step Three: A new and improved definition is introduced and then criticized - the cycle begins!
At this point, we see how Meno is encouraged to improve his answer. He states that virtue is the ability to rule - a slightly better definition than the last, but to this Socrates suggests that he add justly (as opposed to unjustly) to the clarification. Meno consents, quickly restating that "justice is virtue".
Instead of telling Meno that he is utterly mistaken, Socrates does one of his favourite things to do: he asks him another question. Once again, his questioning works as a subtle form of criticism that exposes the insufficiency of Meno's new definition. He asks, "is it virtue, Meno, or a virtue?", to which Meno can no longer hide his misapprehension.
Socrates uses a counter example to explain the fault in Meno's claim that "justice is virtue" by comparing it to shape - a slightly different concept, but a concept nonetheless. "Take roundness," he says, "about which I would say that it is a shape, but not simply that it is shape." Meno agrees that justice is a type of virtue in the same way that a circle is a type of shape, not that circle is shape. Once more, Meno is able to see the exception to his definition with the success of the second step.
Finally Meno has a stronger apprehension of the type of answer Socrates desires, that being an answer that holds true of any type in any context. This leads us again to the third step, with Meno's new definition of virtue being "to desire beautiful things and have the power to acquire them."
Socrates rejects this and all of Meno's proceeding suggestions for the rest of the dialogue, further repeating the three Socratic steps until aporia is eventually accepted as the final resort.
Summary
In the first step of elenchus, a definition of a general concept is stated. Next, questions and counterexamples reveal an exception to the definition. Lastly, an improved definition replaces the former until aporia is reached.
At the very beginning of "Meno", Socrates admits that he does not know what virtue is, while Meno claims to know that which he does not. Thus in order to find the ultimate meaning of virtue, they enter into a dialogue guided by the Socratic method. Although their search is of no avail, they at least obtain an improved general comprehension of the concept and, in a sense, the inherent truth of it.
What did we learn?
Despite its insatiable nature, the Socratic method is not about repeatedly calling people out on what they do not know. Its purpose is to improve everyones understanding of something to the very best of their abilities - not so that they may claim to know this or that by giving an exact definition, but so that they may continue to cultivate them.
This is the whole idea of the Socratic method: to address your own ignorance, and to exercise the idea that a proper conversation can teach you something you never knew - and even more so that you never really knew much to begin with!
(Unless, of course, you already knew that.)
Some Useful Content
1. Here's a video on the importance of dialogue.
2. A very digestible explanation of the Socratic method
- includes different exercises to practice with.
Comments