The Socratic Method

The socratic method: 

Dialogues of Plato Revisited

Socrates and Mino on Love 
 
Socrates: Love is blind, no Mino?
Mino:        I have heard it said yes that love is blind.
Socrates: This they say Mino in most circles in Athens. And is not Stevie Wonder blind Mino?
Mino:       Yes this is true. In fact Stevie Wonder is blind as Oedipus.
Socrates: Is not God, who manifests many ideals, the one who represents love of mankind, Mino?
Mino:       This they say is so.
Socrates: Well then, Mino, does it not follow then that Stevie Wonder is God?
Mino:       Yes Socrates logic states this must be true. 
Socrates: Mino, you young fool, stop following me around and get a life. 

     Socrates wrote nothing. Plato wrote The Dialogues and from these writings come the portrait of the man. 
     Socrates, ambled about the marketplace like a knight errant charming all those he met no matter what their profession. He seemed to prefer low company,,, like Jesus. He used dialogue to bring philosophy to the masses who probably were already well versed in skepticism and practicality. All they lacked was someone who could formalize thought for them. Along came the former marine, a lively, energetic, drink you all under the table, pig nosed,   citizen of the world, a man of the marketplace in a toga who touched them. He was one of them but his mind was not sloppy in any way. Socrates, if he ever really did exist at all, was a guy for whom the pursuit of knowledge was as essential as the air we breathe. His insistent nature and relentless honesty often frustrate some for whom rancor set in before understanding. All that was left to those alienated by Socrates's methods was slander. Slander is the chosen weapon of the superficial. Slander did him in. Socrates was charged with sedition and sentenced to death.
     The socratic method uses the format of deductive reasoning. This form of reasoning progresses from the general to the specific using a process of elimination. A good example of deductive reasoning is the game 20 questions where a group attempts to guess an object that can be classified as an animal, vegetable, or mineral. One of the group has been chosen to "think" of that object while the others should employ deductive reasoning to guess what that object is given the limit of twenty questions. Only yes or no responses are allowed from the chosen person. The only time he utters something other than yes or no is at the beginning of the round when he states "I am thinking of an animal". If for say the object to be guessed is an elephant,, the group should start with a general question. "Is this animal a mammal." A yes response from the chosen one will eliminate reptiles, amphibians, insects, birds,,, etc.The general question boosts one towards the answer by eliminating a mire of choices.  
     The socratic method, instead of guessing animal, vegetable, or mineral attempted to eek out some truth,,, or as close as one can get to the truth for after all people tender their perceptions of the truth with alarming irregularity. In other words there may just not be any such thing as TRUTH,,, perhaps just an opportunity to rub shoulders with a simulacrum of truth for a while and,,, well,,, that may be good enough. The truths which Socrates often sought were in defining words we use each day, take for granted, and usually have no idea what they really mean. What is goodness? What is virtue? What is love? What is fear? What is courage? These words can be manipulated and used to foster propaganda. Society needs definitions outside the realm of dictionaries,,, definitions that provoke thought. After frustrating Mino with questions about the last of the above group, they came to the conclusion that the definition of courage was knowing when to walk away. Try to find that in the dictionary. Courage is presented as an ideal that is derived from evaluation of a scene. Courage is not a pair of oversized testicles with a sword. Another word which is used often, virtue, was defined by Socrates as knowledge or intellectual insight into the nature of right and wrong. A virtuous leader, someone as scarce as hen's teeth nowadays, should possess an understanding of the moral truths of the universe in order to rule well. If there might be such a thing as universal morality,,, at the very least the consideration of that ideal is enough to make one a virtuous leader. The act of employing evaluation over the roiling chemical dump we call a brain is enough.  "To know ourselves", to be individually honest, to do what we, not the carefully crafted masses believe is right. Never let the herd rule your thoughts,,, be far in thought from the madding crowd, and let your cherished and difficult goal be a "virtuous" life.
     I know some will say,, well this this Socrates is too good to be believed. Maybe it is just so rare to encounter someone like that, outside the norms of mass behavior that we have trouble believing it. The socratic system, defined by Plato, employs a master, one who is stern, knowledgeable, flexible and posesses humility. The master must play both student and conductor. It is the master who is supposed to lead everyone including himself to a more defined ideal. The method may seem coercive by nature. It requires a leader and followers,,, yet hopefully those that follow are not robotic, lest they form a cult. And yes, the socratic method as seen in the Dialogues of Plato can seem stilted, too perfect,,even choreographed. It is scripted like a play. We might even think of it as fiction but so what. The author, Plato, controls all the exchanges, and we are sucked in, and before we know it, we are planted with ideas,,, yet some are pretty good.  Deductive reasoning functions. If the initial premises and statements made are informed it can lead a discussion group towards an idea or at the very least, given the elusive nature of truth, one may arrive at some kind of self discovery.  ,,, if not you get a conclusion like the opening dialogue at the beginning of this article, that Stevie Wonder must be God.