Socratic Method and its Cultural Dangers

The Socratic method seeks to question conventional wisdom to transcend it and thus arrive at a true understanding. Denying one hypothesis does not necessarily mean its counter-hypothesis is true. In this sense, the Socratic method can lead us to the conclusion that an idea is not true, and in that case, it would make us …

Throughout his article published in Educational Leadership, Goldman expresses several controversial ideas: that the Socratic method can be dangerous in a contemporary educational context and that the reasons that led the Athenian judges to judge Socrates are understandable even nowadays. Through his method, Goldman first points out that Socrates proposed to question the veracity of disciplines of knowledge such as arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and harmony as ways of knowing the essence of things in themselves beyond sensory intervention.

The Socratic method seeks to question conventional wisdom to transcend it and thus arrive at a true understanding. Denying one hypothesis does not necessarily mean its counter-hypothesis is true. In this sense, the Socratic method can lead us to the conclusion that an idea is not true, and in that case, it would make us wiser, but it is, in any case, a negative wisdom whose main advantage is opening us to new possibilities. The author also points out that at a more advanced stage, we can even see the limitations of reason itself, which always leads to an epistemological break. In a way, Socrates seeks to transcend the mind and reason, listening more to an inner voice and thus reaching a being that goes beyond the mind.

In the article, he mentions that for both Plato and Socrates, the mind has pre-existed our birth. However, Socrates is more focused on reorganizing the knowledge already acquired, as if it were a disorganized jigsaw puzzle. To get there, the Socratic method violently shakes the foundations and questions to the point of dissolution of the causal sequences and looks for more logical patterns. This new pattern, however, will later be questioned again. What is thus sought in philosophy for Goldman is an “ideal architecture” that can encompass all of time and existence. Thus, he proposes that the Socratic method, in a pragmatic sense, always leads inexorably to further questioning in the future: what it ends up bestowing is patience and humility (something more akin to moral character) rather than a foundational answer that could imbue future generations with meaning.

This is where the author makes his strongest argument: the skepticism inherent in the Socratic method may be in danger of turning into nihilism since its excessive openness to new horizons would destroy standards and disorient and alienate its disciples from the immediate mundane reality around them. Goldman mentions how, in verses 537 and 538 of the Republic, Plato warns of the possible rebellious reaction of many young people towards their parents once introduced to the dialectical method and how they may decrease both their respect and attention towards their progenitors and confuse them about what constitutes the true essence of justice.

A group of ill-prepared young dialecticians may come to question the foundational and moral bases of a society in a vicious and immature way: this explains why Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth and attacking traditional religious values, which, in my opinion, although not intentionally, may have been caused as a side-effect by the very nature of his method of knowledge.

Inquiry, for Goldman, inevitably leads a society to transformation, which is naturally positive and necessary for its survival. However, he later points out that continuity, a stability that allows it to structure itself, is also necessary. Both inquiring and solid continuity are two necessary parts that must be organically linked and in balance for the proper functioning of a society. On the other hand, Socrates had a strong fixation with inquiring in an inordinate way that ended up being intoxicating, which caused him to end up in court and later pay for it with his life. Goldman thinks that Socrates’ mistake was to ignore, through methodological excess, the human need for tradition, stability, and a past. In this sense, the idea is that Socratic education failed to generate a basic loyalty in its disciples to the values necessary for a democratic society and instead overemphasized criticism.

Young people, Goldman points out, must first be educated in the basics and values of our culture before they are introduced to questioning it. Failure to do so jeopardizes the continuity of our society. While these values are relative to our culture, they are also essential and necessary to be taught for its continuity. However, we must not succumb to the temptation to give them a divine and immovable authority.

Inevitably, these values will change, but educating young people in direct criticism could be very dangerous and irresponsible for educators. This does not mean, however, that we should not give compelling reasons for following our standards and be open to discussion to avoid indoctrination.

Goldman points out that, for a full understanding of the knowledge being acquired synthetically, young people need experience: this experience can be questioned later. However, the level of experience required is one that young people generally do not reach until they reach a particular age. The Socratic method, rather than generating new values, dissolves old ones. However, what “old value” could a teenager have? And even if it were the case, a teenager obviously wouldn’t have the inner solidity to withstand the shaking of his foundation (again, if any).

On the other hand, there is an inexorability to the Socratic method insofar as it is largely simple thinking, something that naturally cannot be forbidden but can be analyzed. Thinking is a dialogue of the mind with itself; the Socratic method externalizes that dialogue, and at the same time, it must not neglect the fact that one is in dialogue with outsiders, that one is engaging in a social process. Thinking, from this perspective, acquires a social dimension. An education focused on ideas rather than technical skills must be careful not to fall into ideologization or be absorbed by the political contingencies of the moment and not to rely too much on thinking itself understood as pure cold analytic reason.

For the Socratic method to be used effectively by teachers, it requires a great deal of openness on the part of the students, as well as a playful nature and an ability to listen and understand in a global and unbiased way. This isn’t easy to find in a society and even more so in a classroom with many students.

However, stimulating thinking can coexist with the cultural preconceptions of each member simply by promoting an informal internal dialogue in the learner indirectly through the presentation of a stable value system, which would paradoxically stimulate informal dialogue with their peers.

This way, the Socratic method’s objective could occur spontaneously in the subject’s daily life. Still, if a school happened to establish this method as the axis of its education, the school itself would lose importance since the objective is already achieved outside of it. In this way, a good school for Goldman is not one whose axis is tolerance towards new ideas but one with strong individuals with already divergent ideas and methods among them who engage in constant discussion: this is how real critical thinking would be generated.

An atmosphere of constant discussion based on strong previous beliefs shows students the importance of critical thinking beyond the classroom climate: critical thinking becomes a component of everyday life and has a transcendent utility. This idea of heterogeneity is difficult to achieve since most schools seek a homogeneous horizontalization of the environment, with the peaceful integration of ideas as a value axis.

Although the article was published in 1984, it is still relevant today. The issue of critical questioning is usually very much left aside in school education and, in many cases, in the universities themselves. The influence of postmodernism (which, through the deconstructive mood, has a certain Socratic element) has sought the dissolution of structures as an end and, in turn, a glorification of negative freedom and the desacralization of the predominant structural values. The excessive Socratization of our mental processes has enabled the homogenizing of the contents of the dialogue through a skeptical axis, which, paradoxically, nullifies the vitality of the dialogue itself.

The lack of external structure weakens the argumentative foundations, making the dialogical processes flabby, vague, or simply redundant. I think Goldman’s idea is correct regarding the fact that to annul tradition is, in some way, to annul the individual as an active subject within the world. Perhaps this last point can be related to the fact that Socrates couldn’t deal with his own economic needs and, sometimes, his friends had to support him.

The irony in all this is that Goldman presents us with a skeptical view regarding skepticism itself, which, seen as a double negation operation, could lead to the exact opposite: a re-sacralization and revaluation of our traditional values to avoid our alienation, an aggressively deconstructive process fueled by globalization.

The dissolution of structures is not immune to itself. The abandonment of one ship leads to drift but inexorably enables boarding a different one. I think the current cultural zeitgeist will have to acquire a certain self-awareness as it will serve as a foundation for creating a more solid social order.

References:
Educational Leadership. Goldman, Louis, 1984
The Republic. Plato, 370BC

Join the Club

Like this story? You’ll love our monthly newsletter.

Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.