A rchive Date
[ 09-12-2002 ]
Category
[ Philosophy ]
sub-Categoy
[ Greek ]
|
[Socratic Methods
Did Socrates have a single method at all? He had two strategies: the elenchus, and bringing about aporia.
The elenchus reveals that the interlocutor has contradictory beliefs;
And this results in aporia, or recognition of ignorance which spurs the continued search for truth through dialogue.
But his method generates two paradoxes.
The first paradox: he claims to know nothing, and sometimes that he has knowledge of the truth. Some claim that the professed ignorance as a ruse; that he is sincere, and never claims absolute certainty.
Others state that he claims certainty about some things but not others.
While others say that he claims ordinary knowledge but not wisdom.
The second paradox is the question of methodological goals - how can a method which is designed to result in aporia yield knowledge of the truth? On one reading, Socrates sincerely believed that dialogue was the method for attaining truth.
But this is inconsistent with his disclaiming knowledge. Besides, the function of the elenchus is the negative one of proving falsity, not of proving truth. Indeed, it cannot even prove falsity, but only contradiction; and an interlocutor could escape by withdrawing one of the inconsistent claims. [5] Both interpretations (that the method does, and that it does not lead to truth) can by justified by reference to the text.
Socrates has been invoked by a wide range of recent philosophers, educationalists, psychologists, and political theorists, and they are almost unanimous in their praise. [6] Diametrically opposed thinkers can agree on praising Socrates because they interpret him differently - whether as 'purveyor of truth or sincere ignoramus'.
Rorty distinguishes a 'Platonic Socrates' and a 'Deweyan Socrates'; but this is wrong, because the Platonic Socrates embraces both versions. Better is Vlastos's distinction between a 'moral Socrates' and a 'metaphysical Socrates', characteristic of the earlier and later dialogues respectively. The former use the elenchus and result in aporia, whereas the latter are prone to lecturing, and include more dogmatic claims to truth. [7] The moral Socrates is the historical Socrates, and he gradually metamorphoses into the metaphysical Socrates, who is the mouthpiece of Plato.
If the varied invocations of Socrates are remarkable, it is even more remarkable how rarely his method is used, or if used, how 'perversely misunderstood'. I conclude with a plea for Socratic education based on the 'moral Socrates', who is 'eternally sceptical of any claim to possessing absolute and eternal truths.'
[8] Although the Socratic method cannot establish truth, we should still pursue it as a regulative ideal, while recognising that 'all knowledge is fallible and stands open to future revision.' I have no space here to argue for truth as a regulative rather than as an attainable ideal, but there is another good reason for detaching truth as the goal, namely pluralism. In a multi-cultural society, there are many visions of the good (some better, some worse), but 'the diversity of society precludes us from identifying any one as the pinnacle of what it means to be human.'
The Socratic method is most important for its capacity to further civic education, by helping 'students learn the critical thinking skills and habits necessary for political participation in a pluralist democracy.' Pluralism does not imply relativism, but participants need the analytical capacity to 'assess and choose among various conceptions of the good' for themselves. Martha Nussbaum says that a democracy which is reflective and deliberative, rather than merely a 'marketplace of competing interest groups . . . must produce citizens who have the Socratic capacity to reason about their beliefs.'
The Socrates I admire is 'curious and confidently humble.' He is eager to enter into dialogue with others, even without expecting a final truth. [9] He is an attractive model for civic engagement, and his method develops analytic skills which are invaluable for a modern democracy. 'For the citizens of a liberal democracy, the unexamined life deforms our autonomy and diminishes our freedom. The Socratic method becomes a way to cope with diversity and flourish amidst it.']
|