The Socratic Method and its Effect on Critical Thinking
by Max Maxwell
 

PART I    An Overview of the Socratic Method PART II   The Socratic Cultivation of Critical Thinking

PART I

I have had a vivid interest in the Socratic Method since I read Plato’s Euthyphro in 1981.  It was my exposure to this method that brought me to a life long thirst for understanding. The Socratic Method of questioning is named after Socrates who was born in 469 or 470 B.C in the city of Athens.  His father was Sophroniscus, a stone cutter, and his mother was Phaenarete, a midwife.  His mother’s profession of the midwife is how Socrates would later characterize his own profession.  Socrates was well known in Athens by the time he was in his forties due to his habit of engaging in philosophy conversations in public and at private gatherings.  The subject of these conversations often revolved around defining things like, justice, beauty, courage, temperance, friendship and virtue.  The search for definition focused on the true nature of the subject under question and not just on how the word is used correctly in a sentence.  Socrates style of conversation involved his own denial of knowledge.  In these conversations Socrates became the student and made those he questioned the teacher.  Since Socrates appeared to be much more knowledgeable about the ambiguities and pitfalls of the subjects under discussion, his claim of ignorance struck others as ironic.  This became known as Socratic Irony. 

The Socratic Method can be used to good effect for leading a person to work out their own understanding of static knowledge such as mathematics; but it is a profoundly useful tool to facilitate improvements in critical thinking and to elevate the quality of human discourse regarding difficult and controversial issues.   The more difficult, ambiguous or controversial the issue, the more powerful the usefulness of the Socratic Method will be in our conversations.  This is because the need to think critically increases with the complexity and ambiguity of the issue or problem under discussion.    Although some commonly shared level of problem solving and evaluative ability, which sometimes passes for critical thinking is used in our daily lives, the full and rich depth of the human capacity to think critically is much greater.   Many people's ability to think with some measure of critical quality serves them fine in solving some practical problems.  If, however, a problem has complex ethical dimensions or otherwise ambiguous qualities, the average ability to think critically is often not adequate.  This inadequacy is especially evident when we are required to think critically about our own cherished beliefs and ideas. 

The good news about the Socratic Method is that some of its most powerful benefits are delivered to people in a way that does not require great philosophical prowess or teaching skill.  A cup of open mindedness, a pinch of humble servility and a passion to explore makes up most of the recipe for putting a good portion of the Socratic Method to productive use.   However, the most powerful aspect of the Socratic Method is very difficult to employ.  This aspect is described in the following two sections (The Two-Phase Freestyle, The Deconstructive Phase).

The Two-Phase Freestyle

There are two main modes of the Socratic Method.  I call the first mode the Two-Phase Freestyle.  The primary portrait of how Socrates functioned in this mode is in the early Dialogues of Plato (and some later dialogues).  Plato wrote in the form of dialogues, which are often referred to as Socratic dialogues.  In these dialogues Socrates would talk to people that had a reputation for having some knowledge of, or some interest in, the subject of the dialogue.  In this mode, Socrates would ask the main question of the dialogue in the form of “What is X?”.  (e.g.  What is justice?)  The respondents would answer.  Socrates would then ask more questions and the respondent’s answers would end up refuting the definition to the question "What is X?", which they had originally given.  Once the respondent realized that the definition was not valid he would be asked again, “What is X?”.  This process would often repeat until the end of the dialogue.  With each new definition the respondent is subjected to more questions and continues to fail to define X.  The conclusion of the dialogue would be an admission of failure to find a proper definition of X.  Apparently this Socratic questioning had quite an effect on the respondents. 

In the Socratic dialogue called Meno, Socrates is asked by Meno if he believes that virtue can be taught.  Meno was shocked and could scarcely believe it when Socrates tells him that he not only does not know if virtue can be taught, but does not know what virtue is.  Furthermore, Socrates tells Meno that he never knew anyone else who had an understanding of virtue.  Meno’s reluctance to believe Socrates never knew anyone who understood what virtue is was based on his belief that any grown and properly educated man would have some knowledge of virtue.  Meno believed that he understood the nature of virtue.  Meno is then exposed to Socratic questioning.  Plato gives us a description of the effect this questioning had on Meno when Meno tells Socrates,   

“O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and am at my wits' end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies (makes numb) those who come near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you; and though I have been delivered of an infinite variety of speeches about virtue before now, and to many persons-and very good ones they were, as I thought. At this moment I cannot even say what virtue is. And I think that you are very wise in not voyaging and going away from home, for if you did in other places as do in Athens, you would be cast into prison as a magician.”      - from Meno

Meno had been moved from a sense of security over his knowledge about virtue to the uncomfortable realization that he cannot even say what virtue is.  With Meno’s words above we see the effect of the first phase of the Socratic Method.

 The Deconstructive Phase

The purpose of the first phase of the Socratic Method is that it prepares people to think.  The only people who are incapable of thinking about an issue are those who are already convinced they have “the” understanding of an issue.  There are no “Socratic teachings”, but there is a Socratic goal.  The goal inherent in any method of questioning worthy of the name “Socratic” is the improvement of a human being through increased understanding.  The first phase of the Two-Phase Freestyle of the Socratic Method deconstructs people’s previous understanding using their own words and leaves them with the experience of being less sure of what they previously knew with greater certainty.  This is its value. 

Convictions, when held too tightly, blind us in a way that traps us within our own opinions.  Although this protects us from uncomfortable ambiguities and troublesome contradictions, it also makes us comfortable with stagnation and blocks the path to improved understanding.  In other words, without the capacity to question ourselves the possibility of real thinking ceases.  If people are not able to question their own ideas they cannot be thoughtful at all.  When unacknowledged or unquestioned assumptions dominate the mind, thoughtfulness becomes a danger and the human aspiration to improve and grow in understanding becomes a slave to fear.  The goal of this style of the Socratic Method is to help people by freeing their desire for understanding from the harmful limitations that come through clinging to the false securities of their current knowing.  People who experience the effect, which arises from being a recipient of the first phase of the Socratic Method are freed from the shackles of confidence in their knowing.  This affords them the optional freedom of thinking about an issue with a greater quality of thoughtfulness.  Reactions to this effect can be diverse. They range from embracing the experience with zeal to seeking to remove oneself from the situation.

When stripped of their usual surety, a person may become sensitive and anxious.  The advantage of the Socratic Method over the more common forms of discussion or debate is that the Socratic questioner may abandon the burdensome pretense of knowing and take the more subordinate and conversationally effective role as a seeker of understanding.  This has the effect of flying under the defensive radar, particularly on controversial issues, and provides a measure of comfort that can move the conversation to a more productive level. Instead of trading contrary propositions and defending mutually exclusive arguments, the Socratic Method functions by keeping the conversation focused on common goals that are shared by both sides.  Instead of being an opponent, the person being questioned becomes a teacher and helper. 

A function of Socratic irony in the context of the first phase is to increase the level of psychological comfort while at the same time placing all the burden for finding answers upon the respondent.  This ensures that communication is more effective and helps a person’s aspiration to increase their understanding to have the best chance of responding positively to the conversation. This is critical as the deconstructive phase can be distressing.  With reference to the deconstructive sting his method was capable of, while on trial for his life Socrates said that he was:

“sort of a gadfly, given to the state by the god; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which the god has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you.”  - from the Apology

This Socratic gadfly was put to death because the distress his method was thought to have brought to the city of Athens.  This distress was particularly heavy when some of Socrates young conversation partners, who had ambitions in politics, would go home to their powerful families and to other prominent persons and ply this method to tearing down existing beliefs with much less servility and grace than Socrates.  It seemed to some of the people of Athens that the effect of Socrates' questioning was to make the young question things they should not.  When, Critas, a one time pupil of Socrates and cousin to Plato, later became a bloody, ruthless dictator who overthrew democracy in Athens, the reality of questioning and tearing down existing things took on a horrific aspect.  Socrates was thought to be partially responsible since he had a role in Critas' life as an educator.   This was the element that insured the outcome of his trial.  Having been sentenced to death, Socrates had the opportunity to escape prison and live in exile but refused.  He spent his last month in prison the same way he spent his life as a free man.  He explored life questioning those around him.  On his last day he drank the deadly hemlock because his fellow Athenians believed he was a failure as a teacher.  At the time of his death, he was looked at by many Athenians as a man who made his students worse instead of improving them.  In the face of such spectacular failures as Critas, Socrates never thought less of his style of seeking and teaching.  He valued it until the end.  Seeking understanding and using questions in that pursuit have more worth than any failures can can ever do to discredit.  If Critas had ever learned to really question himself, he might have lived a different life.  If Socrates had not demonstrated such a gentle, graceful and sincerely helpful manner in his questioning activities, he probably would not have lived as long as he did.

One of the most “Socratic” aspects of Socrates’ method has nothing to do with conversational techniques, philosophical principles, or pedagogical perspectives.  It is all about a genuine attitude of humility and service towards the person being questioned.  This Socratic irony, with its characteristic humble grace, goes a long way to giving people the interest, determination and patience to endure what can be trying experience.  Without true Socratic irony, the deconstructive phase becomes an exercise in shallow manipulation that lacks the power to inspire.

The Constructive Phase

When a person who has been exposed to Socratic questioning admits to themselves that an idea they held was wrong or inadequate in some way, that person has been brought to a place within themselves which brings to life new ideas and understandings.  This bringing to birth of new ideas is the constructive second phase of the Socratic Method.  Here the respondent, stripped of previous ideas and convictions, brings to birth new ones.  It is this bringing to birth of new ideas and understandings that Socrates related to his mother’s profession as a midwife.  Socrates assists in this birth by clearing away ideas that cannot stand up to questioning.  This allows the respondent to do their own work in the second phase through his / her creation of new ideas.

The Cyclic Structure of Phases

There is a division of labor in the Socratic Method between the Socratic questioner and the respondent.  This division of labor can be described within the framework of the two phases.  The first phase (deconstructive) is primarily the work of the Socratic questioner.  The second phase (constructive) is entirely the work of the respondent.  An illustration of the relationship between these two phases and the labor they involve can be seen in Socrates’ description of his work from the dialogue Theaetetus:

“...the highest point of my art is the power to prove by every test whether the offspring of a young man's thought is a false phantom or an instinct with life and truth. I am so far like the midwife, that I cannot myself give birth to wisdom; and the common reproach is true that, though I question others, I can myself bring nothing to light because there is no wisdom in me. The reason is this: heaven constrains me to serve as a midwife, but has debarred me from giving birth. So of myself I have no sort of wisdom, nor has any discovery ever been born to me as the child of my soul. Those who frequent my company at first appear, some of them, quite unintelligent; but, as we go further with our discussions, all who are favored by heaven make progress at a rate that seems surprising to others as well as to themselves, although it is clear that they have never learned anything from me; the many admirable truths they bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven's work and mine.”

From this description it can be seen that the platonic Socrates viewed his work as taking place in the deconstructive first phase.  As Socrates says in the Theaetetus, “the many admirable truths they (the respondents) bring to birth have been discovered by themselves from within. But the delivery is heaven's work and mine.”  Socrates role is to “test whether the offspring of a young man’s thought is a false phantom or instinct with life and truth.”  This testing is the deconstructive first phase where ideas that do not stand up to testing are discarded.  The respondent takes command in the constructive second phase.  The second phase involves a birth of ideas that the respondents discover “by themselves from within.”   Here in the constructive second phase Socrates usually does not assist at all.  The respondents are entirely responsible for their own creation.  In the deconstructive first phase, Socrates tests a definition or idea with the help of the respondent and the definition or idea collapses.  After the collapse we enter the constructive second phase where the respondent creates a new definition or idea all on his own.  Upon this act of second phase creation we enter again into the deconstructive first phase and Socrates tests again if this new idea is, "a false phantom or an instinct with life and truth." Grouping the freestyle mode into two phases is defined by this process of creation and destruction.  The cycle can take place any number of times during an application of the Socratic Method.  The goal is to seek ideas and definitions that will stand up to testing and show themselves to be full of “life and truth.”  This style of the Socratic Method, as described by the two phases is characteristic in the early dialogues of Plato (and some later dialogues).

A Second Mode of The Socratic Method
The Constructive Agenda

When people speak today of using the Socratic Method in conversation, it is almost always the second mode of which they speak.  I call this mode the Constructive Agenda.  This second mode of the Socratic Method is found in Plato.  In the Meno dialogue, for example, the first part of the dialogue is an illustration of the Two-Phase Freestyle mode of the Socratic Method.  Then in response to Meno’s claim that one cannot ever inquire into anything (known as Meno’s paradox), Socrates is made to introduce Plato’s idea of knowledge as recollection.  This theory is illustrated by a dialogue with a one of Meno’s slaves.  The subject is a geometry question.  There are still wrong answers and clarifying questions but the clear Two-Phase cycle is gone.  In its place is a constant progression of knowledge in which the slave is lead to correct answers that build upon each other until the original question is correctly answered.  This constant progression of knowledge is also part of the character of Plato’s Republic (after the initial focus on justice).  In the Republic the task is not just to answer a geometry question, but to build the ideal city state.  Achieving such a lofty goal is beyond the capabilities of endless cycles of not being able to answer one question.  In this style of the Socratic Method, the Socratic questioner has adopted his/her own constructive agenda.

Differences Between The Two Dialogical Modes

With the Two-Phase Freestyle mode of dialogue there is no guarantee of a correct answer.  In fact the typical result in a Socratic dialogue employing this mode is to not find an answer to the main question.  At that point the benefit of the method is to help the respondent to, in true Socratic fashion, know what they do not know.  This becomes the whole value of the Two-Phase Freestyle dialogue in the absence of viable answers.  In the second mode of the Socratic Method, a correct answer can be known by the Socratic questioner.  The Two-Phase Freestyle places the Socratic questioner in the position of being totally ignorant, and by necessity a student of the respondent.  The Constructive Agenda mode puts the Socratic questioner in the position of a teacher who knows the answer (as in the case of the geometry experiment) or at least has a constructive agenda of his/her own (as in Plato’s Republic).  It is an open question whether the historical Socrates went beyond the Two-Phase cycles found in Plato’s early (and some other) dialogues.  Most scholars believe that the early dialogues, which emphasize the Two-Phase Freestyle mode are more in the spirit of the historical Socrates than later dialogues.  This Constructive Agenda style of the Socratic Method may be Plato’s idea of improving on Socrates.  The Two-Phase Freestyle mode is characteristic of the early dialogues, and is less fruitful by most practical constructive standards.  There is often no positive acquisition of knowledge except the knowledge of what we do not know.  To some, this seems to be a very sparse reward.  It is also very difficult to make Socrates’ deconstructive phase work in live conversation.  That most modern applications of the Socratic Method are oriented around the Constructive Agenda mode may be explained by the difficulties involved in successfully making the Two-Phase Freestyle work.  If a systematic way of teaching people to work the deconstructive phase in live conversation can be created, it would be a useful tool for inquiry.

A Socratic Method Research Project

Currently I am doing research and development, as an independent consultant, for a company that develops new teaching methods (not involving the Socratic Method).  I have started, and hope soon to work full time, on a project which will result in a book about how to use the Socratic Method in conversation and in writing.  Over the next few years my goal is to increase my understanding of the Socratic Method in order to create the first systematically teachable and most comprehensively usable form of the Socratic Method ever developed.  One of the projects main goals is to solve problems in using the Two-Phase Freestyle mode in live conversation.  If you want to see the classic Two-Phase Freestyle mode of the Socratic Method at work in a modern context, read the Kyrios Dialogue.  It is an example of my early work using the Socratic Method in conversation.  When it becomes possible to systematically teach people how to conduct the Two-Phase Freestyle on a wide array of subjects, with all of the difficulties inherent to the deconstructive mode, the full range and value of the Socratic Method will be available for common use for the first time.  The book will also cover the use of the Constructive Agenda mode in various social and educational contexts in a way that lets the reader apply it to any subject. 
 

PART II -  The Socratic Cultivation of Critical Thinking

Never in the history of humanity has it been more important to the survival of our species to raise whole generations of excellent thinkers than it is today.  A dreamy ideal of modern education is that college graduates will not only have gained some mastery in the particular disciplines they have chosen, but also graduate with advanced skill in critical thinking.  Unfortunately, there are a large number of college students for whom the idea of thinking critically is new to them upon their arrival to college. 

Critical thinking should be actively cultivated throughout public school in order for college students to have the base they need to advance their skill.   However, critical thinking is a skill that is neglected in our (U.S.) public schools.  This is not because of a lack of perceived value, but is neglected because of the lack of ability to adequately teach the fundamentals of reading, writing and math to the students.  Nobody can deny that the U.S. school system is broken.  So many kids finish their time in the public school system with inadequate knowledge and skills that it is a national emergency.  The U.S. government variously estimates the rate of functional illiteracy at between twenty-five and fifty percent.  The problem is getting worse.

There are some bad teachers in our schools.  But there are a lot more hardworking, dedicated teachers who are just overwhelmed with the important job of trying to get their students to acquire the basic skills they will need just to get by in the world.  There is little or no time in the public school curriculum to include much in the way of activities dedicated to the cultivation of critical thinking.  This is not just the fault of the public school system.  The bulk of the problem is social.  In the U.S. too many parents believe that the public school system will do the educating for them.  If such parents participate in their child’s education at all, they are content to drop the kids off at school and ask if they did their home work at night.  Then they think they are done.  Many children also face horrendous social problems that tax their ability to focus on school.  Between parental complacency and other factors of social chaos, which impact the students’ homes, neighborhoods and schools, many students do not have the support they need to do well in our under funded and understaffed school systems.  What has been described above is extremely important, but we cannot afford to wait until those problems are fixed to address the issue of cultivating critical thinking.  The beauty of the Socratic Method is that you can incorporate it into existing curricula without necessarily taking any more class time.  Critical thinking can be elevated in the process of teaching current curricula.

The Socratic Method primarily address aspects of the development of skill in critical thinking that do not come from learning types of logical fallacies or the heuristics for evaluating arguments and solving problems.  It comes from a socially communicated inspiration to thirst for understanding and to experience the hard work involved in creating understanding as a joyful and satisfying journey. 

 Areas of Impact

The Socratic cultivation of critical thinking has two main areas of impact.  I have named these areas “The Safety Factor” and “The Preference Factor.”  Both areas affect people’s psychological health with regard to their capacity to do their own critical thinking.

 The Safety Factor

The safety factor is about how well a person is able to cope with interpersonal conflict, social marginalization, physical danger and death.  The safety factor influences the quality of our critical thinking through the dynamics of our desires for social and physical self-preservation.  Belief structures are formed and maintained as a response to the demands of our environment.  To critically challenge such structures is to risk compromising our ability to meet the demands of our environment and therefore compromise our safety.  A basic value that the Socratic Method brings to people is to make it possible for them to feel confident about the experience of questioning anything including their own ideas and beliefs.  You cannot develop a capacity for critical thinking without a capacity to question anything and everything.  People who are afraid to question often don’t.  Such persons never develop any real skill in thinking critically until they first overcome their fear of questioning.  Ironically, for a species that prides itself on thinking, even the best of our human societies are not optimally organized to cultivate fearless questioning.  In many countries people regularly suffer all kinds of retributions and even death just because they asked questions.  We have real reasons to be concerned about the results of our own questioning activity.  The inducement to fear our ability to inquire comes from many places.  Family, peers, schools, churches, societies, corporations and governments all have vested interests in making us believe that we should be careful about our questioning activity. 

The social and political suppression of the act of critical inquiry is not restricted to nations ruled by dictators.  Many people who have persisted in asking critical questions about the existence of God, the integrity of their government, sexual identity, current laws on abortion, a friend's motivation, evolution or a company policy have been treated like they were doing something wrong just because they wanted to question something. 

People have been called unpatriotic traitors because they questioned the competence, integrity and intelligence of national leader.  People, who question the existence of God, are considered by many as being morally corrupt and even treated like criminals in many parts of the world.   Religious persons have the experience of questioning the morality of something from a religion based perspective and have felt the pressure from the non-religious to stop.  The institutional self-interests of school and the workplace pressure people to conform.  Parents can make their children feel as if they have done something wrong if the parent is overreacting to thinking the child is asking too many questions or to the child questioning something the parent does not wish to address.  Far from being taught to cherish every opportunity to question and far from being led to embrace the experience of questioning with joyful insight into its inherent good, many of us are taught to be very careful and even suspicious about our own desire to question.  This over abundance of caution reduces the intelligence of humanity.   

 The Preference Factor

The preference factor involves the effect of our own presuppositions, attachments and personal commitments.  The preference factor influences our critical thinking capacity through the interactions of our preferences, personal beliefs and our pre-existing commitments to taking a particular side in various issues or social conflicts.  Critical thinking is not a skill that is evenly applied to all things.  A person can be very critically thoughtful on some issues and lacking in critical thoughtfulness in other issues.  The measure of a person's critical thoughtfulness is often correlated to his / her own personal investments in the issue.  For example a person may be very critically thoughtful on issues pertaining to judicial ethics, but lack any critical capacity on the issue of the existence of God because they are already committed to a particular answer for the God question.  One can develop extraordinary capacity to engage in critical thinking and yet find that their own preferences in various issues can make the quality of their critical thinking vary tremendously.  The two factors overlap but are different.  The safety factor is about pressures from without.  The preference factor is about pressures from within.

 Socratic Questioning and Critical Thinking

It is very important that teachers find their own love of questioning prior to using the Socratic Method.  If you are not comfortable at being questioned, please do not use the Socratic Method.  You are not ready.  Not only will your lack of comfort transmit to the students (even if you are the questioner), you will not be up to par on living true Socratic Irony.  This is important because the Socratic Method addresses both factors by providing people with the opportunity for positive questioning experiences.  When people are placed in a situation where they are questioned in a way that is friendly, respectful and useful, people are empowered to experience the value of good questions.  They are inspired to see questioning as a fundamentally important part of life.  This is particularly true if a person can experience having a personal belief or idea refuted in a positive way.  In the midst of Socratic questioning people can learn to feel good about getting one of their beliefs or ideas questioned and discarded.  This is true because the successful application of the Socratic Method provides people with the realization that if they work hard they can either create a better belief or idea, or they can in true Socratic fashion feel good about knowing what they do not know.    We all have experiences which make us cautious and fearful about questioning.   Through the use of the Socratic Method we can offer a balancing positive experience of the act of asking questions, which can inspire people to eagerly embrace the heart of critical thinking.  Such an embrace can only strengthen their capacity for critical thought.

Learning to love the experience of questioning gives psychological strength to our will to question.  Learning to love the experience of having our own beliefs and ideas questioned and even discarded gives us an inspired vision of our power to work for our own improvement.  If we see questioning as a sacred activity that is vital to our own safety (by safeguarding our integrity and growth), we are less afraid to question the world.  If we develop a preference for questioning our own preferences we find a true Socratic spirit within ourselves that will empower our critical thinking for life.  The successful use of the Socratic Method gifts those who experience it with the living heart of critical thinking.