Once Socrates said: "Truth is born in a dispute." And after a while he created his own system of polemics, which seemed paradoxical to many philosophers, since it broke all concepts that were considered infallible. The Socratic method of dispute is still used in many areas where it is required to imperceptibly lead the opponent to the desired conclusion. Elements of this system are used by psychologists and psychotherapists. So Socrates is modern today even more than 2000 years ago.
Who is Socrates?
Socrates lived in Ancient Greece in 469–399 BC. e. He did not correspond much to the traditional idea of a philosopher. He lived in Athens, he did not describe his concept anywhere, preferring live communication with people. He could often be found in the square, talking with anyone who showed interest in discussing any topic. About his philosophy to descendants, including us,became known thanks to the works of Plato and Xenophon.
In 399 B. C. e. Socrates was put on trial. He was charged with embarrassing the minds of youth and popularizing new deities, for which he was sentenced to death. Socrates did not want to flee, preferring poison. Thus ended the life of a folk sage who never aspired to the laurels of a philosopher.
Plato's Meaning
At the trial, Socrates delivered a speech in his defense, which was presented by Plato in his "Apology". In it, he tried to make the teacher's speech as close to the original as possible. From this philosophical work, we can today learn the details of the process that took place in 399 BC. e., as well as details of the last hours of the life of Socrates. "Apology" is not written in the form of dialogues, which is different from other works of Plato.
The style of his earlier "Conversations with Socrates" is precisely an exchange of opinions, the purpose of which is the search for truth. It is thanks to these works that the Socratic method has come down to us. The claim that manuscripts don't burn turned out to be true.
Plato's merit is today's opportunity to approach both the personality of Socrates and his manner of arguing. The distinctive qualities of the Athenian philosopher were his independence, fidelity to principles and objectivity, thanks to which he could, while maintaining respect for his opponent, prove to him the correctness of his statement.
PrinciplesSocrates
The ancient Greek philosopher's approach to life is very clearly formulated in his last words spoken in court: "But it's time to go from here, I - to die, you - to live, and which of these is better, no one knows except God"…
The questions that Socrates considered worthy of discussion concerned exclusively man and his principles. Therefore, the topics of conversations most often became moral categories: the good of the individual, the concept of wisdom, who can be considered fair, etc. According to Aristotle, Socrates has the primacy in the application of inductive arguments and the formation of general concepts. This is the basis of the Socratic method of conversation.
Ethics and opinion on the role of the state
Today, an ancient Greek philosopher would be considered an idealist. Socrates was sincerely convinced that the totality of knowledge acquired by a person a priori makes him virtuous. According to the philosopher, this is a rational approach, and therefore everyone who understands the concepts of good and evil will adhere to ethical principles when choosing decisions. In other words, if a person has accumulated a lot of knowledge and understood what good is, then he will not do evil, since this is unreasonable. Perhaps this was the case in ancient times…
Socrates' views on politics were a continuation of his ethical principles. He believed that the best citizens should govern the state, who are characterized by a high level of morality and justice. In addition, only those who had accumulated relevant experience could become rulers. Reality is cleardisagreed with theory, and therefore Socrates spoke sharply about the distortions of democracy at that time.
It can be said that his picture of the world did not coincide with reality, but the philosopher did not give up trying to find the truth. And the Socratic method of conversation was designed to push the dull ones to the shining heights of justice and goodness.
The path to truth
There are a great many ways to come to the truth. In ancient Greece, there were various schools, and the philosophers who led them had their own view of the world. But many of them sinned with dogmatism, not allowing students to question the basic postulates of the chosen worldview.
The Socratic method was fundamentally different from the generally accepted one in that it was based not on respectful attention to the teacher, but on an equal dialogue, during which the truth became a reward for both sides of the discussion.
Socrates could still be considered a standard for thinkers and philosophers today, since his only goal was the truth, which has nothing to do with the ambitious polemical battles unfolding on TV screens today.
We have to admit that for 2000 years, politicians of all stripes have not been able to master the method of Socratic dialogue.
Purpose and means
The road to truth is never straight. In order to know it, it is necessary to overcome the contradictions both in oneself and in the defense of the opposite side. This is the dialectic of the dispute, i.e., building such a system of evidence that would best allow demonstrating contradictions inopponent's way of thinking and then overcoming them.
Many philosophers of antiquity relied on the theory of Heraclitus about the clash of opposites, giving impetus to the development of all things. This system was based on the concept of objective dialectics.
Socrates placed subjective dialectics at the head of his system, based on the influence of the Sophists and the Eleatic school. This is nothing but the interconnection of phenomena delimited by the categories of time and space. The concept of subjective dialectics includes the laws of logical thinking and the process of cognition.
Thus, the method of Socrates was to come to the truth through the successive passage of the stages of dialogue, polemic, system of evidence. Considering the ethics of the philosopher, his method became the basis of idealistic dialectics.
Form and content of the method
The Socratic method is a combination of irony and maieutics with induction and formulation.
The technique of maieutics was first mentioned by Plato in his dialogue Theaetetus. This concept was created by Socrates and means a way to reveal the hidden qualities of a person through leading questions. Their system and orientation is subordinated to a single goal: the enemy's awareness of his internal contradictions and lack of competence. Socrates called his technique "midwifery", offering the opponent a new birth, thereby helping him move to the next level of knowledge. This was the Socratic method of teaching.
As for the form of dialogue, the philosopher emphasized irony and self-irony, as if luring the interlocutor into the "wilds of philosophical constructions" and allowing him to get carried away by explaining obvious truths. As a rule, the opponent did not feel too confident in such an exchange of opinions, which contributed to the weakening of his logical defense. As a result, many contradictions were found in the argumentation system, which Socrates used.
Socratic method of cognition
Imagine that you definitely need to convince the interlocutor of something that is completely contrary to his attitudes. And if you go the traditional route and start with a long and fiery speech, you will surely lose. The opponent is not too interested in playing the role of a student listening to the next lesson. In this case, the dialogue form is more efficient. And if you first familiarize yourself with the stages of the Socratic method, then it is likely that you will be able to win over the former enemy.
So, first decide: what exactly do you want to convince the interlocutor, and then follow the route:
- divide your thought into several elementary postulates;
- attach a question to each of them, the answer to which is predictable and obvious;
- ask questions and when you hear the expected response, move on to the next one;
- this move allows you to keep the initiative;
- sooner or later, the opponent will come to the conclusion that was the goal of your dialogue.
If you summarize the general principlespolemics "according to Socrates" to several definitions, it will look like this:
- Agreement.
- Hesitation or doubt.
- Justification or system of evidence.
So by agreeing, you keep disagreements to a minimum. Then unobtrusively define your position. Then you convincingly neutralize the opponent's arguments.
The relevance of the Socratic system is great even today, especially in cases of pressure on you or, conversely, when you need to defend your point of view, but all previous attempts were unsuccessful.
