Becoming Curious, Not Skeptical
The Socratic method sounds great: Ask questions. Be curious. Begin with the assumption of ignorance. Dig deeply.
But how can we put that legendary approach to life into practice in a world that doesn’t value it?
When some people attempt to pursue the Socratic method, they end up interrogating people and coming off as jerks.
Can we do better?
In The Socratic Method: A Practitioner’s Handbook, Ward Farnsworth attempts to bring the philosopher’s ancient process for pursuing wisdom into the twenty-first century.
The Usual Suspects
The book begins by addressing the underlying question about what the real Socrates was like. Plato’s portrayal of Socrates seems to change over the course of his writing career and other writers seem to depict the great teacher in different ways.
Farnsworth ends up affirming the variation, but settles on the use of Plato’s general approach—especially in his earlier writings—as likely being the closest to the man.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what the man was like in person. What we know of as the Socratic method comes from the portrayals offered by his students, and especially from Plato.
The reason for Farnsworth’s attempt to promote the Socratic method is fairly typical: he sees the damage to discourse from search engines, abbreviated social media discourse, and the toxicity of modern politics. There are no surprises in his diagnosis. Anyone who has been watching likely shares many of the concerns Ward outlines.
For Farnsworth, the answer is the sort of questioning Socrates applied.
Run of the Mill Socrates
Plato’s Socrates is the main character in the The Socratic Method, which makes perfect sense. But it should be clear that John Stuart Mill is another hero in Farnsworth’s story.
For some, especially Christians, this fact may be enough to give us pause.
Mill, of course, is a significant philosopher in English speaking history. Among other things, he is famous for championing the Utilitarian philosophy that often underlies modernistic ethics.
It is clear that Mill knew Socrates well and tried to apply his methods. As he wrote in Utilitarianism, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”
Utilitarianism, however, is incompatible with Christianity. It is a consequentialist approach to ethics that, to simplify, is based on the principle that an action is right as it tends to promote overall human happiness.
Taken from a purely Christian perspective where perfect happiness is understood to be found in glorifying God, this is not in and of itself overwhelmingly problematic. We should try to consider consequences as part of our moral reasoning.
However, such reasoning is quickly shipwrecked by the inability of humans to accurately determine what the consequence of their actions will be in the short term, much less the long term. It also fails to fully consider in what way actions that appear to have a positive outcome may deform someone’s character in the long run.
For some, Farnsworth’s use of Mill to interpret and advocate for the Socratic method may cause some concern.
Still Worth Considering
The potential connection between the Socratic method and Utilitarianism indicates some of the limitations of the method. It cannot be the sole means by which we discover truth.
For Christians, special revelation exists with an authority higher than the purely rationalistic logic that is the foundation of the Socratic method. God spoke in human language in often very clear ways through prophets, apostles, and the authors of Scripture.
The Socratic method, purely applied, would brook no special authority for the Bible. Or, it would require rationalistically determining the basis of its validity. Students of modern theology will hear some familiar themes.
While I believe the Bible is consistent with pure reason, the effects of sin on the human heart have distorted human reason so that we often deny truths and proper realities that are made evident through Scripture. As a result, we may often end up rationally justification the marginalization of revealed truth when attempting to use pure reason.
And yet, there is something of value here.
As long as we understand that the Socratic method is primarily useful for making prudential decisions and better understanding our neighbor, we can gain something from its application.
The world needs more curious people. Even when we have special revelation, it is good to ask questions of the text. Does it hold together? Is our perspective coherent given the sum of the biblical witness?
When the Socratic method is applied as a means of exploring reality in pursuit of truth, rather than becoming an arbiter of ultimate truth, we can find something that is beneficial and worth considering.
Curiosity, not Skepticism
Putting the Socratic method to work to develop curiosity is a good thing. Encouraging honest exploring of different viewpoints among people of all ages would improve our discourse. As Socrates’s life demonstrates, the toxic discourse is nothing new.
Aside from the potential for Utilitarianism to bleed into this method, the potential also exists for questioning to turn into perpetual skepticism. As Paul warns Timothy, we should be concerned with those who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:7)
The Socratic method can help diminish overconfidence, lending itself to curiosity. The opposite error is a sort of rebellion against being able to know anything. The sarcastic Socratic can end up in that state of perpetual and antagonist doubt.
Farnsworth deals with the potential excesses toward the end of the book, by commending the method some Stoics used to apply a limited Socratic method. In some ways it is reminiscent of the Scottish Common Sense approach to knowledge.
The overall emphasis and the examples of applying the Socratic method make this a worthy book. However, it is the sort of approach that should be applied with guard rails. Farnsworth isn’t always sufficiently clear about those limitations for my taste.
The way we talk about humans also has moral implications, which are more significant than how we treat our pets. In his 2011 book, Less than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, David Livingstone Smith explores how language changes culture and leads to the justification of extreme violence against others, especially when they become perceived as less than human.