Excerpt

SOCRATES TO PLATO TO ARISTOTLE

A succession from teacher to student from whom evolved a methodology for thinking philosophically—the Socratic Method. The Socratic method has also been called the Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate. Socrates modeled it, Plato named it and shaped it and Aristotle advanced it. What started with Socrates thousands of years ago is enjoying a renaissance today.

From these three came three philosophic schools of thought. “First comes Socrates asserting that the standard of human thought and action lies in a knowledge of conception and teaching his followers to acquire this knowledge by analyzing notions critically. Hence, Plato concluded that objective conception are in the true sense the only real things, a derivative in reality belonging to all other things – a view which he upheld by a more critical analysis, and developed to a system. Lastly, Aristotle agreed that in a thing the conception itself constitutes its real essence and makes it what it is” (Zeller translated by Reichel, 1962).

Socrates did not record any of his teachings. Instead it was left to Plato to describe, in writing, what Socrates taught. This description relies on the writings of German philosophers Leonard Nelson and Samuel Enoch Stumpf.

“As he pursued his mission, Socrates devised a method for arriving at truth, linking knowing and doing to each other in such a way as to argue that to know the good is to do the good, that knowledge is virtue” (Stumpf, 1966). “There’s a big difference between claiming to know something and claiming to know something authoritatively. Socrates falls in the first camp. He’d never make a claim like ‘I know because I don’t know.’ I think he’d have considered such a statement disingenuous at best. Socrates was intensely committed to the task of discovering what it was to be excellent human being, and he did teach people a specific way, or method, of becoming more and more enlightened about how to become more virtuous. Many philosophers ever since, from Hume to Descartes to Wittgenstein to Russell, have taken this "skeptical attitude"”—what I call Socratic sensibility---as their own launching pad for gaining insight into many of life’s vexing conundrums” (Phillips, 2001). One of Socrates’ intent was to test the beliefs of others. Mauer, 2007 notes “He intended dialog as a mutual search for the truth among lifelong friends who trusted one another and were willing to exchange views without embarrassing each other about it later.” Mauer further notes that, “Dialogue is not debate and it’s not eristics – the clash of ideas – in which you hold onto your “truth” with everything you’ve got and try to defeat any opposing views.” Socratic dialogue is an exchange of ideas designed to clearly define a concept. The value of Socratic dialogue in the classroom is more in the process than in the outcomes. It is an interest in deep questions and a willingness to discuss them that draws out critical and rational thinking through an exchange of ideas. Socratic dialogue is a highly disciplined process in which the focus is on considering questions that invoke critical thinking but does not provide answers.

The philosopher in white robes, with a full, matching white beard, sat on the steps of the palace. His students, in a similar manner were scattered about the steps below him. They sat so that they looked up to him. Socrates and his students engaged in dialogue as he posed questions. His students would elucidate concepts as they searched through dialectic discourse to find truth, attempting to clarify concepts. The philosopher would use regressive questioning as he challenged his student’s thinking. Socrates would cause them to back up through the steps of their thinking to eliminate that thinking which was faulty. One of the teacher’s favorite tricks was to feign ignorance as he drew ideas from his students. He was one of the first to suggest that his students confess their ignorance of an issue rather than get caught in faulty logic. When the dialogue needed a jump start he would mediate the discussion with well guided questions although he preferred to let his students question one another. Those questions that were raised that were off topic he ignored as he drove his students to clarify their definition until the dialogue came to a close with a definition of truth.

Perhaps that was how Socrates carried on dialogue with his students. Modeling the Socratic method in my classroom has resulted in effective discussion. Engaging the students in dialogue provides an opportunity for them to express their understanding and question the thoughts of their classmates in an enlightening and learning setting. Because of the differing points of view and the contributions of classmates the concepts become clearly defined. Insight into the understanding of the students of a particular concept is clearly established, becoming a true form of authentic assessment.

“The Socratic method, then, is the art of teaching not philosophy but philosophizing, the art not of teaching about philosophers but making philosophers of the students” (Nelson, translated by Brown, 2007). With increasing use of technology in the classroom as well as in student’s personal lives (e.g., computer assignments in the classroom and cell phone text messaging), the art of conversation, classroom discussion, the exchange of ideas, critical thinking, conceptualization, and the questioning of thought through Socratic dialogue has become a lost art. “As has been documented time and again, in all levels of schooling in America, classrooms are almost always teacher-centered. Teachers serve as lecturer or dispenser of information; students passively receive the information, memorizing it in order to pass the test on it” (Reich, 2007). Socratic dialogue can be a useful pedagogy for enhancing student learning through effective classroom discussions. “We find dialogue employed as an art form in fiction and drama and as a pedagogic form in instruction” (Nelson translated by Brown, 2007). “Socrates’ primary legacy is not a contribution to humanity’s storehouse of knowledge, but a pedagogy; not substance but process” (Reich, 2007).