The Method of Socrates
By
Last year I paid great attention on this Badi' Blog to Xenophon's Memorabilia of the life of Socrates, the Gutenberg electronic text of which I was reading in manuscript form. I had printed it out myself, hoping to find a reference to the need for male chastity that I remembered from way back in college. I never did find that reference but reading the Memorabilia a second time after all these years I was surprised how brilliantly Socrates, who is among the greatest teachers in history, shines forth from this a non-Platonic source. If there had never been a Plato or an Aristotle the Memorabilia would be better known and Socrates' pure teaching might be better understood.
Unfortunately I misplaced the last several pages of my Memorabilia text in a huge pile of yet-to-be read newspapers and magazines, and they only surfaced a couple of days ago. So I read the closing pages of the Memorabilia just when I was pondering one of the more mysterious passages of the Republic, where Plato discusses the "myth of the metals" and its concomitant, the "true lie." In the conclusion of Xenophon's Memorabilia he recaps how his beloved teacher taught. Of course his approach is now world famous, known as the Socratic Method of teaching, but it seems to me that Xenophon's understanding of the Socratic method is slightly different, tinged as we all are by Plato's interpretations. First of all, Xenophon says that the genius of Socrates was to know where to start,
"By this method of bringing back the argument to its true starting- point, even the disputant himself would be affected and the truth become manifest to his mind." (Xenophon, Memorabilia, Book IV, Chapter VI)
When a consultation breaks down into an argument, the failure is almost always because the parties do not start at the start. When a teacher fails to reach a student, you can bet that it is due to that teacher starting too late or too far along in the learning process. Find the root. Start there and only there: that is the Socratic method. But what did Socrates do next, after he had found the correct point of departure? Xenophon explains,
"His own -- that is, the Socratic -- method of conducting a rational discussion, of threading the mazes of an argument, was to proceed step by step from one point of general agreement to another: "Herein lies the real security of reasoning," he would say; and for this reason he was more successful in winning the common assent of his hearers than any one I ever knew. He had a saying that Homer had conferred on Odysseus the title of a safe, unerring orator, because he had the gift to lead the discussion from one commonly accepted opinion to another." (
This point you can easily miss. Socrates is famous for taking apart fallacies and misconceptions, but he was a builder most of all. At the same time that he demolished wrongs, he was always, meticulously building up the right, the common ground, the points of agreement that unite a common understanding. This reminds you forcefully of the Master. Here is what H.C. Ives wrote about the teaching method of Abdu'l-Baha:
"In all of my many opportunities of meeting, of listening to and talking with 'Abdu'l-Baha I was impressed, and constantly more deeply impressed, with His method of teaching souls. That is the word. He did not attempt to reach the mind alone. He sought the soul, the reality of every one He met. Oh, He could be logical, even scientific in His presentation of an argument, as He demonstrated constantly in the many addresses I have heard Him give and the many more I have read. But it was not the logic of the schoolman, not the science of the class room. His lightest word, His slightest association with a soul was shot through with an illuminating radiance which lifted the hearer to a higher plane of consciousness. Our hearts burned within us when He spoke. And He never argued, of course. Nor did He press a point. He left one free." (Howard Colby Ives, Portals to Freedom, p. 39)
Ditto for Socrates. Xenophon wrote: "As regards the ordinary necessities of life, his advice was, `Act as you believe these things may best be done.' But in "darker problems, the issues of which are incalculable" Socrates always suggested resorting to religious methods.
"No one," he would say, "who wishes to manage a house or city with success: no one aspiring to guide the helm of state aright, can afford to dispense with aid from above. Doubtless, skill in carpentering, building, smithying, farming, of the art of governing men, together with the theory of these processes, and the sciences of arithmetic, economy, strategy, are affairs of study, and within the grasp of human intelligence.
"Yet there is a side even of these, and that not the least important, which the gods reserve to themselves, the bearing of which is hidden from mortal vision. Thus, let a man sow a field or plant a farm never so well, yet he cannot foretell who will gather in the fruits: another may build him a house of fairest proportion, yet he knows not who will inhabit it. Neither can a general foresee whether it will profit him to conduct a campaign, nor a politician be certain whether his leadership will turn to evil or good. Nor can the man who weds a fair wife, looking forward to joy, know whether through her he shall not reap sorrow. Neither can he who has built up a powerful connection in the state know whether he shall not by means of it be cast out of his city. To suppose that all these matters lay within the scope of human judgment, to the exclusion of the preternatural, was preternatural folly.
"Nor was it less extravagant to go and consult the will of Heaven on any questions which it is given to us to decide by dint of learning. As though a man should inquire, "Am I to choose an expert driver as my coachman, or one who has never handled the reins?" "Shall I appoint a mariner to be skipper of my vessel, or a landsman?" And so with respect to all we may know by numbering, weighing, and measuring."
"To seek advice from Heaven on such points was a sort of profanity.
"Our duty is plain," he would observe; "where we are permitted to work through our natural faculties, there let us by all means apply them. But in things which are hidden, let us seek to gain knowledge from above, by divination; for the gods," he added, "grant signs to those to whom they will be gracious."
Socrates clearly draws the line here between science and religion. To think of religion in scientific terms or to do the reverse, think of science in terms of religion, are for Socrates both forms of "profanity." If we do not know, we admit that we do not know and we pray for guidance. If we do know, or if we know of an expert who can know, we go to experts and scientists and follow their counsel. Knowledge is the criterion. Know when you know.
Socrates was claimed as the father not only of the schools of Plato and Aristotle but also of the three schools of popular philosophy that predominated for the next thousand years, the Epicureans, Stoics and Skeptics. Each in a different way thrived upon this essential distinction between science and religion. Take, for instance the Stoic, Marcus Aurelius, who correctly identified this as an essential aspect of justice. Justice is knowing what comes first, and sticking to it.
"Nature is never inferior to art, for the arts imitate nature. If so, nature in its most perfect and comprehensive form cannot fall short of art. Now all arts do the inferior things for the sake of the superior: therefore the universal nature does so too. And indeed here is the origin of justice, and in justice all virtues have their foundation; for justice will not be observed if we either care for secondary things, or are easily deceived, or careless, or changeable." (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, 11:10)
Xenophon is not finished with the Socratic method. There are a couple more aspects of the method that I will go into later. But I want to turn next time to the Republic and its myth of the metals and the true lies platform.
No comments:
Post a Comment