Download File - Stephanie Childers

Persuasion of Debate:
The Socratic Method
Stephanie Childers
COMM 3155-Dr. Brewer
11/8/2015
Persuasion of Debate: The Socratic Method
Born in Athens, Greece in 469 B.C.E., Socrates was known for his conversation skills and public
teaching. He became notorious as the “most interesting and influential thinker in the fifth century, whose
dedication to careful reasoning transformed the entire enterprise” (Kemerling, 2011). While there are no
published writings by this philosopher, his students took detailed notes and intertwined them into their
own lectures. Socrates once said, “I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” With
this thought process, the Socratic Method was introduced into his teachings.
In the form of persuasion, the Socratic Method challenges the thoughts and ideas of individuals so
that debates are triggered both internally and externally. It has become one of the greatest achievements
of humanity because “its practice calls for no adherence to a philosophical system, or mastery of a
specialized technique, or acquisition of a technical vocabulary. It calls for common sense and common
speech” (Maxwell, 2013). Responses were triggered by personal feelings from within the hearts and
minds of true believers. For once, age or education level did not matter in debate; it had become an
activity in which everyone could participate and have their points be heard. By expressing themselves, the
individuals could influence their audiences and persuade them into siding with them and their campaign.
Not only would the listeners get the opportunity to hear very wise or very foolish arguments, but they
could become “a living performer that had embraced an ‘artistic commitment at risk’ with their
participation” (Maxwell, 2013). Listening to and being a part of the Socratic Debate can be rewarding in
both aspects of education and entertainment, but one cannot claim to be a participant unless they make
their own contribution and not rely on agreeing with the input of others. A true “Socratic conversationalist
must be genuine and communicate openly with others, have interpretations and understandings that are
not of the external survey or the majority, and they must participate with courtesy and hospitality to others
in dialogue that puts all previous commitments to their ideas and beliefs on the table to be fully exposed
and at risk” (Maxwell, 2013). In return, all receivers of the Socratic conversation must accept the
1
responses and respond as if in real conversations. If the argument does not go in an intended way, the
members of this particular group have been taught to crash beautifully in their conclusions.
It has been argued that “in the Socratic method of conversation, persuasion is mostly irrelevant
even if the participants have radically different perspectives, because those participants have already
joined the same team to examine ideas and beliefs together” (Maxwell, 2013). If there were true agreeing
and disagreeing sides, an argument would be put into place and debates would be allowed to occur. In this
instance, one team would need to persuade the opposing team to either agree with them or challenge their
personal beliefs; either way, there would be an act of persuasion. If one group stated that the grass was
light green and the other side argued it was forest green, the subject would be open for debate. While they
were both examining the hue, one would need to persuade the other in order to have an agreeance
between the two of them. In this manner, persuasion is a key element in the process and results of the
Socratic Method. According to Persuasion in the Socratic Method of Conversation, the typical antiSocratic community tries to apply persuasion to all aspects of life, which contrasts to the Socratic idea
that “the act of persuasion in the Socratic Method of conversation is a highly focused and severely subject
limited phenomenon” (Maxwell, 2013). In other words, Socratic individuals have a certain criteria they
go through before deciding to debate the subject at hand; however, the anti-Socratic members believe that
“no subject, idea, or consideration of fact or lie is out of its persuasive bounds if it can help them succeed
at flattering their demographic into agreement” (Maxwell, 2013). Instead of using the Socratic Method for
all issues of disagreement, it is left for major discussions and high-risk debates. For example, they deal
more with our human character and our longing to live more satisfying lives. The conversations “never
seek to persuade others with regard to the outcomes of specific topical issues. Socratic conversation
demands a serious commitment to examining ideas and beliefs with no attachment to a particular outcome
in the validation of our preexisting beliefs” (Maxwell, 2013). It is very important for a Socratic society to
use their intelligence when addressing the debates and questions at hand instead of agreeing with the
majority in order to keep others happy.
2
In the Socratic Method, the persuasion aspect “does not require that the educator or facilitator
study the principles of rhetoric or the psychology of influence. It is not the methods or style of influence
that defines Socratic persuasion. It is the subject matter. There are only a few basic things about which the
Socratic philosophy of conversation seeks to be persuasive” (Maxwell, 2013). It has been pointed out that
anti-Socratic societies take advantage of the method by using it for everything under the sun, whether it is
a sink, flower, or a pencil. They have no boundaries as to what the Socratic Method should cover, unlike
the Socratic followers. The first group talks out of their heads while the latter group has passion from
their hearts, giving their input in debates and having meaningful conversations. Philosophers have to have
a curious mind and be ready to investigate others’ beliefs when necessary.
Socrates became the first clear example of a critical philosopher by pondering over the simplest
array of ideas. He was a man who “sought genuine knowledge rather than mere victory over an opponent.
He employed the same logical tricks developed by the Sophists for a new purpose: the pursuit of truth”
(Kemerling, 2011). In one example of asking a young man what the definition of “piety” was Socrates
subjects every answer he is given until the lad is no longer certain of anything he had said in the past.
After several questions and much time spent in debate, Socrates agreed with a general answer and let the
boy off the hook in order to carry on with their conversation. This may give more insight of why he
questioned everything and had a set “determination to accept nothing less than an adequate account of the
nature of things” (Kemerling, 2011). Instead of gaining all of his knowledge through the academy and
textbooks as children do today, Socrates was self-motivated in learning about the universe and how it is
applied to our daily lives. As described, “The goal of the Socratic method of conversation is that we gain
mastery over ourselves. The greatest tool is our own eagerness to seek the refutations of our own ideas
and beliefs that we also may move quickly down the learning curve of all life’s issues” (Maxwell, 2013).
Socrates believed that he could master many of his problems and help others take control over theirs by
asking enough questions to make peers begin to doubt their initial answers. By addressing a particular
issue and having others give a detailed, explained answer for the same inquiry, Socrates could pick apart
each answer and choose whether or not it was suffice. Since Socrates developed a high desire for
3
knowledge, everything around him became a question of curiosity; as a result, he began to inquire about
his surroundings, functionality of simple machines, and elements in everyday life. Questioning all nature
and life around oneself, the image becomes quite complicated and unsure as to whether or not the first
curiosity was true. Objects and ideas could be questioned three or four times in a row before a generic
explanation or definition could be summoned as the start of a long, in-depth reason. For a Socratic
conversation, the method was to “go into dialogue with the agenda of being deeply open to changing
oneself” (Maxwell, 2013). By addressing many problems over and over again, issues relating to the initial
inquiry would also be second-guessed. It would be like starting with an apple and breaking down the
apple’s anatomy to fit the hypothesis about the orchard, each particular tree, the soil upon which the trees
are planted, and so forth. Taking each aspect of that apple and how it relates to its surroundings could
trigger a new way of looking at life and how each individual reacts differently to noises. Socrates was not
the only one to debate his entire life findings, but he was one of the most well-known because of his
lectures.
In his teachings, Socrates used a carefully designed curriculum that forced his students to
examine themselves and develop some much needed critical-thinking skills. In many circumstances, the
Socratic Method is used to influence and persuade, such as the roles of instructor and student. The first
step is being able to “rely on one’s own abilities to think and communicate. Focusing on first hand
participation is one of the reasons the Socratic Method stands as a significant development in history”
(Maxwell, 2013). If the community was to hold a meeting and everyone sat in silence, nothing would be
accomplished. If the community decided to let a spokesman speak and everyone sat on their benches
without disagreement, an automatic approval would be given for something they might not agree on.
Being present and sitting in the audience without voicing one’s opinion is no better than being absent
from the occasion because in either case, there are no movements being made to challenge a point. In
order to have a well-planned way of debate, Socrates developed his method and taught it religiously to his
students, such as Plato.
4
Right before he was sentenced to death, Socrates was calm when delivering his final public
words. He disclaimed “any certainty about the fate of a human being after death, nevertheless expressing
a continued confidence in the power of reason, which he has always exhibited” (Kemerling, 2011). As
recorded, the winner of this debate remains unclear. To Plato, “the dramatic picture of a man willing to
face death rather than abandoning his commitment to philosophical inquiry sets up Socrates as a model
for all future philosophers” (Kemerling, 2011). There are similar stories of the ultimate sacrifice in
religious literature when a father gives up his son and becomes the ideal portrayal of a believer in his
faith. This day in age, there may not be many people who have to choose between philosophy and death,
“but all of us are daily faced with opportunities to decide between convenient conventionality and our
devotion to truth and reason” (Kemerling, 2011). As it has been summed up, Socrates decided that since
no one ought to do wrong and it is always wrong to disobey the state that one ought never to disobey the
state. By Socrates following his personal beliefs and choosing to keep his commitment of truth and
morality instead of escaping death row, he persuaded himself into believing his death would be justified
by using his Socratic Method on his life.
5
Kemerling, G. (2011). Socrates: Philosophical Life. Retrieved from
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2d.htm
Maxwell, M. (2013). The Fundamentals of Education: Persuasion in the Socratic Method of
Conversation - page 31. Retrieved from http://www.socraticmethod.net/
6