Why the Socratic Method Sucks

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by pedro3131, Apr 5, 2012.

  1. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Just dumping a paper I wrote. Feel free to discuss. Note all the citations refer to Plato's symposium, unless otherwise noted

    Socrates was right to criticize his companion’s eulogies about love. He lamented that all they had done was “describe your subject in the most generous and glowing terms,” even adding “whether or not there’s any truth to them” (198e). However, was Socrates any better? Aside from a halfhearted attempt at picking apart some of the nuances of Agathon’s eulogy, his relaying of Diotima’s idea of love seems to offer no more “truth” than anyone else. He describes love as recognition of true beauty and a means for immortality, while abandoning any claims to a negative side as claimed by Pausanias. Socrates in failing to provide a negative side for love, while lampooning his companions for failing to do so, is a hypocrite. Once again, the reader is left with an incomplete, yet stylistically dazzling explanation by Socrates.

    To examine where Socrates falls short, one must first look at his specific critiques of how his companions fell short. Agathon, the final speaker before Socrates, is dissatisfied with the conduct of his companions eulogies. He, like Socrates, believes them to be too focused on “congratulating the human race” on their understanding of love rather then its actual characteristics (194e). So he goes about compiling a list of characteristics that he thinks define love. He talks about how love is young, sensitive, fluid, self-disciplined, fair, and brave (195d-196d). Surely the great Socrates would object to some of these characterizations? Instead, in employing his typical style of argument, he backs Agathon into conceding that love is lacking in both attraction and goodness (201c).
    The way he arrived at his conclusion was first to say that “if [something] isn’t lacking, you can’t desire it” (200b). From here he assumes that because love is desire for beauty and good, that “love needs and lacks beauty” (201b). The entire argument is predicated on a completely dualistic conception of things. To Socrates here, it seems that there can only exist the extremes. If something is not good it must be evil. If something is not beautiful then it must be hideous, etc. You could imagine that given his argument with Agathon, and his general critiques of his companions, he would offer some criticisms, or at least shortcomings of love, in his own speech. However, he instead goes on to more or less refute his own criticisms with his own thoughts on love.

    His claims are undermined in two specific ways by his own eulogy. First, Diotima convinces him of the existence of a middle ground, once more that he cedes as “true belief” (202a). This shows that things aren’t as black and white as “if A is true then the only possible outcome must be B”. “‘Not attractive’ is [not] the same as ‘repulsive’” and “‘not good’ is [not] the same as ‘bad’” (202b). In this way Socrates himself acknowledges that there isn’t a dualistic nature to the world. If his previous argument were based on the principle of duality, and Socrates here cedes that principle to be false, then doesn’t this render his argument false? Do we still arrive at the conclusion that “love needs and lacks beauty” if “[something] isn’t lacking, you [can] desire it” (201b, 200b, bold added by author)? It seems that if things aren’t as dualistic as Socrates supposed when he questioned Agathon, then surely there could exist a scenario where you can both have and still desire something.

    This idea is illustrated beautifully by the second refutation, Diotima’s idea that the idea of love is not just desire for good, but “the permanent possession of goodness” (206b). This implies that one can desire without lacking, because one can be in possession of good, yet still wish to maintain the good in the future. Desire isn’t the domain solely of the lacking, which is the crux of Socrates earlier claims. People who have can desire because they wish to retain in the future whatever it is that they have. People “are in love with immortality,” and in this way they not only want to maintain their current status, but are even willing to “face danger” in order to do so (208e, d).

    Not only does the dualistic structure of Socrates’s argument fail, but even accepting this nature, the claims are flat out wrong. Even if something isn’t good it must be bad, something that isn’t lacking can still desire. Taking either of these ideas by themselves, Socrates’s only criticism is proved invalid. However, when you take both in conjunction, it shows just how ludicrous Socrates’s position is, despite his self-stated goal of speaking to “the truth about Love” (199b). So where and how does Socrates reveal his great truth?

    He chooses to relay a dialog between Diotima[1] and himself. In their discussion, they conclude that “the aim of love has to be immortality” (207a). They prove this point by demonstrating how in “the ability of reproduction constantly to replace the past generation with a new one,” procreation (and love) is “what enables mortal life… to share in immortality” (207d, 208b). They go on to further elaborate this point, but the rest serves merely as dicta if we consider it in regards to its conduct. Instead of criticism or truth, Socrates levies the most positive and appreciative description of love to date! How can Socrates critique Agathon for being wholly positive, when his predominant description of love is a thing of “constant and eternal” representation of “true beauty” (211b, d)?

    Once more, examining his definitions further, are his explanations really all that different from Aristophenes’s explanation of love being what completes a man? Part of Diotima’s explanation is the claim that a life without love is somehow less meaningful. By asking Socrates “What else could make life worth living… then seeing true beauty?” she denotes a life of love as being more valuable than a life without love (211d). To Diotima, and by extension Socrates, love is what completes one’s existence. This is not at all dissimilar to when Aristophenes argues that “We human beings will never attain happiness unless we find perfect love” (193c). Sure, Socrates doesn’t argue that love comes from a desire to reunite with a person’s formally attached other half, but the final points remain the same. Is it not hypocritical of Socrates to put forth an argument that only in love can a man be complete, after critiquing Aristophenes for doing the same?

    Both Aristophenes and Socrates argue, to an extent, that love completes you, yet Socrates seems to criticize the former for his remarks. Meanwhile, there was an attempt by one of the eulogizers to rectify love with some of its lesser aspects. Pausanias, and latter Eryximachus, bring up a distinction between different types of love. Pausanias describes the “Common and Celestial” as the perverse and blessed forms of love (180e). Understood in contemporary terms ‘common’ love would be most akin to lust, whereas ‘celestial’ love strikes at something deeper (181b-c). Both Pausanias and Eryximachus speak very critically of the Common form of love, whereas Socrates neglects to even mention it. Despite Pausanias offering a more succinct criticism of love, as a device of lust, than Socrates ever does, Socrates criticizes him for being too positive.

    Whereas Socrates criticizes his companions for being solely positive, and yet offers nothing but praise himself, Pausanias actually offers a critique. Socrates is being a complete hypocrite. Why doesn’t Socrates mention Pausanias’s critique? Is it because this example contradicts his own view of love as being the highest form of beauty? Or is it because this critique doesn’t fit in with his antagonistic approach of assuming everyone but himself to be wrong? In Symposium, Socrates offers a perfect example of the incomplete Socratic dialog. He only mentions the things that would make others arguments less valid. He denigrates different opinions in order to “win others” over to his point of view (212b). He even neglects complimentary viewpoints that weren’t of his own volition. “You treat people brutally [Socrates]”, his lover Alcibades quipped at the end of the Symposium (215c), and indeed the Socratic method has proven to be a harsh mistress.



    [1] A Mantinean woman Socrates presents as an expert on love in 201d.
  2. BleedingHeartCaptain Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Message Count:
    67
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    12
    This is well written essay. The only problem is while you do indeed state why the Socratic method sucks through the various points you provide of contradictory statements it actually works out quite well, just not for Socrates. It seems to me that this particular section of your essay is more of giving a detailed example of how Socrates' own method backfires on him. The main point to the Socratic method is to weed out contradictory hypotheses which it does quite well as you have shown with Diotima's argument that there exists a middle ground. The hypothesis that there must only be two extremes is quickly eliminated by the statements made by Diotima. Diotima's next statement of how one may possess a virtue and merely desire to keep his/her state as it is works marvelously to show that the other hypothesis suggested by Socrates also is false. I suspect there is definitely more to your essay and you may have said or will say something in order to support you're argument of why the Socratic method "sucks." I only see that even Socrates himself is seen here as an arrogant, hypocritical idiot his method works in favor of his opponents, specifically Diotima. This is less to me as Socratic method sucks and more of Socrates sucks at using his own idea to validate his argument.
  3. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    This is great, pedro. Though I had a little bit of trouble following because of my meager knowledge of Socrates and the other individuals, the essay in itself was straightforward and well developed. Quite the argument, I think Socrates himself would be impressed. You've got a good grasp on letting the other guy argue for you. You should be proud, this is good stuff.
  4. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Ty, the book it came from is only like 120 pages long, as as you may have guessed, about love and romance, so for ancient Greek philosophy, it's not too bad off a read. I'm pretty happy the way it came out. My prof is a hardcore Socrates nut, and all throughout the paper he was like "NO" "NNONONON" but then at the end he's like "you're argument was very well constructed and I concede Socrates may have been wrong in this one instance".

    See to me, the Socratic method isn't some sort of ideal, it's the style of argument he uses. Feel free to read Apology and tell me what you think, but to me, all he was doing was breaking down other people for his own aggrandizement. My paper somewhat illustrates that, though in a more specific context. The thing about the extremes is really what Socrates bases 99% of his arguments on. When he was walking down the Pireas all he did was say "Oh so here is a situation in which this is not good? Then it must be evil in all counts". The reason I bring up Diotima is because not only do I think she's right (there exists a middle ground) but even Socrates concedes that she is right. However, despite this concession, he still uses the same dogmatic approach to his arguments.
  5. BleedingHeartCaptain Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Message Count:
    67
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    12
    That's fine how you see them. I look at the Socratic method as an actual ideal and less as a personal things to Socrates himself. I agree that in the situation you described Socrates was indeed dogmatic and it was stupid for him to be so.
  6. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    They only make you write like a 1000 word essays at your school? I am lucky if I get away with a 3000 word essay.

    In terms of Socrates I think he’s fantastic. He has given to me the very definition of what I think intelligence is, knowing what you know and knowing what you don’t know.

    However I definitely see where you are coming from in this essay. Virtually all the Socratic dialogues don’t have a really clear conclusion. Generally he proves the person he is talking to doesn’t really know what he is talking about but doesn’t give anything in return. So in terms of finding the truth of the matter I do think the Socratic method does suck, but in terms of finding what isn’t the truth I think Socratic method is fantastic.

    Also if you get the opportunity to debate some one in real life the Socratic method is a ton of fun to use. It works less well over forums and what not but most times when I engage in the Socratic method of arguing with another person they generally erupt into a rage and they quickly look like fools.

    Don’t over do it though, remember they killed Socrates ;)
  7. BleedingHeartCaptain Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Message Count:
    67
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    12
    Well that's the point in using the Socratic method, to eliminate hypotheses that contradict themselves.

    I'm not sure if you're really proving your point by making someone make an ass of themselves. Why definitely enjoyable watching people lose their cool and destroy themselves it doesn't really make your argument stronger just their's worse. I guess that is the point of the Socratic method. Also isn't that sort of manipulative?

    Socrates technically killed himself by drinking Hemlock. He did have a chance to escape because one of his pupils broke him out of jail, but he decided to stay and die because he was afraid him running away would have horrible repercussions.
  8. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    He wanted to stay because he believed it was the just thing to do, not because of the repercussions. It's all in Crito

Share This Page

Facebook: