You've probably been in philosophical
discussions with people that literally didn't go anywhere at
all, or that ended with some of the participants having very
bad feelings about the discussion. Or maybe you've been in discussions
in which one or more of the participants (maybe even you?) seemed
to have some other agenda in the discussion than a simple desire
to discover together what was actually true. Maybe one or more
of the participants had some special axe to grind, or maybe someone
was being self-centered or fearful, or maybe someone was not
being a good listener, or maybe someone just had a hard time
putting aside their own personal agendas enough to dispassionately
look together for the simple truth about what you were discussing.
I think most of us have probably been in discussions like that
which just went absolutely nowhere.
But most of us have probably also
been in discussions that went superbly well, in which the participants
were somehow able to genuinely work together toward understanding
the matter under discussion. When that kind of discussion happens,
it can be truly fruitful and meaningful.
The following passage (from a book
about Socratic dialog) refers to some of the personal moral qualities
you'd like to see in those who participate in philosophical discussions,
if the discussions are to be truly fruitful. Please read through
this short selection, and then there will be a couple of questions
I'd like you to respond to and discuss in the classroom.
... It follows that elenchus
[philosophical discussion] is more than an exercise in philosophical
analysis. In asking people to state and defend the moral intuitions
which underlie their way of life, Socrates inevitably reveals
something about their characters. Elenchus, then, has
as much to do with honesty, reasonableness, and courage as it
does with logical acumen - the honesty to say what one
really thinks, the reasonableness to admit what one does
not know, and the courage to continue the investigation.
Most of Socrates' respondents are lacking in all three. Protagoras
becomes angry, Polus resorts to cheap rhetorical tricks, Callicles
begins to sulk, Critias loses his self-control, Meno wants to
quit. [These examples are all from dialogues we're not reading
this quarter.] While their reactions leave much to be desired,
Socrates' respondents do emerge from the pages of the dialogues
as real people. Not only is there a clash of ideas but a clash
of the personalities who have adopted them. So while the Socratic
dialogues deal with virtue, they are never simple morality plays.
This book argues that elenchus is central to Socratic
philosophy and that only if we understand how elenchus
places moral demands on questioner and respondent will that
philosophy make sense. The purpose of elenchus is to facilitate
discovery, but in a Socratic context, discovery is not a sudden
flash of illumination; it is something which must be prepared
for, something which the soul must earn. The subject of Socratic
epistemology, then, is, in Tarrant's words, a moral agent. To
acquire knowledge, the soul must free itself of the anger, arrogance,
and laziness present in so many of Socrates' companions...."
(- Kenneth Seeskin,
Dialogue and Discovery: A Study in Socratic Method, SUNY
Press, 1987)
Questions
Please respond to the following
questions, and then discuss them, in the classroom forum.
1. In a very brief summary, what
do you think (in your own words) the author of this passage is
saying?
2. We all have weaknesses, of course,
but what would be some personal (or moral) weaknesses that participants
in a conversation could have which would truly get in the way
of a healthy and fruitful philosophical dialog? That is, what
characteristics would you like to not see in people with
whom you are having a discussion?
3. What would be some personal
(or moral) strengths that participants in a conversation might
have which could help make for a healthy and fruitful philosophical
dialog? Or stated another way, what would be some of the strengths
and virtues that you would like to see, both in yourself and
in your fellow participants, in a good late-night philosophical
conversation?