What do you think?
Rate this book
Sokratik Yöntem;Düşünmeye Dair Bir Kullanıcı Kılavuzu
Sokratik Yöntem;Düşünmeye Dair Bir Kullanıcı Kılavuzu
328 pages, Paperback
First published October 5, 2021
750 people are currently reading
3081 people want to read
About the author
Ward Farnsworth
25 books265 followersWard Farnsworth is Dean and John Jeffers Research Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. He formerly was Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at the Boston University Law School. He has served as a law clerk to Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court and to Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and worked as a Legal Adviser to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in the Hague. He received his J.D. with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School, and his B.A. from Wesleyan University.
Farnsworth is the author of books on law, philosophy, rhetoric, and chess. He also has published scholarly articles on the economic analysis of law, constitutional law, statutory interpretation, jurisprudence, and cognitive psychology. He serves as Reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm.
Farnsworth is the author of books on law, philosophy, rhetoric, and chess. He also has published scholarly articles on the economic analysis of law, constitutional law, statutory interpretation, jurisprudence, and cognitive psychology. He serves as Reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews
July 16, 2022
Questioning someone incessantly until they contradict themselves is not a recipe for popularity. It turns out that people don’t like to be shown, carefully and methodically, how little they know about a subject or how much they underestimate their own ignorance. Persist in this manner for long enough—by questioning influential and powerful people—and the penalty will be much greater than an annoying reputation. Socrates found this out the hard way in 399 BCE.
People are protective of their sense of competence. They search for evidence that supports what they already believe (confirmation bias) while attacking weakened versions of arguments they disagree with (straw man fallacy). Most people, then—in an attempt to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance—live in a state of double ignorance (in which they are willfully ignorant of their own ignorance). This phenomenon is precisely what Socrates targeted in others, and his own lack of double ignorance was his only stated claim to wisdom. As Socrates said in the Apology:
“I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do.”
This is surely an exaggeration—Socrates did claim to know specific things throughout Plato’s dialogues. What Socrates is really saying is that he knows nothing with certainty, and that the things he claims to know can only be known provisionally. In other words, the knowledge he has, if he can be said to have any knowledge at all, is knowledge that has thus far survived Socratic scrutiny. But no knowledge is final, and nothing is immune from inquiry.
So what Socrates really possessed—what made him the wisest man in Athens—is the very thing most lacking in contemporary discourse: intellectual humility.
The thing is, we should all want a Socrates in our lives. After all, he would be doing us a favor by exposing all of our beliefs that are false, incomplete, or inconsistent. He would be our “antidote to stupidity” that we all desperately need. And he would do this—not by telling us that we’re wrong or replacing our beliefs with his own—but by asking us deep questions that force us to recognize our own ignorance for ourselves.
Clearly, however, most of us do not want a Socrates in our lives. What we have instead is the opposite: the anti-Socratic echo chambers that convince us we’re all more knowledgeable than we really are. So the first step to intellectual growth is the recognition that we can be wrong and the desire to hold our own beliefs to the greatest possible skeptical scrutiny. And with this comes an insight: perhaps the best use of the Socratic method is not on others, but on ourselves.
In The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook, Ward Farnsworth shows us how to cultivate our own internal Socrates. Whereas most people think of the Socratic method as either a teaching tool or a form of dialogue that will get people to quickly dislike you, what it actually is is the best method ever devised for weeding out false and inconsistent beliefs in any scenario. While most people will not tolerate Socratic scrutiny from others, the method can be turned on oneself to great effect.
Actually, this is a wonderful way to read Plato’s dialogues. As Farnsworth notes, people don’t read Plato nowadays for the content: no one really believes in the Theory of Forms or the totalitarian political philosophy of the Republic. The value is in the method; the dialogues between Socrates and the various characters represent Plato working out his own views. He is subjecting his own beliefs to intense scrutiny to ensure that they are as well-founded as possible. That’s exactly what we need more of in the world—deeper thinking and greater self-doubt.
The problem is, Plato never describes this method. You had to piece it together yourself by reading the dialogues. That is, until now. Farnsworth has done us all an incredible service by breaking down the elements of the Socratic method, so that we can use the method, if not on others, then on ourselves to discover how much (or how little) we really know about the subjects we think we know so much about.
Farnsworth covers a lot of ground, from an analysis of the Socratic problem (determining what we can know about the historical Socrates) to the elements of the Socratic method to the influence this method had on other schools of thought such as Stoicism and Skepticism. Along the way, the reader will learn how to ask better questions and will uncover the deeper principles in their own thinking—many of which will be shown to be inconsistent and in need of modification. This won’t always be pleasant, but no one said philosophy was always fun. This is the price to pay for more considered views.
Overall, this is exactly the book the world needs, and gets my vote for book of the year, hands down.
----
If you enjoyed this book, make sure to check out my articleSocratic Humility and the Antidote to Stupidity, which discusses many of the themes covered in this book.
People are protective of their sense of competence. They search for evidence that supports what they already believe (confirmation bias) while attacking weakened versions of arguments they disagree with (straw man fallacy). Most people, then—in an attempt to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance—live in a state of double ignorance (in which they are willfully ignorant of their own ignorance). This phenomenon is precisely what Socrates targeted in others, and his own lack of double ignorance was his only stated claim to wisdom. As Socrates said in the Apology:
“I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do.”
This is surely an exaggeration—Socrates did claim to know specific things throughout Plato’s dialogues. What Socrates is really saying is that he knows nothing with certainty, and that the things he claims to know can only be known provisionally. In other words, the knowledge he has, if he can be said to have any knowledge at all, is knowledge that has thus far survived Socratic scrutiny. But no knowledge is final, and nothing is immune from inquiry.
So what Socrates really possessed—what made him the wisest man in Athens—is the very thing most lacking in contemporary discourse: intellectual humility.
The thing is, we should all want a Socrates in our lives. After all, he would be doing us a favor by exposing all of our beliefs that are false, incomplete, or inconsistent. He would be our “antidote to stupidity” that we all desperately need. And he would do this—not by telling us that we’re wrong or replacing our beliefs with his own—but by asking us deep questions that force us to recognize our own ignorance for ourselves.
Clearly, however, most of us do not want a Socrates in our lives. What we have instead is the opposite: the anti-Socratic echo chambers that convince us we’re all more knowledgeable than we really are. So the first step to intellectual growth is the recognition that we can be wrong and the desire to hold our own beliefs to the greatest possible skeptical scrutiny. And with this comes an insight: perhaps the best use of the Socratic method is not on others, but on ourselves.
In The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook, Ward Farnsworth shows us how to cultivate our own internal Socrates. Whereas most people think of the Socratic method as either a teaching tool or a form of dialogue that will get people to quickly dislike you, what it actually is is the best method ever devised for weeding out false and inconsistent beliefs in any scenario. While most people will not tolerate Socratic scrutiny from others, the method can be turned on oneself to great effect.
Actually, this is a wonderful way to read Plato’s dialogues. As Farnsworth notes, people don’t read Plato nowadays for the content: no one really believes in the Theory of Forms or the totalitarian political philosophy of the Republic. The value is in the method; the dialogues between Socrates and the various characters represent Plato working out his own views. He is subjecting his own beliefs to intense scrutiny to ensure that they are as well-founded as possible. That’s exactly what we need more of in the world—deeper thinking and greater self-doubt.
The problem is, Plato never describes this method. You had to piece it together yourself by reading the dialogues. That is, until now. Farnsworth has done us all an incredible service by breaking down the elements of the Socratic method, so that we can use the method, if not on others, then on ourselves to discover how much (or how little) we really know about the subjects we think we know so much about.
Farnsworth covers a lot of ground, from an analysis of the Socratic problem (determining what we can know about the historical Socrates) to the elements of the Socratic method to the influence this method had on other schools of thought such as Stoicism and Skepticism. Along the way, the reader will learn how to ask better questions and will uncover the deeper principles in their own thinking—many of which will be shown to be inconsistent and in need of modification. This won’t always be pleasant, but no one said philosophy was always fun. This is the price to pay for more considered views.
Overall, this is exactly the book the world needs, and gets my vote for book of the year, hands down.
----
If you enjoyed this book, make sure to check out my articleSocratic Humility and the Antidote to Stupidity, which discusses many of the themes covered in this book.
October 8, 2021
The cover is provocative and slyly misleading. There is no discussion about modern politics but does throughly show contempt for the state of modern discourse. The Socratic Method shows an alternative which emphasizes the importance of dialogue as something difficult and uncomfortable but essential to the Ancient conception of the Good Life. Today, where every private thought has the potential to be a public one, the most important Socratic dialogue is the one which occurs within oneself.
Ward Farnsworth has written three previous books on the use of language and one prior book on philosophy. All have the same format and is a compilation of various quotes with commentary. He reminds me of that genre of writing that was popularized by Alain DeBotton many years ago, the so-called intelligent person’s self help book. However, he far surpasses that genre of writing by not just being intelligent, but precise and almost academic. A law professor and legal scholar, his interest in philosophy and words is that of a very thorough layman. His books are wonderful because the quotes are so carefully organized and his commentary so succinct and well-crafted. Unlike Alain deBotton and his ilk, he is rarely reductionist.
The Socratic Method shows an understanding of the vast literature already available of the philosophical dialogues of Plato and is regarded by its author as a prequel to his other book, the Practicing Stoic. It is an explanation of the method rooted in a strong command of the writings of Plato.
This book was meant to be a tonic to the “riot of hypocrisy” in modern discourse and it’s medium, social media. He makes the comparison early on of the refuted theory that lead pipes caused the fall of the Roman Empire and it’s apt parallel to social media as the lead pipes which are poisoning it’s participants, blunting rather than enhancing understanding and creating a culture of outrage and mutual incomprehension.
Definitely a book much needed for our times.
Ward Farnsworth has written three previous books on the use of language and one prior book on philosophy. All have the same format and is a compilation of various quotes with commentary. He reminds me of that genre of writing that was popularized by Alain DeBotton many years ago, the so-called intelligent person’s self help book. However, he far surpasses that genre of writing by not just being intelligent, but precise and almost academic. A law professor and legal scholar, his interest in philosophy and words is that of a very thorough layman. His books are wonderful because the quotes are so carefully organized and his commentary so succinct and well-crafted. Unlike Alain deBotton and his ilk, he is rarely reductionist.
The Socratic Method shows an understanding of the vast literature already available of the philosophical dialogues of Plato and is regarded by its author as a prequel to his other book, the Practicing Stoic. It is an explanation of the method rooted in a strong command of the writings of Plato.
This book was meant to be a tonic to the “riot of hypocrisy” in modern discourse and it’s medium, social media. He makes the comparison early on of the refuted theory that lead pipes caused the fall of the Roman Empire and it’s apt parallel to social media as the lead pipes which are poisoning it’s participants, blunting rather than enhancing understanding and creating a culture of outrage and mutual incomprehension.
Definitely a book much needed for our times.
June 11, 2024
Second reading in May-June 2024—I first read this excellent book in 2021.
So, why read this book? For starters, learning the Socratic method absolutely helps one to become a stronger, far more effective arguer. The method consists of asking questions in order to delve deeply into the fundamentals of an idea or concept in order to get at the truth of it. Finding consistency of thought or belief is the ultimate goal. Keep in mind that this can be an enlightening or disconcerting experience for the subject being questioned. And there is no guarantee of finding a satisfactory answer.
The Socratic method forms not only the basis of philosophical inquiry, but all manner of truth-finding, in the hard sciences, in law, in the social sciences, in fact-based journalism; anywhere and everywhere. The method forms the very bedrock of critical thinking, a skill that is as important as any in life, and demonstrably all too lacking in the population at large.
From the book: ”Socrates didn’t question people in order to teach us how to question people. He did it to teach us how to think.” p. vii. Using the Socratic method on oneself is an effective way to make oneself aware a better thinker; to be a more rational appraiser of ideas and situations. It takes effort, but the method can be learned and ingrained into our thinking. I’m working on incorporating it more into my own thinking, with mixed success… 😉
Ward Farnsworth is a law school Dean, and writes in a perspicacious yet charming, down-to-earth manner suitable for all readers. He is especially gifted at applying ancient wisdom to modern times. I can recommend several of his other books, including The Practicing Stoic, Classical English Argument, and Classical English Rhetoric.
Because its lessons are so valuable, I plan to reread this book at least once every year or two for the rest of my life. Highest recommendation.
So, why read this book? For starters, learning the Socratic method absolutely helps one to become a stronger, far more effective arguer. The method consists of asking questions in order to delve deeply into the fundamentals of an idea or concept in order to get at the truth of it. Finding consistency of thought or belief is the ultimate goal. Keep in mind that this can be an enlightening or disconcerting experience for the subject being questioned. And there is no guarantee of finding a satisfactory answer.
The Socratic method forms not only the basis of philosophical inquiry, but all manner of truth-finding, in the hard sciences, in law, in the social sciences, in fact-based journalism; anywhere and everywhere. The method forms the very bedrock of critical thinking, a skill that is as important as any in life, and demonstrably all too lacking in the population at large.
From the book: ”Socrates didn’t question people in order to teach us how to question people. He did it to teach us how to think.” p. vii. Using the Socratic method on oneself is an effective way to make oneself aware a better thinker; to be a more rational appraiser of ideas and situations. It takes effort, but the method can be learned and ingrained into our thinking. I’m working on incorporating it more into my own thinking, with mixed success… 😉
Ward Farnsworth is a law school Dean, and writes in a perspicacious yet charming, down-to-earth manner suitable for all readers. He is especially gifted at applying ancient wisdom to modern times. I can recommend several of his other books, including The Practicing Stoic, Classical English Argument, and Classical English Rhetoric.
Because its lessons are so valuable, I plan to reread this book at least once every year or two for the rest of my life. Highest recommendation.
February 17, 2024
This book is a must. Not just for anyone interested in Socrates, or in the Greco-Romans, or in philosophy. For anyone interested in good thinking and constructive discourse. That is, everyone, yes? Okay, maybe not. Still, Farnsworth makes an excellent case for why we should all practice the Socratic method, first and foremost on ourselves. The goals of our arguments should be to learn and approach the truth, not to shut down an "opponent." Indeed, we shouldn't think of conversations in an adversarial fashion at all. We are in this together, in order to improve ourselves, first and foremost, and society at large, insofar as it is possible. The Socratic method is all the more needed nowadays, in an environment of increasing polarization where everyone shouts at everyone else and where outrage and hurt feelings are taken to be definitive arguments. Farnsworth isn't naive: he realizes that these days the best we can do is to engage in Socratic resistance against an onslaught of destructive social media, imperiled "legacy" media, fake news, and alternative facts. But that's why it is all the more important that we do so. Read The Socratic Method, gift it to others, and practice, practice, practice.
October 27, 2021
How much would you pay for a better self?
So far, Farnsworth has written one book that changed how I think about writing (Classical English Rhetoric), one book that changed how I think about the law (The Legal Analyst), and one book that changed how I think about hardship (The Practicing Stoic).* Farnsworth's newest book promised to change how I think in general. This had me excited, to say the least.
Early in the book, Farnsworth compares the Socratic Method to glasses. Glasses help us see more clearly; the Socratic method helps us think more clearly. I found this apt. Two chapters near the end of the book did far and away the most to prescribe me the better glasses I'd been looking for. These were the chapters when Farnsworth gets into the nitty gritty details of how to ask questions that move an investigation forwards (often by looking for definitions, locating fundamental principles, and bringing up counter examples). I've often found that the right question can do more to persuade someone than any number of arguments. Farnsworth seems to agree. He describes it as standing next to your interlocutor and investigating claims together rather than assuming a combative position. Two allies looking for the answer to a hard question will generally get much further than two opponents trying to show why the other is wrong.
A main strength of the book is Socrates himself. He is the question personified. He keeps things interesting. He's always up to something, whether it's questioning nobles on what the definition of courage is, getting sentenced to death, or drinking his hemlock without so much as a complaint about the taste. He's a boon to philosophy in general and this book in particular.
Farnsworth makes the social goal of his book clear. No one needs me to say that most public discourse seems to lack the Socratic values of respectful (if lively) questioning and searching for truth over winning arguments. I'll admit that I'm not optimistic about society's chances of adopting these values. However, I'm more optimistic about the readers of this book walking away with some invaluable tools for how to conduct important conversations both in the world and in their minds.
* Classical English Style and Classical English Metaphor are also a good time, but didn't have quite the same impact that his other three books did.
So far, Farnsworth has written one book that changed how I think about writing (Classical English Rhetoric), one book that changed how I think about the law (The Legal Analyst), and one book that changed how I think about hardship (The Practicing Stoic).* Farnsworth's newest book promised to change how I think in general. This had me excited, to say the least.
Early in the book, Farnsworth compares the Socratic Method to glasses. Glasses help us see more clearly; the Socratic method helps us think more clearly. I found this apt. Two chapters near the end of the book did far and away the most to prescribe me the better glasses I'd been looking for. These were the chapters when Farnsworth gets into the nitty gritty details of how to ask questions that move an investigation forwards (often by looking for definitions, locating fundamental principles, and bringing up counter examples). I've often found that the right question can do more to persuade someone than any number of arguments. Farnsworth seems to agree. He describes it as standing next to your interlocutor and investigating claims together rather than assuming a combative position. Two allies looking for the answer to a hard question will generally get much further than two opponents trying to show why the other is wrong.
A main strength of the book is Socrates himself. He is the question personified. He keeps things interesting. He's always up to something, whether it's questioning nobles on what the definition of courage is, getting sentenced to death, or drinking his hemlock without so much as a complaint about the taste. He's a boon to philosophy in general and this book in particular.
Farnsworth makes the social goal of his book clear. No one needs me to say that most public discourse seems to lack the Socratic values of respectful (if lively) questioning and searching for truth over winning arguments. I'll admit that I'm not optimistic about society's chances of adopting these values. However, I'm more optimistic about the readers of this book walking away with some invaluable tools for how to conduct important conversations both in the world and in their minds.
* Classical English Style and Classical English Metaphor are also a good time, but didn't have quite the same impact that his other three books did.
October 16, 2021
«أفلاطون لا يقول أبداً ما يعتقده. يختبئ وراء شخصياته ويترك القارئ يتساءل. إنه يَخلق بطلاً ، لا يقول أيضاً أي إجابات ، ولكنه يستفز الناس للتفكير بجدية أكبر وإعادة النظر في ما يؤمنون به وكيف يعيشون»
وارد فرانسورث
وارد فرانسورث
August 28, 2022
I’ve tried over the years to adapt Socratic dialogue and methods to my classroom. It’s not always easy or feasible due to large class sizes or being online. Ward Farnsworth book reinvigorates my motivation to do so and also gives me some helpful ideas on how I might continue to adapt Socratic methods. It’s not a teaching guide, though, but his discussion of the methods, the examples he uses, and the identification of the core processes and principles of the method will help me in using more of these methods in the classroom.
The book actually got a lot more into Socrates qua philosopher than I expected. The publisher is clearly trying to sell the book as an antidote to the stupidity, fruitlessness, and antagonistic ways in which contemporary conversations so often go – especially online. Farnsworth does discuss that, but really only in the last few chapters. Most of the book is a dive into Socrates and his use of the methods as depicted in Plato’s dialogues. He explores how the method encapsulates not just a way of reasoning, but a way of living. Farnsworth also explore Socrates’ influence on later philosophers, including the Stoics and the Skeptics.
I enjoyed the book. It’s clearly written with no presumption of a philosophic background. It lacks pretension and jargon. I learned a lot from it. The book is not (just) meant for philosophers or teachers; it’s really meant for anyone who wants to know how to think more clearly and engage in more rational and productive conversations with others.
The book actually got a lot more into Socrates qua philosopher than I expected. The publisher is clearly trying to sell the book as an antidote to the stupidity, fruitlessness, and antagonistic ways in which contemporary conversations so often go – especially online. Farnsworth does discuss that, but really only in the last few chapters. Most of the book is a dive into Socrates and his use of the methods as depicted in Plato’s dialogues. He explores how the method encapsulates not just a way of reasoning, but a way of living. Farnsworth also explore Socrates’ influence on later philosophers, including the Stoics and the Skeptics.
I enjoyed the book. It’s clearly written with no presumption of a philosophic background. It lacks pretension and jargon. I learned a lot from it. The book is not (just) meant for philosophers or teachers; it’s really meant for anyone who wants to know how to think more clearly and engage in more rational and productive conversations with others.
November 23, 2025
This Socrates guy had some pretty good ideas.
The general concepts in the book are pretty simple, so at times it felt a bit repetitive. That being said, it still deeply resonated with me and it was a great introduction to Socrates’ descendants.
The general concepts in the book are pretty simple, so at times it felt a bit repetitive. That being said, it still deeply resonated with me and it was a great introduction to Socrates’ descendants.
January 8, 2022
Ward Farnsworth accomplishes in this book everything he set out to accomplish. He clearly and succinctly describes what we know about the lives of Socrates and Plato, summarizes the leading theories about the historical veracity of the dialogues, and breaks down the whys and hows of the Socratic method. And so I really can't find fault with the book.
That said, there really is no substitute for reading the actual dialogues. For this reason, Farnsworth's biggest accomplishment is perhaps that he has likely whetted many people's appetites for Plato himself. If you haven't read Plato, and if you're a seeker of the truth — moreover, if you don't trust authority — oh, and if you have a sense of humor — I'd encourage you to pick up The Republic. I've read quite a bit of philosophy in my 45 years, and I don't think anyone is more accessible or more enjoyable to read than Plato.
Farnsworth has done a nice job articulating Socrates' motives, which I think it's good to understand before getting into the dialogues. And so now, if you have any interest, I'd encourage you to go straight to the source.
That said, there really is no substitute for reading the actual dialogues. For this reason, Farnsworth's biggest accomplishment is perhaps that he has likely whetted many people's appetites for Plato himself. If you haven't read Plato, and if you're a seeker of the truth — moreover, if you don't trust authority — oh, and if you have a sense of humor — I'd encourage you to pick up The Republic. I've read quite a bit of philosophy in my 45 years, and I don't think anyone is more accessible or more enjoyable to read than Plato.
Farnsworth has done a nice job articulating Socrates' motives, which I think it's good to understand before getting into the dialogues. And so now, if you have any interest, I'd encourage you to go straight to the source.
June 11, 2025
كتاب يشرح طريقة ومنهج سقراط في النقاش والحوار. لماذا نقرأ عن أسلوب حواري مضى عليه أكثر من 2500 سنة؟ لأن الدافع وراء تلك الحوارات لم يكن جدالًا فلسفيًا بحتًا، بل كان كشفًا لأن المحاورين كثيرًا ما يتبنون آراءً ومواقف دون إخضاعها لتمحيص كافٍ، وغالبًا ما تتناقض مع مبادئ فكرية أخرى يؤمنون بها. هذه الإشكالية لا تزال حاضرة حتى اليوم وعبر العصور.
أفكار رئيسية في الكتاب:
- الجدل السقراطي ليس ساحة معركة للربح والخسارة، بل هو محاولة لتصحيح نظم التفكير.
- نطاق هذا المنهج لا يقتصر على المواضيع الفلسفية العميقة، بل يمتد ليشمل قضايا الحياة اليومية.
- حوار الإنسان مع ذاته (وإزالة التناقضات في فكره) أهم من محاورة الآخرين.
أنصح بقراءة الكتاب بالمنظور التالي:
- إدراك العلاقة بين انسجام الأفكار والمبادئ وبين السعادة والحياة الفاضلة. (يجدر مراجعة مفهوم “التنافر المعرفي” من علم النفس، Cognitive Dissonance)
- تحكيم العقل ليس مجرد نظرية، بل منهج يحتاج إلى تدريب وممارسة مستمرة، كتمرين الجسد. ابدأ مع نفسك أولاً.
- هناك أخلاقيات للبحث عن الحقيقة والحوار، منها التواضع، والاعتراف بجهلنا، والصدق مع الذات والآخرين.
الكتاب لم يُغفل الفكر الفلسفي لسقراط، لكن اكتفى بشرح بعض المفاهيم (مثل السعادة والحياة الفاضلة) التي تساعد على فهم منهج الحوار السقراطي وتطبيقه في الحياة.
أفكار رئيسية في الكتاب:
- الجدل السقراطي ليس ساحة معركة للربح والخسارة، بل هو محاولة لتصحيح نظم التفكير.
- نطاق هذا المنهج لا يقتصر على المواضيع الفلسفية العميقة، بل يمتد ليشمل قضايا الحياة اليومية.
- حوار الإنسان مع ذاته (وإزالة التناقضات في فكره) أهم من محاورة الآخرين.
أنصح بقراءة الكتاب بالمنظور التالي:
- إدراك العلاقة بين انسجام الأفكار والمبادئ وبين السعادة والحياة الفاضلة. (يجدر مراجعة مفهوم “التنافر المعرفي” من علم النفس، Cognitive Dissonance)
- تحكيم العقل ليس مجرد نظرية، بل منهج يحتاج إلى تدريب وممارسة مستمرة، كتمرين الجسد. ابدأ مع نفسك أولاً.
- هناك أخلاقيات للبحث عن الحقيقة والحوار، منها التواضع، والاعتراف بجهلنا، والصدق مع الذات والآخرين.
الكتاب لم يُغفل الفكر الفلسفي لسقراط، لكن اكتفى بشرح بعض المفاهيم (مثل السعادة والحياة الفاضلة) التي تساعد على فهم منهج الحوار السقراطي وتطبيقه في الحياة.
June 1, 2025
I liked this book a lot, more than I expected. Learning about Socrates's pursuit for truth is pretty inspiring.
Socratic Function
It was interesting how the author framed the socratic method as not just a style of discussion that we can still use today, but also an element of our psyche. The same way we have our executive function as a cognitive trait which helps us plan, pursue goals, and have self control, the author thinks we should also have a socratic function that gives one the ability to engage in skeptical questioning of oneself, which he argues is generally underdeveloped in people. We can also think of how society as a whole should have this socratic function which questions the prevailing beliefs of a society, which was Socrates's role in ancient Athens. Socrates says this himself in Plato's Apology, his defense before being sentenced to death:
"I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you...".
The reason this socratic function is underdeveloped in both ourselves and society as a whole is because holding and stating opinions is pleasurable, while questioning them can often not be. A question puts pressure on the receiver and is uncomfortable for most people, leading people to avoid this pressure and simply think and talk in opinions that haven't been tested. This lack of questioning causes people to live in ignorance, which Socrates is trying to avoid most of all.
Truth
A socratic dialogue is not a debate in the modern sense with a winner or loser, or where one side sets out trying to persuade their oponent or the audience. The only point of a socratic dialogue is to approach the truth. Socrates has many reasons for valuing the truth so highly, some of which i'll discuss in the following paragraphs, but the point of the discussion is to ascertain the truth together with your partner, rather than simply convince them that your opinion is the correct one. This means that in a discussion we have various rules to follow. For instance, we should not appeal to the number of people holding a belief, as even if 100 people or a whole society believe something, it still may not be true. The type of person (like if they are an important or famous person vs a layperson) also doesn't matter, as all people's opinions should be similarly scrutinized and may get us closer to the truth. Additionally, we should actually try to help our partners in a discussion. We can do this by clarifying what our partner's argument is by repeating their own claim back to them, so that both parties can ensure they have understood it properly and aren't talking past one another. We should also make sure to steelman our interlocutor's argument, which is to assume the strongest version of their argument rather than beating down a weaker version. This is because in socratic discussion we aren't just trying to "beat" our opponent. Instead, the condition where we "win" is if the discussion as a whole helps us to lose our ignorance and get closer to truth. In Plato's writing, when Socrates is proven wrong he sees at as being helped, being saved from the state of ignorance and guided towards the truth. In Plato's Gorgias Socrates states the following about being wrong:
"I've got the best of it: there's nothing worse than the state which I've been saved from"
and
"If you do prove me wrong, I won't get cross with you as you did with me. No, I'll make you sure the public register lists you as my greatest benefactor."
Generally we don't find it pleasant to realize our ignorance, but Socrates instead frames this realization not as a loss of wisdom, but instead the arrival of it. Because of this, we shouldn't take offense to when others disagree with us or being proven wrong. We should instead be glad by viewing this as an opportunity to progress towards what really matters, which is removing our own ignorance and approach the truth.
Why Pursue Truth?
I found chapter 13, "Socratic Goods", to be very interesting, where the author discusses why Socrates finds wisdom to be something so valuable. Yes the socratic method is all about removing ignorance and finding the truth, but why does truth matter? The author gives us some examples to help us think about this. First, we can imagine someone who lives a happy life, and is surrounded by friends and family who love him. But suppose that unbeknownst to this man, they secretly all hate him. The author argues we might not want to trade places with this man, even if from the man's perspective he lived a very happy life and never even found out the truth. We think there must be some sort of harm being done to this man by not knowing the truth, and that it would be better for the man to know the truth in this situation even if it costs him some of his happiness. Socrates states in Plato's Laws:
"He is not to be trusted who loves voluntary falsehood, and he who loves involuntary falsehood is a fool".
It's clear we don't want to live in an involuntary falsehood like the man who is lied to is.
Another example comes from Plato's famous allegory of the cave. We're asked to imagine there are some prisoners whose whole lives are spent in a cave watching shadows created on the wall. They have never seen anything other than the shadows, and think that this is all life is. But one day one of the prisoners escapes and sees the real world for the first time, seeing the sunlight and trees and stars, and realizes how ignorant he was of the world his whole life before. The point Plato is making here is that escaping the cave is an allegory for acquiring more wisdom. Farnsworth uses the allegory to make a point on the value of this wisdom from the perspective of the prisoners. We can see that before this prisoner departed the cave, he had no desire to escape, and felt no need need for anything more than watching the cave shadows. Departing from the cave isn't something that a prisoner would consider to potentially improve his life. However, once one is out of the cave, they wouldn't ever want to go back and live there. And we can think about how we are like the prisoners in this way, as similar to how the prisoners in the cave don’t value escaping while they are happy in the cave, we can feel how it is difficult for us to see the value of knowledge we don't yet have. It's much easier for us to see the value of knowledge we have that other's don't, or knowledge we have now that we didn't before, as we wouldn't want to trade places with someone with very little understanding of the world or be as ignorant as we were before. But for some reason it's hard for us to want more wisdom than we currently have. We are satisfied with what we know, but don't realize that from a higher vantage point, it's certain that we are still extremely ignorant, making us similar to the prisoners in the cave. This realization of ones own ignorance, and how much better life could potentially be with knowledge and understanding (even if you don't currently know exactly what knowledge or understanding you need) is what seems to drive Socrates to pursue the truth.
This pursuit of truth can even be at the cost of our own subjective happiness. For instance, we can think about the story of the man who was lied to as mentioned before, where learning the truth might decrease his happiness but something we would still consider a good thing. We can also demonstrate the concept of truth vs happiness using Plato's cave allegory again. We can imagine that in the cave some people who are quite good at guessing the shapes of the shadows on the wall acquire wealth and power in the cave. But despite this, our escaped prisoner who has seen the real world would still surely not want to go back, and might even prefer misfortune in the real world than be a rich king in the cave. Plato makes this point in Republic:
"Do you think our former prisoner would cover these honors and would envy the people who had status and power there, or would he much prefer, as Homer describes it, "Being a slave laboring for someone else-someone without property," and would put up with anything at all, in fact, rather than share their beliefs and their life?
Yes, I think he'd go through anything rather than live that way."
This is pretty extreme, but even if you wouldn't go so far as to choose to be a slave in the real world rather than live in the cave, we feel that we have some tug towards the value of wisdom and truth rather than just maximizing pleasure.
Knowledge is Everything
The next point I found interesting was how Socrates seems to equate knowledge, virtue, and the good life (the greeks called eudaimonia, kind of like "flourishing") as the same. This is to the extent that things that are ordinarily considered goods by people, like not being physically harmed, don't matter to Socrates. This is because is happiness or eudaimonia is dependent on the virtue, or wisdom or understanding, which he already has, so being put to death and the end of his life couldn't take anything important away from him. This idea of the importance of things that are internally valuable and unimportance of external things was extremely influential to the stoics, which I found interesting and didn't know before.
But the more interesting point here is why knowledge, virtue, and the good life are one and the same. Many people might think the knowledge might lead to virtue. For instance, knowledge of good and evil would allow people to choose one or the other, but they still might use their knowledge to make the evil choice. But Socrates instead says that being unvirtuous (doing immoral things) is ONLY ever due to a lack of knowledge. If the person just had more knowledge, then they would simply have no desire to choose the unvirtous thing. The author gives an examples of certain temptations that you can easily resist because of your understanding. There are certain drugs (fentanyl?) you don't take and certain things you don't eat because of your understanding. Thus, it's not your willpower causing you to make this decision, but rather you just having no desire to do these things because of your knowledge. Socrates thinks everything is like this. A moral example given by Farnsworth is to imagine you are transported back in time to an era where slavery is common. While you are offered slaves, you refuse, and the people around you think you are making a sacrifice by passing a chance to make your life easier and be better off. However, it's clear you have a different understanding of what being "better off" means than the slaveowners. Because of the knowledge you have, you simply don't have the desire to own slaves, there is no willpower involved in choosing the right decision. This is an example of Socrates thinks all moral dilemmas are, and I found this example pretty interesting. Though there are some metaphysical assumptions that come with how Socrates thinks about truth which I don't agree with. For instance, Socrates thinks that objective (as opposed to subjective) truth, morality, and knowledge exist and need to be discovered, meaning there's only ever one correct answer to any moral dilemma. If you were omniscient, you would always choose this virtuous option, and this wouldn't affect your happiness since your knowledge would make you have no desire to be unvirtuous, like in the example where you don't want to own slaves. I'm not sure if I completely agree with the idea that knowledge is the same as morality, but I still found it to be a pretty interesting idea and likely useful in certain situations to think about how having more knowledge may resolve certain disagreements.
The author also has some interesting examples in the last few chapters of how to effectively have socratic discussions. But throughout the book he reiterates how the socratic method can also be used on yourself to question your beliefs and help you remove your own ignorance, since it's pretty hard to find a partner who is fine with sitting through socratic questioning. Overall great book and easy to read too.
Socratic Function
It was interesting how the author framed the socratic method as not just a style of discussion that we can still use today, but also an element of our psyche. The same way we have our executive function as a cognitive trait which helps us plan, pursue goals, and have self control, the author thinks we should also have a socratic function that gives one the ability to engage in skeptical questioning of oneself, which he argues is generally underdeveloped in people. We can also think of how society as a whole should have this socratic function which questions the prevailing beliefs of a society, which was Socrates's role in ancient Athens. Socrates says this himself in Plato's Apology, his defense before being sentenced to death:
"I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you...".
The reason this socratic function is underdeveloped in both ourselves and society as a whole is because holding and stating opinions is pleasurable, while questioning them can often not be. A question puts pressure on the receiver and is uncomfortable for most people, leading people to avoid this pressure and simply think and talk in opinions that haven't been tested. This lack of questioning causes people to live in ignorance, which Socrates is trying to avoid most of all.
Truth
A socratic dialogue is not a debate in the modern sense with a winner or loser, or where one side sets out trying to persuade their oponent or the audience. The only point of a socratic dialogue is to approach the truth. Socrates has many reasons for valuing the truth so highly, some of which i'll discuss in the following paragraphs, but the point of the discussion is to ascertain the truth together with your partner, rather than simply convince them that your opinion is the correct one. This means that in a discussion we have various rules to follow. For instance, we should not appeal to the number of people holding a belief, as even if 100 people or a whole society believe something, it still may not be true. The type of person (like if they are an important or famous person vs a layperson) also doesn't matter, as all people's opinions should be similarly scrutinized and may get us closer to the truth. Additionally, we should actually try to help our partners in a discussion. We can do this by clarifying what our partner's argument is by repeating their own claim back to them, so that both parties can ensure they have understood it properly and aren't talking past one another. We should also make sure to steelman our interlocutor's argument, which is to assume the strongest version of their argument rather than beating down a weaker version. This is because in socratic discussion we aren't just trying to "beat" our opponent. Instead, the condition where we "win" is if the discussion as a whole helps us to lose our ignorance and get closer to truth. In Plato's writing, when Socrates is proven wrong he sees at as being helped, being saved from the state of ignorance and guided towards the truth. In Plato's Gorgias Socrates states the following about being wrong:
"I've got the best of it: there's nothing worse than the state which I've been saved from"
and
"If you do prove me wrong, I won't get cross with you as you did with me. No, I'll make you sure the public register lists you as my greatest benefactor."
Generally we don't find it pleasant to realize our ignorance, but Socrates instead frames this realization not as a loss of wisdom, but instead the arrival of it. Because of this, we shouldn't take offense to when others disagree with us or being proven wrong. We should instead be glad by viewing this as an opportunity to progress towards what really matters, which is removing our own ignorance and approach the truth.
Why Pursue Truth?
I found chapter 13, "Socratic Goods", to be very interesting, where the author discusses why Socrates finds wisdom to be something so valuable. Yes the socratic method is all about removing ignorance and finding the truth, but why does truth matter? The author gives us some examples to help us think about this. First, we can imagine someone who lives a happy life, and is surrounded by friends and family who love him. But suppose that unbeknownst to this man, they secretly all hate him. The author argues we might not want to trade places with this man, even if from the man's perspective he lived a very happy life and never even found out the truth. We think there must be some sort of harm being done to this man by not knowing the truth, and that it would be better for the man to know the truth in this situation even if it costs him some of his happiness. Socrates states in Plato's Laws:
"He is not to be trusted who loves voluntary falsehood, and he who loves involuntary falsehood is a fool".
It's clear we don't want to live in an involuntary falsehood like the man who is lied to is.
Another example comes from Plato's famous allegory of the cave. We're asked to imagine there are some prisoners whose whole lives are spent in a cave watching shadows created on the wall. They have never seen anything other than the shadows, and think that this is all life is. But one day one of the prisoners escapes and sees the real world for the first time, seeing the sunlight and trees and stars, and realizes how ignorant he was of the world his whole life before. The point Plato is making here is that escaping the cave is an allegory for acquiring more wisdom. Farnsworth uses the allegory to make a point on the value of this wisdom from the perspective of the prisoners. We can see that before this prisoner departed the cave, he had no desire to escape, and felt no need need for anything more than watching the cave shadows. Departing from the cave isn't something that a prisoner would consider to potentially improve his life. However, once one is out of the cave, they wouldn't ever want to go back and live there. And we can think about how we are like the prisoners in this way, as similar to how the prisoners in the cave don’t value escaping while they are happy in the cave, we can feel how it is difficult for us to see the value of knowledge we don't yet have. It's much easier for us to see the value of knowledge we have that other's don't, or knowledge we have now that we didn't before, as we wouldn't want to trade places with someone with very little understanding of the world or be as ignorant as we were before. But for some reason it's hard for us to want more wisdom than we currently have. We are satisfied with what we know, but don't realize that from a higher vantage point, it's certain that we are still extremely ignorant, making us similar to the prisoners in the cave. This realization of ones own ignorance, and how much better life could potentially be with knowledge and understanding (even if you don't currently know exactly what knowledge or understanding you need) is what seems to drive Socrates to pursue the truth.
This pursuit of truth can even be at the cost of our own subjective happiness. For instance, we can think about the story of the man who was lied to as mentioned before, where learning the truth might decrease his happiness but something we would still consider a good thing. We can also demonstrate the concept of truth vs happiness using Plato's cave allegory again. We can imagine that in the cave some people who are quite good at guessing the shapes of the shadows on the wall acquire wealth and power in the cave. But despite this, our escaped prisoner who has seen the real world would still surely not want to go back, and might even prefer misfortune in the real world than be a rich king in the cave. Plato makes this point in Republic:
"Do you think our former prisoner would cover these honors and would envy the people who had status and power there, or would he much prefer, as Homer describes it, "Being a slave laboring for someone else-someone without property," and would put up with anything at all, in fact, rather than share their beliefs and their life?
Yes, I think he'd go through anything rather than live that way."
This is pretty extreme, but even if you wouldn't go so far as to choose to be a slave in the real world rather than live in the cave, we feel that we have some tug towards the value of wisdom and truth rather than just maximizing pleasure.
Knowledge is Everything
The next point I found interesting was how Socrates seems to equate knowledge, virtue, and the good life (the greeks called eudaimonia, kind of like "flourishing") as the same. This is to the extent that things that are ordinarily considered goods by people, like not being physically harmed, don't matter to Socrates. This is because is happiness or eudaimonia is dependent on the virtue, or wisdom or understanding, which he already has, so being put to death and the end of his life couldn't take anything important away from him. This idea of the importance of things that are internally valuable and unimportance of external things was extremely influential to the stoics, which I found interesting and didn't know before.
But the more interesting point here is why knowledge, virtue, and the good life are one and the same. Many people might think the knowledge might lead to virtue. For instance, knowledge of good and evil would allow people to choose one or the other, but they still might use their knowledge to make the evil choice. But Socrates instead says that being unvirtuous (doing immoral things) is ONLY ever due to a lack of knowledge. If the person just had more knowledge, then they would simply have no desire to choose the unvirtous thing. The author gives an examples of certain temptations that you can easily resist because of your understanding. There are certain drugs (fentanyl?) you don't take and certain things you don't eat because of your understanding. Thus, it's not your willpower causing you to make this decision, but rather you just having no desire to do these things because of your knowledge. Socrates thinks everything is like this. A moral example given by Farnsworth is to imagine you are transported back in time to an era where slavery is common. While you are offered slaves, you refuse, and the people around you think you are making a sacrifice by passing a chance to make your life easier and be better off. However, it's clear you have a different understanding of what being "better off" means than the slaveowners. Because of the knowledge you have, you simply don't have the desire to own slaves, there is no willpower involved in choosing the right decision. This is an example of Socrates thinks all moral dilemmas are, and I found this example pretty interesting. Though there are some metaphysical assumptions that come with how Socrates thinks about truth which I don't agree with. For instance, Socrates thinks that objective (as opposed to subjective) truth, morality, and knowledge exist and need to be discovered, meaning there's only ever one correct answer to any moral dilemma. If you were omniscient, you would always choose this virtuous option, and this wouldn't affect your happiness since your knowledge would make you have no desire to be unvirtuous, like in the example where you don't want to own slaves. I'm not sure if I completely agree with the idea that knowledge is the same as morality, but I still found it to be a pretty interesting idea and likely useful in certain situations to think about how having more knowledge may resolve certain disagreements.
The author also has some interesting examples in the last few chapters of how to effectively have socratic discussions. But throughout the book he reiterates how the socratic method can also be used on yourself to question your beliefs and help you remove your own ignorance, since it's pretty hard to find a partner who is fine with sitting through socratic questioning. Overall great book and easy to read too.
December 10, 2021
I first discovered Ward Farnsworth's work when I happened across some of his work on law, and found it in equal parts accessible, insightful, and illuminating. It was my great fortune to later discover that he's written on a wide variety of other topics, and always seems to have something of great value to say. To an interdisciplinarian like myself, this diversity of topics is more than welcome, but further reflection, especially upon reading this latest offering on the Socratic Method, makes me think there's actually a great unifying purpose behind many (if not all) of his books: Ward Farnsworth is teaching us how to think. Whether examining the finer points of legal thought (The Legal Analyst), training us to evaluate the complexities of chess positions (Predator at the Chessboard), or explaining how we can use Socratic questioning to improve our own thinking (the present book), he reliably presents deep information in a way that has the potential to elevate the reader's own cognition.
This book is perhaps the best source I've read on the Socratic method. That's not to say it's the best book about Socrates--it isn't and doesn't try to be. But if you're looking to develop a deep (or deeper) understanding of the mechanics of the Socratic method itself, I don't think you could do any better. Rich with examples and quotations, the book will turn the complete novice into an informed practitioner of the Socratic method (and the experienced Socratic thinker into a more refined one). Though other books have thoroughly treated the topic from a variety of angles, I don't know of any other that manages to provide detailed and comprehensible *instruction* in the Socratic method without devolving into a formulaic step-by-step process that loses almost everything of value in the method itself. This book does so, and manages to be an entertaining read at the same time.
Readers familiar with Farnsworth's previous work (particularly his The Practicing Stoic) will take delight in this book's further consideration of Greek philosophy, especially its fifteenth and sixteenth chapters concerning how Socratic thought has been carried in various directions by the Stoics and Skeptics. These connections make it easy to fit this work within the larger conversation Farnsworth has been having with his readers over the course of his several books.
On the other hand, those interested in becoming more skilled practitioners of the Socratic method may find the greatest value in the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters (and the epilogue) which come the closest one possibly could to supplying a formula for Socratic inquiry (without losing sight of the method's art in the process, however).
However, I maintain that all of us would do well to spend some time with Socrates. This form of thinking, unnatural to the human mind but immeasurably valuable, is an important and timely antidote to the kinds of bad thinking that have been amplified (particularly by social media) in recent years, as the author acknowledges openly in the preface. And if one wants to explore the world of Socratic thought, I can think of no finer guide than Ward Farnsworth.
This book is perhaps the best source I've read on the Socratic method. That's not to say it's the best book about Socrates--it isn't and doesn't try to be. But if you're looking to develop a deep (or deeper) understanding of the mechanics of the Socratic method itself, I don't think you could do any better. Rich with examples and quotations, the book will turn the complete novice into an informed practitioner of the Socratic method (and the experienced Socratic thinker into a more refined one). Though other books have thoroughly treated the topic from a variety of angles, I don't know of any other that manages to provide detailed and comprehensible *instruction* in the Socratic method without devolving into a formulaic step-by-step process that loses almost everything of value in the method itself. This book does so, and manages to be an entertaining read at the same time.
Readers familiar with Farnsworth's previous work (particularly his The Practicing Stoic) will take delight in this book's further consideration of Greek philosophy, especially its fifteenth and sixteenth chapters concerning how Socratic thought has been carried in various directions by the Stoics and Skeptics. These connections make it easy to fit this work within the larger conversation Farnsworth has been having with his readers over the course of his several books.
On the other hand, those interested in becoming more skilled practitioners of the Socratic method may find the greatest value in the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters (and the epilogue) which come the closest one possibly could to supplying a formula for Socratic inquiry (without losing sight of the method's art in the process, however).
However, I maintain that all of us would do well to spend some time with Socrates. This form of thinking, unnatural to the human mind but immeasurably valuable, is an important and timely antidote to the kinds of bad thinking that have been amplified (particularly by social media) in recent years, as the author acknowledges openly in the preface. And if one wants to explore the world of Socratic thought, I can think of no finer guide than Ward Farnsworth.
January 23, 2022
Another masterful book by the author. I’ve read his book “the practicing stoic” and now the Socratic method. After reading every chapter, I found myself, consciously and unconsciously thinking about the lessons imparted. This is a book about how to reason, reasonably. It made me question how I question. It is a way of self inquiry and a way of thinking objectively about how humans search for illusive truth through dialogue and introspection. This review doesn’t do it justice but it is worth your time reading, you will learn something.
March 22, 2025
Un libro sencillo en su mensaje, un poco árido en su lectura, pero como un libro introductorio a Sócrates/Platón, creo que funciona muy bien. Tal y como me lo dijo un amigo, este libro es “Humildad del pensamiento”.
July 31, 2023
Incredible!! 5* stars all the way.
I could not put it down and swallowed the whole thing in a couple of days. The best way to describe the experience is to compare it to taking a class with Julian Morrow (The Secret History character).
I enjoyed the author's other practical philosophy book - The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual and bought The Socratic Method as soon as it came out. It was looking at me from a bookshelf since... But then I discovered an Audible version and took a plunge. I am awed by the experience. Strongest possible recommendation!
A special callout for John Lescault. His exquisite narration has cast its own spell on me... I will be on the lookout for all books with his "voice". In particular, I am very tempted now by The Iliad & The Odyssey.
Other relevant books:
- The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual
- Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life
- The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking
I am now inspired to dig into author's books on language, in particular:
- Farnsworth’s Classical English Rhetoric and
- Farnsworth's Classical English Style
And possibly his chess books:
- Predator at the Chessboard Book I
- Predator at the Chessboard Book II
I could not put it down and swallowed the whole thing in a couple of days. The best way to describe the experience is to compare it to taking a class with Julian Morrow (The Secret History character).
I enjoyed the author's other practical philosophy book - The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual and bought The Socratic Method as soon as it came out. It was looking at me from a bookshelf since... But then I discovered an Audible version and took a plunge. I am awed by the experience. Strongest possible recommendation!
A special callout for John Lescault. His exquisite narration has cast its own spell on me... I will be on the lookout for all books with his "voice". In particular, I am very tempted now by The Iliad & The Odyssey.
Other relevant books:
- The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual
- Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life
- The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking
I am now inspired to dig into author's books on language, in particular:
- Farnsworth’s Classical English Rhetoric and
- Farnsworth's Classical English Style
And possibly his chess books:
- Predator at the Chessboard Book I
- Predator at the Chessboard Book II
March 18, 2023
3.5
Part 1/? of the road to understanding Wittgenstein
Reddit male said that you should understand Socrates before Wittgenstein. So, here we are.
My review is not a reflection of Socrates himself because I seriously admire him and follow a lot of his ideas in my own life, it’s more so of the author. Farnsworth isn’t a bad writer at all, he’s easy to understand, and reading this after trying (and failing) to read Russell was a TREAT. That said, a lot of the commentary is redundant. I am in no way knowledgeable about ancient philosophy but cmon, even I already knew most of the stuff in the book or was able to deduce it from reading the passages provided. Farnsworth takes PARAGRAPHS to explain something that could’ve take a couple sentences. It’s clearly not unnecessary enough to be dry, considering I read it in a day, but half of what I read was a waste of time
Part 1/? of the road to understanding Wittgenstein
Reddit male said that you should understand Socrates before Wittgenstein. So, here we are.
My review is not a reflection of Socrates himself because I seriously admire him and follow a lot of his ideas in my own life, it’s more so of the author. Farnsworth isn’t a bad writer at all, he’s easy to understand, and reading this after trying (and failing) to read Russell was a TREAT. That said, a lot of the commentary is redundant. I am in no way knowledgeable about ancient philosophy but cmon, even I already knew most of the stuff in the book or was able to deduce it from reading the passages provided. Farnsworth takes PARAGRAPHS to explain something that could’ve take a couple sentences. It’s clearly not unnecessary enough to be dry, considering I read it in a day, but half of what I read was a waste of time
January 22, 2025
Farnsworth truly excels in his exploration of the Socratic method, providing insightful descriptions and engaging demonstrations that illuminate this powerful approach to inquiry. The book's historical context adds a layer of depth. Throughout my reading, I found myself using the tools and methodologies presented to critically examine my own beliefs and gain a deeper understanding of various subjects. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone who is a lifelong learner—it's a valuable resource for anyone looking to enhance their thinking and dialogue skills!
January 3, 2026
Really informative and detailed, with lots of background on Socrates, his dialogues, and the foundations of his method. Especially enjoyed the chapters on the Elenchus and Aporia.
The book gives clear rules of engagement and how to practically construct Socratic dialogue in personal situations; I guess the easy part is reading about the method, the harder part is putting it into practice. But all the tools are here to do so!
The book gives clear rules of engagement and how to practically construct Socratic dialogue in personal situations; I guess the easy part is reading about the method, the harder part is putting it into practice. But all the tools are here to do so!
February 21, 2023
This book felt like more of an analysis of the Socratic method rather than a “practitioners guide” until the last couple of chapters. Either way, I’m glad I read it and I hope to implement its teachings moving forward (especially with myself)! Might need to reread it again to really absorb its teachings, but plan to work with what I got out of it for now.
May 27, 2023
Even if we can't or shouldn't be Socratic at all times (do not disturb the disco!), this is a great primer in thinking well. Another gem from Farnsworth, one that makes my undergrad logic course feel like a waste of time by comparison.
August 12, 2025
The Socratic Method by Ward Farnsworth
A book cover with animals
AI-generated content may be incorrect.
Ward Farnsworth is a law professor, former Dean of Texas Law School, and the Reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Third) Torts. After writing a book on legal practice, Farnsworth branched out into rhetoric, writing a series that included Classical English Argument, Classical English Rhetoric, and English Metaphors. He also has a book on Stoicism, so this book fits nicely into the law practice/rhetoric/ancient philosophy vein he’s been mining. Farnsworth puts “poly” into polymath.
This is a perfect book for those who are interested in legal practice/rhetoric/Greek philosophy, and it should be interesting for those without that orientation because Farnsworth does a good job of presenting Socrates’ life in an interesting and relevant manner. Farnsworth’s purpose is to show the reader that Socrates’ method of thinking – the elenchus – can be used by anyone as part of their internal dialogue to improve their critical thinking skills and their life. So, in a way, this is a self-help book and might be a perfect book for those interested in self-help books.[1] Farnsworth views the Socratic method as a tool for self-examination, thinking out loud, and obtaining distance from ourselves, through the “Socratic function,” i.e., a posture that treats our positions with critical detachment.[2]
Farnsworth provides an overview of Socrates’ life and an analysis of the purpose and system of Socrates’ method. Farnsworth discusses the “Socratic Problem,” namely, whether the Socrates of Plato really is Socrates or is a stand-in for Plato, or something in-between.[3]
As Farnsworth explains, the Socratic Method proceeds by questions and answers. Socrates’ principle focus is on consistency. The object of the questioning is to ascertain a principle behind the different examples that Socrates’ interlocutors offer.[4]
The Socratic method is also called the elenchus, which means to “search,” which variants that mean “testing,” “refutation,” or “shaming and ridicule.” Farnsworth summarizes the elenchus:
Examples. The Socratic elenchus can be defined in various ways, and some scholars think the device takes too many forms to be defined at all. But here’s what the term is most commonly said to mean: You make a claim. Socrates gets you to agree to some other proposition. Then he shows, sometimes surprisingly, that the new point to which you’ve agreed is inconsistent with what you said before. In short, he causes you to contradict yourself.
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (p. 76).
A key to the elenchus is to generalize from a statement made by the interlocutor. The general statement is an attempt to capture the “form” of the claim being made by the interlocutor. Thus, if the interlocutor asserts that “corporations should pay more taxes,” a more general statement might be “everyone should pay fair taxes” or “everyone should pay according to their ability to support the government.” Both are attempts to take the non-essential, accidents out of the principle.
It is essential to get the interlocutor to “buy into” the general statement. As Farnsworth points out, the Socratic method proceeds by agreement. Each step of the elenchus proceeds by agreement, such that it is the interlocutor who is contradicting himself.
Does this method lead to truth? Truth has been defined as the correspondence of the mind with reality. On the one hand, the mind’s correspondence with itself does not necessarily mean that the mind corresponds with reality, but, on the other, anyone with two contradicting minds necessarily guarantees that at least one of those minds does not correspond with truth. Also, it seems that insofar as one starts with a mind (or proposition) that corresponds with reality, then it is to one’s advantage that other propositions should correspond with the true proposition. In that regard, the Socratic method may have a truth-preserving property even if it does not generate truth.
Farnsworth suggests that there are two ways that the elenchus can proceed from the general proposition. Farnsworth calls one way “systolic,” which involves seeing the similarities between things that look different. If someone says that courage involves a soldier standing his ground before a charging enemy, Socrates might suggest that courage is also displayed when a sailor goes to sea. The question, then, might be what is common to these two things.
The other approach is called “diastolic” by Farnsworth and involves seeing the difference in things that look similar. If someone suggests that courage is found in “persistence,” the questions might then involve examples of persistence which do not seem courageous, e.g., persistently asking one’s son to take out the garbage.
As a practical matter, I use both approaches in cross-examination. Cross-examination can proceed by breaking down the general principle into specifics or by taking a specific example, building it up into a general proposition, and then testing it with other examples.
The process is also helped by the facility of using analogies. Analogies are ways of thinking about propositions because they suggest parallels. However, analogies break down eventually because the analogy is not the thing any more than the map is the ground (to use an analogy). A comparison is not an argument but can be used to express an analogy. Thus, rhetoric is not an art; it is a craft like cooking to make swallowing medicine easier. Farnsworth explains Socrates’ attraction to analogies:
Why does Socrates use so many analogies? First, he is trying to get his partners to think hard in unaccustomed ways. Analogies make the process seem more familiar. He draws comparisons to everyday things and activities—to cobblers and clay. These images give relief from abstraction and create some comfort. They also suggest that anyone can do this, not just specialists. Socrates says: talk the way you are used to talking about the things you know, but do it while thinking about things that are larger.
Second, there’s a risk that the topics Socrates cares about—justice or virtue, say—might seem to be only words, and to matter less than the tangible things we know from ordinary life. Socrates worries that ideas don’t seem real to us.
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (p. 126).
Analogies make abstractions seem more concrete.[5] In becoming concrete, we think about abstractions in a new way.[6] Farnsworth points out that this is useful because we favor the sensible over the intelligible:
Socrates thinks of ideas as every bit as important—more so, indeed—as what we can see and touch, and he tries to get others to look at them that way, too.4 He wants people to care for their insides (the psyche, the soul) with the kind of energy and attention they spend on their physical selves and whatever else they see. Think of Socrates as up against a bias: we treat what is available to our senses more seriously than what is only available to our minds. He is at war with that bias. Analogies are a weapon against it.
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (pp. 126-127).
This is a point made by Aristotle and Aquinas and goes back to the form and accident distinction. Ideas are forms; they are changeless and essential. They are apprehended by the mind. Sensible things are not ideas; they are changeable and accidental. Touch a tree, and you know how this particular tree feels. Touch many trees and you might be able to abstract a principle about the nature of wood and bark. That understanding is real and does not change.
Farnsworth offers rules for dialogue. Dialogues seek the truth, not to win. They test people and not just ideas. This may seem strange because we think that such things might be aggressive, rude, and ad hominem, but Socrates was interested in the “care of the psyche.” Socratic examination can be a form of “value clarification”; it challenges the interlocutor to ask themselves, “Do you really believe this?” and “Why do you believe this?” Ultimately, those are personal questions.
Candor and charity are essential for the project. The interlocutor must say what they really believe, and the examiner should put the interlocutor’s answers in the most reasonable light. Nothing misdirects a discussion quicker than a strawman.
Why bother? Farnsworth discusses Socratic goods and Socratic injuries. Socratic goods include knowledge and self-understanding. Socratic injuries might include being deceived by others and by ourselves. Farnsworth explains:
Everyone bears Socratic injuries. We say things, do things, and otherwise live in ways that would probably cause us embarrassment and horror if we honestly gave or learned answers to every hard question about them, so we don’t. The injuries can become more severe and harder to see as life goes on. We get invested in the defense of bad choices after making them. (As an exercise, define “bad choice” from a Socratic standpoint.) Earlier we considered cases where people discover late in life that they’ve been wrong about something all along. Real cases like that are rare, not because people are rarely in that position but because late in life it’s too costly to see. Thus Socrates’ biting description of orators in the law courts who have spent too much of their lives learning to say what they’re paid to say or what clients or juries want to hear:
They have become tense and neurotic. They know how to speak flatteringly to their master and how to behave to get into his good books, but their minds are narrow and crooked. They became slaves when they were young, and slavery prohibits growth, integrity and freedom, makes devious deeds inevitable, and puts minds that are still impressionable through extremes of danger and fear, which cannot be dealt with honestly and truthfully. So in no time at all they turn to deceit and repaying wrong with further wrong; they become warped and stunted in many ways. In the end, when they become adults, they are left with minds which are incapable of a single wholesome thought. They have become highly skilled and intelligent—or so they think. Theaetetus 173ab
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (pp. 191-192).
If you are a lawyer, what can you say but, “ouch.”
I think no one wants to be a dick, but many manage. There must be nothing worse than realizing after long years that you have been a dick. It might be a good idea to develop the habits that prevent that sad outcome.
In his concluding chapters, Farnsworth offers practical applications of the principles he lays out in the book. This section is worth reading.
This book is a gem for thinkers and those who want to be thinkers.
Footnotes:
[1] The view of Socrates as a giver of self-help advice is not new. In Memorabilia, Xenophon presents Socrates as mainly being about a dispenser of self-help advice in trying to reconcile feuding brothers, reconciling his son with his wife, and suggesting a business strategy to a man with too many women in his household.
[2] Donald Robertson covers the utility of “illeism” – the practice of phrasing questions in which we have a psychological investment in the “third person” – in his book “How to Think like Socrates.”
[3] My opinion after reading Xenophon is that we can find a core Socrates in Plato, where the Socrates of Plato lines up with the Socrates of Xenophon. Beyond that, we probably can’t say more, except that it seems obvious that Plato polished up whatever he was given in its native form.
[4] On reflection, it might be said that Socrates is seeking the “form” – the unchanging truth – that is buried in the accidents of particular situations. Accidents are not essential and they are changeable. In some ways, you can see where Aristotle will eventually get his form/accident view.
[5] Plato’s “allegory of the cave” has had a 2,500-year run as a way of thinking about knowledge.
[6] Farnsworth introduces the rhetorical term “epagoge” (pronounced ep- ah – go – gay), which is an argument in which specific examples lead to a general conclusion. In essence, this is induction.
A book cover with animals
AI-generated content may be incorrect.
Ward Farnsworth is a law professor, former Dean of Texas Law School, and the Reporter for the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Third) Torts. After writing a book on legal practice, Farnsworth branched out into rhetoric, writing a series that included Classical English Argument, Classical English Rhetoric, and English Metaphors. He also has a book on Stoicism, so this book fits nicely into the law practice/rhetoric/ancient philosophy vein he’s been mining. Farnsworth puts “poly” into polymath.
This is a perfect book for those who are interested in legal practice/rhetoric/Greek philosophy, and it should be interesting for those without that orientation because Farnsworth does a good job of presenting Socrates’ life in an interesting and relevant manner. Farnsworth’s purpose is to show the reader that Socrates’ method of thinking – the elenchus – can be used by anyone as part of their internal dialogue to improve their critical thinking skills and their life. So, in a way, this is a self-help book and might be a perfect book for those interested in self-help books.[1] Farnsworth views the Socratic method as a tool for self-examination, thinking out loud, and obtaining distance from ourselves, through the “Socratic function,” i.e., a posture that treats our positions with critical detachment.[2]
Farnsworth provides an overview of Socrates’ life and an analysis of the purpose and system of Socrates’ method. Farnsworth discusses the “Socratic Problem,” namely, whether the Socrates of Plato really is Socrates or is a stand-in for Plato, or something in-between.[3]
As Farnsworth explains, the Socratic Method proceeds by questions and answers. Socrates’ principle focus is on consistency. The object of the questioning is to ascertain a principle behind the different examples that Socrates’ interlocutors offer.[4]
The Socratic method is also called the elenchus, which means to “search,” which variants that mean “testing,” “refutation,” or “shaming and ridicule.” Farnsworth summarizes the elenchus:
Examples. The Socratic elenchus can be defined in various ways, and some scholars think the device takes too many forms to be defined at all. But here’s what the term is most commonly said to mean: You make a claim. Socrates gets you to agree to some other proposition. Then he shows, sometimes surprisingly, that the new point to which you’ve agreed is inconsistent with what you said before. In short, he causes you to contradict yourself.
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (p. 76).
A key to the elenchus is to generalize from a statement made by the interlocutor. The general statement is an attempt to capture the “form” of the claim being made by the interlocutor. Thus, if the interlocutor asserts that “corporations should pay more taxes,” a more general statement might be “everyone should pay fair taxes” or “everyone should pay according to their ability to support the government.” Both are attempts to take the non-essential, accidents out of the principle.
It is essential to get the interlocutor to “buy into” the general statement. As Farnsworth points out, the Socratic method proceeds by agreement. Each step of the elenchus proceeds by agreement, such that it is the interlocutor who is contradicting himself.
Does this method lead to truth? Truth has been defined as the correspondence of the mind with reality. On the one hand, the mind’s correspondence with itself does not necessarily mean that the mind corresponds with reality, but, on the other, anyone with two contradicting minds necessarily guarantees that at least one of those minds does not correspond with truth. Also, it seems that insofar as one starts with a mind (or proposition) that corresponds with reality, then it is to one’s advantage that other propositions should correspond with the true proposition. In that regard, the Socratic method may have a truth-preserving property even if it does not generate truth.
Farnsworth suggests that there are two ways that the elenchus can proceed from the general proposition. Farnsworth calls one way “systolic,” which involves seeing the similarities between things that look different. If someone says that courage involves a soldier standing his ground before a charging enemy, Socrates might suggest that courage is also displayed when a sailor goes to sea. The question, then, might be what is common to these two things.
The other approach is called “diastolic” by Farnsworth and involves seeing the difference in things that look similar. If someone suggests that courage is found in “persistence,” the questions might then involve examples of persistence which do not seem courageous, e.g., persistently asking one’s son to take out the garbage.
As a practical matter, I use both approaches in cross-examination. Cross-examination can proceed by breaking down the general principle into specifics or by taking a specific example, building it up into a general proposition, and then testing it with other examples.
The process is also helped by the facility of using analogies. Analogies are ways of thinking about propositions because they suggest parallels. However, analogies break down eventually because the analogy is not the thing any more than the map is the ground (to use an analogy). A comparison is not an argument but can be used to express an analogy. Thus, rhetoric is not an art; it is a craft like cooking to make swallowing medicine easier. Farnsworth explains Socrates’ attraction to analogies:
Why does Socrates use so many analogies? First, he is trying to get his partners to think hard in unaccustomed ways. Analogies make the process seem more familiar. He draws comparisons to everyday things and activities—to cobblers and clay. These images give relief from abstraction and create some comfort. They also suggest that anyone can do this, not just specialists. Socrates says: talk the way you are used to talking about the things you know, but do it while thinking about things that are larger.
Second, there’s a risk that the topics Socrates cares about—justice or virtue, say—might seem to be only words, and to matter less than the tangible things we know from ordinary life. Socrates worries that ideas don’t seem real to us.
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (p. 126).
Analogies make abstractions seem more concrete.[5] In becoming concrete, we think about abstractions in a new way.[6] Farnsworth points out that this is useful because we favor the sensible over the intelligible:
Socrates thinks of ideas as every bit as important—more so, indeed—as what we can see and touch, and he tries to get others to look at them that way, too.4 He wants people to care for their insides (the psyche, the soul) with the kind of energy and attention they spend on their physical selves and whatever else they see. Think of Socrates as up against a bias: we treat what is available to our senses more seriously than what is only available to our minds. He is at war with that bias. Analogies are a weapon against it.
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (pp. 126-127).
This is a point made by Aristotle and Aquinas and goes back to the form and accident distinction. Ideas are forms; they are changeless and essential. They are apprehended by the mind. Sensible things are not ideas; they are changeable and accidental. Touch a tree, and you know how this particular tree feels. Touch many trees and you might be able to abstract a principle about the nature of wood and bark. That understanding is real and does not change.
Farnsworth offers rules for dialogue. Dialogues seek the truth, not to win. They test people and not just ideas. This may seem strange because we think that such things might be aggressive, rude, and ad hominem, but Socrates was interested in the “care of the psyche.” Socratic examination can be a form of “value clarification”; it challenges the interlocutor to ask themselves, “Do you really believe this?” and “Why do you believe this?” Ultimately, those are personal questions.
Candor and charity are essential for the project. The interlocutor must say what they really believe, and the examiner should put the interlocutor’s answers in the most reasonable light. Nothing misdirects a discussion quicker than a strawman.
Why bother? Farnsworth discusses Socratic goods and Socratic injuries. Socratic goods include knowledge and self-understanding. Socratic injuries might include being deceived by others and by ourselves. Farnsworth explains:
Everyone bears Socratic injuries. We say things, do things, and otherwise live in ways that would probably cause us embarrassment and horror if we honestly gave or learned answers to every hard question about them, so we don’t. The injuries can become more severe and harder to see as life goes on. We get invested in the defense of bad choices after making them. (As an exercise, define “bad choice” from a Socratic standpoint.) Earlier we considered cases where people discover late in life that they’ve been wrong about something all along. Real cases like that are rare, not because people are rarely in that position but because late in life it’s too costly to see. Thus Socrates’ biting description of orators in the law courts who have spent too much of their lives learning to say what they’re paid to say or what clients or juries want to hear:
They have become tense and neurotic. They know how to speak flatteringly to their master and how to behave to get into his good books, but their minds are narrow and crooked. They became slaves when they were young, and slavery prohibits growth, integrity and freedom, makes devious deeds inevitable, and puts minds that are still impressionable through extremes of danger and fear, which cannot be dealt with honestly and truthfully. So in no time at all they turn to deceit and repaying wrong with further wrong; they become warped and stunted in many ways. In the end, when they become adults, they are left with minds which are incapable of a single wholesome thought. They have become highly skilled and intelligent—or so they think. Theaetetus 173ab
Farnsworth, Ward. The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (pp. 191-192).
If you are a lawyer, what can you say but, “ouch.”
I think no one wants to be a dick, but many manage. There must be nothing worse than realizing after long years that you have been a dick. It might be a good idea to develop the habits that prevent that sad outcome.
In his concluding chapters, Farnsworth offers practical applications of the principles he lays out in the book. This section is worth reading.
This book is a gem for thinkers and those who want to be thinkers.
Footnotes:
[1] The view of Socrates as a giver of self-help advice is not new. In Memorabilia, Xenophon presents Socrates as mainly being about a dispenser of self-help advice in trying to reconcile feuding brothers, reconciling his son with his wife, and suggesting a business strategy to a man with too many women in his household.
[2] Donald Robertson covers the utility of “illeism” – the practice of phrasing questions in which we have a psychological investment in the “third person” – in his book “How to Think like Socrates.”
[3] My opinion after reading Xenophon is that we can find a core Socrates in Plato, where the Socrates of Plato lines up with the Socrates of Xenophon. Beyond that, we probably can’t say more, except that it seems obvious that Plato polished up whatever he was given in its native form.
[4] On reflection, it might be said that Socrates is seeking the “form” – the unchanging truth – that is buried in the accidents of particular situations. Accidents are not essential and they are changeable. In some ways, you can see where Aristotle will eventually get his form/accident view.
[5] Plato’s “allegory of the cave” has had a 2,500-year run as a way of thinking about knowledge.
[6] Farnsworth introduces the rhetorical term “epagoge” (pronounced ep- ah – go – gay), which is an argument in which specific examples lead to a general conclusion. In essence, this is induction.
April 13, 2023
Loved.every.page.
January 26, 2025
What an amazing read. Will be coming back to this book again and again.
March 19, 2022
If you are in the business of teaching or persuading, then this book is worth reading. If there is one thing of value to retain here, it is this: if you want to persuade someone of something, particularly if the subject matter is an emotional one, your go-to tactic should be to spend a lot of time listening first. Once that person feels that they've been heard, that they've been allowed to explain themselves, they are far more likely to listen to what you have to say.
Why are they then more likely to listen to you? First, in the course of explaining themselves, if allowed to do so at sufficient length, they will begin to appreciate the limitations of their own understanding. Second, you will have established a level of trust with one another such that it becomes possible to search for common ground. Third, by allowing the other person the right to speak, you yourself obtain the right to speak.
As someone who teaches for a living, this method sounds very attractive but hard to implement given the sheer number of students in a classroom. I think it requires some strategizing about how organize a class in order to give students sufficient right to speak, and probably also requires allowing some sub-set of students to act as spokespeople for a particular point of view.
The author himself is a law professor, and so knows a thing or two about the classroom and how to apply his approach in that setting. The book is well worth a read.
Why are they then more likely to listen to you? First, in the course of explaining themselves, if allowed to do so at sufficient length, they will begin to appreciate the limitations of their own understanding. Second, you will have established a level of trust with one another such that it becomes possible to search for common ground. Third, by allowing the other person the right to speak, you yourself obtain the right to speak.
As someone who teaches for a living, this method sounds very attractive but hard to implement given the sheer number of students in a classroom. I think it requires some strategizing about how organize a class in order to give students sufficient right to speak, and probably also requires allowing some sub-set of students to act as spokespeople for a particular point of view.
The author himself is a law professor, and so knows a thing or two about the classroom and how to apply his approach in that setting. The book is well worth a read.
November 15, 2021
Another enjoyable read with incredibly practical implications. As soon as I finished I was eager to read over another of the Socratic dialogues with the new perspective Mr Farnsworths book granted me. Now I look for opportunities to practice the method and deligently seek for the truth.
December 10, 2021
Why must everyone have an opinion about everything? Or maybe it’s better to ask (since we often can’t help but have opinions), why must everyone insist on their opinion about everything? The public square might be a less fractious place if we all quit pronouncing judgments and damning those who disagree with us, and instead began asking questions in the Socratic mode. Why do you think X? What about Y? Is that consistent with Z?
Ward Farnsworth agrees but his recommendation goes deeper: we should cultivate an inner Socrates to prod and test our own opinions more thoroughly before we start screaming them at others. “A question puts pressure on whoever receives it,” he writes. “If you ask questions of yourself, you are the recipient of the pressure. That’s good. Stating an opinion is roughly the opposite. It releases pressure. Pressure is uncomfortable, so most people think and talk in opinions. But the unpressured mind tends toward laxity and corruption.”
I’ve enjoyed all of Farnsworth’s books (especially Classical English Rhetoric and Classical English Style) but this may be my favorite. As advertised, it is a would-be practitioner’s guide to the Socratic method, and the last two chapters get at this directly, with examples and suggestions on how to Socratize others (and oneself) on hot-potato issues. But more (and better) than that, this book is a fine refresher course on the Socratic dialogues in general.
Farnsworth covers a lot of ground but I especially enjoyed his discussions of three Socratic ideas: the elenchus, aporia, and eudaimonia.
The elenchus is the maneuver by which Socrates brings someone to see that his opinions contradict each other. For example, Laches (in the dialogue so named) defines courage as “mental persistence.” Feeling the definition may be incomplete, Socrates asks: Courage is admirable, isn’t it? Laches agrees that it is. And yet, Socrates continues, isn’t mental persistence in foolish things dangerous and harmful and therefore not admirable? Laches admits this is true, and so we see that courage must be something different, or more, than mental persistence.
The point is not to trip up Laches but to show us how to avoid intellectual inconsistency by discovering our own blind spots. Farnsworth paraphrases Socrates: “When people believe two things that can’t both be right, they’re half asleep or half-mad. They don’t actually think anything in particular. They just imagine that they do. They lack knowledge of who they are, and so are ridiculous without realizing it.”
Do you imagine the unsophisticated or uneducated are more likely to fall into the trap? Think again. “People who are clever imagine that they are better than others at avoiding this hazard, but they probably have the worst of it,” warns Farnsworth. “Their ingenuity allows them to find easy ways to make their views look harmonious to themselves. That may be why the cleverest are not famous for also being the most moral or admirable.”
Both for Socrates’ interlocutors and Plato’s readers, this process of uncovering inconsistencies leads in many cases to what is called a state of aporia – that is, disorientation or directionlessness. Experiencing it, you may feel uncomfortable, like you lost something – and you did: you lost an illusion of knowledge. Aporia is also, therefore, a state of liberation because you have discovered your own ignorance. You are undeceived, and as Socrates says in the Cratylus, “There is nothing worse than self-deception – when the deceiver is always at home and always with you.”
But there may be more to moments of aporia, as Farnsworth explains. As some interpret Plato, the lesson may be that our words simply aren’t up to certain tasks:
“The idea goes: there are unspeakable truths – that is, truths that defy language, and so can be called ineffable. Perhaps they are verbal analogues to irrational numbers. But they sometimes can be perceived without words. It may be that justice, for example, can’t be captured by a definition. But it can be encircled by the close failure of many efforts at definition. Instead of what results seeming to be a mess and therefore a failure, the mess is the thing sought. The goal of the effort at reasoning isn’t a conclusion based on the reasoning but a grasp of something larger.”
Discovering we don’t know what we imagined we knew may in this respect allow us a nearer approach to the truth, or encourage us to build again on more solid ground. But no one in his right mind should trade an uncomfortable truth for a comforting illusion; that would be incompatible with eudaimonia. Modern, academic philosophy gave up on eudaimonia a long time ago, but it was the goal of every school of classical philosophy. Eudaimonia is generally translated into English as “happiness” but, as Farnsworth writes, this causes some confusion:
“The issue arises because in English it is natural to think of happiness as a subjective state: it means feeling good. But eudaimonia has an objective aspect. It implies a judgment from the outside that someone is doing well. It means a good life, not just a good mood; a good life is one to which felt happiness is the right response. People can enjoy themselves in despicable ways and so not be described as happy in this Greek sense even if they seem to be having a good time.”
Conversely, it is possible to be despised, shunned and condemned by our peers – even to be persecuted and to suffer – and yet to live a good life, to enjoy eudaimonia. If we really want to trade a Twitter-addled public square for a more Socratic one – less opinionating for more dialogue – we should keep that in mind. It isn’t necessarily a comfortable bargain. After all, most of the Athenians who sat in judgment on Socrates condemned him to death as a nuisance and a corrupter of youth. The Socratic function in the self takes a similar risk. “In many personalities,” Farnsworth observes, “it ends up being served the hemlock.”
Ward Farnsworth agrees but his recommendation goes deeper: we should cultivate an inner Socrates to prod and test our own opinions more thoroughly before we start screaming them at others. “A question puts pressure on whoever receives it,” he writes. “If you ask questions of yourself, you are the recipient of the pressure. That’s good. Stating an opinion is roughly the opposite. It releases pressure. Pressure is uncomfortable, so most people think and talk in opinions. But the unpressured mind tends toward laxity and corruption.”
I’ve enjoyed all of Farnsworth’s books (especially Classical English Rhetoric and Classical English Style) but this may be my favorite. As advertised, it is a would-be practitioner’s guide to the Socratic method, and the last two chapters get at this directly, with examples and suggestions on how to Socratize others (and oneself) on hot-potato issues. But more (and better) than that, this book is a fine refresher course on the Socratic dialogues in general.
Farnsworth covers a lot of ground but I especially enjoyed his discussions of three Socratic ideas: the elenchus, aporia, and eudaimonia.
The elenchus is the maneuver by which Socrates brings someone to see that his opinions contradict each other. For example, Laches (in the dialogue so named) defines courage as “mental persistence.” Feeling the definition may be incomplete, Socrates asks: Courage is admirable, isn’t it? Laches agrees that it is. And yet, Socrates continues, isn’t mental persistence in foolish things dangerous and harmful and therefore not admirable? Laches admits this is true, and so we see that courage must be something different, or more, than mental persistence.
The point is not to trip up Laches but to show us how to avoid intellectual inconsistency by discovering our own blind spots. Farnsworth paraphrases Socrates: “When people believe two things that can’t both be right, they’re half asleep or half-mad. They don’t actually think anything in particular. They just imagine that they do. They lack knowledge of who they are, and so are ridiculous without realizing it.”
Do you imagine the unsophisticated or uneducated are more likely to fall into the trap? Think again. “People who are clever imagine that they are better than others at avoiding this hazard, but they probably have the worst of it,” warns Farnsworth. “Their ingenuity allows them to find easy ways to make their views look harmonious to themselves. That may be why the cleverest are not famous for also being the most moral or admirable.”
Both for Socrates’ interlocutors and Plato’s readers, this process of uncovering inconsistencies leads in many cases to what is called a state of aporia – that is, disorientation or directionlessness. Experiencing it, you may feel uncomfortable, like you lost something – and you did: you lost an illusion of knowledge. Aporia is also, therefore, a state of liberation because you have discovered your own ignorance. You are undeceived, and as Socrates says in the Cratylus, “There is nothing worse than self-deception – when the deceiver is always at home and always with you.”
But there may be more to moments of aporia, as Farnsworth explains. As some interpret Plato, the lesson may be that our words simply aren’t up to certain tasks:
“The idea goes: there are unspeakable truths – that is, truths that defy language, and so can be called ineffable. Perhaps they are verbal analogues to irrational numbers. But they sometimes can be perceived without words. It may be that justice, for example, can’t be captured by a definition. But it can be encircled by the close failure of many efforts at definition. Instead of what results seeming to be a mess and therefore a failure, the mess is the thing sought. The goal of the effort at reasoning isn’t a conclusion based on the reasoning but a grasp of something larger.”
Discovering we don’t know what we imagined we knew may in this respect allow us a nearer approach to the truth, or encourage us to build again on more solid ground. But no one in his right mind should trade an uncomfortable truth for a comforting illusion; that would be incompatible with eudaimonia. Modern, academic philosophy gave up on eudaimonia a long time ago, but it was the goal of every school of classical philosophy. Eudaimonia is generally translated into English as “happiness” but, as Farnsworth writes, this causes some confusion:
“The issue arises because in English it is natural to think of happiness as a subjective state: it means feeling good. But eudaimonia has an objective aspect. It implies a judgment from the outside that someone is doing well. It means a good life, not just a good mood; a good life is one to which felt happiness is the right response. People can enjoy themselves in despicable ways and so not be described as happy in this Greek sense even if they seem to be having a good time.”
Conversely, it is possible to be despised, shunned and condemned by our peers – even to be persecuted and to suffer – and yet to live a good life, to enjoy eudaimonia. If we really want to trade a Twitter-addled public square for a more Socratic one – less opinionating for more dialogue – we should keep that in mind. It isn’t necessarily a comfortable bargain. After all, most of the Athenians who sat in judgment on Socrates condemned him to death as a nuisance and a corrupter of youth. The Socratic function in the self takes a similar risk. “In many personalities,” Farnsworth observes, “it ends up being served the hemlock.”
February 10, 2022
I am quite interested by Plato and Socrates, so I though this might work, but I couldn't finish it. It is a scholarly work. He is quite knowledgeable, but I found the prose flat and uninteresting. I have read better books on the socratic method.
January 28, 2023
One example does not a handbook make
Perhaps more examples as you read through the book not waiting until the very end to give examples of how to recognize and/or implement.
One example does not a handbook make
Perhaps more examples as you read through the book not waiting until the very end to give examples of how to recognize and/or implement.
One example does not a handbook make
November 13, 2021
Pretty interesting and thought provoking but very dry.
November 15, 2021
96/100
5 stars - 90/100
4 stars - 80/100
3 stars - 70/100
2 stars - 60/100
1 star - 50/100
5 stars - 90/100
4 stars - 80/100
3 stars - 70/100
2 stars - 60/100
1 star - 50/100
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews