Socratic method
As Socratic method refers to a procedure in the philosophical discourse that represents Plato in a number of his literary dialogues designed. In these dialogues he makes his teacher Socrates occur as the main speaker and demonstrate the approach in dealing with individual problems and interlocutors.
In modern didactic parlance is meant by " Socratic method" generally any didactic concept that is based on that the substance is interactively developed by the teacher and the students through questions and answers. The contrast is teaching where the teacher to the students the material tells lecturing.
The question of historical reality
The term " Socratic method " is not found in the sources it comes from modern philosophy histories. Plato there is some evidence of a particular discourse art of his teacher. One of them is to be found in the Apology of Socrates, a literary configured version of the defense speech given by Socrates in 399 BC as a defendant. There, Socrates asks those present to not take offense at it, that he traversed in his argument to its " normal way ". In Thaitetos dialogue Socrates compares his didactic approach with the " midwifery " his mother, a midwife: How the midwife helps the women at the birth of their children, so he help the souls at the birth of her insights. An indication that you BC Socrates held to be the author of a particular method no later than the 4th century, Aristotle supplies. He writes in his metaphysics, there are two achievements that one can ascribe to the historical Socrates rightly approach the leading type of derivation (a kind of inductive reasoning ) and the general definition of rules ( defining the general concepts ).
In Politeia dialogue Plato Socrates can ask the question whether an investigation should be carried out " by the usual method." But since it's there for an investigation from the viewpoint of theory of ideas, in which it is specifically Platonic thought, can not the " Socratic method " be meant.
The question of the relationship between the literary -described " Platonic " ( occurring in Plato's dialogues ), Socrates and Socrates as a historical personality is one of the most difficult problems of the ancient history of philosophy. A convincing reconstruction of the philosophy of the historical Socrates is regarded as impossible. It is also unclear whether Aristotle 's own information about the historical Socrates recovered or his knowledge of Plato only owed . The answer to the question of the credibility of the sources depends on whether one considers the " Socratic method " as a characteristic feature of the philosophical studies of the historical Socrates. Skeptical researchers are limited to the finding that Plato ascribes as a writer his teacher he moves as a master of dialogue in the best light, a certain superior way of conversing.
The lack of clear statements about the source of existence and the precise content of an established and practiced by Socrates method has even led to a research opinion, according to which there is no such method. Rather, it is a characteristic of Socrates ' philosophical efforts that he has no special tools, no unique and powerful weapon against ignorance. He had only to his last unbroken will to reduce the ignorance obsessed, but not a knowledge of certain steps by which this could be achieved methodically. Although he had a special way of looking for definitions, but not a theory of definition, and of a method in terms of a relatively systematic, theoretically justified procedure could not speak.
Particularly strongly to the renowned philologist Ulrich von Wilamowitz- Moellendorff (1848-1931) argued against the assumption that there regardless of the personality of Socrates a Socratic method, which can be formulated and learn. Not using a method 've Socrates fascinated, but only by the exemplary nature with which he lived according to his principles: " The Socratic method without Socrates is not more than the pedagogy tends to be that abguckt a soul leader of the grace of God, as he clears his throat and as he spits, his alleged method draws on bottle and says, pour out the water of life. "
Most researchers use terms such as " Socratic method " or " Socratic reasoning technique ," yet their opinions differ in detail. The skeptics who deny the existence of a particular method, have not been enforced, but they have shown that the conventional ideas about " the Socratic method " are at least problematic. Many questions remain open.
Controversial is the question of whether the historical Socrates has his dialogue practice perceived as " midwifery " ( maieutics ) and referred to or compared with obstetrics Plato was an incident. Some evidence suggest that the historical Socrates actually has compared his assistance in philosophical investigating the activities of a midwife and summarized his understanding of knowledge mediation in this metaphor.
Features of the method
The procedure of the Platonic Socrates is characterized by two aspects: the epistemological approach and the didactic principle. The epistemology is particularly addressed in the Theaetetus dialogue. The specific Socratic practice of striving for knowledge is presented in a series of works of Plato: Apology of Socrates, Charmides, Euthydemus, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias maior ( authenticity disputed), Hippias minor ( authenticity disputed), Ion, Crito, Laches, Lysis, Menon, Politeia (Book I) and Protagoras. For the Socratic teaching, especially the Meno and the Theaetetus are revealing.
The search for knowledge
With regard to the approach to the search for knowledge, three characteristic features of the let out to work " Socratic Method":
- The assumption that the starting point of possible philosophical knowledge correct, that is the real nature of the object under investigation is exactly descriptive definition.
- The Socratic elenchos ( refutation ), a kind of refutation of individual inadequately covered claims ( particularly unfit definition proposals )
- The strategy of checking the consistency of a represented by a dialogue participant overall concept.
The importance of defining
The definition of general concepts is a major concern of the ( Platonic ) Socrates, where he focuses primarily on the area of ethics. There, he is concerned with questions such as " What is courage? " Or "What is piety? ". He holds the definition of a primary task of the philosopher, who is taking on a specific topic. By this he means not a definition in the modern sense, ie any assignment of an expression to a content, a mere convention for the purpose of understanding and avoid misunderstandings. Instead, aimed for him the question "What is X? " On an exact definition of what actually constitutes the nature of X. Thus, the definition expresses a condition to be recognized as an objective fact. For each examination subject there is a single correct definition par excellence, trying to locate the philosopher. When the investigation is a property whose definition is intended to include what all carriers of this feature - only she and - makes them such. For example, courage is to be defined so that the definition exactly expresses what is and causes he is brave in each brave. Who found this definition which has captured the essence of bravery. He can not only see who is brave and who is not, but also understands why this is so. Although you can have an idea of bravery, without knowing the definition of this virtue, but sets a philosophical understanding of valor, knowledge of the definition requires.
In research controversial is the question of whether the Platonic Socrates is a priority of the definition of knowledge compared to anything else knowledge of the definable article to assume for the purposes of the statements "Who does not know what F is, can for no x to know if x is a case of F is "and" who does not know what F is, for any property P can know if FP has. " Here the problem arises that Socrates in the search for the definition of F relies on examples of F, ie already assumed that it is in fact examples of F. In the research literature, several solutions are discussed.
The elenchos and the verification of the consistency
In the Apology of Socrates, Plato asks about the motives that have his opponent to the court indictment, he defends himself against those who moved. He is accused of seducing the young. This accusation he does not back that the enemy held his philosophical beliefs to be wrong and harmful, but that he had made with his way of doing philosophy enemies. He says, not a particular content, but his approach as such excite offense. Therefore, he asks for understanding of his intention, even in the current situation on its "way of speaking " to hold; one should pay attention only to the authority of his remarks and not blame him for the kind of discourse. By " nature " he means his habit to prove untenable assertions to be erroneous and thus to debunk the claim of those making the claims to knowledge or wisdom as unfounded. This refutation is termed " Socratic elenchos ." The typical sequence in the dialogues is as follows:
Socrates presents his interlocutors the question of how a particular concept is to define ("What is X - ness "). The question is answered. In the second phase of Socrates provides a number of other issues that are relevant in the given context and are also answered. The responses of the second phase, in which the elenchos function of premises; there are statements that have consequences in terms of the first question. In the third phase, Socrates shows that given in the second phase answers with the answer to the first question are incompatible. In the fourth phase, the consequence is envisaged that the first answer can not be correct if the opinions that have led to the second phase of the answers are correct. Therefore, the position of the other party proves to be contradictory, his definition attempt failed. Then he changes the definition, is a completely new answer to the first question, or has to admit his helplessness.
From the elenchos arises under logical point of view, not necessarily the uselessness of the initially proposed definition, but only that they were incompatible with the premises. If, however, the dialogue participants hold the premises for self-evident facts, they must conclude that the answer to the question initially posed definition is wrong. The premises are not investigated in the Socratic dialogue regarding their veracity, but it only considers the consequences arising out of them for the answer to the initial question. From the perspective of the interlocutors of Socrates the accuracy of assumptions is defined and it does not contradict, but he avoids explicit statement to this effect. This circumstance is interpreted differently in research. After the " constructivist " interpretation ( Gregory Vlastos ) aims the elenchos on a positive result from: The answer to the initial question to be proven right or wrong. Then, the study suffers, however, as Vlastos notes to the lack of checking the veracity of the premises. Vlastos thinks that Socrates was able to keep the premises until the contrary is proved to be true, because they were not mere assertions of his interlocutors, but also a part of its own system, the consistency of which no one had been able to refute. After the " nichtkonstruktivistischen " interpretation of Hugh Benson Socrates wants neither prove the elenchos the falsity of the answer to the original question still comparing the plausibility of this response with that of the premises and make a judgment about it. Instead, he only checking the consistency of the overall concept of his interlocutor. Is the concept proved to be inconsistent, so is up to its author, an amendment whatsoever. Cause this step is according to Benson's understanding of the purpose of the Socratic elenchos.
The didactics
The educational aspect of the approach of the Platonic Socrates is the " midwifery " ( Maieutics or maieutics ), which he describes in the Theaetetus dialogue. This is about the art, a conversation partner knowledge - for example, mathematical knowledge - to convey by not taught him, but him bringing through appropriate questions, to eliminate existing misconceptions and to discover for themselves the actual facts, the knowledge from the own spirit extract. Emphasizes Socrates, he did not share with other knowledge, but strip them only " obstetrics " when their souls are equally pregnant and ready to " give birth " to an insight. The help in searching and finding of knowledge, being consistently dispenses instruction, appears in Plato's Socratic View as specific alternative to conventional knowledge by passing on and practicing of teaching material.
The most important part of the midwifery of the Platonic Socrates is but after his presentation is not in the technique of purposeful questioning, but to assess its ability who are " pregnant " souls capable of valuable knowledge to bring forth, and which can only Disabled " give birth ". After this assessment, he selects those to whom he does " obstetrics ".