Ward Farnsworth

A very nice attempt to make a coherent practical guide out of the dialogues, sidestepping the problem of corralling a full positive philosophy of Socrates' out of the many contradictory elements and handful of positive claims to be found. We get a quick overview of the elements and controversies (was there a Socrates, what sources are there, what do they say), followed by some discussion about the philosophical consistency and to what extent Plato is inserting his own ideas, then an attempt show more to break down the method in Socratic reasoning.
The biggest stumbling block here, and one often slid past, is the question of Socrates' sincerity and hypocrisy in using his own method - thankfully it is discussed, but Farnsworth quickly takes a positive stance and assumes the best, even for the dialogues where it seems Socrates is himself engaging in the sophistry he's portrayed as the enemy of. Another limitation is the lack of prescriptive content in the positive philosophy Farnsworth sketches; self-critical analysis is a fine goal, earnestly trying to discuss the limits of ideas with others also, but beyond that the method really just is the pointed questions. And in the applications sketched out in the book it's hard to see the average person treating such inquiry as a friendly exploration of truth, rather than a smug attack on their views (thinking especially about the almost humorous example of a dialogue with the resident crazy uncle at a family gathering).
Fine attempt, but perhaps too romantic for reality. show less

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 show more 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. show less

Great book to read through and keep as reference for good and bad times in life. The title is a good description of the goal of the book, which is to provide practical advice on living. As a result, the focus is on Stoic ethics. The author does a great job of presenting the best version of Stoicism, discussing Stoic ideas with their own words, the author's learned commentary and putting Stoics in conversation and debate. The ideas are helpfully organized into topics, and while most of the show more Stoics quoted are Romans, the book also cites more modern students of the Stoics from Montaigne to Samuel Johnson. The author does a good job defending Stoics against criticism. Stoics are not heartless but experienced, hoping to teach through reasoning instead of experience how to best handle the vicissitudes of life. Stoics that were wealthy (Seneca in particular) are not hypocrites but recognize wealth as an indifferent, it was fine to prefer an indifferent as long as one does not attach too much weight to it. The Stoics were also the first to admit that they were not prefect and much of their advice is aspirational.

The gist of Stoicism is the liberating idea that while there are many things that we do not control, we control the most important things, how we react to those things that we do not control. By not inducing too much self-anguish over the things external to us, but by controlling our judgements to those externals, we free ourselves. It's ultimately an empowering philosophy and a gentle one. We often think that bad things happen, and then we are injured by bad things. But the Stoic insight was to decompose this process to three steps instead of two. A thing happens, we judge it be bad, and then we are hurt by that judgement. The other sight is that often our judgements are skewed by social convention or irrationalities. We do not value the things we have until we lose them. We crave fame from the crowd while despising the masses. We flash to anger when we are insulted. We project our insecurities onto others. Much of Stoicism is about realizing how skewed and irrational these judgements are. The book is broken into helpful sections on essentially Stoics teachings on correcting these judgements. Stoics use a variety of tactics to get us to see it from a different view, from citing the customs of unfamiliar cultures, or the view of children. But Stoicism is not nihilistic or relativist. To the Stoics, what matters is living life with virtue. Clearing our eyes simply allows us to do that better. This book is an excellent start and a good source to return to. show less

This is an unusually nice summary of this easy-to-understand but hard-to-do philosophy recommended to me by the great stoic, Vince D. Much of the text is collected quotations from the Stoics whose work has survived, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Some modern practitioners are also included, especially Montaigne and Schopenhauer (another entertaining, but lightweight philosopher). I liked it enough that I plan to read Farnsworth’s book on Rhetoric.

Much of Stoicism would be show more classified as psychology today; it is the self-help advice philosophy. The final chapter of this book addresses some of the critics of Stoicism, but in debate, you shouldn’t let the other team summarize your own criticisms for you.

I have various problems with Stoicism; the main one being that I have never met anyone without some CNS disease who changed their personality. Stoicism offers some good advice, but you need to be especially receptive to benefit from it, and, in most instances, I don’t think you will alter your life to fit Seneca’s recommendations, rather you will appreciate the recommendations if you already act that way. I suppose I am a Cynic. show less