objects with critical-analytic precision,ratiobecomes“instrumentalist in its desire to make the
environment, including the world of meanings, a resource.”^3 Haynes sees that this“instrumentalist
view”^4 underlies conceptions of philosophy as critical thinking, and she remarks that“Philosophy
probably wants to question the whole notion of thinking skills.”^5
Philosophers have always been reviled for their methods, for the use they make of these methods,
and for the perceived negative effects of them. Diogenes Laertius records that Anaxagoras was
banished from Athens on a charge of impiety on the grounds his manner of argument served to
undermine belief in the gods.^6 Socrates was especially reviled, along with the practice of philos-
ophy, as being indistinguishable from the sophists. Although writers like Haroutunian-Gordon
have stressed the importance of philosophic conversation in teaching, and Adler has advocated for
the adoption of“Socratic”discussions in the modern classroom,^7 both Socrates and the“Socratic
method”of philosophic conversation continue to be scorned. Carmichael remarks that“the
Socratic method”of“question-and-answer”is not well-suited to the modern classroom of thirty-
five students.^8 Rud likewise views the“Socratic method”of using“withering questions”to
undermine student pretensions to knowledge as“sadistic”; he deems it humiliating for students,
and he cites experiences with the method as it is often used to teach law classes:“The consensus
among students is that the method is not‘educational’in any traditional sense.”^9
Moreover, Ruddoes not agree thatthe use of sucha“method”guaranteesthatself-knowledge–the
purported and principle benefit of Socratic philosophicpractice–willeven occur. One needonlylook
as far as the Platonic dialogs themselves to confirm Rud’s skepticism here. Socrates has a rather poor
track record of ever having“improved”anyone through his“methods”of disputation.^10 Both Critias
and Alcibiades were among Socrates’frequent interlocutors; yet Critias became one of the Thirty
Tyrants, and Alcibiades’actions during the Sicilian campaign led to the destruction of Athens.
Others who are less skeptical of Socrates and“Socratic method”as a destructive, corruptive, and
pedagogically suspect manner of teaching nonetheless harbor doubts about the utility of“an easy
mimicry”of Socrates in the classroom.^11 Haroutinian-Gordon has thoughtfully observed that
Socrates does not actually conform to a prescribed“method.”She rightly points out that in teaching
dialogically, one cannot follow a method or a predetermined dialectical blueprint, because dis-
cussions are organic and unpredictable: they are what she refers to as“ill-structured teaching
situations.”^12
Finally, others have questioned the legitimacy of even speaking about a“Socratic method”as
though it were the peculiar technique of philosophic investigation proffered by Socrates. Mitchell,
for example, has written that“the Socratic method”is not properly attributed to Socrates at all, but is
rather the invention of the German philosopher Leonard Nelson.^13 Carmichael sees not one, but
three methods being used by Socrates^14 ; Calhoun provides an analysis of the Platonic dialogs in
which he identifies seven different methods at work as well as two“pedagogical modes.”^15 And
Hand writes that philosophy is plainly about more than“raising philosophical questions”;and,to
be“competent as a form of inquiry,”philosophy must be“a matter of answering questions of a
particular kindby means of appropriate methods of investigation.”^16
Whether philosophers use a specific“method”to engage in their various inquiries, I wish to
emphasize that there is no particular method that can specifically be termed either“Socratic”or
“philosophic,”as though adherence to it might distinguish one who philosophizes from one who
does not. Indeed, the sophist and the philosopher use the same“methods”of inquiry and discourse.
Both the philosopher and the sophist make use of stories^17 ; both use long speeches as well as short
ones, and both engage in question-and-answer discussions; both at various times speak to large
crowds as well as to individuals. Clearly, both are familiar with the art of rhetoric and are not
strangers to its methods.
It has long been recognized that Socrates’own defense speech in theApologyis remarkably
similar (if not, in many respects, identical) in form to the sophistic speech of Gorgias in hisDefense
of Palamedes.^18 Additionally, one might observe that in theEuthydemus, Socrates squares off
116 Sean Steel