against two sophists in the use ofelenchos, or the methods of cross-examination and refutation,
with eristic–quite literally,“verbal strife”–exposed as the sophistic image of dialectic.^19 In short,
simple mastery of a technique, skill, or method of inquiry does not mean that one is philosophizing,
because both the sophist and the philosopher might be masters of such things. Therefore, to“teach
philosophy”as though it were a method is, at best, to teach something of ambiguous value for the
pursuit of wisdom.
If philosophizing were simply a matter of learning a method, there would be no difference
between the philosopher and the sophist. The figures of the sophist and the philosopher are most
often conflated with one another precisely because they are seen using the same“methods.”For
example, the sophists (“the Wreckers”) in Augustine’sConfessionsuseelenchusto tear down and
“destroy”the arguments of their opponents^20 ; so too does Socrates lead his interlocutors (as well as
himself) into a state of perplexity (aporia) in which they recognize that they do not know what they
presumed to know previously. The methods employed by philosophers and sophists are the same;
however, the objectives of the sophist and the philosopher are quite different. In contrast to the
sophist, the philosopher or dialectician does not engage inelenchossimply to“destroy”every
opinion or idea suggested in argument; rather, to pursue wisdom, the philosopher must refine what
has been said, discarding what has been found as false and“taking up”what is true toward its
“metaphysical first principle.”^21
The dialectic of philosophy–as distinct from the eristic of sophistry–is a means, as Pieper calls
it, for knowing“reality as such.”^22 The methods used (e.g.,elenchos) are themselves neutral; that is,
they are neither specifically philosophic nor sophistic; they become either sophistic or philosophic
depending upon their respective ends, and the goals of the philosopher and the sophist are indeed
antithetical. One might say that eristic is the sophistic manifestation ofelenchosthat satisfies itself
with the acquisition of finite ends either unrelated or unconcerned with the relation of these ends to
their ultimate goals (telos). By contrast, dialectic is the philosophic manifestation ofelenchus:itis
intellection ornoesisexpressing itself in speech as it seeks beyond all individual manifestations of
the truth, goodness, or beauty for the whole of reality in which one participates (metalepsis).
Whereas the sophist vies for power and glory through eristic, the philosopher undermines all selfish
ends^23 and desires as well as all pretense to knowledge, not out of nihilistic destructiveness, but
rather as a means of engaging in intellection ornoesis–that form of thought that“takes up”
everything toward the truest vision of reality (theoria).
Philosophy Has No Teacher, Not Itself being a Teachable Subject
It is the nature of philosophy to be aporetic, and in a philosophic discussion about the pursuit of
wisdom in education, one should not avoid the uncomfortable perplexity of philosophizing.
Perhaps one of the most widely accepted assumptions about philosophy–particularly among
teachers of philosophy–is that philosophy is itself a teachable subject. Indeed, how could one
deign to introduce philosophy into schools if it were not a teachable subject? How could one call
oneself a“teacherofphilosophy,”develop a“philosophy curriculum,”or organize courses in
philosophy if philosophy were not teachable? Even worse, to question such a basic assumption
while at the same time attempting to make a case for wisdom’s pursuit in schools seems counter-
productive and preposterous. Nevertheless, we must allow ourselves to be unsettled by the
figure of Socrates, who, standing before his accusers and his judges on the capital charges of
corrupting the youth and teaching falsehoods about the gods, insists:“I have never been any-
one’s teacher.”^24
Here, Socrates was not lying or being ironic. He was telling the truth. One must first know a
subject to teach it: math teachers know and teach the subject of mathematics, as do physics teachers
know about physics and its methods. Each teacher works very hard to pass on knowledge of his or
her respective field to students. And yet the thing that is famously said to have made Socrates
“No Guru, No Method, No Teacher” 117