scholars disagree as to whether the contemporary teaching method can be attributed to Socrates or
even if Socrates can be called a teacher.^21 In theApology(19e) Socrates emphatically denies he is a
“teacher”of the young men inspired to follow his example of questioning their fellow citizens.^22
Socrates repeatedly asserts that he knows nothing; or, at most, if he possesses any wisdom, it is
because he admits“human wisdom is worth little or nothing.”^23 This denial may be the foremost
case of Socratic irony, as he is shown to possesssomeknowledge of truths. In the classic case used
by proponents of the Socratic method, Socrates in theMeno(82b–85c) guides, by means of directed
questions, an uninformed slave boy to the correct answer of an abstract mathematical question (of
which Socrates obviously has prior knowledge of the correct answer); or, as Jenks points out,
Socrates does make“astonishing truth claims,”such as in theGorgias(472b) when he tells Polus
that he cannot be dislodged from his possession of the truth.^24 Yet, as Socrates states in theApology,
he is ignorant concerning the highest or most important things, such as the meaning of virtue
(Meno, 71b) or justice (Republic, 337e).
Importantly, Socrates’denial of teaching or possessing the truth regarding these most important
things contrasts with his intellectual rivals: the sophists. At the heart of his dispute with the sophists
was the fifth-century debate concerning whether virtue could be taught.^25 Unlike Socrates, these
sophistic“wise men”claimed they could teach such things and demanded payment. In contrast,
the context of Socrates’denial of being a teacher in theApology(18c) is to counteract the poet
Aristophanes’characterization of him in theCloudsas a sophist, who not only demanded payment,
but also instructed young men to“making weaker arguments defeat the stronger.”^26 In the same
Apologycontext, Socrates elaborates the reason why he went about questioning his fellow citizens:
to test the validity of the Delphic oracle’s claim that“no one was wiser than Socrates”(21a). Hence,
he questioned the truth of the opinions of politicians, poets like Aristophanes, and craftsmen with
the conclusion that such men did not know what they claimed to know. Rich young men, who
unsurprisingly enjoyed hearing such examinations, began to imitate him, and question their fellow
citizens. Thus, what Socrates did that got him into trouble in the late fifth-century and which
inspired Plato’s (and Xenophon’s) literary accounts in the dialogs was an unremitting questioning
of what others claimed to know, especially about the highest things such as ethical truth.
Whether Plato’s literary imitation of Socrates’mission of questioning his fellow citizens
regarding their wisdom can provide us with a method in the contemporary sense as a systematic or
established procedure remains controversial. On the one hand, in the dialogs, Socrates’questioning
rarely is portrayed as organized, ordered, or systematic. Many dialogs end without reaching any
consensus and often without a conclusion. Some scholars, such as Vlastos, questioned whether
Socraticelenchuscan lead to truth or only a consistent set of beliefs.^27 Others suggest that Socratic
questioning is not an art (techne) because there is no evidence that the result of such questioning can
or is intended to reach a conclusion (including the conclusion ofaporiaor recognition that one does
not know): the questioning leads nowhere and does not“prove anything.”^28 O’Connor similarly is
skeptical that Socrates’way of conducting conversations includes any systematic or formal
structuring necessary for“a method”; at best, Socrates is an exemplar of using“sound”or a con-
versational style of philosophy.^29 There is also nothing in the dialogs furthermore, suggesting
participants approach the discussion with honesty, consistency, or openness to others’ideas.
On the other hand, many contemporary proponents, such as the method’s progenitor Nelson,
remain undeterred because, like the young men who followed Socrates, they are inspired by his
“mission”of questioning the truth of fellow citizens’opinions regarding the most important
things.^30 What is crucial is not whether Socrates claimed to teach about the highest things; whether
elenchusis a craft that can result in understanding or uncovering truth; or whether Socratic
questioning is or can be labeled a systematic“method.”What is relevant is Socrates’example of
“teaching:::the art of philosophizing”not with the intention of transmitting particular truths, but
to“point out the path along which it might be found.”^31 From this perspective, attempting to
construct a modern“method”from Socrates’example is misguided.
12 Marlene K. Sokolon