Contents
Hello, dear readers of Valery Kharlamov’s blog! Today we will try to figure out what is so effective, and in our time, the method of maieutics. After all, Socrates himself invented it in order to disarm his opponent, overcoming and refuting his beliefs.
What does it mean?
Socrates, the famous ancient Greek philosopher, believed that truth is born in a dispute. It is in those moments when both sides are trying to prove their opinion and refute the arguments of the enemy. But it was not enough for him to “defeat” the opponent, the goal was to change the perception so that the opponent realized that he was contradicting himself. Only in this way could he give up his stereotypes, ideas and even habits.
Socrates’ method included two stages — irony and maieutics. About irony, I think you understand, but maieutics is called «kinds of the soul.» His mother, Fenareta, was a midwife, helping babies to be born. The son did not go far, he also helped to “be born”, only to men who had some kind of idea, but could not formulate it in any way.
And since the soul knows and remembers everything, it is necessary with the help of questions to help information get into consciousness. Therefore, our philosopher, by asking many simple questions, which are called “what questions”, helped (metaphorically) to bring into the world a rational being capable of thinking and reflecting.
By the way, do you know who used this method in their practice? Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in this style helped a person to get into the depths of his unconscious, remembering the long forgotten, and “hidden” away in order to protect the psyche from trauma.
It is very interesting, but the philosopher did not consider himself one of the smart people, always declaring that he really did not know anything, moreover, he did not give out interesting thoughts and sayings, but helped others to speak out and show their ideas to the world.
More about components
So, initially it all started with irony. This means that the thinker sought from the interlocutor that he himself admitted that he was thinking incorrectly. This happened with the help of questions that followed one after another. And, in the end, a person answering each of them at the end already gave out such information, which meant quite the opposite of what he knew at the beginning.
After that, maieutics was connected — with its help, the interlocutors tried to find the truth, overcoming the contradictions that had arisen.
Schematically it looks like this:
Irony (induction, that is, attempts to discover something in common in particulars by analyzing and comparing them) ⇒ definition (establishing concepts of interest by asking «what — questions»)
Let’s try to consider each step taken by the philosopher:
- To begin with, he seeks agreement from the interlocutor that there is a common definition.
- Now it’s time to use induction, or irony, to find contradictions.
- The process has been launched, it is only necessary to “blur” the meaning of the original definition.
- A cunning move, the sage, endlessly asking about something, makes the opponent realize that he is at a dead end.
- Demonstrating that people do not have all the knowledge of the world, that, for example, only God knows the truth.
- Disclosure of the infidelity of the formed prejudice.
- A heart-to-heart conversation, which is more instructive in nature, with advice and
morality.
There are 2 types of maieutics
• Destructive, that is, destructive, showing how illogical the opponent’s judgments are. How it happened — the thinker asked about something and carefully listened to the answers, trying to find the slightest errors and shortcomings in them. After that, again with the help of this method, he led to these illogical statements, so much so that the interlocutor felt himself at a dead end. By the way, it was precisely for this that Socrates was beaten more than once, and his life was interrupted, because someone denounced him, arguing that the thinker violates civil norms with his conclusions and speeches. Therefore, he was sentenced to death by taking poison.
• Constructive — with its help, a person was aware of some important moments for him. That is, its purpose was to help «be born», as the thinker claimed.
History
To make the meaning of this method more clear to you, I want to give as an example the story of a conversation with Euthydemus, who was going to become a statesman. By virtue of new obligations, he should have had wisdom, but Euthydemus could not give a clear definition of such concepts as justice and injustice. The philosopher volunteered to help a friend (he considered all his students to be such, even without taking tuition fees), and offered to create a to-do list, dividing it into two columns, respectively.
Euthydemus’ first statement
After that, he began to ask, for example, where exactly to attribute lies, theft, human trafficking, and so on. The future statesman, of course, sent all these definitions to injustice. Then Socrates asked whether then the column of justice is now empty, because all of the above is in the opposite column? Having received an affirmative answer, he proceeds to the second step — induction.
That is, he is interested in whether he considers it right to capture, slavery, people of the inhabitants of the city, with whom there is hostility and war? Euthydeus confirmed that this was true. And to rob them, taking away all the property, or to deceive, will also be the right and worthy decision? Hearing this time the agreement, the sage then suggested that all these concepts be transferred to the column of justice. Surprised by this course of events, Evtidey pointed out that he considered these actions in relation to friends, therefore he attributed them to the wrong column.
As a result, the statement was “born” that one should not deceive close and valuable people, rob and, moreover, use them.
final conclusion
But even here the thinker did not retreat, returning to the method of induction, he decided to find out whether it would be a wrong act if the commander told his military not to despair and not lose morale, because reinforcements were coming to their aid, but in fact it would be false? Or will parents give medicine to a seriously ill, but capricious child imperceptibly, hiding it in food? Will such a deception, for the sake of saving life, be unfair to the baby?
But what about a woman who, noticing that her beloved has been suffering for a long time and is plotting suicide, will steal weapons from him just in case and hide kitchen knives? Should she be condemned and considered a thief who must answer before the law for her misconduct?
Evtidey realized that he was mistaken, and was forced to admit that even relatives and friends, lies and deceit can be in favor, and theft is committed so as not to cause harm, but, on the contrary, to protect. At the end of the conversation, he came to the conclusion that injustice is an act done with the intent to cause harm.
Conclusion
What is the value of this method — it really is that it helps to find answers to sacred and sometimes even existential topics. Our subconscious really contains a lot of information that is either forced out by consciousness, or simply forgotten. So why not explore the depths of your soul through “what questions”? Good luck with your knowledge.