Socratic Method

The Socratic Method is to engage someone over the meaning of some term or idea, and then to cross-examine the opponent until a clear definition is achieved and cannot be refuted. This key idea has both strengths and weaknesses, which will be discussed in this paper.
One strength of the Socratic Method is that an important meaning can be found by asking simple questions through discussion. The questions and answers develop into dialogue to search for an answer. Asking questions such as 'why?' really brings forth one's understanding of the topic. This method is more of a team effort in which both parties assist one another in attempting to answer complicated questions. Socratic dialogue is not just stating memorized facts, but applying critical
During a dialogue, many of the questions asked do not have standard, fixed answers. Scrutinizing one's views can make them feel as though their views are not good enough and that they must continue searching until the correct answer is found, even though there rarely is a 'correct' answer. An example that illustrates this is within Plato’s Apology. Socrates is outside the courthouse in Athens and is questioning Euthyphro on a definition of piety. Euthyphro answers the first time that piety is “to do what I am doing.” Socrates does not like that answer at all and asks him to come up with another answer for piety. Euthyphro answers the next time that piety is “what is dear to the gods.” Socrates is still not satisfied with this answer because he states that even the gods cannot agree on things at times, so that definition cannot be true. Again, Euthyphro comes up with a third definition of piety that states, “If all the gods love it, then it pious or good.” Socrates says that again the gods cannot agree on things at times so what they may say is good or pious may or may not be rightfully so. Once the dialogue is over between Socrates and Euthyphro, Euthyphro still does not have a definition of piety that Socrates said was correct, but he knows that the definitions he did give were
It wasn’t that he was a ‘troublemaker’ in the city of Athens, but that he was the individual influencing others to question their beliefs and think for themselves. He wanted individuals to inquire about what they believe and to take time to research why they believe what they believe. Is it because it has been handed down over generations, or that someone of prestige told you, or is it even because you chose not question it? Socrates was a guy that I believed was a bit head of his time. Individuals did not know how to take him or what to make of him. They just though he was this old guy going around manipulating the community. He had a great purpose at heart and what he wanted individuals to do was to just think for him or