271: The Socratic Method

Summary

Podcast Summary: Classical Stuff You Should Know - Episode 271: The Socratic Method

Release Date: January 14, 2025

In Episode 271 of Classical Stuff You Should Know, hosts A.J. Hindenburg, Graeme Donaldson, and Thomas Maghv delve deep into the Socratic Method, exploring its historical foundations, practical applications in education, and inherent challenges. This comprehensive discussion not only elucidates the nuances of Socratic dialogue but also offers actionable insights for educators aiming to implement this method effectively in their classrooms.

---

1. Introduction to the Socratic Method

A.J. Hindenburg introduces the episode by explaining that the discussion centers around a presentation he delivered at an in-service training session. The primary focus is to dissect the Socratic Method—a pedagogical approach rooted in ancient Greek philosophy.

A.J. Hindenburg [02:28]: "It's on the Socratic method. So if you've ever heard that and wonder what it is, this is my thing on that."

---

2. Understanding the Socratic Method

The hosts embark on defining the Socratic Method, tracing its origins back to Socrates as depicted in Plato's Dialogues. They emphasize that this method is not a rigid structure but a fluid process of inquiry and dialogue aimed at uncovering underlying assumptions and fostering critical thinking.

Thomas Maghv recounts his high school experience with a supposed Socratic classroom:

Thomas Maghv [03:03]: "...it's about talking amongst the group instead of it being the teacher, like lecturing."

A.J. Hindenburg elaborates:

A.J. Hindenburg [03:24]: "It's not just like lecture time or they read an article time, and then when you're from that will come a big discussion."

---

3. Examples from Plato's Dialogues

The discussion references several of Plato's works to illustrate how Socratic dialogues unfold:

• Euthyphro: Explores the nature of piety.
• Apology: Socrates defends himself against accusations.
• Crito: Socrates debates whether to escape prison.
• Meno: Questions whether virtue can be taught.
• Phaedo: Socrates discusses the immortality of the soul.
• Symposium: A dialogue on the nature of love.
• Republic: Socrates delves into justice and constructs an ideal state.

A.J. Hindenburg provides a succinct overview:

A.J. Hindenburg [09:19]: "It's just chemicals in your brain, man. I want you to show me."

---

4. Outcomes and Criticisms of the Socratic Method

The hosts analyze the potential outcomes of employing the Socratic Method in the classroom:

1. Successful Resolution: Students arrive at a mutually agreeable conclusion.
2. Idiot Phase: Students realize their own ignorance, leading to various consequences:
   • Quitting or Feeling Embarrassed: Students may leave the dialogue feeling disgraced.
   • Developing Cynicism: A belief that no knowledge is attainable.
   • Resentment Towards the Teacher: Viewing the teacher as antagonistic or dismissive.

Graeme Donaldson raises a critical point regarding Socratic dialogues:

Graeme Donaldson [15:14]: "But I have a question... Socrates has already been doing this method privately by himself."

A.J. Hindenburg acknowledges these pitfalls:

A.J. Hindenburg [32:35]: "Sometimes Socratic dialogue is great at chipping away till you get the essence of something. But there are some things where you can chip and chip and chip until you have nothing for the teacher."

Critical Insights:

• Lack of Constructive Building: Socratic Method excels at deconstructing ideas but may falter in constructing new frameworks.
• Emotional Impact on Students: The method can inadvertently harm teacher-student relationships if not managed with sensitivity.

---

5. Balancing Mythos and Logos in Education

Expanding beyond Socratic dialogues, the hosts discuss the balance between mythos (narrative frameworks and cultural myths) and logos (logical reasoning) in education, referencing David Hicks' work.

A.J. Hindenburg cites a passage from Hicks' Normans and Nobility:

A.J. Hindenburg [33:02]: "Any teacher going into his room should know, hopefully some decent logic, some decent philosophy, have a good grounding in theology."

This balance ensures that while logical inquiry is paramount, educators also provide students with tangible examples and moral frameworks to guide their understanding.

---

6. Practical Applications in the Classroom

The conversation shifts to the practicalities of implementing the Socratic Method:

• Subject Suitability: While effective in philosophy and literature, the method may be less adaptable to subjects like mathematics and science, which often require concrete problem-solving techniques.

• Teacher’s Role: The educator must navigate the fine line between guiding the dialogue and allowing students to explore independently. A.J. Hindenburg shares his strategies:

  A.J. Hindenburg [47:16]: "Don't be afraid to jump on something interesting... be ready to pivot to pointing to mythos, like show them an example or give them a good answer."

• Managing Classroom Dynamics: Addressing varied student responses, from enthusiastic debaters to those who may shut down under pressure, is crucial. Positive reinforcement and private encouragement are recommended to mitigate negative outcomes.

---

7. Recommendations and Guidelines for Educators

Concluding the discussion, A.J. Hindenburg offers a set of guidelines for effectively employing the Socratic Method:

1. Guide on the Side: Act as a facilitator rather than a lecturer, especially with more mature students.
2. Selective Engagement: Engage directly with students who can handle rigorous inquiry while protecting those who may be overwhelmed.
3. Avoid "Guess What's in My Head" Questions: Steer clear of questions designed to embarrass students over supposedly simple answers.
4. Provide Closure When Necessary: If dialogues lead to impasses or heightened frustration, offer concrete answers or examples from mythos to restore balance.
5. Encourage Humility: Acknowledge when you don’t have all the answers and model the value of ongoing inquiry and research.

A.J. Hindenburg emphasizes the importance of balancing questioning with providing clear examples and definitions when necessary to prevent students from disconnecting or developing negative perceptions.

---

8. Conclusion

The episode underscores the Socratic Method as a powerful tool for fostering critical thinking and self-awareness among students. However, it also highlights the method's limitations and the necessity for educators to wield it with empathy and strategic foresight. By balancing logical inquiry with cultural narratives and being attuned to the emotional landscape of the classroom, teachers can harness the Socratic Method's strengths while mitigating its potential drawbacks.

A.J. Hindenburg concludes with a reflective note:

A.J. Hindenburg [53:59]: "Socratic method is great... but as a teacher, you have to be kind of tender with it because you can make your kids really embarrassed. So you just have to be careful."

---

Notable Quotes

• A.J. Hindenburg [05:40]: "Sounds awesome."
• A.J. Hindenburg [29:24]: "Who can rip people's arguments faster."
• A.J. Hindenburg [33:14]: "You have to have those big answers if you can."
• Graeme Donaldson [15:16]: "So with Socrates... leading us there. Or do you read it as Socrates is just discovering that that is true in the moment?"
• A.J. Hindenburg [33:56]: "'I don't think you can go on seeing through things forever.'"

---

Final Thoughts

This episode serves as an invaluable resource for educators and philosophy enthusiasts alike, offering a balanced exploration of the Socratic Method's theoretical foundations and practical implications. By integrating historical insights with contemporary pedagogical strategies, Classical Stuff You Should Know equips listeners with a nuanced understanding of how to foster intellectual growth and critical inquiry in educational settings.

For more insights and discussions on classical topics, visit classicalstuff.net and connect with the hosts on their Patreon page at Patreon.com/ClassicalStuff.

Transcript

[Graham Donaldson]

There it is.

[Thomas Maghv]

It's disgusting.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Did you record? Yeah.

[Graham Donaldson]

Good. Of course.

[Thomas Maghv]

You got his burp?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah.

[Thomas Maghv]

Oh, we're so bad.

[AJ Hindenburg]

As soon as he said, I gotta get that burp out, I was like, record.

[Thomas Maghv]

Start the record. Oh, my gosh. Welcome to Classical Stuff. You should know this podcast rules.

[Graham Donaldson]

Save this as an Easter egg, all right? Let's do an actual episode.

[AJ Hindenburg]

We are. We are recording this happening. This is the episode.

[Graham Donaldson]

I refuse to have this be the episode. I'm not gonna talk.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Luckily, you're not in charge.

[Thomas Maghv]

Will you cut it after?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Huh?

[Thomas Maghv]

Will you cut it after?

[AJ Hindenburg]

I'm gonna have to start here.

[Thomas Maghv]

Okay.

[Graham Donaldson]

Okay.

[Thomas Maghv]

Hello, and welcome to Classical Stuff youf Should Know, a podcast about taking long breaks for Christmas. My name is Thomas Maghv, and I'm joined, as always, by laughing AJ Hindenburg.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Oh, that's me.

[Thomas Maghv]

And dour Graham Donaldson.

[Graham Donaldson]

Hey.

[AJ Hindenburg]

I was not speaking in protest.

[Thomas Maghv]

Not speaking. He burped into the mic as AJ was recording. Hopefully you didn't hear it, but if you did, I don't know. Maybe you're a patron. I don't know. All right, we are. We're back.

[AJ Hindenburg]

We're back. We're so back.

[Thomas Maghv]

That's the real.

[AJ Hindenburg]

We are so back, so back.

[Graham Donaldson]

Is that still. That's not cool anymore to say that.

[AJ Hindenburg]

What?

[Graham Donaldson]

We're so back.

[Thomas Maghv]

I'm a father of three. I've never been cool. Yeah, I don't. Yeah.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Was it ever cool, bro, I'm turning 40 tomorrow. I need to be cool. No more.

[Thomas Maghv]

You're so old. Okay, so we. I actually have no idea what your topic is. AJ is leading us today. It's. Something has to do with teaching, I think.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah.

[Thomas Maghv]

We gotta do something cool in this episode.

[Graham Donaldson]

Yeah. Just so that we, like, maintain credibility.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Well, I think recording an episode is cool. We haven't done that in a while.

[Thomas Maghv]

Quite some time. Sorry.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Patrons, where we just, you know, schedule holidays, all that stuff.

[Thomas Maghv]

But we're back.

[AJ Hindenburg]

We're back doing episodes. Okay? So this. This is probably geared more. An episode geared more towards teachers than other episodes I've done. So if you are not a teacher, you're welcome to listen. I'm going to. But I'm not, you know, I'm not going to force you. If you are a teacher. This is the kind of thing that, I don't know, might help. It's a. It's a talk that I gave at our. In service a few days ago. So it's on the Socratic method. So if you've ever heard that and wonder what it is. This is. This is my thing on that. If you would like the slides for it, I can send you those slides, and then you can, I don't know, show it to your teachers. If you. Whatever. Whatever you want to do with it, it's out there. This is free. Like, well, you know, whatever. So there you go. Socratic method. All right.

[Graham Donaldson]

You're selling it.

[AJ Hindenburg]

I'm sold. Yeah. I mean, it's free.

[Thomas Maghv]

Like, I'm sure you get into all this, but, like, are you gonna tear. Like, is this some kind of teardown of how people normally talk about the Socratic method?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Or, like. Yeah, I don't know if I'm so incendiary as that. It's just.

[Thomas Maghv]

Is that what prompts it for you?

[AJ Hindenburg]

I've heard about it a lot, and I was like, okay, is there, like, some standard method about how to do this? There's a lot of schools that claim to do teaching via the Socratic method. And I was like, okay, well, what exactly does that mean?

[Thomas Maghv]

I remember in sophomore English, they would teach by the Socratic method, which meant we sat in a circle. We were all facing each other. Everyone had to ask at least one question. That's how you. So you're.

[AJ Hindenburg]

That's not the Socratic.

[Thomas Maghv]

You had to ask one question, and then you had to respond to at least two questions. So I'm remembering this because I didn't want to pose any questions because I hate talking in class. But the. Yeah, so it's about talking in amongst the group instead of it being the teacher. Like, lecturing. Right.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Okay.

[Thomas Maghv]

That is what I remember for how that was defined.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. My only understanding was it means questions.

[Thomas Maghv]

Yeah.

[AJ Hindenburg]

We ask questions. Right. So there you go. That's what it is. That's all.

[Thomas Maghv]

Are we done now?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, just ask some questions. No, it's not that. And the funny thing is that I have. So I played a clip. I played the wrong one at In Service. So if you're hearing this and you're a Veritas teacher, this is the right one. But it's from a movie from 1973 called the Paper Chase. Have you ever seen it?

[Thomas Maghv]

No.

[AJ Hindenburg]

It's about a kid getting a law degree, and he comes up against the teacher, and this is that teacher's explanation of his classroom.

[Thomas Maghv]

Okay.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So I'm gonna play it off of my phone.

[Thomas Maghv]

Is it gonna be an ad? Is it gonna be an ad?

[AJ Hindenburg]

No, no. I already. Already did the ad, so hopefully there's no ad. What?

[Thomas Maghv]

Good prep.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So I, you know, I'm looking for resources and here's a little bit about the Socratic method.

[D]

The study of law is something new and unfamiliar to most of you. Unlike any schooling been through before, we use the Socratic method here. I call on you, ask your question, and you answer it. Why don't I just give you a lecture? Because through my questions, you learn to teach yourselves. Through this method of questioning, answering, questioning, answering. We seek to develop in you the ability to analyze that brain vast complex of facts that constitute the relationships of members within a given society. Questioning and answering. At times you may feel that you have found the correct answer. I assure you that this is a total delusion on your part. You will never find the correct, absolute and final answer. In my classroom, there is always another question, another question to follow your answer. Yes, you're on a treadmill. My little questions spin the tumblers of your mind. You're on an operating table. My little questions are the fingers probing your brain. We do brain surgery here. You teach yourselves the law, but I train your mind. You come in here with a skullful of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Sounds awesome.

[Graham Donaldson]

I want that Kaitai class.

[AJ Hindenburg]

The movie's awesome. The very first scene is a poor kid getting called on. And he's like, did you read the material? The kid's like, this the first day. And he's like, it was clearly posted. Did you not? You assumed. And the kid's like. And then he ends up screaming in the bathroom. And later he ends up swearing at him in class because the guy's such a jerk. So anyway, that guy's a jerk. Oh, I can't imagine.

[Thomas Maghv]

Yeah.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Are you serious? He's a massive jerk.

[Graham Donaldson]

Oh, I think that guy's awesome.

[AJ Hindenburg]

At one point he calls on the kid and he's like, what is this? And the kid goes, I prefer to pass. And the kid goes, he's like, what? And he's like, I don't have anything of value to offer. When I do, I shall raise my hand. And the guy says, come down here. He hands him a dime and he says, go call your mother. Tell her that the chance of you becoming a lawyer is becoming very questionable. And then. But you come in with the head.

[Graham Donaldson]

Of mush and you leave thinking like a lawyer. That's a great. You need like that.

[AJ Hindenburg]

It's a great line. Sure, but man, the guy's a. The guy's a jerk. And that's not quite the Socratic method. So I did try to look for sources.

[Thomas Maghv]

Can you say what was the wrong video you played?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Was it was the first. It was the first scene where he calls on the kid and then asks him to say something. The kid ends up screaming in the bathroom, which is fine, like it's passable, but that's not as. As applicable as that particular clip.

[Graham Donaldson]

Wait, you were playing that as a negative way to teach?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, it's not good.

[Thomas Maghv]

Graham disagrees.

[AJ Hindenburg]

There are good things about it.

[Graham Donaldson]

Well, in between.

[AJ Hindenburg]

But there are bad things about it. Not to mention that he messed up his analogy. Like he said, you're running on a treadmill. My question? Spin the tumblers of your mind like you're a safe or a lock. Like, bro, pick an analogy, man.

[Graham Donaldson]

We can talk about that in the.

[AJ Hindenburg]

In between. Okay. In any case, so I looked for sources and I found one decent half hour lecture that this guy did. A lot of five minute YouTube videos and one nearly unintentionally unintelligible essay. Or I'm just dumb. But none of them seemed very useful to actually telling me what the Socratic method was. It's not like there's an original text except for Socrates himself. You guys have read Socrates?

[Graham Donaldson]

Yes, I read Plato.

[Thomas Maghv]

You mean Plato.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Everybody else fell for that. Yeah. Socrates never wrote anything down. You were.

[Graham Donaldson]

You were being wacky while you're. You're being, like, sneaky.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, I'm being sneaky. A whole bunch of people raised their hand in. In service, and I was like, ah, you big liars.

[Thomas Maghv]

That's so messed up.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So it's.

[Thomas Maghv]

So they loved you at inservice.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Oh, yeah. They just loved it. So it's Plato, honestly. And the best place to look are his big seminal works. So the dialogues, which I've been going over in our podcast for a while, so you're familiar with them, but if this is your first jump into classical stuff, I'll give you a basic rundown. And then, of course, the Republic. So there's a few dialogues. In each, they ask a big question. So in Euthyphro, there's a guy who. The big question is, what is pious? Right? So he drummed up his dad on a charge of murder after the dad had captured another murderer and threw him in a ditch till he could figure out what to do with him. The guy died overnight. And so now he, Euthyphro, feels like he is beholden or compelled to go bring his dad up on a charge of murder. The apology is Socrates defending himself against the judges of Athens. In Crito, it's one of Socrates buddies who goes and says, hey, we have a way for you to escape Please come escape jail with us and we'll get you out of here. And Socrates says, no, I am subject to the laws, have to stay.

[Graham Donaldson]

Yeah, it is a dialogue on, like, almost radical civic obedience as opposed to civic disobedience.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, it's pretty awesome. And then Meno is the classic example of the dialogue. It just starts with a question. Hey, Socrates, do you think virtue can be taught? And of course, Socrates is like, I don't even know what you mean by virtue, man. In Phaedo, Socrates, his death is imminent. He is going to die that day. And all of his buddies are like, why do you seem so chill? And he says, well, I'm not afraid of the afterlife. And it's him, him, explain explaining why. In the Symposium, it's a bunch of drunk guys talking about what love is. And then in the Republic, we've all.

[Graham Donaldson]

Been there, we have all been there, had a little couple, a little couple of bevies, and be like, what is, what is love?

[AJ Hindenburg]

It's just chemicals in your brain, man. I want you to show me. See, for me, it's what is love? Baby, don't hurt me. Okay. And then the Republic, which is, is it actually better to be just or just appear to be a just person? And then they eventually build a whole country. So those are, those are the basic Platonic source material for this. The funny thing is they don't really follow much of a pattern. And so what they mean by Socratic dialogue is a little bit shifty. So here's what I could put together. That Socratic dialogue is. So it all begins with some sort of proposition. And the proposition doesn't have to be stated. It can be a question, like in Meno, Hey, Socrates, do you think virtue could be taught? It can be. Someone says something that seems a little wonky. Seems like it's got some assumptions, like.

[Graham Donaldson]

Justice is helping your friends and hurting your enemies.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yes. Or for you, the fro I, it is pious for me to turn in my dad for murder, even though he caught a murderer.

[Graham Donaldson]

Piety is what the gods love.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Piety is what the gods love. Right. So there's some sort of proposition or even just a question. Hey, Socrates, why don't you look afraid? Right. So it doesn't necessarily have to be stated. It doesn't have to be a question. It doesn't have to be questions on questions, on questions like this lawyer here. It can really be somebody that just says, this is what I think, but there are some hidden assumptions there. And then come the actual questions. So it's not like, there's one type of question that you ask. There's a variety. Socrates asks a massive variety of questions. Often he'll push for a definition, like he does with Euthyphro, right? What do you mean by piety? And he says, well, piety is what the gods love. And Socrates says, well, the gods seem to love a lot of different things, and sometimes they fight with each other. How do you pick? And then he goes on and on. He. Sometimes Socrates asks clearly leading questions, as he does in Meno. There's a point where he talks to a slave, and he's trying to make the point that he thinks knowledge is recalled, remembered from a previous life, not discovered. And so he's clearly asking this kid leading questions, like, how many squares is this? And the kid's like, two. And he's like, and if I double the length, it'll be how many? And the kid's like 8. And he's like, don't you think it's 4? And he, like, goes on and on. And so it's clearly a leading question there. Sometimes he asks legitimately honest questions, like, why do you think this? Like, Socrates is just curious. He's not leading you anywhere. He points out examples that don't fit the definition, like he did with piety, right? Some of the gods don't love the same thing. So how do you. How do you tell exactly what is pious? And sometimes Socrates will just give a statement that clearly contradicts what you're saying. He's like, I don't think that's true at all. And here's why. So there's not one specific type of question you have to ask or stick to. And you can even use statements to point out somebody's assumptions and then move on from there. So it's not just like, like our lawyer friend, you don't just have to ask question on question, on question on question. It can be an actual dialogue back and forth that can be part of the Socratic method. There's no real specific technique here other than to use questions and sometimes a statement or two. And this should lead us to a second proposition, right? So, for example, with Euthyphro, he points out that that's not probably piety, just what the gods love. And then Euthyphro comes up with another definition of piety, right? And so he actually goes through four separate attempts at a definition, and Socrates pokes holes in each and says, I don't think that's it. Right? So usually it's an attempt at a new definition by the defender of whatever proposition it was. And so you ask questions, and then you get to a new proposition. And it's this sort of process, and it'll repeat, right? So give a new proposition, ask more questions of it, end up at a new proposition. And you can do this until we have a couple of outs from that little cycle. Out, out. Number one, weirdly enough, is just success. Success is when you think you have found a proposition that everybody agrees on. And now this is what doesn't exist in our lawyer friend's classroom, right? He says, if you think you've got the answer, that is a delusion. You have never found the answer. There are always more questions. Socrates did not really think that way. There's a couple of places where they do get to an answer. So in Phaedo, Socrates says, you know, I'm going to a happier life. Everyone says, how do you know? And then he basically attempts to prove that the soul is immortal. And he says, and I quote, then cebes beyond question, the soul is immortal, immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly exist in another world. And Cebes says, I am convinced Socrates and have nothing more to object, right? And then he asks his other friend, and the friend's like, yeah, I'm chill. In Meno, Socrates again has supposedly proven that the soul is immortal by showing that we remember rather than we learn. And Socrates says, and if the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal. Wherefore be of good cheer and try to recollect what you do not know, or rather what you do not remember. And meno says, I feel somehow that I like what you are saying. And Socrates says, and I mean, o like what I am saying. So there are a couple of times where they. They get the answer, and then everybody kind of has a good time. In Phaedo, after he's proven that he's headed to a better place, he then goes on this really weird diatribe about how the. The world is like we're like frogs at the bottom of a pond and there's a whole nother world if we could just get up to the surface and describes the nature of the world and how the rivers work. It's this crazy thing, but it's not, certainly not like questions leading to another proposition, and they've gotten somewhere that they're pleased with. Everyone is like, yeah, okay, soul is immortal. I buy it. The same kind of thing happens in the republic. Like they kind of figure out what justice is. They figure out what justice is. In the person. Then he talks about the afterlife for a while. So you can arrive. If everybody's happy and you kind of get the answer, then it's okay.

[Graham Donaldson]

But I have a question.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah.

[Graham Donaldson]

So with Socrates, on the places where Socrates does seem to arrive at a conclusion, it seems like Socrates already had that arrival in his mind and was trying to get the people around him to see his point of view on it. Like, it's not like Socrates just discovered it himself. Right. Then it seems like Socrates has thought about it by himself, came to the conclusion. So let's say, for example, let's use this definition of justice, that justice is the balance between all of the three parts of the soul. Or that. That so. Or yeah. When Socrates. When they.

[AJ Hindenburg]

He.

[Graham Donaldson]

When Socrates gets Glaucon and what's his face to come to those conclusions in Republic, it seems like Socrates has already come to that conclusion himself and he's leading Glaucon and Adamantus there. Or do you read it as Socrates is just discovering that that is true in the moment?

[AJ Hindenburg]

It's been a while since I've read the Republic or even fatal, or even.

[Graham Donaldson]

The ones that you've.

[AJ Hindenburg]

But in. In Phaedo, where he's going to another world, there's a couple of times where they bring up, you know, contradictions that he's like, oh, that's interesting, but we shouldn't be afraid of the question. Let's dive in. Seems like he hasn't already thought about it. And then in Meno, they start with Socrates being like, I don't even know what virtue is. Can you tell me? Like, I have no idea. I wish I could tell you, but I don't know what virtue is. And they kind of go round and round and round until they kind of arrives someplace. And it seems like Socrates is discovering it at the same time. He's got a couple positions he defends like, that he thinks knowledge is remembered or recalled rather than learned. But exactly what virtue is, he seems to be picking up on the spot.

[Thomas Maghv]

Graham, do you think that that's posturing on soccer two.

[Graham Donaldson]

I think it's posturing on Socrates. I think, like when people are talking about, I can teach your child to be virtuous. Socrates has had quiet moments where himself where he's like, okay, like virtue, what is that? And he's gone through this thinking, this method himself by himself. He's gotten to the point where it's like, I don't even know if they know what virtue is. I don't even, like, what is virtue? So when Someone says, hey, do you buy the advertising line? When so and so says that he can teach your kids to be virtuous. And Socrates is like, what? I don't even know what virtue is like. Let's start there. I get the sense that like Socrates has already done his method privately by himself and in public is doing it more as an instructional tool, as a. Like we're discovering it together on our own.

[AJ Hindenburg]

I think it might be half and half. I mean, I think what we know of Socrates is that he claimed to know nothing and we have his dialogues. I imagine that what he did was not sit by himself and think these things through. I think he really did go talk to people. And so in some of these, I think he is also half discovering it on his own. Sometimes he doesn't discover anything. Like in Euthyphro, they don't really arrive anywhere, but we'll get there.

[Graham Donaldson]

Yeah.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So anyway, I think that in a couple he is earnestly seeking. And in a couple he clearly has an idea of what he thinks is right. Like in the symposium he's got an idea about what love is and he's going to tell everybody. But in Meno he doesn't seem to have his like definition of virtue until the end.

[Thomas Maghv]

And at this point we're still looking at what is the Socratic method historically. You're going to get to eventually like, what this can look like in a classroom day to day. Okay, yeah, I'll have more questions then.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So, yeah, I've got, I've got more of what this looks like in a classroom, or at least what I think it looks like in a classroom. If I'm going to be like Socrates, which I imagine was. Is what your question is sort of aiming for. Like, should I as a teacher have a, a vision of what I want them to learn?

[Graham Donaldson]

A little bit, Yeah. I just wonder how much of what Socrates is doing is posturing. Is posturing in an instructive tool as opposed to a discovery tool.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. Okay. So you go in circles until either you reach a proposition that you all like or the person being questioned gets to a thing and they leave. Well, that's one outcome. We'll get there. A thing called the idiot phase. And during my presentation, this is where I showed a picture of Graham, but he wasn't there. So then I was just making fun of the absent guy.

[Thomas Maghv]

He's not there.

[Graham Donaldson]

I was under the weather.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, he was sick, so I took a picture of myself in front of the screen.

[Thomas Maghv]

Sick and you're making fun of him. That's what it was. He knew that was coming.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Anyway, it's. I call it the idiot phase. But then I had a picture of myself right after. So if you ask for the slides, listener, I will send you both. And they're funny.

[Graham Donaldson]

Sick.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Okay. The idiot phase is where the person being questioned realizes that they don't have a good answer. Right. I don't. I don't actually know what virtue is, or I don't really know what piety is. And I think there's a. There's a few different outs from this. Like, when you hit the idiot phase, you are in a tender position. It is an important place to be. Like, the students need to realize they don't know everything, right? Many of them think they do. They think they have all the answers to what life is all about and what religion is all about and what politics are all about. But they're 13, they don't actually know. And so you have to show them that they don't know by asking them until they run out of answers. This also opens them to more inquiry. Right. When they think they have the answer, they aren't going to be looking. It also humbles the kids who need to be humbled. And this is the stage of exposed assumptions. We call these enthymemes in logic. Now, if you're not a logic person, a logician. An enthymeme is. Is a type of syllogism where one of the things is obscured or left out. So for a syllogism is just two premises and a conclusion. Like all. All men are rational creatures. No women are men, therefore no women are rational creatures. Right. That's a fallacious one. It's not correct, but it. What's that?

[Graham Donaldson]

Nothing. Just me.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Anyway, it's. That is the form of a syllogism that one commits a particular fallacy where you change the definition of a word in the middle of it. Men as referring to equivocation. Yeah, yeah. Did I say something else?

[Graham Donaldson]

No, that's what it is.

[AJ Hindenburg]

It's equivocation. So that's not a good one. An enthymeme is where one of those things is left out. So, for example, if I went up to Donaldson and I said, oh, you're not invited to my party because you're a teacher. Well, the hidden premise there is that no teachers are people invited to my party. And this is often the weakest thing in the argument. And so he could point out that, well, you've got some other teachers going to your party. You are a teacher. That's the deal. Yeah, exactly. You are a teacher, so how can the syllogism be true? So it is this hidden assumption that's usually the weakest spot. Like I've heard people like, I should vote my conscience. Well, the hidden premise here is that the US government should be involved in imposing my, like, my moral precepts, my conscience, on everyone else, or even on me. Right. Maybe I think it's a bad thing for everyone to swear, but is it really? Do I really want the government to be the thing that makes sure everyone doesn't swear? Like, that's my conscience. I don't think people should be swearing all the time, but I'm not sure I want the police to tell me not to. Right, so there is a little bit of a hidden assumption there. The conclusion can also be obscured. So this is what an enthymeme is. This is just how we naturally argue. We have hidden assumptions all the time. And so this is the stage, the idiot stage is where those have come to light. Right? The weak assumptions, the weak premise has been exposed, and now they don't know what to say. For example, here's a quote from Euthyphro. When Euthyphro finally. Oh, this is from. Sorry, this is from Meno, when Meno kind of runs out of answers as to what virtue is. So he says, oh, Socrates, I used to be told before I knew you that you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt. And now you are casting your spells over me and I'm simply getting bewitched and enchanted, and I'm at my wit's end. And if I may venture to make a jest upon you, you seem to me, both in your appearance and in your power over others, to be very much like the flat torpedo fish who torpifies those who come near him and touch him. As you have now torpified me, I think, for my soul and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you. And though I have been delivered of an infinite variety. Oh, sorry. Though I have been delivered of an infinite variety of speeches about virtue before now, and to many persons, and very good ones, they were, as I thought. At this moment, I cannot even say what virtue is. So he arrives at a place where he's like, I don't know what to say. You've shocked me, Socrates. Okay, so you said, what is one outcome from this? When a kid hits the idiot phase, what was the one you said when.

[Thomas Maghv]

I said, they get frustrated and leave. Right? They quit.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Which is exactly what happens with Euthyphro, the guy who's whose dad, had caught a fellow who had killed one of his servants, tied him up, threw him in a ditch, and then went to ask the diviner what to do. And while he was gone, the guy died of exposure. And so Euthyphro says, I got to take you to court for this. Well, after they go round and round and round, Euthyphro tries a few different definitions of piety. Socrates says, I am confident that you would never, on behalf of a serf, have charged your aged father with murder. You would not have run such a risk of doing wrong in the sight of the gods, and you would have had too much respect for the opinions of men. I am sure, therefore, that you know the nature of piety and impiety. Speak out then, my dear Euthyphro, and do not hide your knowledge. Euthyphro, who, by the way, we know is in line to go into court. We know what he's doing and where he is and that he has to wait in line. He says, another time, Socrates, for I'm in a hurry and must go now. And that's the end. He just like, bolts.

[Thomas Maghv]

So he leaves the line?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, he leaves the line.

[Thomas Maghv]

So he doesn't take his dad in?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Apparently not.

[Thomas Maghv]

It's kind of cool.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Or else he like hustles forward in the line and he's like, I gotta get away from this Socrates guy. Or moves back, who knows?

[Graham Donaldson]

But don't you think the dad did deserve to be put on trial for leaving a man in a ditch to die?

[Thomas Maghv]

Yeah, probably.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, probably.

[Graham Donaldson]

So then, isn't Euthyphro doing the right thing?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yes, I think probably.

[Graham Donaldson]

But Socrates just convinced him he's not.

[Thomas Maghv]

He's accused of corrupting the youth. I mean, the outcome of Socrates is not always good.

[AJ Hindenburg]

No, you just convinced the kid he didn't know what he was doing. But we'll get there. Yeah, yeah. Okay. I mean, I will say later that there is something that Socratic method is missing and that is, I think, what would have helped poor, poor Euthyphro here. Okay, so that's one outcome, is that they just leave. Right. Your students will check out now. They've been exposed and they are just furious for the embarrassment. And they, they are out, like at least mentally, sometimes physically. They'll just get out of there. And you have. I feel like that's a loss. Right. Outcome number two is murder. That's. That's another way out of the idiot phase. So in the apology, where Socrates is defending himself for the Charge that he is an atheist and corrupts the youth. So Socrates was told by the oracle, or, sorry, he had a friend who was. Who was told by the oracle that Socrates was the wisest man around. Socrates said, that can't possibly be. He goes around and asks everybody questions to find. To find the wisest guy. But he finds that all of those guys think they know stuff when they don't. And at least he knows that he doesn't know anything, and so he must be the wisest. So he says in defense. And so I go about the world, obedient to the God and search and make inquiry into the wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise. And if he's not wise, then in vindication of the oracle, I show him that he is not wise. And my occupation quite absorbs me. And I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own. But I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the God. So he will later say he considers himself the gadfly of the state. It's his job to encourage them to virtue when they are not being virtuous. And they do put him to death, right? He makes them embarrassed, he makes them feel bad, he makes some enemies and they kill him. And the outcome for probably a teacher is that your students hate you, right? Just like in Paper Chase, that kid ends up like it does. The teacher does mean a lot to him. And he goes to the teacher and says, hey, like, this class has meant a lot to me. Like, it's been really hard, you know, the guy's been a jerk and. But he's grown a lot. And he says it means so much and he thought that this teacher had it out for him. And the teacher goes, what's your name? And then the kid just like, you know, at that point, I think he sort of checks out. He gets his grades in the mail and he throws them into the sea. And he's like, whatever. Or like you, I'm sure you've had students that if you embarrass them in class, they eventually get a grudge or they think you hate them or something, right? It's a rift in the relationship as another outcome. So that's not great. Okay, so those are the two outcomes that we see in Socrates's dialogues. Either they're satisfied, outcome number one, or they get to the idiot phase and either leave or want to kill him, right? Those aren't great places.

[Thomas Maghv]

You think those are. Like, is that a problem with the person Socrates is talking with. Like, they are. Is it immaturity or they are disposed to anger? Like, has Socrates unveiled some, like, moral flaw in them? Or is it, like, actually, Socrates is just that annoying?

[AJ Hindenburg]

I think it's a mix. I think there is some. Sometimes a moral flaw. Even though Euthyphro was trying to do the right thing. I think sometimes, like, Socrates also has a lot of buddies that he does this with a lot of kids who now know that they don't know anything, which is one of his ways of corrupting the youth.

[Graham Donaldson]

I guess the fro was trying to do the, like, smarmy, sanctimonious thing. Like, Euthyphro was really concerned with his reputation of being the pious one.

[Thomas Maghv]

Yeah.

[AJ Hindenburg]

That's fair.

[Graham Donaldson]

Like, you just gave the example of the guy was like, this class meant so much. And the teacher was like, I don't know who you are. And he, like, is like, oh. And he goes and he throws his grids. It's like, get over yourself, buddy. Like, come on. Like, I don't know. Like, grow up. We're talking about, like, penetrating the questions of the universe. And you're gonna be upset because your feelings got hurt in your class. Like, come on.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, but the way that you do Socratic dialogue. Dialogue is by exposing one person's assumptions. And that's a scary place for any kid to be. That's a scary place for anyone to be.

[Graham Donaldson]

A teacher needs to be charitable with it. Yeah, but there is a certain. You can't just. Like, the teacher can't be so scared of that outcome that he's not willing to challenge the assumptions.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. So I'm gonna talk like, you're leading me directly to my next point, which is that in the idiot phase, you have a kid who is either going to end up being a cynic or a scholar. Right. Either he'll become disenchanted, like snowflakes. He'll think this is, like. He'll think this is stupid, that we're not never going to learn anything. I don't like this. Like, you're just tearing everything down. And I'm like, now I feel like an idiot, and I don't really want to be here. And you've got a cynic. Right. There is no knowledge to be had. There's just more questions. And nobody really knows anything because I don't know anything. And then I'm out. Like, it's just.

[Graham Donaldson]

It's just a shame game. It's just a game of, like, who can.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Who can.

[Graham Donaldson]

Who can know the who can like rip people's arguments faster.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. Be the cleverest or whatever.

[Graham Donaldson]

Or more flair.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. Or you get a kid who's like, oh, I don't know, I should research this. And I've seen both kids in my class. I've seen the kid who checks out and says like, this is all just a smoke show and whatever, and I don't care if I can just be clever and mess up somebody's arguments, but he actually doesn't hold any position.

[Thomas Maghv]

That's the right expression.

[Graham Donaldson]

I was like, ah, what did I say? Smoke show. It sounds awesome.

[Thomas Maghv]

Smokescreen is it?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. There you go.

[Thomas Maghv]

Okay, thanks.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Anyway, so he's a cynic or a scholar.

[Graham Donaldson]

So AJ you are a smoke show.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Thanks, buddy. I work out sometimes. Okay, so there are a couple of other outs, right? We have those three possible outs in Socrates, right? They either find a solution or they quit or they murder him. You have some other outs out. Number one is you provide an answer, right? So as a teacher, sometimes you can say, okay, I've asked you some questions. You've gotten to a weird spot. Think about it for a day and come back and we'll discuss it. Or if it's a really precarious situation, you can just provide for them an answer. Like, I had a Harkness the other day where I asked the kids, okay, what exactly is required for someone to come of age in a healthy, holistic way? So what do you need to become a real person? Like a good citizen as you grow? And some people are like a good example. One kid said, you need firm parents who set boundaries and tell you what's right. And I was like, okay. It was Luke Mars kids.

[Graham Donaldson]

It's awesome.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. Someone else said, but how do you know if your parents are right? And he's like, well, they'll tell you. And he's like, okay, then what if a kid had bad parents? They're telling him bad things. How would he know other than to question his parents? And he's like, oh. And then eventually they just got into a shouting match about how do you even know which parent is right if you can't trust them on saying what's right? So they almost themselves devolved into moral relativism right there. They're like, well, it's just your opinion. It's just your parents opinion. And I was like, all right, sit down. I stopped the Harkness and I said, okay, you guys are have arrived at moral relativism. Here is what goodness is. And I sort of gave them a functioning definition of goodness. Right. It is a premise. It cannot be proved. And. Right. You can make no moral conclusions unless there is some sort of moral assumption. I cannot say one should be healthy unless health is a thing desirable in and of itself. Right. So I kind of gave them an answer, and hopefully it satisfied them. Right. If I wouldn't have done that, I might have had kids who walk away thinking I should question my parents. And nothing is true in this world because it's all just opinion. So sometimes you do have to be willing to just get up and give an answer, which means. And this is. I think one of Graham's stances is that the teacher is the curriculum. Right. If you are playing the Socratic dialogue game, you have to know some of the answers because your kids are going to get to a place where those questions come up. And if you don't have the ammo prepared or the humility to approach something you don't understand, then you are in trouble. Or say, you know what? We've gotten to an interesting place. I don't know the answer to this, but I'm gonna find it and do some research and come back to you with something satisfying.

[Graham Donaldson]

Yeah. You can't be so dialectic that you just tear everything down into. Pull everything into pieces and leave it there and be like, all right, we'll see you next class. Like, that's almost irresponsible.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Exactly. That is the one big criticism of the Socratic method is it's really good at chipping away till you get the essence of something. But there are some things where you can chip and chip and chip until you have nothing for the teacher.

[Graham Donaldson]

At some point, you need to get to the place where it's like, all right, we. Yeah. You are going to have to be making assumptions that can't be proved about morality, or you are going to be making assumptions that can't be proved about, like, real. The nature of reality. Right. Like, man, it's you.

[AJ Hindenburg]

You were just leading me directly through my.

[Graham Donaldson]

Oh.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Like, we probably would have come up with the exact same talk. I know you are.

[Graham Donaldson]

Well, we are. I mean, we are in this game.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah.

[Graham Donaldson]

You know, we do it for the same job, the same things.

[Thomas Maghv]

Yep.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Okay. So on that point, that the Socratic method is good at tearing things down but not building them up. CS Lewis says, you cannot go on seeing through things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How, if you saw through the Garden too. It's no use trying to see through first principles like that. You know, health is worth having in and of itself. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To see through all things is the same as not to see. So that is the big criticism of Socratic dialogue.

[Graham Donaldson]

It's the last lines of abolition of man.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So good. Okay, so what is the balance there? Well, one is you just provide an answer. The other thing is what we would call mythos, right? What David Hicks talks about as mythos. And eventually we'll talk about the ideal type in his book Norms and Nobility. So here's a quote from David Hicks's Normans and Nobility. In his quest for the best education, the ancient schoolmaster possessed two advantages over the modern educator. First, he knew exactly what kind of a person he wished to produce. He shared with his contemporaries a prescriptive understanding of man inherited from the past and embodied in the ideal type of the mythos. This lent considerable agreement in substance when it came time to tick off the items on the list of what every educated man ought to know. Second, he agreed in form upon an inquiry based or knowledge centered, as opposed to child centered approach to education. Whether he was a philosopher hoping to elicit knowledge or a rhetorician hoping to implant it, he ignored the child and appealed directly to the father of the man within his student. So ancient educators had an idea of what a good person was. Now this came down to them through myth, right? We still have that. At least much of the Christian culture does, right? We've got Jesus, David, Paul, the saints. We have heroes. We still give medals to heroes in battle. We think people should be brave, we think they should be good, we think they should take risks, we think they should be responsible. Like all of these things are just things that we, the older educator just assumed. Like, this is stuff that people should know, right? This is how people should be. And so when you get to the place with your students, if it's a precarious position, you're like, you know what? We've been trying to discover what goodness is and we don't have a good answer. Well, if you cannot express the essence in a definition way, you can always just point to somebody and say, I can't tell you exactly what it is, but I sure know it when I see it. Here's some examples of goodness, right? So that mythos has to be balanced with logos, right? If all you have is myth, you end up following things and you don't really like in Complex moral situations like with Euthyphro, you might get stuck, but if all you have is the logos, you are going to get into a complicated, confuddled place. If you can't also point out goodness and say, well, when I am lost, I'll just follow that because I know exactly what that is. Those two things together, logos, the practice of logic and mythos, the great examples of the past and things that we can point to and say, this is clearly good, combine to make the ideal type of education. So any teacher going into his room should know, hopefully some decent logic, some decent philosophy, have a good grounding in theology. If you are a Christian teacher as well. But you should have some of those big answers if you can. And the places where you can't. You can say, well, I have good examples, right? These are things that people still argue about. I can't solve it for you, but I can show you some examples of people who are good despite not knowing exactly how to define good. Does that make sense? So you have to have those things. So you have five outcomes, really, from Socratic dialogue. One is you all find an answer. I've had Harkness discussions where the kids get it in like the first five minutes.

[Thomas Maghv]

Can you define Harkness?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Oh, great. Great question. Harkness discussion is essentially a talk around a big old table. We all face each other. We are sitting at one right now. If you want to go look us up on YouTube. We are on one edge of a giant Harkness table. So all of the students are in a circle. I forget Harkness's method. I think it might have been like guide on the side. Like the kids kind of run the discussion. We'll talk about that in a second. About whether I think that's a good idea. But.

[Thomas Maghv]

But Harkness, like, he is proposing a way to do Socratic dialogue or it's its own thing.

[AJ Hindenburg]

I don't research Harkness.

[Thomas Maghv]

I'm just whatever you, dude.

[AJ Hindenburg]

I researched the Socratic dialogue.

[Thomas Maghv]

You do this Harkness thing every day.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So that's fair. So called out. That's. Yep, that is fair. That is a fair criticism. There's no Harkness when I see it. It's all a mythos thing.

[Thomas Maghv]

Good, thanks.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So we were having a. I forgot my example. Now what was I saying?

[Graham Donaldson]

You're having an example and you got to the conclusion real fast.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Oh, yeah. So sometimes I have kids say it in the first five minutes and either I say, ah, well, we got it. Let's go outside, or I just let because the kids will usually just blow past it because they don't catch it when it happens. So I'll give that kid some points and then wait until they sort of spin their wheels for a while. I'm like, you guys, somebody already answered it for you way earlier, 10, 15 minutes ago. And it was this. So you have. You find the answer. You have the idiot phase, where the outcomes are, they quit, they hate you, or you can provide for an answer for them, or you can point to some sort of mythos if you cannot find an answer right. Those are acceptable outcomes. So if you don't know the answer for sure, don't give them a platitude. Give them something real. You may not always know the answer. And actually there have been several instances where I thought I had an answer and a kid asked a good question and my answer was torn down and something else had to come in its place. I think of what I. What I often do on the first day of class is ask, what is the essence of education? And I give them the answer that, you know, Aristotle and Plato would have given. And it's that you want to teach the pupil to love good things, to love. What is worth loving? One kid, one year, asked, okay, well, who decides what's worth loving? It's a great question. I didn't have a good answer. I said, me and the administration. And he's like. And he rightfully distrusted that the right answer is that we've known for millennia. Every human culture has essentially had the same definition of goodness with different emphases throughout history. Right? And it's been pretty much agreed upon what. What is good philosophically, or at least the basis of it. So, well, he.

[Graham Donaldson]

I mean, if we want to talk about enthymemes, like that question, who decides what is what we should be, what is good that we should study, you have to decide means that. That in his mind, he thinks that goodness is a thing that is sort.

[Thomas Maghv]

Of like, given to.

[Graham Donaldson]

That there are other kinds of good that other institutions could agree on as to study. Whereas the correct answer is the good. And it is good. What you just answered, like the thing that we've all agreed upon for. For, yeah, we thousand years, this idea of goodness that, like, just like health in the body, there's health in the soul.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, we have the seven virtues. Like, we can point to those and say, this is pretty much what we've all agreed upon is good. These seven things. Okay, so that's Socratic method. Start with something, ask questions, go in circles until you and try to get better definitions until you either arrive at the idiot phase or you find something you like. And then you've got four outs for the idiot phase. And hopefully they don't kill you or quit. So what is this good for? Why use the Socratic method? Well, it's good for revealing ignorance. Right. Students need that. There's a lot of stuff they don't know, but they think they know everything, especially the teenage ones. So you got to show them that it's good at showing complexity in situations you thought were simple. Like, I could ask them, what do you see in front of you? What are your books sitting on? And they would say, a table. And I would say, how do you know? And they're like, well, I can see it. I was like, how can you trust that the electronic signals arriving at your brain are actually coming from reality? How do you know that that's reality and not something like the Matrix? Right. So showing that some things are more complex than they first appear, don't do that.

[Graham Donaldson]

That's not fair.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Why not?

[Graham Donaldson]

Like reality and language and reality and sensory input have to be agreed on or we're not doing anything.

[AJ Hindenburg]

And that's fine. But I'm just showing, like, what I'm trying to show the student is that we are all making together an assumption that the things that we are seeing and experiencing are as they really are, which is quite an assumption, actually. And that we have to make that base assumption to get anything done in this world. But it is built at least somewhat on faith. Right? So that's not a bad. Is there any lesson to have?

[Graham Donaldson]

Was there any in the ancient world, any era of human history where they took seriously. I can't trust reality or that like that.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. I think, therefore I am, what reality.

[Graham Donaldson]

Is and what languages are, are up for debate. That they. That they don't correspond Right. To one another. Is that.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Well, Descartes said I have to doubt all things. And then there's also. I mean, we're in the era now. Musk thinks we're living in a simulation.

[Graham Donaldson]

That's what I'm saying. Until now. So it's an enlightenment thing. I don't know if it's wondering if it's true in the ancient world. Well, if it's enlightenment thing, if Descartes first one that did it.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Well, we also had skept, like skepticism has been claiming this for a very long time that you cannot. There is nothing you can know for sure except that. So there's like localized skepticism, which there are certain things you cannot know for sure, but I am saying a true thing. And then there's global skepticism, which has to be an infinite regress of. You can know nothing for sure except that statement and accept that statement. But I can't know that for sure.

[Graham Donaldson]

I'm asking a historical question like, yeah, has that ever did it? Was that true in the ancient world? The ancient cynics weren't like that. Where there ancient skeptics that said we can't we there like the thing? I guess even Plato sort of talked about like our eyes lie to us. I mean, that's why we do the.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Forms anyway, whatever, okay, so it's good for showing complexity. It's good for finding nuanced conclusions when you had a simple one earlier. It's really good for trying to find out how we should live. Right. Those are mainly the questions that Socrates asks. It's really good for philosophy. Right? That is what Socratic dialogue is kind of for. There are things it is bad for. And sometimes in education it gets shoehorned into these places in ways because it sounds good, the Socratic method, but it's not necessarily good for that. It's probably great for a law class. It is maybe not the best for math. Right? You might have a couple of good Socratic dialogues in there, but really math is hard to discover. And it took us several thousand years to get to the place we are now. And we don't have a thousand years with those kids. I mean, the same is probably true of philosophy, but kids can discover that on their own really quick through conversation. And I'm not sure they can do the same with math. It is hard to shoehorn into a math class. You might get a couple a year, but running every day like this, I'm not sure you're going to move fast enough.

[Thomas Maghv]

I wonder if it depends on the kind of math, because if you're at a level of geometry where you can work with the shapes you're trying to figure out. How can I figure out the area inside of some new shape? And you have people kind of figuring that out.

[AJ Hindenburg]

But I don't know if that's a dialogue. You know, it's a different thing than.

[Thomas Maghv]

Like if it's the class figuring it out together or you have groups of people. I'm just, I hear you on the, like we get to Calculus BC and it's like, you know, how are we going to talk about this? Right?

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, it's something that like, yes, I could sit with you and we could work on a problem together. Right. The way is different than me pushing on your definitions of things.

[Graham Donaldson]

But instead of asking questions that you're using the tools of, of reason and logic to poke holes in for, for doing Socratic math.

[Thomas Maghv]

Yeah.

[Graham Donaldson]

You would not be asking questions, but you would making suggestions as to how, what to try next.

[Thomas Maghv]

To try.

[Graham Donaldson]

Why don't you try measuring all the sides? Once you try multiply, multiplying them together. Why don't you. And like, some of them aren't going to work and some of them are going to work. So it's. And then using the tools of, of again, logic and reason, like, oh, this didn't work. This didn't get us the right answer to chip away until you get to like, wait, the tool that I just did this, the little algorithm that I just used to find the circumference of this thing. If I apply that same principle to a bigger thing, hey, now we're onto something. And I think you could totally do that.

[AJ Hindenburg]

I would say that you're exercising logic, but I wouldn't call that. The Socratic method might not be Socratic.

[Thomas Maghv]

But it is like kind of maybe conversational.

[Graham Donaldson]

It's chipping away, but you just.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Chipping away. Like, I wouldn't even call it chipping away. You are using different tools as an attempt to solve a problem. I don't even require another person for, for that.

[Graham Donaldson]

I don't think you require. I don't think you need another person for the Socratic method either.

[Thomas Maghv]

You could ask your own questions.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah, that's probably true, but I don't think the processes are the same. Right. I'm not asking for a different definition. We are suggesting a new tool. And while Socrates may have kind of done that, it's not the same kind of thing. I don't know.

[Thomas Maghv]

I don't know if this is the same point, but it just seems like there's something much less efficient using that method on the math and science side.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah.

[Thomas Maghv]

As compared to the English, maybe history, I don't know.

[AJ Hindenburg]

And I was going to say it's also kind of bad for science. Right. Because it's bad for facts. It doesn't bring any facts forward. It kind of pokes at philosophical concepts and might bring a few facts into that, but it's bad for discovering facts about things. Like you could call the scientific process, which is you come up with a hypothesis and you test that hypothesis. Like you could kind of call that theocratic method. I guess that's what I was going to. But really it's a scientific method. Right. Where you come up with A thing and you test it with controls. It's a very different thing. And you're looking for facts and observing the world. And I wouldn't say that it's the exact same kind of process. I think it does come much more into a science class when you are talking about the implications of a new science or how it affects morality or how we should live in light of a certain science or how this might affect, I don't know, industries like that kind of stuff. Yes, you can have discussions about that, but for actual scientific discovery, I'm not sure it's the same thing. It's really bad for PE and it's not great for parties.

[Thomas Maghv]

Okay, great.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So awesome. Yes. I think Socrates killed quite a few parties with his. With his methods.

[Thomas Maghv]

That's right.

[AJ Hindenburg]

All right, so last is my own kind of recommendations and guidelines for how to do this well as a teacher. And again, I, I don't hold an advanced teaching degree. I'm not a PhD. This is just coming from anyone.

[Graham Donaldson]

Screw it.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Just coming from 15 years of experience doing this and many.

[Thomas Maghv]

Well loved. How many times Teacher of the year.

[AJ Hindenburg]

I mean you're once one time you're.

[Thomas Maghv]

Underselling yourself for you're held in high regard here.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So. Yeah, but it's just 15 years of experience. Many of those years I was not good at it. So this is my sort of my guidelines for how to do this well as a teacher. So I don't think it's a guide on the side or a sage on the stage. So you're not lecturing and you can't focus fully remove yourself from the conversation because kids are kind of bad at it. I think the older they get, the more you can like seniors can usually do this pretty well, freshmen can't. Um, so you, you're like a mostly guide on the side, but you got to jump in sometimes and push. When somebody makes an assumption that everybody accepts or when there is a time when they've devolved into just a hollering match and you need to rescue them. So thing number two, don't be afraid to jump on something interesting. Someone will make a claim and something all the other students accept. But that isn't a claim that can be made. And you can push on that. And so that's what you do. You push. But you push only on the kids that can handle it. There are some kids that will go toe to toe with you and try to answer questions and can deal with some probing. There are kids that will instantly crumble the minute you talk to them. In class, you got to know which kid this is. And if you have a crumbler, somebody who's just going to fall to pieces, but they say something interesting, one way to push without embarrassing that kid is you open up the question to the class rather than asking them directly to define it. So if they say, yeah, this is like, this is what goodness is, you can say, okay, does everyone agree? What about this? And then you open it up to the class, and that kid doesn't have to answer for it. But I really prefer asking the kid directly. If you can try to stay with one kid and make them defend it, and then eventually they'll find a place where they can't, and then somebody else will chime in. But if they're gonna crumble, you can always open it up to the table. That's an easy way to prevent, you know, tears. And the murder option. Um, keep an eye out for assumptions that they happen all the time. Um, one thing I try not to do is play the guess what's in my head game. Uh, my teachers did this a lot when I was young. They'd be like. They would ask what was seemingly an easy question, like, what's a rule? And everyone's like, it's something we're not supposed to do. We all know this. Everybody in the room knows exactly what it is, but no one's afraid. Everyone's afraid to answer because if you answer and he's like, no, it's this, that you're just gonna look like an idiot, right? Especially because it's a simple question. I hated those. Socrates did it when he did ask super leading questions, right? Those guys looked like fools. I don't play that game as a teacher. I will, you know, ask if anybody knows the definition to a word, and if they're close, I'll give it to them. But I don't like the guess what's in my head. And I try to steer clear from that if I can in Harkness, unless I'm getting somewhere big. And if I am, I'll give them clues and hope them help them discover it by themselves. But I don't play the ask really easy questions just to make sure they answer. That's a kind of Socratic dialogue that I'm not a fan of. And I think students hate, too, because they're afraid to answer simple questions because they'll look like an idiot. So I avoid it. Socrates always followed the conversation wherever it ran, but he was dealing with smart people and adults. You can't always do that with Kids, I one time had a Harkness conversation that ended with one kid hollering at another about whether it was Egyptian grass or Babylonian grass that we were talking about. We were so far afield that no one was, no one was making any headway anywhere. So you got to be like, okay, stop. Let's go back to 10 minutes before where something interesting was said. Stop hollering at each other. We're not talking about politics. Let's do this other thing. But you can wait for the kids to do this. Sometimes they'll say, sometimes you'll get a kid that's like, I don't know what we're talking about. Can we go back? And you won't have to do it, but let them do it as much as they can pivot to a lecture if you need. You might lose a participation grade. But like I said, sometimes you just have to step in and save them. You may not always get to the place you want, but you will get someplace useful, which means that you need to be humble. You might think you have an answer, but if a kid asks a good question, you might not like that story about what I did in the first day. I had to change my definition. I had to discover the real thing. So you as a teacher might have to be humble too. When you get to the idiot phase and you can't defend your position, that's okay. Let them struggle. Sometimes silence is okay. I think one of the biggest things I do is if I do push on a kid and ask them questions in class and go toe to toe with them, that's terrifying. I've got, what, 35 years, no, 25 years on these kids of experience. I've studied, I've been to college, I've learned my material inside and out. So that's got to be a terrifying thing for them, going up against somebody so much older with so much more experience and cleverness. And so what I do is if I do that to a kid, I hold them back after class and I say thank you. That was really brave. I know. That was scary. You did a fantastic job. And even though I pushed on some definitions like you held your own and that's really scary. So nice job. And then I might give them a couple extra points and then send them off. That will change their whole day. Unless, like, there's nine day difference between that and then pushing and then making them look like an idiot and then sending them out of class. Right. One ends in somebody who's really encouraged and the other ends in a cynic. So I will hold kids back and tell them, Tell them, thank you. One thing you can always do is if you don't know the answer and you need time to look it up, you can say, okay, we've come to a really interesting impasse. Time for a writing response. Turn in next time, we'll talk about it again. That gives you a couple of days to look up an answer so that you can address it in a lecture later. And that's. Those are my. How to do it. Well, so I guess in conclusion, in the Socratic method, there's not a whole lot of specific prescriptions other than, like, find assumptions, push on those until you get somewhere useful or not. And if you don't, there's a few ways to go about it. But be ready to pivot to pointing to mythos, like, show them an example or give them a good answer, or make them think. And you can make them think and come back a couple days later. And some questions are okay to leave mystery in. And that. That's what encourages a scholar. Some are not. And you're going to have to use your own wisdom on that. But this is what I could find about Socratic dialogue that was even halfway useful. So take from it what you will. The Socratic method is great. I seem to think it's. What it means is just like intellectual conversation. But as a teacher, you have to be kind of tender with it because you can make your kids really embarrassed. So you just have to be careful. Okay. That was my presentation.

[Thomas Maghv]

Yeah. Can I ask.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah. Thoughts, boys?

[Thomas Maghv]

Not every one of your classes is a Socratic dialogue or a Harkness or.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Whatever it can be, because I have facts that I have to present.

[Thomas Maghv]

So can you say more about when you use lecture versus when you use this?

[AJ Hindenburg]

So if I'm talking about. I don't know what. What are the literary terms for a character that we use? Like flat character, stock character? That. That's not a Socratic dialogue thing. If I'm talking about what happened between the Iliad and the Odyssey or what happened coming up to the Iliad, they can't discover that in their assumptions. I have to. I have to give them that information and talk about the history of the Vikings and how this got translated and, you know, all of those things matter. Or the. When I do the lecture on the tripartite soul, I could maybe get them there, but it'd be a whole day when I can just do a lecture about the worldview of medieval man and talk about the tripartite soul and how that comes into play and Dante's Inferno and that sort of thing, that's a lot easier. And then later we can talk about assumptions about what the soul really is and ask questions of his, his viewpoint and say, is that really the way the soul works? That might be a good conversation. But when you're, when you're trying to present material that seems like lecture time or they read an article time, and then when you're from that will come a big discussion. And that's Socratic dialogue.

[Graham Donaldson]

I've got it. Where there are certain scenes or lines in a book that we're reading will trigger a question, a bigger question that you can use to bring into some more of these fundamental questions. So like in Romeo and Juliet, one of the questions that I like having the students debate is, would you guys be comfortable with your parents choosing your spouse? And then all of them say no. And then you sort of, and then, so you can sort of like ask, continue, ask follow up questions. And you essentially get to questions about authority and autonomy and your own decisions. So I usually say things like, all right, how many of you would want. Imagine yourself back in seventh grade? And they usually laugh and they're like, ugh. I'm like, imagine, would you want 7th grade you to choose 10th grade you's boyfriend or girlfriend? And they go, no, that sounds awful. I would never want to do that. And you say, all right, would you. What makes you think that 27 year old you wants 19 year old you to choose their spouse? And they're like, Mr. Donaldson, I'm terrified now. And then I'm like, okay with the assumption being like, why not, why not trust people that are much older, that have lived this, that do this sort of thing? And so it's like, you know, and coming from a book. But when you're talking about like, yeah, again, do you, when do you, what people do you trust and who don't you trust? And what is the relationship between parent and child? And what actually ends up being a marriage? What's a marriage for? What's a good marriage? So there are just things that come up in books. There's another one in Paradise Lost where, where Adam says to Eve, Eve has a bad dream. And Adam says, things can enter into and things can. Evil can enter into our minds and leave ne, leaving no spot or stain behind. And I. That's an interesting question. Can evil enter your mind without leaving a spot or stain? Can you watch things that are evil and not have it affect you? And then the students are like, yeah, of course you Can I watch Evil Things all the time on Netflix and I'm not a murderer. It's like, okay, well, you know, let's talk about the music we listen to. And it's like. And is it better to raise your kid being like a bubble or being exposed to everything? And, you know, so you get into these. You can take. You can take anything from a book, any little passage from literature, and bring it to those questions that necessitate you to come and. And get to those unmovable premises of the world that students may or may not have ever thought of or may have assumptions that don't even line up with the premises of the world. And, and so the teachers. Yeah. So I just. I just have them earmarked in the book from when, when we read those things in class, knowing that I'm going to say, all right, guys, let's. For 45 minutes, we're just going to talk about this. I'm going to write things on the board. We're going to have these big debates, and then the students feel like it comes out of nowhere. I feel like I'm, like, tipping my hand now. It feels like it comes out of nowhere, but it's, you know, it's. It's coming from. From the, from the, from the literature itself.

[AJ Hindenburg]

They've got the same thing.

[Graham Donaldson]

Yeah, exactly.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Yeah.

[Thomas Maghv]

And it comes from your experience having read this with students before, knowing where those questions come up, which is really.

[Graham Donaldson]

Fun, teaching a new class when you've never taught a book before because you're like, ooh. You get to just. What are going to be my big drawdown time Questions that we're going to look into.

[Thomas Maghv]

Was very Good. Thank you, AJ.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Thank you.

[Thomas Maghv]

So you can find us [e-mail], you can find us on Patreon. Patreon.com Classical stuff, where we record in between episodes, and a monthly ama, which is a monthly ask where you can ask us anything. We will answer your questions. And it's a ton of fun. We really enjoy it. You can email us@theguys classicalstuff.net we're also on xlssical stuff. C L, S S C, A, L stuff. What?

[Graham Donaldson]

This is X.

[AJ Hindenburg]

So dumb.

[Thomas Maghv]

It is dumb. Twitter. Can I call it Tweets? It's the same thing calling it Twitter. We're on that website. So thank you all for listening and we will talk with you all again soon.

[AJ Hindenburg]

Bye.