Define dialectic and discuss how Socratic dialogue differs from other conversations: Consider how a Socratic dialogue is different from a debate or an argument. Unlike the sophists of his day (and ours!), politicians, lawyers, etc. Socrates is not interested in winning or seeming to be correct. Instead, he is concerned with truth itself, and with revealing weak arguments that pretend to be strong ones. Socrates is not just trying to elicit information, nor is he trying to win an argument or prove his point (as in a debate). Rather, he is trying to help the Interlocutor examine the foundation of his belief. Think about it this way: If the belief is the house, Socrates is checking the foundation to make sure it is sound. Dialectic is a fancy word that really just encompasses three steps: (1) What is the belief about which reasonable minds can disagree? (2) What are some assumptions being made on each side? (3) How might we examine and question those assumptions?
Illustrate your understanding with examples of some specific beliefs one might examine via the Socratic Method: Philosophy is best understood in the context of real-life experience. So, try and choose an example of a belief that is relevant to your life and that interests you. For example, if you are planning to become a nurse and are interested in palliative care, you might discuss physician assisted suicide. If you are studying psychology, the belief in a particular therapeutic approach might be interesting for you to examine. Criminal justice majors might delve into beliefs about what makes a punishment just. Healthcare management and Allied Health Science majors could examine the belief that healthcare is a right. If you are a parent, the question of disciplining children might be of interest to you. Any belief you choose for is fine as long as it is one about which reasonable minds can disagree. That means that there are multiple points-of-view that are not only held by a few extremists. For example, the vast majority of people believe that bullying is wrong, so bullying in general is probably not a good topic. However, there may be points of disagreement about the causes of bullying and the effectiveness of the proposed solutions, who is responsible for addressing them, the seriousness of these acts, and so on. Thus, narrowing/refining your focus will help you to identify the points of disagreement. Identify some questions Socrates might ask. These questions should be designed both to elicit the reasons for the belief and to uncover some of the assumptions behind the belief.
Explain the difference between knowledge and opinion for Socrates as illustrated in the Meno and the Republic: To develop this part of your essay, you might consider how the experience of learning as the Boy in the Meno does through Socrates questions is like/unlike your own experiences as a student so far. What is the difference between telling a student facts and information and Socrates approach? Does the Boy in the Meno just learn a fact about geometry, or does Socrates help him realize something else about him self and his abilities? As for the Republic, what is the difference between the shadows the chained prisoners see in the cave and what the freed prisoner comes to see as reality? Why might those still in chains be reluctant to question what they have come to see as real/true? Do you see any examples of such people in our own community?
Explore your own response to the question of whether human beings can ever know the truth for certain. Can we ever achieve perfect wisdom about the kinds of ideas philosophers explore? Why or why not? While this entire project is about your own perspective, this is your chance to really flex the philosophical muscles you worked in the first three sections. Is the truth something we ever achieve, whether through philosophy, education, etc.? Do we ever know what is real, true, just, beautiful, and/or good? What do you think it means to be wise? Do you think wisdom is something someone else can give us? Why or why not?
A few other tips for success:
