Socratic Method, named after Socrates, is a philosophical inquiry, wherein the questioner asks questions to the interlocutor, and follows it up with more questions after the interlocutor gives his response. It is a good way for the stimulation of rational thinking and illumination of ideas. This dialectic method is used in debating about opposite points, ideas and views. This method can lead the interlocutor to contradict himself and strengthen the inquirer’s own point and view. One of the example of Socratic Method can be seen in the movie Good Will Hunting. It goes this way.
Clark: I was just hoping you might give me some insight to the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities especially in the southern colonies could most aptly be characterized as agrarian precapitalist. Let me tell you somethin’…
Will: Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first-year grad student. You just got finished readin’ some Marxian historian- Pete Garrison, probably you’re gonna be convinced of that till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you’re gonna be talkin’ about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year. You’re gonna be in here regurgitatin’ Gordon Wood, talking about, you know, the prerevolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
Clark: Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of…
Will: Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers’ Work in Essex County. Page 98, right? I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own in this matter? Or is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage. Then pretend- pawn it as your own. As your own idea just to impress some girls? Embarrass my friend? See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years, you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own. You’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: Don’t do that. And two: You dropped 150 grand on a fuckin’ education you could’ve got for $1.50 in late charges at the public library.
Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree, and you’ll be servin’ my kids fries at a drive through on our way to a skiing trip.
Will: Maybe, but at least I won’t be unoriginal. If you have a problem with that, we could step outside. We could figure it out.
Clark: No, man, there’s no problem. It’s cool.
Will Hunting was an intelligent man but what’s unique with him was that he doesn’t go to school. For him, it’s a waste of time and money. He just reads books and enjoys reading more of it. For him, the true education/learning is to buy from public libraries and study on his own. He is really smart in any fields or sciences especially in Math. That is why Lambeau wanted him so much. He wanted him to be known in that field but Will was not that interested. Will is really genius but he doesn’t know what he really wants in life. He was not guided well in his life. The good thing for him is that, he had three loyal friends that continue to understand and help him.
The dialogue above in the movie Good Will Hunting is an example of Socratic Method. This might be somehow different from that of Socrates. Socrates would not talk so much about the content in proving what’s wrong with the arguments of his interlocutors. He would just ask questions and lead them to speak of arguments that would contradict to their previous argument proving them wrong. Will, on the other hand, speaks so much about contents and facts and at the same time proving Clark wrong. He speaks frankly to Clark the loopholes of his (Clark’s) arguments. Clark could not interrupt him because of Will’s firm stands about his arguments against him. Will’s way is presenting the other’s loophole and then the other just agrees to him, making the other humiliate himself.
Clark and Will’s discussion started when Clark, in the movie, interrupted Chuck and Skylar’s conversation. He interrupted when he heard the word History. He presented himself to them as if he knows so much of it. He really spoke as if he was an expert in that field. Will interrupted him by talking also about Economics and he continued what Clark will about to say. It made Clark think that he is not that good as Will. Will also presented to Clark that he (Clark) was plagiarizing, claiming that what he said was originally his. Clark cannot do anything but to accept that his knowledge is not enough for him to show up. Clark, because of Will’s shameful arguments accepted that he was not really good. He just did those things for showing up.
In life, there are times that we encounter people that at our first meeting with them, they would present themselves as if they are really expert in their field. Later, we find out that they are only more of words but not of deeds, that what they know is not enough, that what they present their selves are not worthy of them. Sometimes, we can say to our self, “daw si sin-o gid nga SureBol kag Tikalon!” Of course, we humans are not perfect. Our knowledge is limited to the things we only know. We don’t know whatever we haven’t learned or experience. For me, there are two kinds of people that I really hate: first, those who don’t know but pretend to know so much, and second, those who are expert in their field but are really boastful and cannot go down to others level. Socratic Method can be applied to them. If we are just good thinkers and interrogators, we can lead them to contradict their previous arguments that could support our views.
Socratic Method is one of the best ways to interrogate boastful and pretending people. It’s a good method that can lead our interlocutors to their down fall. If I will be asked who wins between Clark and Will in their discussion, my answer is “None of the two. Clark pretends to know but the truth is he doesn’t and Will knows but he is boastful.” The lesson we can get from their discussion is never pretend that we know so much but actually we do not and never become so proud whenever we can feel that we know so much.
Clark: I was just hoping you might give me some insight to the evolution of the market economy in the southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities especially in the southern colonies could most aptly be characterized as agrarian precapitalist. Let me tell you somethin’…
Will: Of course that’s your contention. You’re a first-year grad student. You just got finished readin’ some Marxian historian- Pete Garrison, probably you’re gonna be convinced of that till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you’re gonna be talkin’ about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That’s gonna last until next year. You’re gonna be in here regurgitatin’ Gordon Wood, talking about, you know, the prerevolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
Clark: Well, as a matter of fact, I won’t, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of…
Will: Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth. You got that from Vickers’ Work in Essex County. Page 98, right? I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own in this matter? Or is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage. Then pretend- pawn it as your own. As your own idea just to impress some girls? Embarrass my friend? See, the sad thing about a guy like you is, in 50 years, you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own. You’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: Don’t do that. And two: You dropped 150 grand on a fuckin’ education you could’ve got for $1.50 in late charges at the public library.
Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree, and you’ll be servin’ my kids fries at a drive through on our way to a skiing trip.
Will: Maybe, but at least I won’t be unoriginal. If you have a problem with that, we could step outside. We could figure it out.
Clark: No, man, there’s no problem. It’s cool.
Will Hunting was an intelligent man but what’s unique with him was that he doesn’t go to school. For him, it’s a waste of time and money. He just reads books and enjoys reading more of it. For him, the true education/learning is to buy from public libraries and study on his own. He is really smart in any fields or sciences especially in Math. That is why Lambeau wanted him so much. He wanted him to be known in that field but Will was not that interested. Will is really genius but he doesn’t know what he really wants in life. He was not guided well in his life. The good thing for him is that, he had three loyal friends that continue to understand and help him.
The dialogue above in the movie Good Will Hunting is an example of Socratic Method. This might be somehow different from that of Socrates. Socrates would not talk so much about the content in proving what’s wrong with the arguments of his interlocutors. He would just ask questions and lead them to speak of arguments that would contradict to their previous argument proving them wrong. Will, on the other hand, speaks so much about contents and facts and at the same time proving Clark wrong. He speaks frankly to Clark the loopholes of his (Clark’s) arguments. Clark could not interrupt him because of Will’s firm stands about his arguments against him. Will’s way is presenting the other’s loophole and then the other just agrees to him, making the other humiliate himself.
Clark and Will’s discussion started when Clark, in the movie, interrupted Chuck and Skylar’s conversation. He interrupted when he heard the word History. He presented himself to them as if he knows so much of it. He really spoke as if he was an expert in that field. Will interrupted him by talking also about Economics and he continued what Clark will about to say. It made Clark think that he is not that good as Will. Will also presented to Clark that he (Clark) was plagiarizing, claiming that what he said was originally his. Clark cannot do anything but to accept that his knowledge is not enough for him to show up. Clark, because of Will’s shameful arguments accepted that he was not really good. He just did those things for showing up.
In life, there are times that we encounter people that at our first meeting with them, they would present themselves as if they are really expert in their field. Later, we find out that they are only more of words but not of deeds, that what they know is not enough, that what they present their selves are not worthy of them. Sometimes, we can say to our self, “daw si sin-o gid nga SureBol kag Tikalon!” Of course, we humans are not perfect. Our knowledge is limited to the things we only know. We don’t know whatever we haven’t learned or experience. For me, there are two kinds of people that I really hate: first, those who don’t know but pretend to know so much, and second, those who are expert in their field but are really boastful and cannot go down to others level. Socratic Method can be applied to them. If we are just good thinkers and interrogators, we can lead them to contradict their previous arguments that could support our views.
Socratic Method is one of the best ways to interrogate boastful and pretending people. It’s a good method that can lead our interlocutors to their down fall. If I will be asked who wins between Clark and Will in their discussion, my answer is “None of the two. Clark pretends to know but the truth is he doesn’t and Will knows but he is boastful.” The lesson we can get from their discussion is never pretend that we know so much but actually we do not and never become so proud whenever we can feel that we know so much.
RSS Feed