We may harbour the mistaken belief that philosophy always rests on long discourses. The truth is, that isn’t the case. Philosophy has one of its pillars in a man who never wrote a word. He wasn’t interested in doing so. All he wanted was to chat. We might regard him as the father of journalism, because he loved asking questions.

It is, of course, Socrates. A man who went about life “making friends”. He would stop people and pose questions. For example, to a soldier he asked him to tell what courage was. When the other described the soldiers’ attitude in battle, Socrates simply pointed out: “I did not ask for an example, but for you to tell me what it is.”

This often unsettled the so-called expert, who would get lost or contradict themselves trying to answer the philosopher. His dialogues must have been brilliant. We owe thanks to Plato, who, as a good disciple, transcribed them and allowed us to learn how his master behaved.

Far from dull, the dialogues Socrates held are like games of wit. He sometimes ends up making the other look ridiculous. He particularly targeted the sophists, intellectuals who presented themselves as great orators and experts in everything, which today would be the sort of know-it-all.

The Socratic method

The method of questioning that Socrates used is so effective that it has come down to us in its original form. It is taught not only in philosophy faculties, but also in logic studies and the courses in rhetoric and marketing. In psychology, his technique is used to help people challenge rigid beliefs.

The method was not about arguing for the sake of arguing, but about posing questions to discover where logic takes us. To do this, the first thing is to have Socratic irony. Socrates pretends to be ignorant so the other explains themselves. Is he pretending or truly ignorant about the topic? That isn’t always clear. Socrates does not always have the answers. What he has is a rock-solid capacity for logic.

The second part is what philosophers nowadays call maieutics: the succession of questions until the interlocutor reaches a more precise idea or falls into a contradiction that reveals the error in their initial assertion.

Let us see how we can use this art of questioning when we encounter one of those people who think they know it all.

The attitude is to understand

First, it’s important to emphasise that Socrates did not sit down to argue in order to humiliate the other (though on occasion the other person may have felt humiliated), but to see what remains standing of what was said when examined calmly. That demands two things:

Accept that you don’t know everything either (the famous “I only know that I know nothing”, which really means: I know that my knowledge is limited). And be prepared to change your mind if the answers persuade you.

When you enter a conversation with someone who is very confident in their own view, if your goal is to “prove they are wrong”, you’ve already lost. If your aim is to understand how they think and help them see the cracks in their own discourse, you’re closer to the Socratic spirit.

The grace of the method is that it seems simple, but Socrates’ questions are so well formulated that they lead the other to enter their own logic and discover the error for themselves. Socrates knew where he was headed with his questions. But at times what they will deduce isn’t always obvious.

A practical example of dialogue

Let’s look at a practical version of how we could have a Socratic conversation today:

  • Ask the interlocutor to clarify what they assert: “When you say politicians are stupid, who do you mean by politician?” That forces a move from slogan to substance.
  • Ask for concrete examples. Socrates brought ideas down to the realm of experience. For example: “Can you explain a concrete case?” Many discourses deflate when they must be supported by something real.
  • Question the motives: why does the other person think that this happens? And what makes them think it’s the only possible explanation. Don’t argue with them, merely ask them to clarify.
  • Explore the consequences. “If politicians are so stupid, how is it that there are administrations that work?” Sometimes drawing out the consequences makes the idea seem absurd.
  • Contrast with other cases. It’s the moment to introduce nuances without imposing them: “Have you never known an honest politician? Not one?” If what they say isn’t verifiable, ask how we could know if it’s true?
  • Invite reflection. Maieutics, literally, means the art of birthing. The idea is that the other person “stops” the idea, and discovers it through dialogue.

The Socratic method does not guarantee that your brother-in-law will change his mind. But it may plant a doubt that makes him think twice before asserting something in an irrefutable way.