Most people have heard of the “Socratic Method”, or “Socratic Questioning”, although few realize how that method was originally used by ancient philosophers. I think it would also surprise them to discover that in order to train his students in this method of thinking, Socrates employed a simple diagram, and what cognitive therapists today call the “Two-Column” method.

In this article, I’ll explain how similar techniques are used today in cognitive psychotherapy and self-help, how Socrates taught students his original technique, and how I think it could be adapted for modern skills-training workshops in the Socratic Method. This won’t be a comprehensive explanation, therefore, of how to do the Socratic Method, as that has several aspects, and it would take a whole book to cover all of them. (See Ward Farnsworth’s recent book, The Socratic Method, for a good introduction.) What we will do here, though, is explore how to do a very simple technique, which teaches some of the foundational skills required for the Socratic Method.

Every day, cognitive therapists around the world use variations of this tried-and-tested technique with their clients.

Two-Column Methods in Cognitive Therapy

Every day, cognitive therapists around the world use variations of this tried-and-tested technique with their clients. Typically, a client will have identified an unhealthy or troubling intrusive thought, or a deeper belief, which they have agreed to re-evaluate collaboratively with their therapist. For example, a depressed client might have the belief “Nobody likes me!”

The therapist would draw two columns on a flip-chart headed “Evidence for” and “Evidence against”. The client is then helped to brainstorm items to put under each column, and maybe to rate how good each piece of “evidence” is, i.e., whether it’s strong or weak evidence. By thinking things through more systematically, the client can then be helped to re-evaluate and modify some of their own beliefs. Of course, this may have to be repeated several times, perhaps as homework, and it’s always combined with many other cognitive and behavioural interventions.

Another common variation of this technique used in cognitive therapy, is called “Cost-Benefit Analysis” or “Pros and Cons Analysis”. This typically involves drawing two columns headed “Pros” and “Cons”, respectively. The diagram can then be used to evaluate the pros and cons of holding a certain attitude or belief, such as “People must show me respect.” However, it can also be used to evaluate the consequences of certain behaviours. For example, it’s quite common to have clients suffering from anxiety disorders, such as phobias, list the pros and cons of actually facing their fears, such as a snake-phobic touching a real snake. The main “con” is usually that the anxiety feels highly uncomfortable; the main “pro” is that if they persevere they will probably learn to cope with, and perhaps eventually extinguish, their anxiety.

The original Socratic Method aimed at modifying our underlying philosophy of life, by questioning our deepest values.

We also tend to consider whether the consequences are short-term or long-term. For example, the discomfort of facing our fears is short-term but the benefits are long-term. As the Stoic Cato of Utica used to say, what is difficult to endure is pleasant to remember. Evaluating pros and cons, in this way, is a common means of building motivation for homework assignments, etc. However, as we’ll see, the original Socratic Method aimed at modifying our underlying philosophy of life, by questioning our deepest values.

The Original Socratic Method

Written techniques like those seem quite modern and references to similar exercises in ancient literature are extremely rare. It’s therefore quite astounding to find Xenophon, in his collection of short dialogues known as the Memorabilia Socratis, describing Socrates’ use of his own two-column technique during a dialogue with his young student Euthydemus (Memorabilia, 4.2). (Not to be confused, incidentally, with the foreign Sophist called Euthydemus, after whom Plato’s dialogue is named.) As we’ll see, remarkably, a similar teaching method was perhaps still in use by a famous Stoic teacher, over four centuries later.

Socrates begins by drawing two columns marked with the Greek letters Δ (delta) and Α (alpha), which he explains are to stand for dikaiosune (justice) and adikia (injustice), a cardinal virtue and its opposing vice. In English, it would be like writing “J” for justice and “I” for injustice as the headings of our two columns. He then brainstorms a series of examples: “Lying”, “deceit”, “mischief”, “enslavement”. Euthydemus is asked to classify them as “just” or “unjust” and sort them into the corresponding columns, which he does quickly and easily as they all appear unjust. Socrates, however, was renowned for encouraging his students to distinguish carefully between appearance and reality.

The philosopher proceeds, therefore, to rattle off a series of exceptions showing ways in which each item on their list could potentially be placed in the opposing column. This can be considered a form of creative “brainstorming”. Today we’d normally expect the student to do this but, although he’s known for introducing a somewhat student-centred form of learning, Socrates typically thinks up these examples himself, and has his partner, or student, decide whether they’re agreeable or not. For example, Euthydemus didn’t hesitate to say that deception was “unjust” but Socrates asks him whether it is just or unjust for a democratically elected general to deceive the enemy during a war. Euthydemus admits that under certain circumstances, he would have put such items in the “just” column.

Revising his initial definition, therefore, Euthydemus now says that it is “unjust” for an appointed general to lie to his friends and “just” for him to lie to his enemies. Socrates continues though and provides another apparent exception: “Suppose the general sees his army is demoralized and tells them a lie saying that reinforcements are on their way.” Assuming that doing so is in their interests, Euthydemus admits that even though he’s lying to friends it should be placed in the column for “justice”. This provides a very clear example of the method by which Socrates would obtain a simple definition of a virtue (justice) from his friends and then encourage them to continually refine it by bringing various exceptions to their attention.

This exercise involves moving items from the “unjust” to the “just” column. Doing so implies that our definition of justice may have been too narrow, it should include things that previously appeared to be excluded. For instance, sometimes even lying might be considered justified.

Although he doesn’t do so in this dialogue, elsewhere Socrates may also proceed to show that the definition has become too broad. All he would have to do, using his two-column technique, would be to ask whether items could be moved in the opposite direction, from the “just” to the “unjust” column. For example, if Euthydemus had said that telling the truth was just, he might agree that in some situations it becomes cruel and unjust, e.g., if we were to tell a child information we know they’re going to be unable to cope with emotionally. This would imply that our initial definition of justice must have been too broad, it included things that should have been excluded.

Excerpt from the Memorabilia

Socrates: “I propose, then, that we write J in this column and I in that, and then proceed to place under these letters, J and I, what we take to be the works of justice and injustice respectively.”
Euthydemus: “Do so, if you think it helps at all”
Having written down the letters as he proposed, Socrates went on: “Lying occurs among men, does it not?”
Euthydemus: “Yes, it does.”
Socrates: “Under which heading, then, are we to put that?”
Euthydemus: “Under the heading of injustice, clearly.”

They discuss some more examples before continuing…

Socrates: “Now suppose a man who has been elected general deceives the enemy when at war, shall we say that he acts unjustly?”
Euthydemus: “Oh no!”
Socrates: “We shall say that his actions are just, shall we not?”
Euthydemus: “Certainly.”

After some more discussion, Socrates proposes that they revise their initial definition of justice.

Socrates: “Then I propose to revise our classification, and to say: It is just to do such things to enemies, but it is unjust to do them to friends, towards whom one’s conduct should be scrupulously honest.”

Socrates goes on to speak more generally of distinguishing between virtue and vice, or the good and the bad. He mentions that he considers the famous inscription outside the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Know Thyself, to be particularly important advice. “Is it not clear,” he asks, “that through self-knowledge men come to much good, and through self-deception to much harm?” He means, among other things, that the self-knowledge that emerges by examining our own assumptions, about the nature of wisdom and justice, and other such important concepts, can be extremely beneficial. By contrast, remaining ignorant about how best to use these concepts can lead us into all sorts of confusion and additional problems in life.

There’s possibly an allusion to this technique in the satires of Persius, a contemporary of Seneca, who had studied Stoicism.

Persius appears to be saying that while attending the Stoic school of the philosopher Cornutus, he and his fellow students were taught how to live a good life, by distinguishing appearance (the specious) from reality (the true). He also seems to describe making two lists, or columns, consisting in “What to aim for” and “What to avoid”, or the good and the bad. As this is a poem, he may be speaking metaphorically, although it does sound uncannily as though he’s describing the same teaching method used four centuries earlier by Socrates.

A Modified Socratic Method

This is how I would adapt Socrates’ original method for use in a modern-day workshop. The goal is to clarify a concept that’s important to your life, e.g., one of the main values you seek to embody, although the technique can be used to clarify other verbal definitions.

Group Protocol

1. Selection. Pick a concept to examine. In my opinion, if you’re not sure, the best starting point is just to explore the concept of wisdom, followed perhaps by other cardinal virtues such as justice, courage, and self-discipline. Where I’ve said wisdom below, therefore, you can substitute any relevant concept.
2. Orientation. Start with some discussion in the group of the steps involved, and maybe prepare by the facilitator asking group members to offer a few definitions of wisdom, which can be written on a flipchart at the front of the room.
3. Preparation. Split into pairs, with pens and paper. Each person needs to draw to columns on a separate piece of paper, headed “Wise” and “Unwise” (or, if you prefer, “Foolish”).
4. Initial brainstorming. Person A writes down at least three examples of behaviour they consider good examples of wisdom, under the heading “wise”. Meanwhile, Person B writes down at least three examples of behaviour they consider good examples of being unwise or foolish, under the heading “unwise”. This should take roughly five minutes in total.
5. Swapping roles. The individuals in each pair now swap sheets of paper with one another. Person A should examine the examples Person B wrote down of “unwise” behaviour, and try to imagine situations in which each could potentially be considered wise, and moved into that column. Likewise, Person B should examine Person A’s items listed under “wise” to see if they could potentially be moved into the opposing column. Each person should therefore write notes in the relevant (opposing) column on their sheet.
6. Review. The two participants now review both sheets together, and try to arrive at a general (revised) definition of wisdom based on their analysis, which is satisfactory to both parties.
7. Feedback. The group can reconvene as a whole for the facilitator to obtain general feedback on the process and comments from each pair of participants, based on their observations, about how best to define wisdom.
8. Assessment. Each individual should be given a chance to provide more detailed feedback on the process as a whole and all of the steps involved, e.g., on an evaluation form, so that suggestions can be elicited for improving the protocol.

For general self-improvement, a similar method can be employed by individuals, with a little modification, although most people will find this much easier if they’ve had some coaching from a therapist or workshop facilitator. It requires patience to learn these skills and benefit from them. Don’t expect to arrive at a conclusive answer first time. Sometimes progress consists in realizing that you don’t have all the answers.

Conclusion

By practising simple exercises like this one, it’s possible to clarify your thinking and improve your reasoning skills. There may also be other therapeutic benefits. Some people find that examining concepts that are connected to upsetting thoughts can reduce the intensity of their negative emotions. For instance, a depressed person who has the belief “I am worthless” might use the two-column approach to examine and revise their definition of what constitutes human “worth” and “worthlessness”.

Although it’s often claimed that Socrates wrote nothing, this is, in fact, contrary to the testimony of Plato, who says that Socrates wrote a paean to Apollo and put several tales of Aesop to verse, while in prison awaiting execution — these are, of course, lost today. More intriguingly, though, Epictetus appears to claim that Socrates used writing as an intellectual exercise, to practice his skill at self-examination and analyzing concepts, when nobody was around with whom he could do philosophy.

Epictetus specifically states that although Socrates wrote in this way, for his own benefit, he left the writing of dialogues and dissertations to those who were more concerned with appearances than with the care of their own souls. It’s tempting to wonder if Socrates, therefore, used writing as a self-improvement technique, perhaps involving something similar to the two-column exercise described by Xenophon.

I’d be interested to know what you thought of the updated two-column exercise I described earlier, though, and whether you can identify ways in which it could be improved. Please comment below with your thoughts about the pros and cons of the exercise. Does it make sense? What do you think the main benefits might be? What are the biggest obstacles you might encounter trying to put it into practice? How could you maximize those benefits and overcome the potential obstacles? Thanks for your feedback!

—

This post was previously published on Stoicism — Philosophy as a Way of Life.

***

You Might Also Like These From The Good Men Project

You Said ‘Race’, but Are You Actually Talking About Race?

Understanding the Nonbinary: Are You Confusing Gender With Sex?

The Difference Between Compassion for Those With Disabilities & Ableism?

‘Masculinity’ Is Having an Identity Crisis