FIRST: I’ll tell you what I’d like to see in my classroom: genuine Socratic dialogue.
SECOND: You’ve been reading too much Classical Education hype. What makes you think that’s the answer?
FIRST: Formally, it just works. You’ve got to admit that Plato is so much more engaging than most philosophers, mostly because he wrote dialogues! We’re conversing right now, and conversing cultivates learning.
SECOND: That’s all well and good, but let’s set the record straight on Plato. Those are only conversations, so-called. They’re completely fake.
FIRST: Plato didn’t make up Socrates!
SECOND: But he made up what everybody said. Some poor guy gives Socrates an answer; Socrates takes it apart, and the guy thanks him for the privilege. “By Zeus, you’re right!” It’s not a real conversation.
FIRST: You’re thinking of the worst examples. In the Parmenides, the young Socrates gets corrected.
SECOND: By a character Plato controls.
FIRST: The Euthyphro ends without a definition of piety. Euthyphro walks off. Socrates doesn’t win that one either.
SECOND: Okay. But have you ever seen a Socratic discussion work in a college classroom? The first-year student’s got an opinion he’s hoping you’ll like. You’re the one with power. You’re forcing the discussion. It will never be organic.
FIRST: At its worst, you’re right, and “Guess What I’m Thinking” is not conversation either. But I can ask fair questions to help us work toward answers together.
SECOND: But that’s just discussion. No Socrates necessary.
FIRST: Socrates brought a rigor and desire for truth to bear on every conversation. The conclusion? At times, meh. Sure. But we ought to be able to disagree without packing up the conversation, and I think the Socratic model is a good way to get there.
SECOND: We “ought to.” But good luck getting students who don’t agree with you to speak up! The power dynamics are all off. What do they get for disagreeing with you except for the fear that you’ll dock their grade for it?
FIRST: I don’t think it’s fair to write off a conversation just because the two conversation partners aren’t on equal footing. In De Magistro, Augustine spends the book questioning his son, Adeodatus.
SECOND: Knowing Augustine, that sounds like it was definitely not a conversation of equals!
FIRST: Well, Augustine concludes that words can point a person toward truth, but Christ is the teacher within. So you’re right that he has more power than his son (and does way more talking), but he also uses the dialogue form to reach a conclusion that points past himself to God.
SECOND: Do you think Augustine’s dialogue shows his Platonic side or his Christian side?
FIRST: I mean, we’ve got that verse in Isaiah where the LORD says, “Come now, let us reason together.” And Luke uses the word dialegomai for Paul’s reasoning in Acts 17 and 19, which is the word we get “dialogue” from.
SECOND: If your model is the LORD reasoning with Israel, that’s an even worse power gap than Augustine and his kid. And teaching isn’t evangelism in the marketplace.
FIRST: Job is a good model too. The friends make arguments that sound right, and God rebukes them.
SECOND: God shows up and asks questions. I’ll give you that. Are you going to play God?
FIRST: No. That’s the point. I don’t have all the answers, and I’m not going to talk anyone into wisdom with one more clever question.
SECOND: So, what exactly are you trying to fix?
FIRST: My classes have gotten quieter since COVID. It could be they haven’t done the reading or they don’t want to risk alienation by saying something dumb. There’s no chatter before class. I’m starting to wonder if they’ve ever been part of a good classroom discussion or if they’ve seen people disagree without fighting.
SECOND: What’s your solution? Learn in real time by shooting down all their ideas?
FIRST: Well, I wondered if I could get in their heads and see the work we were doing from their perspective. That’s why I…
SECOND: You didn’t!
FIRST: You know what I’m going to say?
SECOND: You wrote a conversation between students who are taking your first-year comp class! So let me get this straight. You want a real Socratic conversation, so you’re giving students a made-up one?
FIRST: Well, they have to see what one looks like before they can have one. That’s what I’m hoping for, anyway. I got the idea from reading Peter Kreeft’s books, like The Best Things in Life and Socrates Meets Jesus. He brings Socrates to a college campus to talk with students and faculty, and I wondered if there might be something in giving my students a conversation just among students about the assignment. Here’s what it looks like.
______________________________________________________________________________
[Three first-years, after class, four weeks into the semester, talking about a long essay on sanctification they’ve been assigned for English 101.]
GARY: The essay we’re supposed to read was like nearly 40 pages! And we’re supposed to summarize its argument? Let me offer an argument of my own. Premise: I’m a first-year student. Premise: First-years should do first-year-level work. Premise: Reading and writing about THIS essay are not first-year-level work. Conclusion: I shouldn’t be reading this essay.
SHERRY: Very nice!
JERRY: Yeah, that was good, man.
SHERRY: Now all we have to do is define your terms to see if your premises are reliable. Do me a favor and define “first-year-level work.”
GARY: Work that’s at a first-year level. Proof: I’m a first-year, and I can’t do it.
SHERRY: We’ll come back to that. Now, it’s my turn. Premise: I sin. Premise: Sinners can’t be perfect. Premise: Jesus tells us to be perfect. Conclusion: Jesus tells us to do something we can’t do.
GARY: Boom.
JERRY: I agree.
SHERRY: So you agree that Jesus contradicted himself?
GARY: I mean, if the logic says so.
SHERRY: Does that kind of argument ring a bell?
JERRY: It’s kind of like what Gary is saying about the assignment.
GARY: Wait. How is what Sherry said like what I said?
SHERRY: Both involve really hard tasks. You have to read and write about this hard essay. Jesus asks us to be perfect like God. They could both be pointless commands or…
JERRY: …they could both be possible, just not in the way we normally think of them!
[Later]
SHERRY: …as you write this essay, you’re getting a practical lesson in what sanctification looks like. It doesn’t look like perfection yet, but you should be able to look at yourself and honestly say, “I haven’t willfully done wrong.”
GARY: Okay. So, Premise 1: Doing what’s right is hard. Premise 2: That’s not an excuse to not do what’s right. Premise 3: This essay work is also hard. CONCLUSION: That’s not an excuse not to do it.
SHERRY: And you can get help!
JERRY: Total Aura Points, guys!
SHERRY and GARY: Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
They both hit Jerry in the head.
______________________________________________________________________________
SECOND: And you think this is going to help?
FIRST: It’s worth a shot!
SECOND: Gary takes about thirty seconds to surrender. That’s your “By Zeus, you’re right” problem all over again. And did Sherry just compare an assignment you gave to a command from Jesus?
FIRST: She’s comparing arguments. That’s part of the assignment: using analogies as a kind of argument.
SECOND: Maybe your assignment is unreasonable. And as written, Sherry is clearly a stand-in for you. Why would your students disagree with her when you’re the one grading them?
FIRST: You’re right that Gary gives in too easily. I could have written him as simply agreeing with me, but I wanted to show him learning how to argue, and that meant letting him lose a round. As for my real students, they aren’t Gary. If they want to take Sherry apart, let them. I’d grade their reasons, not their conclusions.
SECOND: I see that. But Gary’s last argument doesn’t quite follow. He’s still assuming this assignment is something he ought to do.
FIRST: That’s what I want students to say! That would be a win!
SECOND: You want them to say that to the professor grading them?
FIRST: Yes! What if I then ask them to write what Gary should have said? They could get some distance from their own views while still disagreeing with the assignment.
SECOND: And you’d be fine with that?
FIRST: Well, I’d be happier with that than what’s happening now! That’s why I like that Augustine dialogue. I can put words in the mouths of three made-up first-years, but I can’t put understanding in the heads of the real ones.
SECOND: It might fail spectacularly.
FIRST: By Zeus, you’re right!
SECOND hits FIRST in the head.
