Mr. Peter Awn, Mr. James Frankel
Colloquium F2001x
Assignment #4
The technique of using questions and dialogue in order to teach and explore ideas dates back at least to Plato’s books, where the process is so famously used that it has since been called The Socratic Method. This method of teaching is not unique to the Greeks however, because the Confucian sage Mencius employs this technique in his famous doctrine on human nature. Indeed, to a lesser extent, Confucius himself explains his opinions by responding to questions that are asked him in The Analects.
In The Republic, Socrates asserts that “there is no other inquiry [besides dialectic] that systematically attempts to grasp with respect to each thing itself what the being of it is, for all the other crafts are concerned with human opinions and desires” (Plato: 533b).
“Dialectic … does away with hypothesis and proceeds to the first principle itself, so as to be secure” (Plato: 533d). He further states that a mature person “will imitate someone who is willing to engage in discussion in order to look for the truth… He’ll be more sensible himself and will bring honor rather than discredit to the philosophical way of life” (Plato: 539d). Socrates’ technique was not without critics however, as Thrasymachus states that Socrates is talking nonsense and acting like an idiot by having a conversation rather than teaching. If Socrates is truly interested in justice, Thrasymachus argues, he should stop asking questions and immediately refuting them, for they all know it is easier to ask questions than to answer them. (Plato: 336c)
Confucius, on the other hand, does not use a real dialogue like Plato, but he does sometimes use the format of answering a question. Many of the verses in The Analects begin simply with “the master said.” But I think the more accessible verses begin with someone else asking a question. By opening with a question, the reader’s curiosity is aroused and he has more reason to care about the concept being presented. For example, verse 2 of chapter 4 reads: “The Master said, ‘Without goodness a man cannot for long endure adversity [and] cannot for long enjoy prosperity’” (Analects 4.2). Like many other verses in The Analects, this nugget of wisdom sounds very poetic and insightful, but is difficult to glean any practical advice from. In contrast, verses 7 and 8 of chapter 2 begin with the question of how a son should treat his parents, to which he replies that proper filial piety should consist of more than just undertaking hard work and seeing to it that they have enough to eat (2.7, 2.8). This guidance is more specific than the unsolicited advice Confucius offers elsewhere, but it is still rather vague. Considering that Confucius worked as (or aspired to be) a government advisor, I think he might have been more swaying if more of The Analects were written as a dialogue (Mr. Frankel’s lecture).
Two centuries later, Mencius uses a dialectic technique to expand on Confucius’s ideas in a manner that is much more convincing and effective than Confucius himself was in The Analects. By describing a discussion about human nature that he has with his student Kao Tzu, Mencius explains that he considers human nature to be fundamentally good. Kao Tzu says that “human nature is neither disposed to good nor to evil, just as water is neither disposed to east or west.” Mencius responds by using Tzu’s water analogy against him and says that “the tendency of human nature to do good is like that of water to flow downward” (Mencius 89). Kao Tzu continues by stating that righteousness comes from outside humans (89) and that while he is inclined to love his own brother, he is not at all inclined to love a foreigner or stranger (90). Mencius replies with the example of an unknown child falling into a well and the immediate compassion and concern that all men feel, which implies that “no man is without a sense of compassion, or a sense of shame, or a sense of courtesy, or a sense of right and wrong” (91). By presenting both sides of the argument in this manner, Mencius very efficiently makes his point while at the same arousing interest in the reader.
This dialectic method of teaching has been used for many centuries since these ancient Greeks and Chinese thinkers used it to search for the truth. I think the dialectic texts have been not only the most enjoyable to read but also the most persuasive ones we have examined. This exchange of questions and dialogue is the basis for the round-table discussions that are prevalent in so many universities. Indeed, this method of learning is exactly how we are studying ancient and classical traditions in this colloquium class.