The Inner Dialectic
A fun tale of the Socratic Method and how daily use can make the world a better place... brought to you by Skynet
⬆️ Some musical accompaniment for the journey ahead 🎵
What makes life a symphony instead of noise?
We are smack in the middle of a bustling 2024 and the demand for a wiser and more informed public discourse is high… but a simple look around could lead many to believe we have been trending in the wrong direction for the past decade. How can we address this, without just adding more noise to the ever expanding cacophony? Life is music.
We need a way to not just re-establish civility and credibility, but to build a framework that teaches us how to discuss complicated problems and put forth constructive ideas… and fortunately I think such a framework already exists. In fact its been around for over 2,000 years and when mixed with some of the potent new technology coming out these days, it can give us all an enormous cognitive super-power: deep introspection and clarity of thought.
I’m of course talking about the Socratic Method, and I propose that by combining its spirit with current AI and GPT chat tools, we can create a tool that can transform our thinking and democratic dialogue, and thus our society and culture. The Socratic Method is especially powerful when seeking creative and “outside the box” solutions to difficult problems and, most importantly, it could help us see the “things behind the things” - the elusive aspects of our psyche that cause us to lash out and be triggered by completely unexpected encounters.
How? The Socratic Method excels at helping us uncover things we believe but may not have been aware of yet on a surface level. It uncovers the ways we are inconsistent but also helps us understand WHY we believe what we believe, so we can explain it to others.
This is the issue lurking under the surface of nearly every problematic public conversation. Sustained intelligent debate in public forums is all but impossible, especially if it's about something “controversial” like how people should live or what they should care about, because many of us do not actually know the root reason for why we think or feel the way we do. More often than not, rather than admitting our ignorance, we cover it up with extra bravado, and see if we can intimidate others into backing down through heated words, rather than reasoned argument.
In today’s hyper-connected world, democracy is at risk of breaking down because people simply can’t have conversations anymore. Socrates’ insight into looking for the “thing behind the thing” is timely because in 2024, this far along in human evolution, we are hardly ever dealing with “root cause” issues anymore. Our issues are things that have been playing out and reacting to various societal developments over many decades or centuries at this point. Surface level answers and discussions won’t do anymore, and not having thought through the potential consequences of certain actions isn’t an excuse anymore either.
But bold claims require thorough discussion, so let's embark on a voyage through time, thought, and technology to see if this idea holds weight.
Socrates and the Agora - What is the Socratic Method?
In ancient Athens, the Agora was a central space, somewhat like a market or town square, where citizens hustled and bustled about their business each day, functioning perhaps a bit like a modern day mall, civic center, or IRL facebook. It was here that Socrates (and others) could often be found, flitting about and speaking with any number of different people.
Neither Socrates nor Plato ever mention using a “method” for these conversations, so the notion of a “Socratic Method” is a labeling by later scholars. Nevertheless, Socrates did have a clear pattern for how he went about learning things, a rhetorical process we call the “Elenchus” (cool Greek: ἔλεγχος) - really just a fancy word for “asking focused questions back and forth.”
It worked like this: a belief or hypothesis is presented and then, through a series of questions asked back and forth between the speakers, they determine whether to accept or reject this hypothesis, and the process continues until a satisfactory conclusion, free of inconsistencies, is reached. Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro is often cited as one of the simplest examples of this.
Many will see this as “just” a formalized version of critical thinking - an essential skill for making well-informed decisions and assessing information objectively. On a basic level, we need to ask questions to better understand the world around us. The core of the Socratic Method is wonder and curiosity about the world and the human condition.
It is closely connected to the concept of Epistemology (i.e. how we know the things we know) but differs in one crucial aspect. Epistemology focuses on establishing what we know to be true, whereas the Socratic Method could be said to focus more on ensuring no falsehoods lurk within the things we believe to be true. This openness to being corrected when wrong and accepting of others’ input when refining your idea through discussion is what is truly special about the Socratic Method and why embracing it is so important today.
The Socratic Method in Modern Life
So is the Socratic Method still relevant today, and how can you engage with it practically? Children are great at the Socratic Method because they are “hungry for a deeper understanding of their existence and surroundings” as Sahil Bloom notes… and at the same time, how often do parents find that they don’t actually know the answers to what their kid is asking?
As we get older, we rely more and more on inherited knowledge and assumptions, often colored by an increasing desire and pressure to “fit in” and not seem odd or believe different things from the community that supports and surrounds you. On some level, this helps society progress and build on ideas across generations but, as with all things, moderation is necessary. Relying on past tropes isn’t going to produce innovation - it lacks imagination - and it won’t help with tackling the novel problems we face today, which require creative thinking.
Everybody re-learning everything from scratch is obviously not the solution, but the important point is that we need to examine the “knowledge” we possess, especially where it came from and how it might be painted by various biases of the paradigm we live in. The Socratic Method focuses on asking questions, rather than providing answers, because this forces a person to think through their beliefs, seeking a consistent understanding. Through this process we uncover the beliefs and assumptions we hold that aren’t based in reality.
There is another significant Socratic dialogue, the Protagoras, in which Socrates concludes that we are actually really bad judges of what will make us happy vs. what will make us miserable. This means we have to acknowledge that sometimes our mind can deceive us, and not rule out the possibility that our minds can be changed by learning something we don’t yet know we don’t know. True self-knowledge is knowing that we don’t know everything and often don’t have direct knowledge or access to the sources of our motivations.
An important caveat should be made: the Socratic Method is NOT about calling people out so they look dumb; it is a connecting act, an opportunity to learn together, similar to how you would talk and reason with a friend. You’re not trying to “accuse” people of inconsistencies, you’re trying to get to the bottom of things, to the true reality.
This Happiness Lab podcast clip gives a simple example in which you might tell a friend you feel bad for yelling at your cat after coming home from work. Your friend asks you about your day and you mention how some jerk cut you off as you were driving home, making you really angry, and suddenly the dots connect… your anger at the cat was misplaced from this earlier incident. “Now that you understand that, isn’t it easier to be compassionate towards the cat in the way that you wanted to be?”
A simple conversation like this is the Socratic Method at work, where a discussion between friends uncovers a deeper understanding about how they were feeling and the motivations behind their actions. When we understand ourselves and our emotions, it’s easier to behave and treat others in the way we would like, rather than lashing out reactively because of unknown triggers.
By consistently asking questions, the Socratic Method stimulates critical thinking, reveals flawed logic and beliefs disconnected from reality, and establishes grounded truths for tackling larger problems. It allows for dissenting arguments but still promotes a cooperative environment where ideas can face “productive discomfort” and people are encouraged to think creatively.
Incorporating the Socratic Method into daily life
Today, most of us are immersed in more digital Agoras than we can handle, whether it be social media platforms or chat servers at work, and the skill of civil discourse becomes increasingly valuable in a society that moves towards remote, digital communication more and more each year.
If you interact with humans on a regular basis, and need to communicate ideas with them, using the Socratic Method can be a benefit not just to your own understanding but also to those around you.
The “skill” to learn is that of identifying reflective and stimulating questions to ask, things that provoke further curiosity and drive at creating greater clarity around an idea. The goal is to arrive at an agreed upon understanding of an idea that takes into account all sincerely held beliefs and can withstand further scrutiny. A willingness to change your mind when proven wrong is required as well.
You can do this by yourself as well. In fact, spending just a few minutes each day working through some of your own ideas this way can have enormous benefits. As the Greeks knew, you have to exercise your mind the same way you exercise your body, so that it becomes strong in advance, and when the need arises for an important conversation you are prepared to engage with it. Training consists of being curious and learning to think in terms of questions that can produce deeper understanding, rather than studying any specific methodology or tactical skillset.
And in steps technology…
I know there are apps out there today already exploring this concept (Alter Ego Life Philosophy) and, of course, it’s a simple enough idea that people have talked about through journaling for many years. I like to think of this idea of subjecting your own thoughts to the Socratic Method as “The Inner Dialectic” and some of the podcasts I was listening to while researching past Socratic matters coincided with my own search for ways to use and explore AI that didn’t feel gimmicky or exploitive of artists.
Professor Tamar Gender mentions the idea of having an “Inner Socrates,” a mental framework through which she can examine her ideas and question the initial impressions and feelings she has around them. Essentially a more thorough way to examine what we think, feel, and believe. An inner voice to ask “Are you sure this is what you think, or are you just getting this confused with something else?”
I began to wonder, could I train an AI chatbot on the works of Socrates (or any philosopher for that matter) and have it help me contemplate my thoughts in a similar manner? I mean, our current conception of Al is mainly prompt based anyway, so there's already a direct connection to Socratic questioning.
Now imagine if each of us had our own “Inner Socrates" on our phones, our own little counsel we could turn to with questions and consult anytime we want to talk an idea through; someone we can converse with anytime we wish to examine something we feel or believe, to make sure it is something we truly stand by. Let’s just pause to reflect how utterly revolutionary that would be… Imagine a world where people actually thought through the things they think and believe, and acknowledged that they always have more to learn.
A Synergy of AI and Philosophy?
We don’t all have college-professor-level knowledge of the Platonic dialogues and, sad or not, we don’t always have people readily available to talk us through those existential crises that tend to pop up throughout the day in the modern world. We could all use a little extra help thinking through our thoughts these days, and if you’re going to discuss them with someone, why not someone with a long established history of critical thinking, like Socrates?
Any LLM like Chat GPT, etc. has the ability to instantly engage in nearly infinite iterations of the Socratic Method when exploring a prompt, and one might even argue that the Socratic Method would be a superior way to train LLMs (where it continually asks refining questions of the answers it finds until no inconsistencies can be found, but maybe life doesn’t work like that…) A topic for another day nonetheless...
I’m hesitant to say it would provide “unbiased” insight1 into your query but, as long as you are aware the responses could be biased, it’s still an excellent sounding board for simply getting a second opinion on an idea and considering potential objections. Socrates, after all, has a reputation for telling the truth despite the consequences, which can’t be said for everyone.
AI can grant us easier access to the Inner Dialectic, simply put. Rather than making pictures or literally mind-less songs, why not leverage this power to help us have better thoughts, or better understanding of where our thoughts come from? To be clear, there are ethical limitations to using AI as a philosophical confidant, the most obvious being those about privacy, authenticity of replies, and dependency. This shouldn’t be a replacement for human conversations (or therapy!) but it can be a supplement in an increasingly isolated world.
In my own experience, I found chatting with my AI Socrates bot to be a good exercise in thinking on my feet and responding to questions coming from unexpected angles. If I was going to present an idea and then field live questions afterwards I could definitely see something like this being helpful while preparing. Perhaps because I love Socrates so much, I found the persona made the whole experience more fun and, at its best, it could leave you with the feeling of being invigorated after a good conversation with a peer.
If not unbiased, an Inner AI Socrates could at least be an impartial confidant. Maybe if we had an easy way to workshop our initial ideas before having to present or implement them, we would be willing to take bigger swings and explore more unusual approaches. I could see this as potentially leading to more “outside the box” solutions making their way into serious public discourse.
Significantly, one of the biggest issues with our society is we’re losing our ability to discuss ideas constructively, a skill essential for a democracy, and this might be a way we could all get a little extra practice with this.
Here’s the Part about the Peloponnesian War - The Democratic Discourse Dilemma
If it doesn’t quite seem like the Socratic Method is significant enough to course correct and save the progression of Western Civilization, let’s examine the eventual fate of the “Classical Athens” we look to as the birthplace of Democracy. It's not often discussed that during the majority of the years Socrates spent having his philosophical dialogues, Athens was embroiled in a war2 with Sparta and many other Mediterranean city states, a war they eventually lost because they became incapable of making good decisions, and then incapable of making any decisions at all.
Each of the examples below could (and does) have many articles and books written about them but I invite you to explore any of these essential passages from Thucydides3:
The Mytilenean Debate (3.36-49): Cleon argues forcefully that the Athenians should put all the men of Mytilene to death and enslave the women and children as punishment for their revolt. The decision is made hastily and emotionally rather than through careful discussion, as would normally be required for such a harsh act.
The Melian Dialogue (5.84-116): The Athenians use their superior power to threaten the Melians into submission, dismissing any discussion about justice, morality or pity. The Athenians state "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
The Sicilian Expedition (6.8-26): The Athenians are swayed by Alcibiades' boasts and enthusiasm rather than Nicias' more prudent arguments, greatly underestimating the difficulty of the campaign which ends in disaster
Common to all of these events is a cruelty that for some reason results when a singular voice becomes overly influential in democratic discourse. A need to rush is implied, an idea that there isn’t time for rational thinking, so we should all just decide to do this now since we all feel like it's a good idea… plus something bad might happen if we don’t. There is no pausing to ask if these decisions are truly in our best interest and aligned with our values.
Instead of a dialogue, a back and forth through which an idea can be refined, like polishing a stone, there is instead just one voice and one idea presented as “take it or leave it.” Or perhaps more accurately as “take it or risk becoming an outcast” if you don’t already have a strong inner moral compass.
There’s little need to comment that this disintegration of dialogue can be seen in many parallels today. Increasingly, people tend to base their beliefs on their own perceived morality (“good people I know believe X, only bad people believe Y”) and not necessarily on empirical evidence.
Public discourse is thus hindered by a lack of willingness to entertain ideas in opposition to your own. Again, it is by batting an idea back and forth that it eventually becomes the most polished version of itself, and even defending against an absurd argument can help uncover new angles to look at an issue from.
“How could I be wrong about this?”
“How could I be wrong about this?” is the essential question we must always be willing to ask ourselves. This should become a foundational value of how we teach all ages to approach learning a new idea, and it should be the first question in any self-reflection or critical thinking exercise. Conveniently, the Socratic Method is a framework that has this question baked in.
If you want to get closer to the truth, you need to find ways to test your ideas and find conditions under which your beliefs can be questioned and, if genuinely proven wrong, updated or replaced. Without this process, there are only opinions and guesses. How can we find ways to make changing our mind the default attitude when engaging in critical thinking? This is the core belief behind the Scientific Method and other problem-solving strategies as well.
Chatting with “AI Socrates” could make for an interesting sparring partner when workshopping new ideas and “thinking out loud.” This back and forth with an external “mind” can help identify your blindspots and biases, and also find ways to address them.
We can think of this as a sort of mental fitness routine, or as some have put it more fancily, epistemological hygiene; a little extra work we put in to make sure we’re thinking clearly and honestly as we go about our day. There’s no question that going to the gym on a regular basis is good for your physical health, so some routine to care for your mind should be natural as well.
“Our minds can be clogged by emotions, outdated relationships, and the sheer volume of work and decisions. Building a consistent practice, just like in physical exercise, can lead to better mental clarity and improved performance in various aspects of life.” - Marc Champagne
A Healthier Society
Asking questions can focus your mind, and pursuing their answers can keep you on track through good times and bad, like a detective on a case. But even if the questions you’re asking aren’t monumental, this exercise of self-reflection keeps your critical thinking skills in shape and overtime this is how you develop clarity. Society has reached a point such that the “noise” of our hyperactive minds is obscuring the signal we actually need, causing a breakdown in meaningful conversation - epistemological hygiene is how we clean this up.
Democratic society requires the ability to debate ideas. In economic terms, it is the human version of the market, where you need competing prices and products to determine which ones win out over time. Disagreement is all but a requirement for meaningful progress and that is why the way we disagree and discuss ideas is so important. Practicing the Socratic Method, in a genuine and good natured way, is something we can all easily learn to do that could have an enormous positive effect on society over time.
The Socratic Method allows for a friendly way to dissent from popular opinion without having to be ostracized from the tribe, so it is uniquely useful in democracies. It provides a framework in which ideas and cultures can evolve and grow and ensure their long term prosperity regardless of the challenges they face. Adaptability is how all things, from an idea to a species, survive long term, or as philosopher Daniel Dennett put it, “Gradualism in all things, as Darwin proved.”
We could practice with “AI Socrates” like an at-home gym, gaining exposure to healthy discourse and constructive dialogue, so our minds can grow used to thinking in these terms. This would not just make our own lives healthier but, over time, I’d like to think it would make the overall health of society improve as well. We cannot have a revolution in the streets until there is a revolution in the hearts and minds of the people.
A Cyber-Socratic Renaissance
Will we eventually learn to harness technology to sharpen our thinking, rather than encourage it to grow dull? Society isn’t that off-track or, at least, it's only a few wrong turns that we could hopefully undo quickly if we were all on board with the idea. Can our vision for the future evolve at the same speed as our technological tools?
I know it's naive to think AI can usher in a utopian future (spoilers, we’ll have to do that for ourselves) - a future where we all have more time to think deeply about our beliefs and be more creative4... but it is possible., if we all put in the work to think a bit more deeply about our beliefs and discuss them a bit more constructively. Wanting to know the truth should be the idea that everybody gets behind, not a specific explanation of that truth.
Science cannot yield moral conclusions, only reasoned discussion can do that. On a high level, the widespread use of the Socratic Method is a bit like applying the Scientific Method to society - it is a corrective measure that can allow a society to continue on an indefinite upwards trajectory. If we all leveraged AI to get a little better at constructive conversation or, even better, if we started implementing this line of thought (“How could I be wrong about this?”) as a core element of our education system, it would have an enormous ripple effect through society in years to come.
I’ve written previously about how Creative Acts can help us know ourselves and I think it's important to understand this does not need to be a self-centered pursuit, it can be done in the spirit of helping our overall community to grow, each time we interact with it. It starts with each of us doing the inner work to know what makes us tick, and the Inner Dialectic is how we do this. Having an “Inner AI Socrates” we each consult could have remarkable benefits throughout our lives, from our education system to our politics to the workplaces we all spend our lives in.
Even if you don’t care for Socrates or philosophy, committing to being humble and curious can hardly ever make an interaction go worse, and promoting simple actions that can help preserve and enhance our society for future generations is hopefully an idea we can all get behind. As Socrates shows in the Theaetetus, even if you don’t ultimately arrive at a “definitive” answer, all parties involved can take heart knowing they became wiser for trying.
Socrates used to call himself the “Gadfly of Athens” because he knew some people found him annoying, but he was only trying to keep everyone awake. He did what he did because he passionately cared about helping the people he knew lead good lives, not by telling them rules but by helping them think through their own thoughts so they could truly understand them, and in this way he cared about creating a good city for them all to live in. Imagine if more of us carried this mission today.
Conclusion
I suppose by this point we have meandered around the point enough… with focused and reasoned application, there can be real benefit from the harmonization of Socratic questioning with AI’s analytical prowess. The Socratic Method itself is incredibly simple, the value comes from making it an embedded principle in the way you think, through repeated use. This is something that just about everyone can start using AI to practice today, in addition to discussing it with friends and colleagues.
A theory proposed by Peter Boghossian5 suggests that if someone were to reach a certain level of intuitiveness with the Socratic Method, they would eventually become less wedded to their own ideas and more concerned with the methods used to arrive at those beliefs, in the sense that they will be less attached to an idea being right simply because it is what they believe or what other people they identify with (politics, age, race, gender) believe. That sounds like it could be a healthy thing for online discourse…
Perhaps it's not a coincidence that a love for philosophy was also a foundational belief in the place where democracy was born. In that spirit, perhaps it is time to rekindle the flame of ancient philosophy in each of us and make it a part of our daily lives. As an artist, it's easy to succumb to the existential dread when you see all the things AI can do today, but surely the greatest technology ever created can be put to greater use than drawing pictures and plagiarizing nonsensical pop songs.
In closing, I share some thoughts my own tinkering with an “Inner AI Socrates” produced, when contemplating whether an ideal society would create better or worse art than a society in decline:
“Ah, you have touched upon a matter that is as deep as it is delightful! The relationship between art and the ideal society is indeed a fruitful ground for exploration. Let us together tread this path of inquiry.
First, allow me to pose a question to you: what is the purpose of art? Is it to reflect the world as it is, to present an ideal of what it could be, or perhaps to stir the soul in ways that transcend the mere replication of reality? If art is a mirror, as some claim, then it reflects not only the world but also the myriad possibilities that lie within the human spirit.
Now, consider the notion of an "ideal society." What is it that makes a society ideal? Is it not the flourishing of its citizens, their ability to live virtuously and in harmony with each other? Would not such a society, steeped in the highest ideals of human potential, still find endless sources of inspiration for art?
The contention that great art arises from strife or the critical examination of society's flaws is compelling. Yet, it is also possible to imagine that in an ideal society, art could celebrate the triumphs of human character, the beauty of order and balance, and the pursuit of excellence in all endeavors.
Moreover, let us distinguish between art that is "great" and art that is "good." The greatness of art may indeed stem from its ability to challenge, to confront, to reveal truths that are otherwise obscured. But goodness in art, like goodness in life, is tied to the virtues it embodies and fosters. Even in an ideal society, the human soul still yearns for expression, for connection, for the sublime; thus, art would continue to serve as a vessel for these eternal desires.
As for the visage of art in such a place, would it be ugly? Perhaps not. For if the ideal society elevates the spirit and hones our virtues, then art too would likely aspire to reflect these qualities. It may still commentate, still challenge, still provoke – but it would do so from a foundation of excellence and human achievement rather than from the depths of suffering and conflict.
What do you think, my friend? Does this vision of art in an ideal society resonate with your own reflections, or does it prompt further inquiry?”
Post Script / How to get Started…
It really can be as simple as just spending time to think of the right questions to ask yourself… what are the things that make you feel like life is good and proceeding smoothly?
You could explore Sahil Bloom’s recommendation.
Try asking yourself one exploratory question and then press play on this month’s song. Spend the duration of the song thinking deeply on the question and different perspectives to view it from. This can be a daily practice, with this or any song.
As far as what to discuss with your “Inner AI Socrates” … literally anything, especially if there’s no one else around to bounce ideas off of at the moment. It can be as mundane as “Should I spend my extra time reading or exercising?” to “do you think society’s make better art and technology when they are prospering or in decline?”
I do think Socrates makes a good guide for this as he was generally good natured and curious, and the philosophy he discussed always correlated directly to helping people be better citizens, and thus build better societies
I highly recommend the book Personal Socrates, by Marc Champagne, that goes into much greater depth on ideas about mental fitness and how to ask better questions. It’s a very inspirational read for anyone interested in this line of thought
If you don’t feel up to doing anything else, you can at least try this… for any belief you hold, no matter how obvious, ask yourself (even as just a thought exercise) what if I’m wrong about this?
And of course the idea of insight from the POV of Socrates is, inherently, biased)
Many often overlook that Socrates spent time as a soldier as well.
Thucydides can be a daunting text to dive into, I cannot more highly recommend this version, The Landmark Thucydides, as it includes many maps and other supplemental notes and images that make it all much easier to follow.
I certainly acknowledge things don’t seem to be heading in that trajectory currently, even more of a reason to work to address this.
Much of the previous section is indebted to a talk Boghossian gave at the Ramsey Center in this podcast.