On Education as Empathic Dialogue
Because "nothing is an answer if we haven't asked the question," as Socrates said, “Children must devote themselves especially to the discipline which will make them masters of the technique of asking and answering questions...Dialectic study."(p. 255)
So “what shall the procedure of the teacher be?” According to Mieklejohn, it is teaching by empathic dialogue which reinforces intrinsic motivation: “We must substitute for the scheme of instruction which is based upon the classroom a scheme which rests primarily upon personal conference.” “[W]e must deal with him primarily as an individual...deal with each student separately, to get acquainted with him as he is, with all his peculiarities of power and of limitation; to bring him into informal contact with an older person...to let these two talk together in relations of free and untrammeled conversation.”(p.55-56) “[W]e may so arrange relations between teacher and pupil that the personal attitude of the former shall have a chance to communicate itself to the latter.”(p.55)
“Each student then presents a different teaching problem. Each must be treated differently. Each must go a different way toward the common goal. Each must start at the task where he is and must work where and how his nature requires. And the teacher must accept these differences and deal with his varying students accordingly.”(p.57)
Allow students the dignity of their own individuality and self-direction with regard to learning, he said, and watch them grow toward free and responsible adults. Converse with them rather and merely lecture to them and you will nourish people whose passions are engaged in their work and relationships. Treat them as individuals who matter for their own sake, and eventually they will do as much for others. Hold them at eye level, with respect, and respect is what they’ll give you back. Then, and perhaps only then, do we finally begin to teach.
Empathic dialogue is a window through other’s eyes which can finally allow us to understand the commonality of experience which renders us equal, in the deepest sense, and bonds us even to those we can never know face to face. This view allows us to see humans as subject to their own willful destination, and yet deeply affected by the world around them -- no longer static and determined by forces outside of us, and yet not entirely in the drivers seat of their own lives. It allows us to see them as individuals. In its simplest form, you might call it caring.
Likewise, it is important to help our students develop their voices, a force which is far too easy to underestimate. There are many ways to have a beautiful voice. We are like snowflakes in this way, unique and unrepeatable. It matters that we think, what we think, and it matters that we say what we think, because we can hardly expect to be understood if we don’t.
In the illustrious words of Mr. Rogers, the world craves honesty, and this, put simply, is what prescription amounts to. Now more than ever we are as obligated to speak honestly when we have something to say as we are obligated to listen empathically to the messages of others. Now especially because there are so many of us who see that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Our perspectives matter: our criticisms are legitimate, and speaking up is our responsibility, to show others the world from our view -- not to force them to see it our way, but to contribute to their cumulative understanding by way of our experience, which they themselves cannot have but through hearing and understanding it from us.
Rather like a good game of, “You show me yours and I’ll show you mine,” such communication amounts in the end to conflict resolution by empathy for the complementarity of various perspectives. It brings an understanding of why people see the world differently. The question about this is not why, for it stands to reason that we should since we each and all come from different places and times. Rather, the question involves, or at least should, what do we have to learn from each other-- because we are, after all, living in the very same world. We face many of the same survival challenges, experience the same kinds of motivations, feelings, and thoughts, and we cope with the same dehumanizing institutionalizing forces. Our moral dilemmas cannot help but be very much alike, and we cannot help but learn from one another’s experience. Hence the need for dialogue. We understand ourselves much better when we share the experience of others and hear our own thoughts in their voices.
And thus it is this method, empathic dialogue, which I think gives education its new potential. And what’s more, I think there will be little or no hope for peace and justice on this planet until academics discontinue the practice of fighting to win the war over whose perspective is superior, not to mention the war against unruly students. It’s not such a lot to ask, considering... Conflict in the intellectual world is reflected in our schools themselves, and this is reflected in the physical conditions of the poor and powerless. How are the world’s most affected supposed to resolve their conflict if the world most privileged cannot? We should know better; opportunity is obligation. In the words of John F. Kennedy, “Of those to whom much is given, much is required.”
How might we feel today about our past and our potential learning if two way dialogue, rather than one-way monologue had been our experience? How often has anyone ever asked you in academia what you actually think? What might a generation of those who grew up with such questions be like? That such individualized education is practically unheard of in our culture does not make it any less important, desirable, or any less potential for the future.
A little empathy would go a long way to heal the wounds of alienation which have us each individually trying to dominate one another. A little humility would keep us in mind of how much we don’t know and have yet to learn from others. A little less insensitivity to one’s another’s well-being, and a little more sensitivity to the whole of truth rather than merely to our own favorite personal view of it, would make us better learners and better teachers all around. It could open doors where walls have long been.
It’s even possible that whole new frontiers for understanding -- human relationships -- will have opened up for exploration once we admit to how much we have yet to learn from one another.
For myself, mine is just one more set of eyes, one more voice, and my speaking it will probably not change the world dramatically--but since it is the only voice I have--it will at least change my world--the place for me to start.
On the Importance of Dialogue in Democracy
As Brookfield and Preskill argue in their book, ‘Discussion As A Way of Teaching,’ the practice of dialogue in our schools is essential to the process of democracy. As they put it:
It “enlivens [learning]…helps students explore diversity and complexity… sharpens intellectual agility…endorses collaborative ways of working and the collective generation of knowledge.”(B&P, p.x)
It reveals “the diversity of opinion that lies just below the surface of almost any complex issue…[and helps us develop] a fuller appreciation for the multiplicity of human experiences and knowledge…[encouraging] even the most reluctant speaker to participate.”( B&P, p.3)
It “emphasizes the inclusion of the widest variety of perspectives and a self-critical willingness to change what we believe if convinced by the arguments of others.”(B&P, p.xv)
It “expands our horizons and exposes us to whole new worlds of thought and imagining. It improves our thinking, sharpens our awareness, increases our sensitivity, and heightens our appreciation for ambiguity and complexity.”(B&P, p.20)
“This exposure increases our understanding and renews our motivation to continue learning.”(B&P, p.4)
Education based on dialogue promotes healthier democracy, they argue, by “[moving] the center of power away from the teacher and [displacing] it in continuously shifting ways among group members…[which] parallels how we think a democratic system should work in the wider society.”(B&P, p.xv)
“In the process, our democratic instincts are confirmed: by giving the floor to as many different participants as possible, a collective wisdom emerges that would have been impossible for any of the participants to achieve on their own.”(B&P, p.4)
“Discussion and democracy are inseparable because both have the same root purpose – to nurture and promote human growth.”(B&P, p.3)
The ancient Greeks concurred that democracy had no chance without healthy dialogue and deliberation at every level. “When the public merely watches and listens and does not have a speaking part, the entire exercise is fraudulent. It might be called American Democracy: The Movie. It looks and sounds almost real, but its true purpose is the presentation of a semblance of participatory democracy in order to produce a counterfeit version of the consent of the governed.”(Gore, p.77-78)
As Wiggins and McTighe show, it is worrisome that students conditioned into our traditional, one-way, top-down and ‘banking’[1] methods of learning develop too much reliance on the authority of texts and teachers, and too little ability to think for themselves.[2] Mimicking the one-way transmissions of television, our methods of education see to it that, “Individuals receive but do not send, they listen but do not speak, they are given information but do not share it in return, they do not comment on it in ways that others can hear. Therefore, automatically, their ability to use the tools of reason as participants in the national conversation is suspended.”[3]
This “sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.”[4] “It is the public’s lack of participation that empowers its abusers. It is the public’s enforced muteness that prevents people from joining with others in a collective effort to once again wield reason to mediate between wealth and power.”[5][6]“*p.73?
“As long as individual citizens are not able to use logic and reason as the instruments with which they can dissect and meticulously examine ideas, opinions, policies, and the laws, corrupt forces will shape those policies and laws instead.”[7]
[1] (Friere 1971, *
[2] (McTighe 1998, 168)
[3] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 97)
[4] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 77)
[5] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 77)
[6] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 73)
[7] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 77)
Finding Your Voice: Students are encouraged, not to merely take a position, but to understand the complexities that arise when different points of view are considered. To illustrate this, I am likely to use a coffee cup, bottle of water, or eraser on the first day of class to show how a single object of knowledge looks different from different points of view. This illuminates that the whole truth is cumulative, and that dialectic learning requires we look at things from multiple perspectives, gaining depth of understanding, again, the same way a second eye adds depth to what can be seen with only one. In this way, I encourage them to appreciate this ancient insight that learning advances by way of this dialogic complementarity of perspectives. And since others see what’s in our blind spot, our worst enemy could be our best teacher. Among the dialogic methods we might employ in the classroom, we typically begin with an icebreaker asking each to share a hard-learned lesson that’s meaningful to them, after which I will do my best to illuminate the thread of their particular lesson throughout the history of ideas. This shows how small-p philosophy parallels Capital-P, and illustrate that they themselves are all teachers, just as we are all students. This exercise increases empathy, compassion, and mutual understanding among them, and illustrates a key lesson of dialectic philosophy, that is, how self-expression and listening skills help bring out the best in us. I will sometimes share a hard-learned lesson of my own as well, such as the importance of building learning communities and Socratic relationships among students so they can turn to one another when in need (a very hard-learned lesson, come of losing the best and brightest to suicide). Other pedagogical methods I’m likely to use include spending the first 10-15 minutes of each class engaged in written reflections to refresh their memory about the readings and enliven class discussion (and also to give them an opportunity to express ideas or ask questions they might not otherwise share). They submit these reflections, and I return them later with comments (which gives me a chance to get to know them as individuals and offer feedback and perhaps corrections to clear up any misconceptions they might have). All of these learning experiences help students develop their voice and listening skills, improve their reasoning processes and critical thinking abilities, clarify their thinking and advance rigorous research habits, and generally promote lifelong learning. Evaluations and later-life testimonials also report that students take away the practical wisdom of the golden rule for good communication, character development, conflict resolution, and healthy relationships, as well as the efficacy of the golden mean (the balance between the extremes of excess and deficiency) in guiding choices. These and other ancient insights help students to unlearn selfishness, they say, and to facilitate lifelong learning toward becoming wise rather than merely smart. All of which shows how the practice of small-p philosophy can be a very effective counseling tool, helping people of all ages to become healthy human beings and to actualize their higher potentials with others who are on different paths to the same summit of personal excellence. So you can see why philosophy only begins to appeal to some in their elder years – when there’s time to become circumspect, and less appetite and want to blur vision. For this reason alone we should continue our education throughout life, as both students and teachers, if only because there are many things we don’t even begin to see until our golden years (though the fact that it’s free after 60, at least in some states, ought to be reason enough!)
Dialogic Learning and Socratic Teaching*: So we see the role for dialogic education. For self-respect can be recovered in the same way that it is developed to begin with – in dialogic circles of mutual respect. “Respect doesn’t mean liking,” Manitonquat emphasizes, “only the agreement to listen with an open mind and learn about a person.”(p.17) Again, “the way to teach respect is to show it.”(Manitonquat, p.12) A good teacher, as Socrates says, is a person who understands and can use words well, that is, truthfully, well enough to help others see whatever they don’t see, including the good they may be missing all around them, inside them, and in others. …what the wise man does best, which is using words well [C388d] and accurately predicting about the future,[T178c] and about how to best use words so that others will understand him, for he will be successful in making the good appear and be to them.[T166d][see footnote 1.] And there are other ways, Socrates says, of "proving that not every opinion of every person is true,"[T179c] and that not every person is the measure of what is real, but only “the wiser man is the measure."[T179b] conclusive against Protagoras then [Q7b] if he means what his followers too often take him to mean, i.e. that any man is the measure of all things, and that all is in flux, and thus, mere perception will qualify as knowledge. This includes the willingness to ask the hard questions, and to help find truthful answers. For sometimes this good exists only potentially, and the challenge is for us to actualize that potential, using the mind for all it’s worth in that pursuit. We have this power to help others actualize their potential. Indeed, we might be the critical variable…for a friend can make all the difference, for better or for worse. So that’s our challenge – to help bring out the good that is potential in one another, and – importantly – stop purposely bringing out the worst,, whether by advertising to increase our insecurities, or treating others with undue distain because we think everyone is underhanded (which only says something clearly about us, btw) To ‘see’ what is still and always possible in one another, any given life, and ultimately in this world, begins by seeing what it is that we can do, that needs doing, and probably won’t get done if we don’t do it. For rather than cause distress (like the Paper Chase law professor who purported to be using the Socratic method, but not in any sense that Socrates would endorse), a true Socratic teacher relieves distress and builds confidence in the other, so to help develop and bring out the good in them. Teaching by way of authoritarian methods is not actually teaching at all. At best, it conditions by exploiting need and fear, and at worse, it provokes defensive resistance, as is rampant in our modern schools. And a mind bent on self-defense cannot simultaneously hear the wisdom worth taking from a given discussion. And what is lost when dialectic discussion isn’t used is nothing less than understanding itself. And, sadly, this is the rule, rather than the exception, in our world.
“What if we ourselves were respected as children by all adults and taught to respect ourselves?”(OI, p.12-13) What if we all learned when young to give and expect respect – and that “your right to live unmolested, to live freely without harming others, [is] a sacred right?”(OI, p.13)
Because "nothing is an answer if we haven't asked the question," as Socrates said, “Children must devote themselves especially to the discipline which will make them masters of the technique of asking and answering questions...Dialectic study."(p. 255)
So “what shall the procedure of the teacher be?” According to Mieklejohn, it is teaching by empathic dialogue which reinforces intrinsic motivation: “We must substitute for the scheme of instruction which is based upon the classroom a scheme which rests primarily upon personal conference.” “[W]e must deal with him primarily as an individual...deal with each student separately, to get acquainted with him as he is, with all his peculiarities of power and of limitation; to bring him into informal contact with an older person...to let these two talk together in relations of free and untrammeled conversation.”(p.55-56) “[W]e may so arrange relations between teacher and pupil that the personal attitude of the former shall have a chance to communicate itself to the latter.”(p.55)
“Each student then presents a different teaching problem. Each must be treated differently. Each must go a different way toward the common goal. Each must start at the task where he is and must work where and how his nature requires. And the teacher must accept these differences and deal with his varying students accordingly.”(p.57)
Allow students the dignity of their own individuality and self-direction with regard to learning, he said, and watch them grow toward free and responsible adults. Converse with them rather and merely lecture to them and you will nourish people whose passions are engaged in their work and relationships. Treat them as individuals who matter for their own sake, and eventually they will do as much for others. Hold them at eye level, with respect, and respect is what they’ll give you back. Then, and perhaps only then, do we finally begin to teach.
Empathic dialogue is a window through other’s eyes which can finally allow us to understand the commonality of experience which renders us equal, in the deepest sense, and bonds us even to those we can never know face to face. This view allows us to see humans as subject to their own willful destination, and yet deeply affected by the world around them -- no longer static and determined by forces outside of us, and yet not entirely in the drivers seat of their own lives. It allows us to see them as individuals. In its simplest form, you might call it caring.
Likewise, it is important to help our students develop their voices, a force which is far too easy to underestimate. There are many ways to have a beautiful voice. We are like snowflakes in this way, unique and unrepeatable. It matters that we think, what we think, and it matters that we say what we think, because we can hardly expect to be understood if we don’t.
In the illustrious words of Mr. Rogers, the world craves honesty, and this, put simply, is what prescription amounts to. Now more than ever we are as obligated to speak honestly when we have something to say as we are obligated to listen empathically to the messages of others. Now especially because there are so many of us who see that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Our perspectives matter: our criticisms are legitimate, and speaking up is our responsibility, to show others the world from our view -- not to force them to see it our way, but to contribute to their cumulative understanding by way of our experience, which they themselves cannot have but through hearing and understanding it from us.
Rather like a good game of, “You show me yours and I’ll show you mine,” such communication amounts in the end to conflict resolution by empathy for the complementarity of various perspectives. It brings an understanding of why people see the world differently. The question about this is not why, for it stands to reason that we should since we each and all come from different places and times. Rather, the question involves, or at least should, what do we have to learn from each other-- because we are, after all, living in the very same world. We face many of the same survival challenges, experience the same kinds of motivations, feelings, and thoughts, and we cope with the same dehumanizing institutionalizing forces. Our moral dilemmas cannot help but be very much alike, and we cannot help but learn from one another’s experience. Hence the need for dialogue. We understand ourselves much better when we share the experience of others and hear our own thoughts in their voices.
And thus it is this method, empathic dialogue, which I think gives education its new potential. And what’s more, I think there will be little or no hope for peace and justice on this planet until academics discontinue the practice of fighting to win the war over whose perspective is superior, not to mention the war against unruly students. It’s not such a lot to ask, considering... Conflict in the intellectual world is reflected in our schools themselves, and this is reflected in the physical conditions of the poor and powerless. How are the world’s most affected supposed to resolve their conflict if the world most privileged cannot? We should know better; opportunity is obligation. In the words of John F. Kennedy, “Of those to whom much is given, much is required.”
How might we feel today about our past and our potential learning if two way dialogue, rather than one-way monologue had been our experience? How often has anyone ever asked you in academia what you actually think? What might a generation of those who grew up with such questions be like? That such individualized education is practically unheard of in our culture does not make it any less important, desirable, or any less potential for the future.
A little empathy would go a long way to heal the wounds of alienation which have us each individually trying to dominate one another. A little humility would keep us in mind of how much we don’t know and have yet to learn from others. A little less insensitivity to one’s another’s well-being, and a little more sensitivity to the whole of truth rather than merely to our own favorite personal view of it, would make us better learners and better teachers all around. It could open doors where walls have long been.
It’s even possible that whole new frontiers for understanding -- human relationships -- will have opened up for exploration once we admit to how much we have yet to learn from one another.
For myself, mine is just one more set of eyes, one more voice, and my speaking it will probably not change the world dramatically--but since it is the only voice I have--it will at least change my world--the place for me to start.
On the Importance of Dialogue in Democracy
As Brookfield and Preskill argue in their book, ‘Discussion As A Way of Teaching,’ the practice of dialogue in our schools is essential to the process of democracy. As they put it:
It “enlivens [learning]…helps students explore diversity and complexity… sharpens intellectual agility…endorses collaborative ways of working and the collective generation of knowledge.”(B&P, p.x)
It reveals “the diversity of opinion that lies just below the surface of almost any complex issue…[and helps us develop] a fuller appreciation for the multiplicity of human experiences and knowledge…[encouraging] even the most reluctant speaker to participate.”( B&P, p.3)
It “emphasizes the inclusion of the widest variety of perspectives and a self-critical willingness to change what we believe if convinced by the arguments of others.”(B&P, p.xv)
It “expands our horizons and exposes us to whole new worlds of thought and imagining. It improves our thinking, sharpens our awareness, increases our sensitivity, and heightens our appreciation for ambiguity and complexity.”(B&P, p.20)
“This exposure increases our understanding and renews our motivation to continue learning.”(B&P, p.4)
Education based on dialogue promotes healthier democracy, they argue, by “[moving] the center of power away from the teacher and [displacing] it in continuously shifting ways among group members…[which] parallels how we think a democratic system should work in the wider society.”(B&P, p.xv)
“In the process, our democratic instincts are confirmed: by giving the floor to as many different participants as possible, a collective wisdom emerges that would have been impossible for any of the participants to achieve on their own.”(B&P, p.4)
“Discussion and democracy are inseparable because both have the same root purpose – to nurture and promote human growth.”(B&P, p.3)
The ancient Greeks concurred that democracy had no chance without healthy dialogue and deliberation at every level. “When the public merely watches and listens and does not have a speaking part, the entire exercise is fraudulent. It might be called American Democracy: The Movie. It looks and sounds almost real, but its true purpose is the presentation of a semblance of participatory democracy in order to produce a counterfeit version of the consent of the governed.”(Gore, p.77-78)
As Wiggins and McTighe show, it is worrisome that students conditioned into our traditional, one-way, top-down and ‘banking’[1] methods of learning develop too much reliance on the authority of texts and teachers, and too little ability to think for themselves.[2] Mimicking the one-way transmissions of television, our methods of education see to it that, “Individuals receive but do not send, they listen but do not speak, they are given information but do not share it in return, they do not comment on it in ways that others can hear. Therefore, automatically, their ability to use the tools of reason as participants in the national conversation is suspended.”[3]
This “sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.”[4] “It is the public’s lack of participation that empowers its abusers. It is the public’s enforced muteness that prevents people from joining with others in a collective effort to once again wield reason to mediate between wealth and power.”[5][6]“*p.73?
“As long as individual citizens are not able to use logic and reason as the instruments with which they can dissect and meticulously examine ideas, opinions, policies, and the laws, corrupt forces will shape those policies and laws instead.”[7]
[1] (Friere 1971, *
[2] (McTighe 1998, 168)
[3] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 97)
[4] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 77)
[5] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 77)
[6] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 73)
[7] (Gore, Assault on Reason n.d, 77)
Finding Your Voice: Students are encouraged, not to merely take a position, but to understand the complexities that arise when different points of view are considered. To illustrate this, I am likely to use a coffee cup, bottle of water, or eraser on the first day of class to show how a single object of knowledge looks different from different points of view. This illuminates that the whole truth is cumulative, and that dialectic learning requires we look at things from multiple perspectives, gaining depth of understanding, again, the same way a second eye adds depth to what can be seen with only one. In this way, I encourage them to appreciate this ancient insight that learning advances by way of this dialogic complementarity of perspectives. And since others see what’s in our blind spot, our worst enemy could be our best teacher. Among the dialogic methods we might employ in the classroom, we typically begin with an icebreaker asking each to share a hard-learned lesson that’s meaningful to them, after which I will do my best to illuminate the thread of their particular lesson throughout the history of ideas. This shows how small-p philosophy parallels Capital-P, and illustrate that they themselves are all teachers, just as we are all students. This exercise increases empathy, compassion, and mutual understanding among them, and illustrates a key lesson of dialectic philosophy, that is, how self-expression and listening skills help bring out the best in us. I will sometimes share a hard-learned lesson of my own as well, such as the importance of building learning communities and Socratic relationships among students so they can turn to one another when in need (a very hard-learned lesson, come of losing the best and brightest to suicide). Other pedagogical methods I’m likely to use include spending the first 10-15 minutes of each class engaged in written reflections to refresh their memory about the readings and enliven class discussion (and also to give them an opportunity to express ideas or ask questions they might not otherwise share). They submit these reflections, and I return them later with comments (which gives me a chance to get to know them as individuals and offer feedback and perhaps corrections to clear up any misconceptions they might have). All of these learning experiences help students develop their voice and listening skills, improve their reasoning processes and critical thinking abilities, clarify their thinking and advance rigorous research habits, and generally promote lifelong learning. Evaluations and later-life testimonials also report that students take away the practical wisdom of the golden rule for good communication, character development, conflict resolution, and healthy relationships, as well as the efficacy of the golden mean (the balance between the extremes of excess and deficiency) in guiding choices. These and other ancient insights help students to unlearn selfishness, they say, and to facilitate lifelong learning toward becoming wise rather than merely smart. All of which shows how the practice of small-p philosophy can be a very effective counseling tool, helping people of all ages to become healthy human beings and to actualize their higher potentials with others who are on different paths to the same summit of personal excellence. So you can see why philosophy only begins to appeal to some in their elder years – when there’s time to become circumspect, and less appetite and want to blur vision. For this reason alone we should continue our education throughout life, as both students and teachers, if only because there are many things we don’t even begin to see until our golden years (though the fact that it’s free after 60, at least in some states, ought to be reason enough!)
Dialogic Learning and Socratic Teaching*: So we see the role for dialogic education. For self-respect can be recovered in the same way that it is developed to begin with – in dialogic circles of mutual respect. “Respect doesn’t mean liking,” Manitonquat emphasizes, “only the agreement to listen with an open mind and learn about a person.”(p.17) Again, “the way to teach respect is to show it.”(Manitonquat, p.12) A good teacher, as Socrates says, is a person who understands and can use words well, that is, truthfully, well enough to help others see whatever they don’t see, including the good they may be missing all around them, inside them, and in others. …what the wise man does best, which is using words well [C388d] and accurately predicting about the future,[T178c] and about how to best use words so that others will understand him, for he will be successful in making the good appear and be to them.[T166d][see footnote 1.] And there are other ways, Socrates says, of "proving that not every opinion of every person is true,"[T179c] and that not every person is the measure of what is real, but only “the wiser man is the measure."[T179b] conclusive against Protagoras then [Q7b] if he means what his followers too often take him to mean, i.e. that any man is the measure of all things, and that all is in flux, and thus, mere perception will qualify as knowledge. This includes the willingness to ask the hard questions, and to help find truthful answers. For sometimes this good exists only potentially, and the challenge is for us to actualize that potential, using the mind for all it’s worth in that pursuit. We have this power to help others actualize their potential. Indeed, we might be the critical variable…for a friend can make all the difference, for better or for worse. So that’s our challenge – to help bring out the good that is potential in one another, and – importantly – stop purposely bringing out the worst,, whether by advertising to increase our insecurities, or treating others with undue distain because we think everyone is underhanded (which only says something clearly about us, btw) To ‘see’ what is still and always possible in one another, any given life, and ultimately in this world, begins by seeing what it is that we can do, that needs doing, and probably won’t get done if we don’t do it. For rather than cause distress (like the Paper Chase law professor who purported to be using the Socratic method, but not in any sense that Socrates would endorse), a true Socratic teacher relieves distress and builds confidence in the other, so to help develop and bring out the good in them. Teaching by way of authoritarian methods is not actually teaching at all. At best, it conditions by exploiting need and fear, and at worse, it provokes defensive resistance, as is rampant in our modern schools. And a mind bent on self-defense cannot simultaneously hear the wisdom worth taking from a given discussion. And what is lost when dialectic discussion isn’t used is nothing less than understanding itself. And, sadly, this is the rule, rather than the exception, in our world.
“What if we ourselves were respected as children by all adults and taught to respect ourselves?”(OI, p.12-13) What if we all learned when young to give and expect respect – and that “your right to live unmolested, to live freely without harming others, [is] a sacred right?”(OI, p.13)