In the woods
I trained as a Socratic Dialogue facilitator in 2018, with Dr Dieter Krohn and Dr Julie-Marie ffrench Devitt , and now work with the SFCP as their Administrator. In 2019 I began Socratic Dialogue weekends in the woods.
A night away works well allowing the chatter and dust to settle, after the first day (Saturday) working from 10am to 4pm. Sunday we meet just for the morning from 10 to 12.30, then share some lunch before leaving at roughly 2pm.
There is a cabin to find shelter within should the weather turn, however, these autumns have been kind to us, and we have mostly been outside. Dress well with layers is the advice.
The natural element of nature informs us, body and mind. The trees (mainly oaks and hornbeam) around us were there long before us and will exist long after, so give a time perspective. Bird song, earth, water, fire, prevail as we engage in our mind yoga, balancing out, the yoke between the ox and the cart.
Here are the the Socratic Dialogues planned for 2022
27/28 August – What are the limits of my responsibility for others?
17/18 September – What is my responsibility to alleviate climate change
22/23 October – What is a just war?
2019 Socratic Dialogue in the woods
A bit about Socratic Dialogue
Socratic Dialogue was born in opposition to dogmatism in ancient Athens, and more recently in Nazi Germany. It has relevance to today. It invites open investigation and tolerance, through the invitation to listen, to other people and oneself, and explore where our ideas come from. The Socratic Dialogue is an attempt to come to a common answer through systematic deliberation about a fundamental question. A question which derives from concrete experiences, accessible to all participants. Living philosophy if you like.
It takes its name and form from Socrates, Plato’s teacher. Socrates tried to bring people to a deeper understanding by asking questions, by inquiring about examples and analysing experiences. His idea behind this was that one does not gain understanding by getting it ‘dished up’, but only by thinking for oneself.
In the early twentieth century, the German philosopher, pedagogue and politician Leonard Nelson (1882 – 1927) developed the Socratic method theoretically and practically. Crucial to Nelson’s approach is the idea of ‘regressive abstraction’. This means that, starting from a concrete example, one traces back (regresses) to the presuppositions that lie at the foundation of the example. By inquiring into these presuppositions, which are of course necessary so as to come to the specific judgements in the example, one goes back to the foundations upon which these judgements are based. It is in this way that we develop a general understanding (abstraction).
The Socratic Form
A Socratic dialogue can last for many hours, or days, even in a small group. First one explores the theme and formulates the fundamental question. Then one collects different examples from the experiences of the participants. Next one selects one example and analyses this one so meticulously that one gains an understanding of the underlying presuppositions. These are 4 phases of a Socratic Dialogue:
- Explanation of the Socratic Dialogue and question and search for suitable examples
- Choice of one example, which is written up.
- Investigation and interrogation of the specific example
- Regressive Abstraction – from the concrete example, finding a general answer / definition for the question
Choosing the Example
Critical to independent and critical thinking in Socratic Dialogue practice is to draw on our own concrete experience. To take part in this exploration, you are invited to provide a concrete example, an example from your own life which illustrates the question. Here are some simple guidelines for finding an example:
Lived – an experience lived by you.
Simple – the simpler the example the better, the fewer the avenues the example goes down the more focused the central avenue is.
Interesting / Fruitful – an interesting example, challenging, fruitful for us to explore.
Relevant and Closed – relevant to the question, and the issues that it raised should be closed, so as not to be emotionally disturbing or distracting.