No. 20, March 2023.
How many times have we heard someone say that they like teaching with cases because it is a Socratic method? It is something that is not disputed. But the same method drives us to always question, so let's question whether the case method really is Socratic.
Both methods begin with an open-ended question, such as "What is the problem?" or "What does justice mean?" And in both, the goal is to seek a solution, although in the pure Socratic method, the goal is so abstract-finding the absolute truth-that there is no lesson plan; you make the path as you go. Critics of the method point out that it is repetitive and that disciples or students get bored.
Others will say that the Socratic method is based not on the search for an elusive universal truth but on the technique of "elenchus" (Greek for irony), designed to reveal the lack of intelligence of the wise. This version has its origins when the Oracle of Delphi said that Socrates was the smartest man in the world because he knew what he did not know. From that moment on Socrates, perplexed, devoted himself to interviewing the wise men of Athens-politicians, poets, craftsmen-and thus reaffirmed that none of them even knew what he did not know.
To soften the anger that Socratic irony produced among the sages, Socrates began these dialogues by praising the other party while he assumed the role of the fool, the forgetful one. The more perceptive sages did not fall into the trap and became even angrier, with eventually fatal consequences for him.
We have, then, two versions or styles of the Socratic method: one that lacks a compass, with an elusive goal; and another that consists of setting traps. We can identify both styles among different teachers in the classroom: the first, with a limited repertoire of questions, who repeat the same phrase, "and what do you think?" to any student with a raised hand. The second style is more common in law schools, where discussion is adversarial and not oriented to solving managerial problems.
There is a third style, which can be attributed more to Aristotle, another Greek philosopher who was born shortly after Socrates' death. He was not so obsessed with the idea of absolute truth; rather he appreciated the diversity of disciplines: the logical for critical thinking, the theoretical in areas such as mathematics and metaphysics, and the practical in areas such as politics and rhetoric.
Aristotle posed three criteria for making an important decision, based on his concept of "intuition": first, intuition arises only after one has deepened one's knowledge of the relevant facts in a problematic situation. Second, intuition does not lead to definitions of right and wrong based on grand principles; it presupposes maturity and good judgment. And finally, intuition is that with which one can articulate and whose explanations-based on facts and rooted in the ethical-cultural practices of society-are understood by others.
These criteria, although not very precise, can serve as guides in making decisions with ethical dimensions. In case method teaching, it translates into a style that can be called guided discovery. It is neither totally open-ended, aimless, nor is it a minefield of tricks and intimidation. There are learning objectives, but there is no single truth. There can be surprises and discoveries, both for the students and the instructor.
