Socratic consensus

Consensus has become a negative term in many cases, standing for half heartedly agreeing with other people. Still, it does not have to be that way.

In the Socratic dialogues, we can see how Socrates joins with others in enquiring into a certain topic. Those in the conversation start out with different points of view and those points of view are then tested. Socrates, who is always the facilitator of the dialogue, usually responds to the others by testing the overlap of the arguments from different sides. Typically, then when some element of consensus is found it serves as a platform from which to take that next step in the dialogue. Still, the dialogue does not result in a total consensus. None of the Socratic dialogues end with a firm conclusion which is shared by the partners in the conversation. Rather, the conclusion appears to be that questions remain.

What would be derived from a dialogue like this? Those engaged in it would learn that there will be elements of consensus from time to time, while they benefit from the dissent which is also there. The elements of consensus allow them to not be bothered by the dissent and to appreciate the bonds they achieve without a total consensus. This tension between consensus and dissent will be appreciated as creative.

It is also typical of Socratic dialogues that the participants explore their own true beliefs - avoiding talki hypothetically - and learn to develop them further in the interaction with others.

The hypothetical culture

Julius Caesar once wrote about himself in the third person, which gave the descriptions of his own actions a certain grandeur. In modern culture, we do often the same, although perhaps in different ways, rather out of modesty and uncertainty that out of feelings of grandeur. When we express an opinion, we often say "it is generally believed that", instead of saying "I believe that". Usually, we are not even aware that we are doing this.

Socrates was harsh whenever he encountered such ways of expressing. He would say "if it is not your own opinion, then what is the point of defending it here?" and he would force the other person to admit that he was in fact talking about his own opinion. As Socrates showed, this gives dialogues much more substance and it also gives those engaging in the dialogues a much more productive learning experience..

Consensus?

The story of consensus: a historical background to misunderstanding consensus.