What Is the Socratic Method?

The Socratic method is a form of teaching and inquiry that uses questions—not lectures—to clarify beliefs and expose assumptions. A questioner (like Socrates) asks what you mean and why you believe it; your answers are tested against other things you hold true until you reach a clearer definition or spot a contradiction. It's sometimes called Socratic dialogue or elenchus (testing). You can try it in a Socratic dialogue with a philosopher on schrodingers.cat.

How the Socratic method works

1. A claim or definition — You (or a student) offer a definition or claim—e.g. "Justice is giving each their due."
2. Questions — The questioner asks for clarification, examples, and edge cases. "What counts as 'due'? Who decides?"
3. Testing — Your answers are compared with other things you believe. If they conflict, the original claim is revised or refined.
4. Iteration — The process repeats until you reach a more precise view or recognize what you don't yet know.

This back-and-forth is sometimes called Socratic dialogue or Socratic questioning. The Greek term elenchus refers to this "testing" or refutation step. The questioner doesn't usually give you the answer. They give you the next question. Your job is to answer honestly and follow where the logic goes. In Plato's dialogues, Socrates often ends without a final definition—the conversation has tightened the view or shown that the first try was inadequate, but there's no slogan to take home. That's deliberate. The method is about the process of thinking, not about landing on a catchphrase.

Why it matters for learning philosophy

Philosophy is full of abstract terms: justice, knowledge, good, free will. The Socratic method pushes you to say what you mean and to spot inconsistencies. That practice—saying what you mean and spotting inconsistencies—is what we mean by thinking clearly. When you read a philosopher, you're often reading the result of that process—a refined view. When you do Socratic dialogue, you're in the process yourself. Both matter: you need to see what a clear view looks like, and you need to practice getting there. For more concrete examples of the method in action, see Socratic method examples.

When the method helps (and when it doesn't)

The Socratic method works best when you have a claim or definition to test. It's less useful when you're just exploring with no view yet—in that case, reading or a more open conversation might be better. It also works better on some topics than others: defining "justice" or "courage" fits the method well because those terms are vague until you spell them out; highly technical or empirical claims might need evidence and expertise first. Use the method where it fits, and don't force it where it doesn't. Many philosophy courses teach you about the Socratic method; on schrodingers.cat you can actually do it in a dialogue with a philosopher. The dialogue is text-based and follows the same pattern: you state a view, the system asks clarifying questions and tests your answers against other things you've said. You can stop or change topic anytime. It also assumes good faith: both sides are trying to get clearer, not to win. If someone is only trying to score points, the method can feel like an attack. On schrodingers.cat the dialogue is designed to push you toward clarity, not to embarrass you.

Try Socratic dialogue yourself

On schrodingers.cat you can have a Socratic dialogue with a philosopher (e.g. Aristotle, Nietzsche, Simone de Beauvoir). The conversation follows an Elenchus-style flow: your assumptions are questioned, contradictions are surfaced, and the dialogue works toward clarity. There's also fallacy detection on your arguments. You don't need to have read their work—you need a claim or a question you care about. The dialogue remembers what you've said so it can test your views for consistency; you're not starting from zero each time. Bring a definition or a moral claim you're willing to defend, and see how far the questions take you. Some people use the dialogue to test a view they're unsure about; others use it to sharpen a view they already hold. Both work. The point is to get your assumptions into the open so they can be examined. If the dialogue feels frustrating at first, that's normal—being asked to define your terms and defend your views is uncomfortable until you get used to it. Stick with it for a few exchanges and you'll see the method doing its job. The dialogue doesn't require you to have read Plato or any primary text—you only need a claim or a question you're willing to work through.

Where to go from here. Try a Socratic dialogue with a philosopher on a claim you care about—for example a definition of justice or a view on lying. For step-by-step examples of the method in action, read Socratic method examples. Is it the same as "playing devil's advocate"? Similar, but not quite. Devil's advocate can be a role you play without really testing your own view. The Socratic method is meant to test your definitions and beliefs—you're the one whose answers get examined. The questioner is there to ask, not to argue for the opposite side. Can I do it on my own? You can ask yourself "what do I mean by that?" and "what would count as a counterexample?" but the method works best with another person or a dialogue tool that pushes back. On schrodingers.cat the dialogue does that. Summary. The Socratic method is question-driven: you offer a claim or definition, the questioner asks for clarification and tests it against your other beliefs, and you repeat until you reach clarity or contradiction. It works best when you have a view to test and when both sides are aiming for clarity. Try it in a Socratic dialogue or read Socratic method examples for concrete dialogue samples.

Start a Socratic dialogue →

Key takeaway: The Socratic method tests definitions and beliefs through repeated questioning until you hit clarity or contradiction. You can try it in a dialogue on schrodingers.cat.