Philosophy is usually thought of as the province of ideas and abstract thought. But this week’s guest is taking philosophy in a direction that’s a little different, yet makes perfect sense. US academic Barry Lam is the creator and host of Hi-Phi Nation, a podcast bringing philosophy together with storytelling—the results are rather wonderful. Barry is in Australia and we discuss writing vs audio, academic gatekeeping, the philosophical styles best suited to narrative—and why everyone’s crazy about storytelling these days.

Sound Cloud

Pixabay

Bensound

TEDx. (2011, September 2). Michael Strong – Socratic practice as disruptive technology[Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCu5EgK5TdY

The Structure of the Dialogue
The Socratic dialogue has a very specific symmetric structure, which may be likened to the shape of an hourglass. It is widest at the top and bottom, and narrowest at the waist. One begins at the top, with the universal question under consideration (e.g. "What is integrity"). Each member of the group is then asked to summarize an example from his or her own experience, which purports to embody or otherwise to illustrate the universal in question. The group may freely question each person's example, to further its understanding of that particular experience. Examples should be first-person accounts, closed in time, not too emotional, and as simple as possible. Even the simplest examples can lead to considerable complexity under dialogical analysis. 
The group then chooses one of the examples as the focus of the dialogue. The chosen example becomes the principal vehicle for the process. An example having been chosen, the person who offered it then gives as detailed an account as possible, which is subject at each step to questions by the group, which seeks to elaborate and understand the example in as much detail as necessary. The facilitator transcribes, numbers, and displays each step of the example, so that the group has a written "history" that it can continuously consult.
The group must then determine exactly where in the example the universal is manifest. E.g. If the question is "What is integrity?", then the group must determine where lies the integrity in this example. At what step or steps does it occur? Between or among which steps does it occur? And so forth.
Following this, the group must decide on a definition of integrity that adequately describes the thing they have located in the example. The consensual articulation of this definition brings the group to the narrow waist of the hourglass. The universal under consideration has now been particularized. This is the mid-point of the conceptual structure (and roughly the mid-point of the temporal structure) of the dialogue. 
From here the dialogue begins to broaden. The working definition is re-applied to each of the other examples, which were not elaborated but which have been summarized, transcribed and displayed. If the definition is truly universal, then it will suit each example; if not, then it must be modified accordingly.
At the final stage, toward the bottom of the hourglass, the group will then offer counter-examples, trying to undermine or falsify their definition. Modifications are again made if necessary; if not, then the group will have succeeded in its quest. https://sites.google.com/site/entelequiafilosofiapratica/aconselhamento-filosofico-1/the-structure-and-function-of-a-socratic-dialogue-by-lou-marinoff