美诺篇的核心问题：美德是否可以被教授？苏格拉底引入了一种辨析法（elenchus）来回答这个问题，他通过提出假设和提问来挑战一个人的陈述性和可信度。从表面上来看苏格拉底和美诺是在探讨美德的定义，但其实从根本上讲，在美诺篇的对话中，辨析（elenchus）的过程就是提出一系列问题来解构明显的真理，揭露常见的傲慢、自大和伪装。苏格拉底质疑公认的智慧，质疑诸神教导的神话，这揭示了人类的无知和局限。他通过建议人们应该自己寻找真相而不是接受一些公认的智慧，来揭示明显的真相¹。回到美德是否可以被教授的问题本身，苏格拉底式的对抗性辩论通过一系列的问题从而揭露了对方陈述里的矛盾点。简单来说，elenchus对话是一种诘问式的反驳，它同时考察了苏格拉底关于美德的主张和美诺关于美德的主张。运用此方法，苏格拉底对美诺在论证中认为理所当然的观念提出了质疑²。根据美诺的观念，苏格拉底做出了一个假设，认为美德必须是某种知识，因此美德必须被传授³。然后，苏格拉底又提出了先天观念论⁴来反驳美诺的上述观点。先天观念论设想人类从一开始既不完全了解也不完全无知，因此人们是通过探究来学习并获取知识的。从苏格拉底的对抗性提问及他的先天观念论设想，可以得出对话的精华即结果：真理不是被教导的。从哲学上讲，真理可以通过不断追问来揭示，而追问必然采取对话的形式。通过提问和回答，我们可以探究一个人的知识程度，揭示一个人的谎言。因此，通过过滤掉不确定性，我们就能发现真理，因为它挑战了长期被认为的假设，鼓励人们独立思考。让人们对思想进行批判性的审视，从而挖掘出陈述的本源和其真实性。 

苏格拉底式的对话方法，即辨析法(elenchus)， 同样也适用于交叉盘问。交叉盘问可以使一个人的论点失去信誉，揭示一个人的逻辑漏洞，因为这个形式鲜明地展示了一个人论点的缺陷和不连贯性。希腊语里的elenchus的意思是就对一个人的陈述进行审查、反驳⁵。这种对话会提出一系列的问题，这些问题的答案很简单，只有 "是 "或 "否"，答案显而易见，不可避免。这样有助于评估主要陈述的真实性和可信度，是对知识主张的检验。当运用在交叉盘问里，辨析法通过限制被询问者展开回答问题的范围和回避问题的可能性，有利于盘问者获得单一的答案。这种提问方法使被盘问者用于一个受控/可控的循环中，不断提醒被盘问者核实其早先的陈述。一旦出现前后矛盾或冲突点，揭示真相的过程就接近尾声了。此外，当被盘问者的论证逻辑流程被打破时，其将难以进一步论证或证明其论点。这也意味着盘问者的成功，他/她打破了被询问者的谎言和薄弱的主张。部分学者认为elenchus的目的并不在于把被询问者的论点或缺陷，以及其不真实性转变成一个包含真理的观点，而是在于唤醒人们脱离教条主义的掌控，发散自我的好奇心⁶。而另一部分学者持有相反的看法，他们认为苏格拉底的辨析法能够找寻真理，因为此方法通过问出一个被多数人赞同的客观存在、事实而得出真理⁷。笔者认为在交叉盘问中，苏格拉底的对抗性对话不仅能够揭露谎言，还能从一系列的问题中检验对方观点的一致性、说服力和可信度，且从中推导出一个含有真理的推断。毕竟人们通常认为真相不应包含矛盾且不可置疑。      

所以elenchus对话也可以被看作是揭露谎言的一种方式，这和交叉盘问的目的相符。从本质上讲，交叉询问的核心功能是通过一系列封闭式、引导性的问题来攻击对方陈述的可信度/有效性，从而获得显而易见、无法回避的答案。这反过来会显示出对手如何，以及在多大程度上能够坚持其主要论点/陈述。因为，如果对手未能在引导性问题的某一阶段为其主要论点/论述辩护，他/她的主要陈述的可信度就会大大降低。由此可见，交叉盘问会用到辨析对话的模式来进行驳斥。因此，古希腊哲学关于美德定义的辩论说明了交叉盘问的实质，可供学习者参考。

The primary question in the Meno is whether virtue can be taught in? In order to answer this question, Socrates introduced the term/methodology elenchus, a dialectic way to answer this question, as he used hypothesis and questions to challenge the logic and credibility of one’s statement. On the surface, this is a question in regards of Socrates and Meno in discussion about the definition of virtue. However, if one delves deeper, the more substantive question here is to use elenctic dialogue to deconstruct apparent truths, and expose common arrogant pretensions. Moreover, Socrates questions the received wisdom, the myths taught by gods and goddesses, to reveal human ignorance. He seeks to reveal the apparent truth by suggesting that people should find the truth for themselves rather than being taught by some received wisdom.                 

Back to the primary question, under a Socratic elenchus methodology, an examiner can reveal the contradictions within the interlocutor’s statements. In simple terms, elenctic dialogue is basically a refutation by cross-examination. It investigates both his claim on virtue and Meno’s claim on virtue. By using such methodology, it challenges what Meno takes for granted in his claims. In accordance with Meno’s claim, Socrates makes a hypothesis that virtue must be some kind of knowledge; so virtue must be taught in. Then, he raises the theory of innate ideas to refute the above claim, as it presumes that human beings have pre-natal knowledge to some extent. Socrates suggest that the theory of innate ideas is to learn by inquiry as we begin in a state of neither complete knowledge nor complete ignorance. Thus, from elenchus and theory of innate ideas, we could extract the essence and perhaps a result: virtue does not need to be taught in. Philosophically speaking, truth can be revealed through constant questioning, and questioning necessarily takes the form of dialogues. Through questions and responses, we can investigate the extent of knowledge a person has and reveal one’s ignorance. Thus, by filtering out the ignorance, we find truth, as it challenges long-held assumptions, encourages independent thinking. This leads people to critical thinking which examines the origin and credibility of a statement.         

The primary question in the Meno is whether virtue can be taught in? In order to answer this question, Socrates introduced the term/methodology elenchus, a dialectic way to answer this question, as he used hypothesis and questions to challenge the logic and credibility of one’s statement. On the surface, this is a question in regards of Socrates and Meno in discussion about the definition of virtue. However, if one delves deeper, the more substantive question here is to use elenctic dialogue to deconstruct apparent truths, and expose common arrogant pretensions. Moreover, Socrates questions the received wisdom, the myths taught by gods and goddesses, to reveal human ignorance. He seeks to reveal the apparent truth by suggesting that people should find the truth for themselves rather than being taught by some received wisdom.                 

Back to the primary question, under a Socratic elenchus methodology, an examiner can reveal the contradictions within the interlocutor’s statements. In simple terms, elenctic dialogue is basically a refutation by cross-examination. It investigates both his claim on virtue and Meno’s claim on virtue. By using such methodology, it challenges what Meno takes for granted in his claims. In accordance with Meno’s claim, Socrates makes a hypothesis that virtue must be some kind of knowledge; so virtue must be taught in. Then, he raises the theory of innate ideas to refute the above claim, as it presumes that human beings have pre-natal knowledge to some extent. Socrates suggest that the theory of innate ideas is to learn by inquiry as we begin in a state of neither complete knowledge nor complete ignorance. Thus, from elenchus and theory of innate ideas, we could extract the essence and perhaps a result: virtue does not need to be taught in. Philosophically speaking, truth can be revealed through constant questioning, and questioning necessarily takes the form of dialogues. Through questions and responses, we can investigate the extent of knowledge a person has and reveal one’s ignorance. Thus, by filtering out the ignorance, we find truth, as it challenges long-held assumptions, encourages independent thinking. This leads people to critical thinking which examines the origin and credibility of a statement.         

注释

^[1]Hugh H. Benson, ‘Meno’s Paradox and the Theory of Recollection’, 52, “Nevertheless I wish to examine with you and seek in common (μετὰ σoῦ σκέψασθαι καὶ συζητῆσαι) what [virtue] is” (Meno 80D3–4).

^[2]Meno 80A-B

^[3]Meno 80D-E

^[4]Meno 86B1-2^[5]Rob Reich, ‘Confusion about the Socratic Method: Socratic Paradoxes and Contemporary Invocations of Socrates’, 69^[6] Robinson, ‘Elenchus’: “To wake men out of their dogmatic slumbers into genuine curiosity”, 90-91, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Confusion-about-the-Socratic-Method%3A-Socratic-and-Reich/4823e603bbb6651d7cd60a2264312d307d5cca3d^[7] Versenyi, ‘Socrates’, 74

特别声明

·吾契律师事务所版权所有。以上信息仅供一般性参考，不作为针对特定事务的法律意见。如需转载，请注明来源。