Human Nature, Learning, and the Inner Self
Socrates: Theory of Human Nature and Theory of Learning
Human nature
- The inner self is divine and cannot die. Knowledge is eternal.
- Through ignorance, a human can misplace or lose knowledge.
- Humans have the ability to “know” or rediscover knowledge.
- It is up to each person to remain ignorant or to search for truth.
- The human mind has indefinite potential.
Root of moral evil
Ignorance. Evil acts come from a failure to see what is really good.
Learning, defined
Seeking the truth in matters through questioning and interpreting the wisdom and knowledge of others.
Seven ways to acquire skills and knowledge
- Interpreting the statements of others.
- Testing or examining the knowledge of those reputed wise.
- Showing those who are not wise their ignorance.
- Learning from those who are wise.
- Examining oneself.
- Exhorting others to philosophy.
- Examining the lives of others.
Aim
Attaining moral knowledge.
If knowledge is the medicine for ignorance, the next question is where the medicine comes from. Socrates had an unusual answer: it is already inside the student. The teacher’s job is to help the student rediscover it. That answer rests on a particular view of what a human being is and how learning actually works.
The inner self as divine and immortal
Socrates’ picture of human nature has two parts. The body is mortal and ordinary. The inner self, what he and his students called the soul, is divine and cannot die. Knowledge belongs to this inner self, not to the body.
This had a strong implication: knowledge is eternal. The truths about justice, courage, and the good are not invented by Athens or any other city. They exist outside of any particular human life. The inner self has access to them, in some sense, before the body is even born.
A student in front of a Socratic teacher is therefore not an empty vessel. The student already has some access, however dim, to the truths in question. Teaching is the art of clearing away the fog so that what the inner self already knows can come back into view.
Divine and immortal
The body dies; the inner self does not. Knowledge belongs to this inner self and is eternal. The student in front of a teacher already has, in some sense, access to the truth being taught.
Why ignorance is the root of moral evil
In Socrates’ theory of human nature, the chief enemy is ignorance. Not stupidity, not bad upbringing, not even bad company. Ignorance, in the technical sense: the state of not yet seeing a situation clearly.
He believed that through ignorance a person can misplace or lose knowledge that the inner self already has. The drunkard knows, somewhere, that excess will cost him his health. He has lost track of that knowledge under the pressure of the moment. The thief knows, somewhere, that what he steals damages a community he depends on. He has lost track of that.
Since humans have the ability to “know” or to rediscover the lost knowledge, the path back to right action is the path of rediscovery. It is up to each person whether to remain ignorant or to set out on that search.
This is also why Socrates believed the human mind has indefinite potential. The mind is not capped by a starting set of facts. Once a person begins the path of discovery, there is no fixed end. There is always more to recover, more to clarify, more to understand.
Ignorance
Not malice, not nature, not bad company. The state of not seeing clearly. Evil acts come from a failure of vision, not from a willing choice against a clearly seen good.
Learning as questioning and interpreting
Socrates defined learning in a single sentence. Learning is the act of seeking the truth in matters through questioning and interpreting the wisdom and knowledge of others.
The word questioning is doing real work in that sentence. The Socratic student does not absorb claims from authority. They probe the claims. The word interpreting is doing real work too. The student does not just receive other people’s words; they reread, weigh, and reframe them.
In a modern classroom, this is the difference between a student who reads a textbook chapter and underlines lines, and a student who reads the same chapter and asks at every paragraph: is this true? How would I know? What would prove it wrong? The second student is a Socratic learner. The first is doing something useful but smaller.
The seven ways to acquire knowledge
Socrates listed concrete ways skills and knowledge are acquired. The list reads like a job description for any serious learner:
- Interpreting the statements of others. Taking what people say seriously enough to read it carefully for meaning.
- Testing or examining the knowledge of those reputed to be wise. Not assuming that fame equals competence. Probing whether a famous wise person can actually defend their claims.
- Showing those who are not wise their ignorance. A delicate act. Not humiliation; clarification. Helping a confident speaker see where their answer breaks.
- Learning from those who are wise. When a genuine wise person speaks, paying close attention.
- Examining oneself. Turning the same questioning method on one’s own beliefs.
- Exhorting others to philosophy. Urging other people to take up the same examination of their lives.
- Examining the lives of others. Studying how people actually live, not just what they claim to believe.
The aim of all seven, Socrates said, is attaining moral knowledge. Not encyclopaedic knowledge. Not technical knowledge. Knowledge of how to live.
Attaining moral knowledge
Not encyclopaedic, not technical. Knowledge of how to live a human life. All seven ways of acquiring knowledge (interpreting, testing, examining, and so on) point toward this single aim.
Showing the unwise their ignorance
The activity is delicate. Done well, it clarifies. Done badly, it humiliates. Socrates was so good at it in the Athenian marketplace that the city eventually voted to put him to death.
How was this article?