235. ChatGPT and Socrates

“The unexamined life is not worth living for humans” – Socrates in Plato’s Apology

What role should ChatGPT (for an overview of Chat go here) play in education? Many people are currently debating answers to this question. I very often come across two camps: those who emphasize prevention and punishment and those who call for creative integration. I suppose I think both approaches have their place. It is important to monitor student work for authenticity. But incorporating it into our lessons seems promising as well – perhaps as a means to research, outlines, production of drafts, material to critique, and so on. I am particularly interested in the ways in which ChatGPT, far from being a threat, might help return us to more handwriting, thinking, group discussion, presentations, oral communication, debate, collaboration, etc. After all, it is our cliché-ridden world that Chat feeds upon. What it finds elusive is the unique expression of unique people. Perhaps if we find new ways to emphasize individual expression in education then we need not worry so much about ChatGPT in particular and AI in general.

This makes me think of Socrates. In his dialogue The Republic, Plato has his character Socrates tell us that education is not “putting sight in a blind eye.” Rather, it is a matter of getting people to “recollect” or, as he puts it in his dialogue Meno, “find knowledge within themselves.” The task of education is to use questions to draw out an individual’s justified responses rather than generic responses without individual content and backing reasons. The method named after Socrates does just this.

We see this in Meno when Meno, a well-born, rich, and good looking sophist from Thessaly, asks Socrates a question: “Can you tell me, Socrates, can virtue be taught?” Meno has come to Socrates to be told something about virtue. Socrates immediately admits that he doesn’t know whether virtue can be taught because he has no idea what virtue itself is. And surely we need to know the nature of something before we can go on to ask what properties it has. But Meno quickly reveals his lack of interest in genuine inquiry when he threatens Socrates: “But Socrates, do you really not know what virtue is? Is this what I should tell the people back home about you?” Meno hopes his threat will elicit an unexamined answer. But why? Why would someone seek an answer from someone who has just admitted ignorance? Perhaps to refute Socrates in order to improve his reputation as a clever man who, for a price, can help others become clever as well. Socrates, however, is interested in the truth, not the preservation of an image of knowing the truth. So he doesn’t feel compelled by Meno’s threat to offer some unexamined view of virtue. He admits his ignorance, is comfortable with it, and tells Meno he has never met anyone who did know what virtue is. 


Meno is surprised. After all, his teacher, the famous sophist Gorgias, had visited Athens and answered every question people asked of him! Surely, Socrates would remember what Gorgias said on the topic of virtue. But Socrates’ response shows how little interest he has in reciting what other people say: “I do not altogether remember, Meno, so that I cannot tell you now what I thought then. Perhaps he does know; you know what he used to say, so you remind me of what he said. You tell me yourself, if you are willing, for surely you share his views.” Meno enthusiastically agrees: “I do.” Here we see Socrates identifying Meno with Gorgias. Rather than thinking for himself, Meno simply recapitulates the views of his teacher. This identification is emphasized again when Socrates says, “Since then the virtue of all is the same, try to tell me and to remember what Gorgias, and you with him, said that that same thing is.” But despite this identification, Socrates offers Meno an opportunity to engage in shared inquiry and to offer his own definition of virtue rather than simply receive and recapitulate one from someone else

After Meno fails four times to give an adequate definition of virtue he feels as if he has been stung by “a stingray”: he is paralyzed and, despite having given speeches about virtue on over a hundred occasions, can’t even say what it is. In the wake of this blow to his ego, he puts up resistance and engages in various efforts to sabotage the inquiry. But with Socrates’ patient and perceptive guidance he eventually comes to think for himself and, as a result, becomes more of an individual and indeed a better person – more wise, friendly, open minded, and courageous.

ChatGPT offers everyone a wonderful opportunity to be more like Meno the sophist. It offers us plenty of easy ways to appear wise, to negate our individual voices, and to go on thinking we know when we don’t. But Socrates’ shared inquiry as a means to recollection also offers us a great deal despite its challenges: the ability to be self-examined, know what we believe and why, and enjoy the liberations of shared inquiry that prioritizes discovery over regurgitation. This Socratic pedagogical approach might do more than just remove the very framework that makes Chat such a threat; it might also take steps to removing the very desire to cheat – really cheat oneself out of many opportunities to express one’s own voice – in the first place. And it just might, as Socrates suggests in the final line of Meno, allow us to more effectively participate in a genuine deliberative democracy.

Read Plato’s Meno here.

Go here for my post on Meno and philosophy as the practice of death.

Go here for my many other posts on Plato.

Go here for my posts on education.

3 replies on “235. ChatGPT and Socrates”

  1. William Solomon on


    I am in a philosophy class with Dr. Elise Crull at CCNY, and 3 days ago she switched all the remaining handwritten homework assignments into 20 minute in-class handwritten essays. Our class has no tests, just 6 in-class handwritten essays on our opinions concerning the reading homework. And we have a final paper that’s only worth 20%.

  2. Richard Boyd on

    Personally, I don’t shy away from admitting when I don’t know something or need time to think about it. However, this is sometimes perceived as incompetence or a lack of confidence by others. I feel like an imposter when I prioritize confidence over competence, especially when speaking about topics I can’t fully attest to.

    I’m a big proponent of using chat for tasks that require step-by-step logic to simplify a process. Although chat doesn’t yet excel in relative creativity, I believe in thinking for oneself authentically and without external influence.

    From my perspective, it seems that nowadays, the loudest and most confident individuals often overshadow those who are self-aware and question things more frequently. It’s as if the Dunning-Kruger effect has become prevalent in our society.

    In our current state, which sometimes appears to be an idiocracy, I believe the more confident person often emerges as the ‘winner.’ The modern-day equivalent of Meno could triumph in intellectual debates by better appealing to the crowd’s emotions. Take, for example, our 45th president. Despite there being seemingly better-suited candidates, he is likely to be the Republican nominee in the upcoming election.

    What are your thoughts on our societal decline?

    This post was edited by ChatGPT

    Original post:

    Personally, I will not shy away from saying I don’t know something or I have to think about it and it’s sometimes perceived as incompetence or lacking confidence to others. I feel like an imposter when I speak out of confidence over competence whilst saying something I can’t 100% attest to.

    I’m a big proponent of Chat for things that require a step-by-step logic that simplifies a task. Chat doesn’t contain great relative creativity yet. I agree that when it comes to thinking for ones self, it should be done with authenticity and without outside influence.

    From my perspective, it seems like these days, the most loud and confident person wins over the self-aware that questions more often than not; as if the Dunning-Kruger effect has taken hold onto our society.

    With our current state of idiocracy(at least it seems), I do believe that the more confident person will be the “winner” at the end of the day. The common day Meno will be the victor of intellect if he does a better job at appealing to the crowd’s emotions. Take for Example our 45th president. He will most likely be the Republican nominee for this coming election although there seemed to be better suited candidates.

    What are your thoughts on our societal decline?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.