The Socratic method, based on questions and answers between Socrates and another person proceeds by confutation, that is by a sequential elimination of contradictory or unfounded assumptions. It consists in bringing out gradually the unfounded belief that we are accustomed to consider as granted , but that to an attentive examination reveal the nature of "opinions". This method is called "Socratic" because it leads by the hand the speaker with short questions and answers to induce him to become aware of his own ignorance and recognize the criterion of truth with respect to the falsity of his presumptions. So it is not based on trying to win the other person with his rhetorical skills, as did the Sophists. Socrates did not dispute the fact itself that could have definitive truths, but they were passed off as those assumptions that were not.

According to the interpretation of prof. Gabriele Giannantoni, the Socratic doctrine would often be misrepresented as regards the value and function of the Socratic dialogue. Everything comes from an interpretation of Aristotle, the first historian of philosophy, which sees the Athenian philosopher as a forerunner of his own philosophy, that of the definition of the concept. That is, Socrates, in Plato's dialogues, according to Aristotle, would be unnecessarily forced to come to a rational truth defined once and for all: attempt, instead, made by Aristotelian logic.

In fact, the doctrine of the Socratic dialogue wants to show the relativity of knowledge, i.e. the idea of knowledge never definitive: that is why Socrates was the wisest of men, as the oracle said to his friend Cherofonte; he knows that man is "ignorant", while the majority, as the sophists, think they know (but do not know).

This is according to Plato one of the faults of Socrates: he who was truly wise, declared himself ignorant; sophists, real ignorant, made profession of wisdom. In this way the teacher helped to distort the role of philosophy. He himself at the trial, despite having refused the help of a sophist "lawyer", due to the habit of Socrates to talk on the street and in various places had been considered by the Athenians a sophist himself.

The dialogue on the one hand, as reported by the young disciple Plato, is always "inconclusive"; It never leads to completion what is at issue, does not close, does not define the truth once and for all: the truth must always be called into question. But in another way it is with the Socratic method of "short questions and answers" that the other person, respected in his right to understand and make objections, is forced to confess his "ignorance" and finally he understands "to know not to know. "

Next to the relativity of knowledge, who converses with Socrates learns not only the theoretical value of dialogue as the common search for truth, always temporary, but also the moral value, this really definitive: the respect of the interlocutor.

The method can be used by those who can teach students not knowledge but the predisposition to think for themselves. Here are some basics of this method:

The teacher will show the students how to avoid errors in reasoning; above all, it will have to show how deeply rooted is the tendency to present their beliefs as self-evident truths and immediately shared on a universal level. This requires a great talent by the teacher and a great speed in assessing the answers and in asking the questions that are better able to carry on a fruitful dialogue; which does not mean that he can be taken by students, where these identify errors on his part.

It is a training method more than information, which reveals its limitations within an educational institution aimed at assessing students or issuing certificates of recognition. It is undeniable its riches in terms of teaching, especially as it encourages an active attitude regarding knowledge, rather than a passive appeal to authority.

Socrates strives to bring the listener to recognize that his are nothing but attempts doomed to fail, to get to the truth once and for all. Socrates believes, in fact, that we can not recognize the relativity of truth unless you get rid of the "false opinions" that pretend to have the whole truth. The second way is the reduction to falsity: as far as the hypothesis or its consequences are concerned, there were presented examples drawn from the experience that can not be covered by the assumptions and therefore contradict it (let's call them "counterexamples"). While not being impossible, the hypothesis thus results not true; things are not as the hypothesis predicts.

A third mode, the weakest, is to derive from one of the hypotheses supported by the other party, consequences that contradict other beliefs of the interlocutor. Strictly speaking, in this way, it does not prove that the hypothesis in question is false, but only that the party supports various theses that can not all be true; at least one of them must be false, even if we do not know which one. The discussion highlights the contradictions that the other person was carrying, without being aware of it.

The weakest form of disproof is very common in Socratic dialogues and often takes the most interesting and fascinating aspect. It is above all trough this usual mode that the teaching of Socrates speaks directly to the person that he "asks" and reveals internal conflicts, thus playing a "therapy for the soul."

A third mode is to derive from a hypothesis supported by the other party, the consequences that contradict other beliefs of the interlocutor. Strictly speaking, it does not prove that the hypothesis in question is false, but only that the party supports various theses that can not all be true; at least one of them must be false, even if we do not know which one. The discussion highlights the contradictions that the other person was carrying, without being aware of it.

Taken by itself, you can call rebuttal only in an improper sense, because, as a rule, we never know, from this alone, which of the theses that contradict each other should be considered refuted. If the conflicting arguments are two, we only know that they can not both be true, but all the other possibilities remain all: may be false one or the other, or both.

The inquiry method practiced by Socrates is, in one sense, a development of that of the sophists. In fact, it also is based on discursive argumentation, but making it leaner, more penetrating, more sincere. Socrates no longer used as the sophists a long, complex peroration aimed at supportin some predetermined thesis; his method is dialogue: dialogue between people genuinely designed to dissect the problem at hand, to state the terms, to clarify misunderstandings, always willing to change the conclusions reached when new arguments against them are discovered. This ‘provisionality’ of conclusions is the symptom of the new opening, a new sensitivity to the problems, of  a deep love for consistency, which is entirely characteristic of Socrates.

Even the famous Socratic irony is part of this opening. It  is an irony that Socrates reveals first against those who believe themselves great masters, not being aware of the real difficulty of the questions; but does not spare even himself, to avoid the risk of turning his own ideas into dogmas.

Aristotle attributed to Socrates the merit of having discovered the universality of concepts, within the field of ethics.

Modern criticism considers unfounded this attribution: Socrates has never bothered to get the concept in its theoretical abstractness (that is, in the sense that it will be attributed by Aristotle). If we want to talk of universality, we must understand it in a practical significance, as the conquest of the deepest values that are the basis of every human conscience.

The lack of a specific faith in the immortality, however, does not take away of the teaching of Socrates the essential character of "mission." This is not, of course, the mission of a prophet convinced to bring to humanity the eternal Word of a transcendent God, but is the mission of a wise man that will appeal to his fellows for arousing their conscience, to make it self-aware and therefore more virtuous and happy. It is especially for the mission, determined and concrete, that the Athenian citizen Socrates feels the duty to perform among the Athenians of his time. First, because he believed them ripe to receive it, even though in certain situations it may give the impression to the contrary; and he considers them mature to receive it precisely because of the high level of his time, because it judges them mature to receive it, although in certain situations it may give the impression to the contrary; considers them mature precisely because of the high degree of civilization acquired through the complex political-cultural events of their city.

For the same Greek contemporary thought, the Socratic research was an invaluable stimulus. In addition to trigger the great philosophical tradition that was articulated in the "Socratic schools", from Platonism to the cynics, the Megarians, Socrates brought a direct contribution to the methods of the human sciences, from medicine to history, that interested him and with which he was in close contact; so that his philosophy, which was not expressed in any written work, continually appears under multiple perspectives through much of what left to us the best Greek reflection between the end of V and the beginning of the fourth century.

He remains to this day, for each of us, unsurpassed master of philosophical clarity and deep commitment to culture and morality.