3 ways to have more meaningful conversations

It’s common to moan about the eroding effects of technology. I won’t win any originality prizes for saying social media, smartphones, and short-form video content have been somewhat corrosive to our collective psychology.

One thing I often think about is what daily life looked like before modern technology. I don’t just mean before the internet and iPhones—I mean before TVs, radios, and even the lightbulb. What did people do in households by the light of a single tallow candle? What did they do in the ancient world before distraction technology?

They had better conversations. They told more stories. An experienced thespian would enthrall the room with a tale. The seanchaí, griot, or ashik would pass down the lore to new generations and new ears. But also, people would have had more important conversations — about philosophy, religion, and mythology. They would have been psychoanalytic millennia before Freud met his mother.

In this week’s Mini Philosophy interview, I spoke with philosopher Agnes Callard about bringing back these kinds of conversations.

The Socratic ideal

Many people today will likely know more about the “Socratic method” than Socrates himself. In fact, a lot of what we know about Socrates comes from his student, friend, and loyal fan, Plato. As such, Plato often used Socrates to represent a kind of philosophical ideal. He was a placeholder that embodied what Plato saw as the way to have proper, truth-seeking, life-changing conversations. In our interview, Callard argues that this “Socratic ideal” is what we need to bring back into modernity.

Much has been written about the many versions and aspects of the Socratic method. But trying to rigidly formalize it all is likely missing the point. Callard suggests that the Socratic ideal comes down to a few more loosely defined elements.

First, that there is “a kind of thinking that you can’t do by yourself.” Talking therapy is common these days and rightly respected for its therapeutic benefits. Schools and universities are full of seminars, debates, and intellectual back-and-forth. This is all “Socratic” in the loose sense. It starts on the assumption that the dialogue — the dialectic — has a power of its own; that something philosophically important can happen when two or more people combine their rationality to dissect an idea or a belief.

Second is the willingness to follow up on a question. Often in a conversation, someone will make a point, and you move on or let it go. This might be simply because you don’t think to investigate further, or because you think the point is too awkward or hot to take on. But Socrates would probe an argument until it reached a point where it couldn’t be analyzed further. At that point, you probably just have to accept or reject it.

So, for Callard, the Socratic method starts with two points: talking is a kind of thinking, and we need to follow every point to its end.

Find your Socrates

So, how can we find our Socratic friends and enjoy more of these kinds of important “thinking” conversations? Sometimes, it might be that we need to meet new people. But often it might just be learning how to have different conversations with our closest friends. Here are three tips from my conversation with Callard that might help:

See conversation as an opportunity. Intentionally and openly sit down with a friend and say something like, “I really want to work through something, can you be my Socratic partner?” (Or pick some non-philosophical euphemism of your choosing). Then explain your position, problem, or idea and invite your friend to probe it from every angle.

Start small. For those less intentional moments, or when you think someone might appreciate a Socratic opportunity, do not go big straight away. As Callard suggested, “Find the easiest places and where the barriers are smallest.” For example, instead of saying, “What makes you happy?” which is intensely overwhelming, start with something like, “What made last weekend so good?”

Pick your punches. Not all conversations need to or can be philosophical. As Callard put it, “I’ve been reading a lot about the linguistics, sociology and psychology of conversation and I think I’ve come to a newfound appreciation of just how complex conversation is…there is a set of norms that are, in some sense, gently blocking us from turning a philosophical conversation in a philosophical direction.”

I suggested to Callard that we need a kind of “emotional intelligence” to recognize when to have these conversations, though she didn’t like that phrase. But she did admit that there needs to be some appreciation of the time and the place. Tired, distracted people aren’t good interlocutors. And sometimes, the wisest choice might be ignoring the ways of Socrates and talking about something else entirely.