Lesson 2

1. Summer Group Huddle:  I ask them to do a 2-3 min “huddle” with their summer reading groups (from last class). I tell them that I will be learning their names by calling on a group member. That group member will start unpacking the fundamental or best answer to the question they discussed. Then he/she will point to a second group member to develop the topic for the rest of the class, and so on, until everyone in the group has spoken. After the first group, I “narrate” what I heard, trying to articulate the “line of reasoning” I heard; I then explain what kind of follow-up question I would ask based on a deeper theme, premise, or TOI (definition, comparison, relationship, testimony, etc). I tell the class that for the next group, everyone must try and listen for a line of reasoning. 

2. Pre-teaching on dialectic: I then move into the new concept for the day: dialectic. For more background on this term, see discussion of dialectic on Précis. A side-note—I often use the Greek terms, because I want them to see anew: As Rachel Carson says, “One way to open your eyes is to ask yourself ‘What if I had never seen this before?’” Because the students generally have enormous rational and emotional pre-structures built up around “discussion” or “Socratic conversation” I want to re-introduce the idea in a more developed mature way, and using the original Greek is helpful.

 Basically, “dialectic” is the precursor to rhetoric, because it is “the art of investigating the truth {of differing, even contradictory,} opinions,”  before the attempt to persuade or “soul-lead” (rhetoric). Of course, as students learn more about the art of thinking clearly, (logic), their dialectical art will also improve and deepen. 

However, here, right at the beginning, I want them to have a positive experience of beginning dialectic, so that they experience the truth I’ve been telling them: they already do dialectic, and use logic. We’re just making them more conscious of it with a view to making them more effective communicators in all areas (logical argument, expository situations, and rhetorical situations).. 

I’ve asked them to reflect and write on the three questions about communication, and have encouraged them to do a little etymological study on important terms embedded in the questions, like “communication” and “power” and “truth” and “lying.” I’m hoping that they will begin to see that the fundamental part of dialectic is definition. What do these terms mean? This will help them move towards clarity and depth. 

Because they’ve reflected and articulated their own opinions, they will be primed for that “investigation of differing, even contradictory, opinions” because that’s exactly what we’ll have coming into the class, recorded on their papers. 

Before the dialectic, I will explain the goal (final cause, telos) of dialectic: not “to win” but to seek truth…doesn’t mean we’ll exhaust the subject, but there is a certain alchemy in the moment of bringing minds and experiences together: a wider, deeper understanding, the encounter with other opinions (hopefully grounded—these likely won’t be, but that’s our job this year and where the AP curriculum on “evidence and commentary” can really help!). 

As a way to show them this concept visually and musically, I sometimes show them a clip from the film Human. It is the section in Human Musics [sic] called “Castells” ( from 12:55-15:00). This shows people working together to create something, analogous to creating more understanding by working with each other dialectically. 

I usually then explain the goal: they have the questions, and they learn to work together to challenge each other to make distinctions and cultivate good grounding for opinions as we try to move up the scale of knowledge. 

3. Scale of knowledge, (from the great RE Allen’s commentary on Socratic dialogue (in the Gorgias footnotes):  

Apodexis

Deixis

Endoxa

Doxa

The lowest level, doxa, is just “common opinion”--mainly ungrounded, the “opinion of the many”--think social media post or blog rant, or just “I think this,” or “everybody knows that…” in conversation, a mainly subjective opinion. In dialectic, we want to challenge these (they may be found to have truth—or not). How do we challenge? By defining, comparing, look for the premises upon which this “doxa” opinion is built. 

The second lowest, endoxa, is the “opinion of the wise”; this has more value, purely because of who says it (ethos), or because it has been a cultural norm in a healthy culture. However, it is not considered true knowledge in the person who accepts it, because this person espousing this opinion is simply appealing to testimony and is not showing grounding that allows the rational faculty to reason along and come to the same conclusion, based on premises or definitions, etc, that are proven true. 

The third level, deixis, is “probable knowledge.” This is an opinion that has been through a rigorous dialectical investigation and has been shown to have truth content. However, as Socrates said, a wise man knows what he does not know. We must always be aware that MOST of our knowledge is “probable”---this is the glory and genius of the scientific method….good scientists are open to falsification, open to having their theories disproven. It is the same in dialectic…we are open to having our opinions tested and discarded for ones with better grounding, so that we can, as a community, advance in our understanding of reality. 

The fourth level, apodeixis, is “certain knowledge” or “self-evident truth.” These instances are much more rare than people realize: for example, the “law of non-contradiction” or “a thing cannot both be and not be in the same respect and at the same time” is one such self-evident truth. Another is “the part cannot be greater than the whole.” Upon these axioms rests our ability to think rationally, coherently. If these are denied, we lose contact with reality. Modern philosophy does question the “truth-value” of these axioms. 

4. Dialectic: I teach the students these terms and then we move into the discussion; I will also narrate at times where, logically, I think the discussion is going; this helps them, in turn, to begin to see the shape (formal cause) of the dialectic for themselves.

I also continually mention, through this whole process, that beginning to discern the form of an investigation or argument is also the process of organising content for an academic essay or for a rhetorical situation. 

I’ll then likely ask them to take their notes on the three questions and synthesise them with the dialectic, coming up with a succinct definition of “communication,” incorporating truth. I will collect these, with the notes…students really want to know that someone saw the work they did, that it has a purpose/end beyond themselves…as they mature, they will grow into doing things for their own growth (senior hs and college level). 

Another option to finish up this “communication” activity is to ask them to revise one of their answers in order to bring it “up” from opinion to knowledge for the reader.