This session examines whether rigorous questioning can cross the line into bullying in professional environments. Using Plato’s Hippias Minor as a case study, the discussion considers Socrates’ method of questioning the sophist Hippias and whether the exchange represents legitimate intellectual inquiry or a form of public humiliation through argument. The dialogue provides a useful lens for examining how power operates in professional discussions and how adversarial reasoning can affect participants.
Plato, Hippias Minor
Hippias, a renowned sophist, confidently asserts that Achilles is truthful while Odysseus is deceitful. Socrates proceeds through a series of questions examining knowledge, skill, and deception. By following premises that Hippias himself accepts, Socrates leads him to the paradoxical conclusion that a person who lies intentionally, because he possesses knowledge, may be better than someone who lies unintentionally through ignorance. Hippias becomes frustrated with the reasoning and resists the conclusion.
Discussion focus
- Whether Socrates’ questioning constitutes legitimate philosophical examination or intellectual bullying.
- The role of power imbalance when one participant controls a conversation through questioning.
- The distinction between exposing weak reasoning and humiliating a participant in public discussion.
- Parallels between Socratic questioning and adversarial legal practices such as cross examination.
- Professional expectations regarding respectful disagreement in legal and professional environments.
The dialogue provides an opportunity to reflect on how rigorous questioning can advance understanding while still maintaining professional respect and avoiding conduct that may be perceived as bullying in workplace or professional settings.
Please see below link to case materials which is assumed reading in order to participate in the discussion:
Discussion led by Adrian Cartland.