It must not be imagined that anywhere in the recorded conversations of
Socrates can we find thus in so many words expounded his fundamental
doctrine. Socrates was not an expositor but a questioner; he disclaimed the
position of a teacher, he refused to admit that any were his pupils or
disciples. But his questioning had two sides, each in its way leading people
on to an apprehension of the ideal in existence. The first side may be
called the negative or destructive, the second, the positive or
constructive. In the first, whose object was to break down all formalism,
all mere regard for rules or traditions or unreasoned maxims, his method had
considerable resemblance to that of the Sophists; like them he descended not
infrequently to what looked very like quibbling and word-play. As Aristotle
observes, the dialectic method differed from that of the Sophists not so
much in its form, as in the purpose for which it was employed. The end of
the Sophists was to confuse, the end of Socrates was through confusion to
reach a more real, because a more reasoned certainty; the Sophists sought to
leave the impression that there was no such thing as truth; he wished to
lead people to the conviction that there was a far deeper truth than they
were as yet possessed of.