During the experiments of an internship, regarding this master's thesis, several unexpected problems occurred. Even though these problems became obvious during "the Socratic dialogues" (these dialogues being the aforementioned 'experiments'), they were not rooted in the dialogues objective of debate. Frictions, personal matters, the diverse outcome of individual everyday life, and a whole lot of other factors, that doesn't have anything to do with that process "the Socratic dialogues”, were defined by. Even so, they affected these conversations. Affections that often resulted in a fragile focus for the 'dialogue group', and directly disturbed the debating process. By already appreciating that method, that is "the Socratic dialogue", with its qualities in creating realization and wonder within its participants, it became important to me, to analyze the character of these problems, rather than casting the very method aside, as being "problematic".
The problems and challenges that arose in my "groups of dialogue” corresponded with that type of intuition and attention that I've gained, and used, through previous education in pedagogy. The non-verbal language inside a conversation, combined with a focus on the longer determined relations, as a condition for the objective dialogues brief expressions, isn't just a philosophical reflection, but actually a purpose for pedagogical professionalism. Because of the analytical "hunt" after "the Socratic dialogue's" shortcomings in this regard, philosophical recognition of the very challenge, is needed. This is where the theories of Axel Honneth become relevant. They precisely include workings of the concept, feeling and gesture that is 'recognition'. In the same regard K.E. Løgstrup will be involved, because of his ethics, that stress' the unconditional dependency of the individual. A dependency of fellow man and nature, that defines an eternal debt towards 'the other', and crystallizes (at least, in context of this Master's thesis) in his ideas about the concept of 'trust'. To be precise; through the understanding of professor emeritus at the Psychological Institute, Aarhus University, Boje Katzenelson, regarding Løgstrup's concept of 'trust'.
These, more "relationship minded" philosophies, becomes a theoretical counterweight towards Finn Thorbjørn Hansen's workings on "the Socratic dialogue's" practical aspects. I separate these two types of dialogical orientation, respectively relations- and objective orientation, with the distinction between a horizontal and vertical perspective. These two perspectives creates the 'axes' of a "dialogue-categorizing-coordinate-system", where the horizontal axis describes the degree of relations orientation, while the vertical describes the degree of objective orientation.
At this point, this thesis' experimental part takes shape, and sociologist Benedicte Madsens theory of communication becomes involved in relation to the horizontal perspective. After a while of practicing the common "Socratic dialogue" by the prescriptions of Finn Thorbjørn Hansen, I experiment in including a greater awareness of the horizontal perspective, during the very facilitation of a single ”group of dialogue’s” conversation. I am being helped in this part of the thesis by Madsen's several techniques, as well as the Finnish psychologist's Jaakko Seikkula's and Tom Erik Arnkil's book on dialogues in social networks.
It is safe to say, that the dialogues relations orientated aspect, as well as the objective orientated aspect tie one of the ”problematic knots” of this thesis, up. This attempt to analyze and dissolve this "knot", have shown itself to be a modified "Socratic dialogue" in praxis, combined with a description of elected theory, for this thesis to be successful in its project.
By the further course of the project, it becomes obvious how the task reveals a, rather unnoticed, philosophical flaw. That is; how the premise for active philosophy changes, as soon as it is to be driven by "team effort". Finn Thorbjørn Hansen briefly grazes Løgstrup's concept of 'interdependence' in his underlying theory of his practice, but in his descriptions and recipes of praxis, this graze seems to be a tacit matter of course. As a facilitator, it is, in other words, up to oneself, how to attend the interpersonal processes in "the Socratic dialogues".
Because of this, the thesis' main issue rather becomes a search for an improvement of "the Socratic dialogue", and its philosophical activity. After working on such an improvement, I have come to a bifurcated focus, an almost paradoxical teaching of attention: The objective orientation has an imperishable, deeply dependent relationship with the relations orientation, if the "group of dialogue's" philosophical learning and objective realizations, is to be guaranteed through "the Socratic dialogue".