The Formation of Questioning in Ancient and Medieval Culture (Plato and St. Augustine)

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

What is more commonplace and familiar than asking questions and answering them, even small children ask why one or the other. However, before the ancient culture in the texts that have come down to us, questions practically do not occur. Questioning becomes first in the religious sphere, questions are addressed through oracles to the gods, then to people, but in a rather narrow layer (philosophers, politicians). Interestingly, the answer of the gods to people's questions is formulated not by oracles, but by priests who knew well both the problems of the policy and those who asked questions. The oracles were, although speaking, but mute (from the point of view of meaningful speech) intermediaries, and the priests were the true creators of divine messages that brought meaning to the incoherent mutterings of the oracles. Nevertheless, it was believed that only the gods could give the correct answer to people's questions, and the priests only translate these answers into human language. 

The crisis of the culture of the Ancient kingdoms at the beginning of the first millennium BC and the decline in faith in the gods triggers the process of forming an ancient personality. Some individuals, without parting with the policy, move on to independent behavior, like Socrates, express positions that are opposite to the generally accepted ones, as a condition of independent behavior, create a private picture of the world and themselves in it, interpret the gods as granting certain freedom to these individuals (as a result, they make independent decisions), taking care of them. As Socrates said at the trial, the gods will take care of a good person even after death. There are "personality-oriented" practices (ancient legal proceedings, platonic love, ancient art, obtaining knowledge through reasoning), in which the adaptation of the individual and the polis community takes place ^{[9, pp. 75-83]}.

Now the questioning moves from the oracles to the ancient personality and begins to change rapidly. To understand how, consider the questioning in Plato's dialogues. Let's omit the questions that only require knowledge of the relevant events, they do not constitute a problem, like, for example, the questions in the Phaedo dialogue:

"E x e k r a t . Tell me, Phaedo, were you yourself near Socrates the day he drank poison in prison, or did you just hear about everything from someone else?  

F e d o n No yourself, Ehekrat…

E x e k r a t Well, what was the demise itself, Phaedo? What did he say? How was he holding up? Who was close to him? Or did the authorities not allow anyone and he died alone?

F e d o n. Yes, what are you, there were friends with him, and even a lot of friends…I witnessed the death of a close friend, and yet I did not feel sorry for him ? he seemed to me a lucky man" ^{[6, pp. 7-8]}. 

The problem is questions involving reflection and reasoning, for example, in the dialogue "Lahet", about courage. 

"Socrates. Therefore, first of all, Lakhet, let's try to say what is courage?... Try to define, as I say, what courage is.

Lahet. But, by Zeus, Socrates, it's not hard to say. If someone voluntarily stays in the ranks to repel enemies, and does not run, know that this is a courageous person.

Socrates. You said it well, Lahet. But, perhaps, my fault is that I did not express myself clearly, because you did not answer the question I intended, but something completely different.…In fact, I wanted to learn from you about people who are courageous not only in the battle of Hoplites, but also in horse fighting and in any other kind of battle, and besides not only in battle, but also among sea dangers, in diseases, in poverty and in public affairs, and in addition about those who who is courageous not only in the face of troubles and fears, but also knows how to skillfully fight with passions and pleasures, whether staying in the ranks or retreating: after all, courage exists among people in such things, Lakhet?

Lahet. There is, and even very much, Socrates <...>

Socrates. So, I ask, what does each of these two concepts mean? Try to define courage again?how in all these different things it turns out to be the same. Or do you still not comprehend what I mean?... And didn't reckless courage and fortitude seem shameful and harmful to us before?

Lahet. Of course, she showed up.

Socrates. We have recognized that courage is something beautiful.

Lahet. Recognized.

Socrates. And now we are repeating again that this shameful thing — reckless fortitude – is called courage?!

Lahet. It looks like yes.

Socrates. And it seems to you that we are doing it well?

Lahet. No, Socrates, by Zeus, on the contrary! <...>

Socrates. My Nikias, come to the aid, if you can, of your friends who are suffering adversity in a verbal storm: you see the predicament we're in right now. By telling us what exactly you consider to be courage, you will free us from our bonds and reinforce with your word what you think.

Nikiy. It seems to me for a long time, my Socrates, that you define courage incorrectly, and you did not use the beautiful speeches that I have already heard from you <...>

Nikiy. So, if a courageous person is good, it is clear that he is wise.

Socrates. Do you hear, Lahet?

Lahet. I hear, though I don't really understand what he's talking about.

Socrates. And I think I understand, and it seems to me that he calls courage a kind of wisdom <...>

Lahet. But I don't understand, Socrates, what he wants to say. It is clear that he does not consider a soothsayer, a doctor, or anyone else to be a courageous person, except perhaps some god. It seems to me that Nikias does not want to honestly admit that he is talking nonsense, but he dodges this way and that to hide his inconsistency. However, we could just as well dodge — you and I — if we wanted to prove that we do not contradict ourselves. After all, if we had to answer in court, we would have found the right words for it. But now, in such a private conversation, why is it necessary to waste words aimlessly in order to put yourself in the best light? <…>

Socrates. Therefore, courage is a science not only about the dangerous and the safe, because it knows a lot not only about future good and evil, but also about the present and the past ? in a variety of ways — like all other sciences.

Nikiy. Obviously.

Socrates. Thus, Nikias, you have given us an approximate answer relating to only one third of courage. However, we asked you about courage in general – what it is. And now, judging by your words, it seems to be not only the science of what is dangerous and what is safe, but also the science of almost all good and evil in all their manifestations. Do you agree to such an amendment or not, my Nikiy?

Nikiy. I agree, Socrates <...>

Socrates. And yet we have said that courage is part of virtue.

Nikiy. Yes, they did.

Socrates. But this does not agree with our current words.

Nikiy. Yes, as if it doesn't agree.

Socrates. So, my Nikiy, we have not revealed what courage is.

Nikiy. I don't think so."^[8]

"All Platonic dialogues," writes A. Akhutin, "are constructed in this way: the question is posed, what is courage, or beauty, or justice, and the answer is given. Immediately he should have a counterexample, the answer needs to be changed, because the definition should include another aspect" ^{[3, p. 109]}. In this case, the questioning is built according to the same scheme. Plato refers this practice of thinking, which is also becoming, to "dialectics". As a type of cognition-recall, dialectics also includes questioning. In the dialogue "Phaedo" we read: "Wait a minute, Socrates," Kebet picked up, "another argument confirms your thoughts, if only what you have repeated so often is true, namely that knowledge is really nothing but remembering: what we now remember, we should have known in the past, – that is what necessarily follows from this argument" ^{[6, c, 26]}. And in the "Seventh Letter" Plato, describing the dialectic that allows you to remember, points to questions and answers. "For each of the existing objects," he writes, "there are three stages by which its cognition must be formed; the fourth stage ? this is knowledge itself, but the fifth should be considered that which is known by itself and is a genuine being: so, the first is a name, the second is a definition, the third is an image, the fourth is knowledge…All this must be considered as something unified, since it exists not in sounds and not in bodily forms, but in souls ... Only with great difficulty, by mutual verification - by definition of the name, visible images ? by sensations, and besides, if it is done in the form of benevolent research, with the help of harmless questions and answers, the mind can shine and an understanding of each subject can be born to the extent that it is accessible to a person." ^{[7, pp. 493-494, 496]} (our italics. – V.R.)

What function do questions perform here? In my opinion, firstly, they allow Plato to connect others (in this case, Lakhet and Nikias) to clarify the essence of courage and thereby facilitate the assimilation of Plato's definition; after all, Plato already knows this definition and wants his listeners to accept, believe in the definition of courage he has constructed. In Plato's earlier dialogue "The Feast", his characters do not ask questions yet, but simply give definitions of love. Probably, such a presentation of new ideas, Plato decided, is poorly assimilated by listeners.

Secondly, the questions in Lakhet mark the stages of Plato's construction of the concept of courage. Here, probably, the objections of Plato's listeners were taken into account, and the contradictions arising from the proposed definitions, and the understanding of various empirical cases of courage, and the possibility of thinking of them all as a whole ("one", according to Plato, consisting of "many"). Questions, on the one hand, were a kind of reflection of cognition (dialectics) Plato's courage, on the other hand, helped Plato's listeners to develop a seemingly similar process of cognition.

Platonic questions played a certain role in activating the activity of listeners, forcing them, according to Plato, to recall the world of ideas in which the soul was before birth, which in turn, he believed, led to overcoming the fear of death and bliss. Finally, the questions forced to make the right choice. In Plato's dialogues, the characters often find themselves in situations in which they were forced to make a choice (such as the upcoming fate in the "State", or the choice of definitions). 

Nevertheless, the main role of questioning in Plato is to convince listeners (a task that rhetoric later solved). Questioning as a technology of thinking is secondary, it is still being formed. Not so with St. Augustine. Numerous questions in Augustine's Confessions, of course, also serve to convince readers, but questions that help the thinking process, guide and structure it are clearly put forward. The multiplicity and inconsistency of statements about reality (definitions) in Augustine's work aimed at clarifying reality (primarily the essence of God and evil) was an order of magnitude higher than that of Plato. Moreover, this multiplicity was expressed at first precisely in the questions of Augustine's opponents, and later in his own questions.

"I did not know anything else," Augustine writes, "what truly is, and it seemed to me that I was pushed to consider it witty to assent to stupid deceivers when they asked me where evil came from, whether God was limited by bodily form and whether He had hair and nails, whether those who had several at the same time could be considered righteous wives, people were killed and animals were sacrificed. In my ignorance, I was confused by such questions and, going away from the truth, imagined that I was going straight to her. I did not know even then that evil is nothing but a diminution of good, reaching its complete disappearance. What could I see here if my eyes saw nothing beyond the body, and the soul beyond the ghosts? I did not know then that God is a Spirit that has no members extending in length and breadth, and there is no magnitude: every magnitude in its part is smaller than itself, the whole, and if it is infinite, then in some part of its limited by a certain space, it is smaller than infinity and is not whole everywhere, like a Spirit, like a God. And what is there in us that makes us like God, and why does the Scripture say about us correctly: "in the image of God," it was completely unknown to me"^[2].

Here, the first part of the narrative is precisely the questions that Augustine could not answer at first (then in the "Confession" they are addressed to readers in order to help them find the right answer). The second part of the narrative is the correct answer received by Augustine, but not immediately, but after much thought and searching. Actually, Plato already spoke about the need for correct questions and answers.

"The best proof," says Kebet in The Phaedo, "is that when a person is asked about something, he himself can give the correct answer to any question – provided that the question is asked correctly. Meanwhile, if people did not have knowledge and correct understanding, they could not answer correctly"^[2]. Commenting on this statement, Vadim Karelin remarks: "I think all school teachers and university teachers know this type of questions very well. This is when you need to direct the student's thought in the right direction and slightly push him to independent efforts. Not to dig into his question, not to exam, but to direct and push, stimulating his independent efforts. He knows. You just need to help him remember. Of course, such a question can only be asked competently by someone who has already passed the corresponding part of the path himself" ^[5].

Augustine fought his way to the truth, surrounded by a crowd of opponents: here Manichaeans, "mathematicians" (astrologers), "academics" (ancient philosophers), and Christians, even sometimes dreams acted as a kind of evidence of reality. And all these opponents claimed something about reality (as a rule, different), asked insidious questions, tested listeners. This disassembly and the need for choice began when Augustine was still studying. "Following the established order of study," he writes, "I came to a book by some Cicero, whose language everyone is surprised by, but not so much to the heart. This book exhorts to turn to philosophy and is called "Hortensius". This book has changed my condition, changed my prayers and turned them to You, Lord, made my petitions and desires different. I was suddenly sick of all empty hopes; I wished for immortal wisdom in my incredible heart turmoil and began to get up to return to You... I took up this book: it taught me not how to speak, but what to say... I enjoyed this book because it exhorted me to love the wrong or another philosophical school, and the wisdom itself, whatever it was; encouraged to love it, to seek, to achieve, to master it and cling to it tightly. This speech set me on fire, I was burning all over, and my ardor was weakened only by one thing: there was no name of Christ, and this name, by Your mercy, Lord, this name of my Savior, Your Son, I absorbed with my mother's milk: it sank deep into my childish heart, and all the works where this name it was not, even if artistic, finished and full of truth, did not capture me completely" ^[2]. 

As a boy, during a serious illness, Augustine would have been baptized, but he turned to the Holy Scriptures only when he grew up, however, initially the Christian teaching could not stand comparison with the provisions of Cicero. "I heard," Augustine agrees, "as a boy about eternal life promised to us through the humiliation of our Lord, who descended to our pride. I was marked by His sign of the cross and salted with His salt upon leaving the womb of my mother, who trusted in You a lot. You saw, Lord, when I was still a boy, one day I got so sick from sudden contractions in my stomach that I was almost at death's door; You saw. My God, for even then You were my guardian, with what a spiritual impulse and with what faith I demanded from my pious mother and from our common mother Church that I be baptized in the name of your Christ, my God and Lord. And my mother in the flesh, with faith in You, who carefully nurtured my eternal salvation in her pure heart, hurried in confusion to wash me and join me to Your Holy Mysteries, Lord Jesus, for the remission of my sins, when suddenly I recovered. Thus, my purification was postponed <...> So I decided to study the Holy Scripture carefully and see what it is. And now I see something incomprehensible to the proud, dark for children; a building shrouded in mystery, with a low entrance; it becomes higher the further you go. I was not able to enter it, nor to tilt my head to move further. These words of mine do not correspond to the feeling that I experienced when I took up the Scripture: it seemed to me unworthy even of comparison with the dignity of Cicero's style. My arrogance did not put up with his simplicity; my wit did not penetrate into his core. It has just the property of opening up as the child reader grows, but I despised the childish state, and inflated with arrogance, I felt like an adult" ^[2].

For a long time, the teachings of Mani captured Augustine's consciousness, and only after meeting with the head of the Manichaeans, our hero saw the light. "For almost nine years," Augustine recalls, "while I was listening to the Manichaeans in my spiritual wanderings, I was tensely waiting for the arrival of this very Faustus. Other Manichaeans with whom I happened to meet, being unable to answer my questions on these occasions, promised me in him a person who, having arrived, in a personal conversation very easily, with all clarity, would unravel not only these tasks, but also more complex ones if I asked him about them... When, finally, the opportunity presented itself, I, together with my friends, took possession of him at a time when such a mutual discussion was quite appropriate, and offered him some of the questions that worried me. First of all, I saw a man who did not know any liberal sciences at all, except grammar, and even then in the most ordinary volume. And since he had read several speeches by Cicero, very few books by Seneca, some of the poets and those Manichaeans whose works were written well and in Latin, and since daily practice in chatter was added to this, all this created his eloquence, which from his dexterous resourcefulness and natural the charm became even more pleasant and seductive…When I suggested that he consider and discuss these issues, he modestly did not dare to take on such a burden. He knew what he didn't know, and he wasn't ashamed to admit it... The zeal with which I rushed to Mani's writings has cooled."^[2]

Augustine's mother was a devout Christian and passionately dreamed of introducing her son to the faith. One day she had a dream, which became for Augustine another point of view, calling for the right choice. "Where did the dream really come from, with which You comforted her so much that she agreed to live with me in the same house and sit at the same table? After all, this was denied to me out of disgust and hatred for my blasphemous delusion. She dreamed that she was standing on some wooden board and a beaming young man was coming up to her, smiling cheerfully at her; she was sad and crushed by sadness. He asks her about the reasons for her grief and daily tears, and with such an air as if he wants not to find out about it, but to instruct her. She replies that she is grieving over my death; he also told her to calm down and advised her to look carefully: she will see that I will be where she is. She looked and saw that I was standing next to her on the same board.

Where did this dream come from? Have You not bowed Your ear to her heart? O You, the good and all-powerful, Who take care of each of us as if he is the only object of Your care, and for everyone as for everyone!

 Why, when she told me this vision, and I tried to draw out my explanation: rather, she had nothing to despair of being where I was, she answered immediately without any hesitation: “No, I wasn't told: Where he is, there you are,” and “Where you are, there he is""? ^[2]

And of course, Augustine returned to ancient ideas more than once or twice, because he was a teacher of rhetoric by his initial education and knew ancient philosophy perfectly well. For example, after being disappointed in Manichaeism, Augustine writes: "I even had the idea that the most reasonable were the philosophers, called academicians, who believed that everything was subject to doubt and that the truth was generally inaccessible to man. It seemed to me, as to everyone, that they thought exactly that; their intention was still unclear to me."^[2]

Augustine made his way to the truth, including with the help of questions, they asked a space in which there were many points of view (statements) about reality. At first, Augustine tried to find the right answer within the framework of ancient thinking and worldview. For example, God, in whom Augustine believed under the influence of his mother and some friends, but whom he, as an ancient man, could not conceive (so to speak, "faith before faith"), Augustine tried to represent categorically and bodily. 

"And what good was it for me that I was twenty years old when I got my hands on one of Aristotle's works under the title "Ten Categories"…In my opinion, this book was quite clear about substances and their signs: for example, a person is a quality; how many feet tall he is is a quantity; his attitude to others: for example, whose brother he is; the place where he is; the time when he was born; his position: standing or sitting; what it has: shoes or weapons; what it does or what it tolerates. Under these nine categories, for which I have given examples, and under the very category of substance, an infinite number of phenomena will fit… Considering that in general everything that exists is covered by these ten categories, I tried to consider You, Lord, wonderfully simple and not subject to change, as the subject of Your greatness or beauty, as if they were associated with You as a subject, i.e. as a body, whereas Your greatness and Your beauty are You by myself. The body is not great or beautiful because it is a body: smaller or less beautiful, it is still a body…

What was the use to me in this if I thought that You, Lord, the God of Truth, are a huge luminous body, and I am a fragment of this body? That's why I thought of evil as the same substance, represented by a dark and formless quantity – sometimes dense, which they called earth, then rare and thin as air; they imagined that it was an evil spirit crawling on this earth. And since even my pathetic piety made me believe that no evil being could have been created by a good God, I decided that there are two quantities, one opposite to the other, both of them infinite, only the evil one is narrower, and the good one is wider." ^[2]

The spiritual revolution and, as a consequence, the cardinal transformation of the worldview and vision did not occur with Augustine immediately, and the main role here was played by the change of earthly reality to spiritual (heavenly), the rejection of ancient ideas, their replacement with Christian ones, set forth in the Word (Holy Scripture). Although at first the content of the Word looked doubtful for Augustine, gradually it began to be perceived unconditionally and as the truth, since it promised a solution to all major problems and, importantly, immortality.

The change of worldview entailed the transformation of reality: God was understood as the spirit, the creator of everything, the way and the truth. "I looked back at the created world and saw that it owes its existence to You and is contained in You, but in a different way, not as if in space; You, the Almighty, hold it in Your hand, in Your truth, for everything that exists is true because it exists. Nothing is ghostly except what we think exists, whereas it does not exist. And I saw that everything corresponds not only to its place, but also to its time, and You, the One Eternal, did not begin to act after innumerable centuries: all the centuries that have passed and that will pass would not have gone and would not have come if You had not acted and stayed…I asked what sinfulness is, and I found no substance: this is a perverted will, from the higher substance, from You, God, turned to the lower, throwing away its "inner" and growing stronger in the external world <...>

Do not fuss, my soul: do not let the ear of the heart be deafened by the roar of your vanity. Listen, the Word itself is calling you back: serene peace where Love will not leave you if you do not leave It yourself. Here are some creatures leaving to make room for others: the individual parts together form this dolny world. "How can I go anywhere?" – says the Word. Here establish your dwelling; entrust everything you have; my soul, tired at last of deceptions. Entrust to the Truth all that you have of the Truth, and you will not lose anything; what has decayed in you will be covered with color; all your ailments will be healed; the transitory will receive a new look, will be renewed and will unite with you; it will not drag you down in a downward rush, but will remain motionless with you and will remain with the eternally motionless and abiding God" ^[2].

 In the article "Analysis of questions in the "Confession" of St. Augustine ..." I noted that "in the "Confession" there are two types of questions: some understandable, addressed to God, and others incomprehensible, in the sense that it is unclear to whom they are addressed. In the first types of questions, the addressee is indicated either directly by the name ? “Lord” or by the grammatical form of address (the pronoun begins with a capital letter): “Let me, Lord, know and comprehend whether to begin with calling to You or with praising You; should I first know You or call to you. But who will call to You without knowing You?”^{[1, pp. 7-8]} In the second type of questions, the addressee is only implied, and it is unclear which one. For example, Augustine asks, “What is time? Who could explain it simply and briefly? Who would be able to comprehend mentally to tell about it clearly?... Is it not true that my soul confesses to You that it measures time?... What am I measuring? The time that passes but hasn't passed yet?” ^{[1, p. 167]}. To whom does Augustine ask questions here: to himself, to others, to God, to nature? However, the position of God as the one to whom Augustine asks questions is not entirely clear. The fact is that the search in the "Confession" for what God is led Augustine to three different interpretations: first, God is a kind of supersubject ("beloved", observing a person's actions, coming to his aid, etc.), second, God is the truth, the way and creation, and third, as the second hypostasis, Christ is the mediator between man and God ^{[1, p. 95]} ... It is probably possible to ask God either as a supersubject or Christ, but Augustine addresses God in general, without distinguishing between these three positions. If Augustine asks other questions not to God, but to himself, then we have a "man?man" communication. In turn, this communication, judging by the "Confession" test, contains several positions. Firstly, this is the position of "Augustine in the past": he was in childhood and youth, as well as when he had not yet come to faith and sinned. This position is set by the memoirs of the author of "Confession" and the opposition "unbelief ? faith". Secondly, it is possible to distinguish such a position as “believing Augustine”, and in two versions: going to God and not yet fully feeling him and already finally believing, having experienced a real “rebirth” in the experiences of the “inner man”... “This light, voice, fragrance, food, the embrace of my inner man," we read in The Confessions, "is where my soul shines with a light that is not limited by space, where a voice sounds that time will not silence, where the aroma is spread, which will not be blown away by the wind, where the food does not lose its taste with satiety, where the embrace does not open from satiety. That's what I love, loving my God” ^{[1, p. 132]}. Thirdly, Augustine himself distinguishes from the position of a “believer” his position as a person who is not yet firm in faith, hesitating, tied to the earth. “I didn't have," he writes, "any apologies. I could not say that it was precisely because I had not hitherto renounced the world and followed You that I did not know the truth; no, I knew the truth, but, tied to the earth, I refused to fight for You... I approved one thing and followed the other” ^{[1, pp. 107-108]}. On the one hand, Augustine clearly distinguishes between the second and third positions, i.e. himself as wavering in faith and himself believing in God, on the other hand, he insists that these positions are just two hypostases of his personality, which is one. “May they perish from Your presence,” O Lord, as they perish, “sueslovs and seducers” who, noticing the presence of two desires in a person, declared that there are two souls of two natures in us: one is good, and the other is evil… When I was thinking about serving the Lord my God (as I put it long ago), I wanted it and I didn't want it – and I was the same me. I didn't quite want to and I didn't quite want to. That's why I struggled with myself and was divided in myself, but this separation did not indicate the nature of another soul, but only that my own was punished” ^{[1, pp. 104, 107, 108, 109]}. From the point of view of methodology, one more position can be distinguished, reflexive, namely ? this is Augustine, who writes “Confession”, asks questions and immediately, if he finds a solution, answers them. So, there are only four positions. The question is, now which of these four "Augustines" asks questions and answers?... the "reflexive Augustine" asks questions and answers, who wants to identify himself with Augustine, who has acquired the Christian faith. He probably asks questions to the wavering Augustine (as well as to all readers similar to Augustine) so that he would join the faith sooner" ^{[10, pp. 33-34]}.          Thus, we can talk about three semantic contexts of questioning in the "Confession" of St. Augustine. They, like an iceberg hidden mostly under water, also represent parts of an invisible whole.  To see it, a reconstruction is necessary, which we started. The first context is the certification of the constructions (a new picture of the world) built by Augustine. In addition to the traditional arguments of persuasion (questions, logical reasoning, facts), Augustine adds another one ? his own experience, a story about his life, searches, disappointments and finds. Already here it is possible to demonstrate the connection of questions with a broader whole, for example, with logical reasoning. The Manichaeans ask Augustine the question, where does evil come from? It is assumed that the Christian's answer will be: from God, because the latter created everything. But then the objection follows: if evil is from God, therefore, He is not all-good and even participates in evil; if evil is not from God, therefore, there is someone commensurate with the Creator. As we can see, the question involves the deployment of reasoning that creates a serious problem for the thinker, but these arguments are not explicitly given. And in most other cases, the questioner implies a certain whole, but not explicitly.       

The second context is thinking, here the questions, on the one hand, mark the stages of creativity, representing a form of reflection, on the other hand, initiate the listeners' own thinking (according to the results, it should coincide with the one carried out by Augustine, which, however, happens rarely). The questions do not coincide with the process of thinking, they set a kind of rhythm, indicate a change of logic (turns, paths?), initiate thought.

The third context is religious, it is both repentance and the conviction of those who waver in faith. The questions here make you think and make an existential decision.    

We have identified these three contexts in Augustine's Confessions; in general, I assume that most questioners usually have questions that help thinking and work for persuasion, and the third context can be very different. Socrates, Plato, Augustine were concerned not only that the listeners accepted (believed) in new knowledge and ideas, but also were active in assimilation, made such innovations their own. That's why questions were needed, forcing listeners to turn to the questioner, start thinking about the question, look for an answer, make sure that the proposed knowledge is correct or doubtful, and be active in communication.