Socrates: How wonderful, Glaucon, is the power of the “art” of disputation!
Glaucon: How, in fact?
Socrates: Because, many seem to fall into its clutches involuntarily and think they are not being eristic but are in fact dialoging, since they are unable to look at the subject under discussion by dividing form by form, but they pursue the literal words of what is said, and make use of contention, instead of dialectic, in dealing with each other (Translation mine, Republic 454a1-9). [1]
Socrates had his own sophists, in addition to the feisty youths of his circle, and the countless, helpless interlocutors he good-naturedly harassed, as partners in his dialogues, rarely as entirely competent as much as instrumental “yes” cogs in his argumentative apparatus. Now, perhaps Socrates was not as consistent in his practice in championing the charitable principle I quoted above, yet I think there is considerable value in reflecting on the intellectual poise when engaging in argument, or really any topic of dispute, and communication of that dispute.
The kind of disposition I have in mind serves most well in classroom or seminar settings, but it also recommends itself to any interaction between people who are merely sharing ideas. The guide in all this, as Socrates was fond of believing, is that the people in a discussion are pursuing Truth. Why is this important? The post-modern or relativist would simply scoff at the idea of Truth, and even the more jaded might say that Socrates, or even philosophers in general, think they are pursuing truth when all they are doing is advocating for their very personal and socially-saturated viewpoints under the dubious guise of objectivity. I think there are compelling and determinative refutations of this viewpoint, the most devastating being that it is self-refuting, but I want to focus on a different consequence, the idea that without the guide of objective truth we are actually prone to abuse our partners in dialogue.
If two disputants begin from the idea that there is something “out there,” which both are pursuing, each will have a conception of this, concomitant with a motivation to achieve an understanding of this thing “out there.” The thing “out there,” as it so happens, is Truth. Now, if one truly believes this, it is easy to see how the commitment to an objective goal, the attainment of Truth, can regulate and pacify the personal feelings and ulterior motives that would otherwise have free reign over the conduct of the disputants. I say regulate here, not eliminate, for the latter is impossible, while the former is admirable. This is to say that we are after something beyond, because it is greater, than ourselves, so that anything bearing on ourselves has little or nothing to do with that which we are really after.
On the other hand, if two people earnestly are convinced that they each have their own “truth,” unmoored to any independent truth or objective fact, from where will the impetus arise to treat each other with respect or kindness or to give each other’s arguments a charitable hearing? This, I suggest is a great problem inside certain classrooms and academic settings, in that people who do not concede there is objective Truth and yet who are given to disputation are very unlikely to have patience for any view that does not result in personal advancement, of some sort, for themselves. In the final analysis, it is difficult to understand how, lacking an adequate plumb-line for truth, one person can, when he is alone by himself, distinguish between the putative intellectual “reasons” because of which he holds a position, and his fickle preferences, which are equally explanatory. When the arguer and the argument are one, is it any wonder that challenges to a view are taken personally?
REFERENCES:
[1] Ἦ γενναία, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ὦ Γλαύκων, ἡ δύναμις τῆς ἀντιλο-
γικῆς τέχνης.
Τί δή;
Ὅτι, εἶπον, δοκοῦσί μοι εἰς αὐτὴν καὶ ἄκοντες πολλοὶ
ἐμπίπτειν καὶ οἴεσθαι οὐκ ἐρίζειν ἀλλὰ διαλέγεσθαι, διὰ (5)
τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι κατ’ εἴδη διαιρούμενοι τὸ λεγόμενον ἐπι-
σκοπεῖν, ἀλλὰ κατ’ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα διώκειν τοῦ λεχθέντος
τὴν ἐναντίωσιν, ἔριδι, οὐ διαλέκτῳ πρὸς ἀλλήλους χρώ-
μενοι.
Yes, Yes and Yes yet again! I am so fed up with people who are not interested in a discussion, but only in being right – that is, that you tell them they are right, that you concede and they “win.” Also that they take any criticism of their hypothesis (which for them is a real and hard fact) as a personal affront and they do not criticize you for what you say but for the fact that you even think what you think. For example, many years ago I realized that a personal relationship with a young intellectual had no future when he asked me “how can you think like that” after I had expressed an opinion. That is not discussing or even arguing, it is character assassination. It is hitting below the belt. I cannot tell you how many times I have run into so-called intellectuals – yes, even university professors – who believe they have all the answers, know all about you and what you think and judge you for it, often with no basis in fact. I even called out one of my college professors on this and he had the good grace to apologize.
In any case, one cannot have a civilized discussion with anyone who is interested only in themselves in relation to the subject at hand, and not in the subject itself.
Good for you. It’s nice to know that someone out there is interested in pursuing something other than ego satisfaction!
Thanks Eloise. I am quite sure that the phenomenon pervades every area of life. What I am less sure of is that people are aware of the necessary limitations they put on a conversation when the truth is however they define it, and surprisingly, they never disagree with themselves!
First of all, the sign of a truly educated person is that he is aware of how much he doesn’t know – or at least that there is a lot he doesn’t know – and he is interested in amplifying his knowledge. This is an awareness and a desire that a liberal arts education should give you. But in this day and age, people are shunning a “good education” in favor of job training. I don’t have to tell you the ramifications of that!
Secondly, one starts a discussion with a hypothesis. Otherwise, what kind of discussion can there be? I have come to the conclusion that most people don’t have hypotheses (or even know what they are), only universal truths that only they know and must convince you of, you poor ignoramus, even if they have to insult you to achieve their noble end. Just go on any of the social media where examples of this are rife. Where it is really troubling, as you have pointed out, is that you find it also in universities which should be the bastion of truth seeking. God help you if you disagree with your professor or your fellow students, especially on politics. I learned to keep my mouth firmly shut and this was in HUMANITIES classes (I went to a very good college)!!! It didn’t do any good – my fellow students and some professors thought they knew what I was thinking anyway (the height of presumption, no?) and treated me with disdain.This is why your post rings a bell – a great big one. Congratulations again on saying what also really needs to be shouted from the rooftops and proclaimed from on high. Bring back Socrates!!! Bring back the true liberal arts!
By the way, it does get worse: my brother many years ago was thinking of enrolling in a masters degree program in history in a very good state university. He attended a class/seminar to see what it was like. There he found the students opining, or should I say asserting, that intellectuals (meaning themselves) have to think for the common man as he is incapable of thinking for himself. How could you ever have any kind of discussion with people like that? First, they look at your qualifications to decide if you are worth bothering with, and then they don’t listen to what is said but only to who is saying it? Maybe? Dear me, what are we coming to? Sorry to rant on, but you really hit a sore spot, culturally speaking.
One last observation. Really. The only place where I found intellectual curiosity and truly open minds was at Loyola University in Chicago where I did some graduate school. Yes, with the Jesuits. They were marvelous and I look back at my time with them with great fondness. Religion never came into the picture with them. Ever. They really gave me a great intellectual workout and NEVER disdained any of my hypotheses, which were pretty radical at the time (40 years ago), but insisted that I try to prove them and gave me a lot of encouragement and help. Surprised?