Chapter 12: On the art of discussion.
Our philosophers have precisely defined what a man must learn in order to know how to argue: but we are still quite unpracticed in the proper use of what we have learned.
Give any one of us you like an unskilled person to argue with, and he does not discover how to deal with him: he just rouses the man for a moment, and then if he answers him in the wrong key, he cannot deal with him any longer.
He either reviles him or laughs at him ever after, and says, “He is an ignoramus, there is nothing to be got out of him.”
But the true guide, when he finds a man wandering, leads him to the right road, instead of leaving him with a gibe or an insult. So should you do. Only show him the truth and you will see that he follows. But so long as you do not show it him, do not laugh at him, but rather realize your own incapacity.
Our philosophers have precisely defined what a man must learn in order to know how to argue: but we are still quite unpracticed in the proper use of what we have learned.
Give any one of us you like an unskilled person to argue with, and he does not discover how to deal with him: he just rouses the man for a moment, and then if he answers him in the wrong key, he cannot deal with him any longer.
He either reviles him or laughs at him ever after, and says, “He is an ignoramus, there is nothing to be got out of him.”
But the true guide, when he finds a man wandering, leads him to the right road, instead of leaving him with a gibe or an insult. So should you do. Only show him the truth and you will see that he follows. But so long as you do not show it him, do not laugh at him, but rather realize your own incapacity.
—from Epictetus, Discourses 2.12
I have now been on the inside of academia for long enough to divulge one thing to those who are fortunate enough to remain on the outside: while we might be brilliant when it comes to the theory in our books, we are not so terribly good at the practice of dealing with people.
Now all trades can involve a certain degree of grandstanding, but at least the lawyer or the doctor can’t get away with alienating the client or the patient. It’s a shame when the fellow who should be engaging with an argument in the best sense, of patiently arriving at a conclusion from the premises, ends up sinking to an argument in the worst sense, of petty insults and endless bickering.
I usually assume that people don’t like philosophers because we busy ourselves with useless abstractions, and then I remember how every man needs to answer such questions of meaning and of value, whether he happens to be an executive or a janitor. No, the problem is that the scholar simply doesn’t know how to have a conversation with John Doe: he speaks at him instead of talking with him.
However subtle or cultured it may be, contempt always remains contempt, so we shouldn’t be surprised when folks take offense at being treated like fools. For all the clever put-downs I have heard in the classroom or at a conference, not a single one has ever been an aid to any greater understanding. One man walks away feeling self-satisfied, and the other man walks away full of resentment.
The best teachers I had, the ones who rarely won tenure or got their pictures printed on dustjackets, didn’t look down their noses at me, or grow frustrated when I failed to immediately grasp what they were attempting to explain. They stayed by my side, and they would try again and again, eager to find some new perspective to give me a clearer view. If I stared back at them blankly, they did not blame me for being stupid—they challenged themselves to become more careful and considerate.
Those who have truly earned the name of “philosopher” are those who work by proposing rather than imposing. They ask you to think for yourself, and never to toe the party line. They will offer you a friendly nudge instead of twisting your arm. The wish for you to understand the reasons why by your own power, not to comply with the pretentious fancies of their power.
“But these kids are just so damned ignorant!” Pray tell, whose fault is that? They don’t know any better, and yet you claim that you do know better. So why are you slapping them on the wrist instead of taking them by the hand?
I have now been on the inside of academia for long enough to divulge one thing to those who are fortunate enough to remain on the outside: while we might be brilliant when it comes to the theory in our books, we are not so terribly good at the practice of dealing with people.
Now all trades can involve a certain degree of grandstanding, but at least the lawyer or the doctor can’t get away with alienating the client or the patient. It’s a shame when the fellow who should be engaging with an argument in the best sense, of patiently arriving at a conclusion from the premises, ends up sinking to an argument in the worst sense, of petty insults and endless bickering.
I usually assume that people don’t like philosophers because we busy ourselves with useless abstractions, and then I remember how every man needs to answer such questions of meaning and of value, whether he happens to be an executive or a janitor. No, the problem is that the scholar simply doesn’t know how to have a conversation with John Doe: he speaks at him instead of talking with him.
However subtle or cultured it may be, contempt always remains contempt, so we shouldn’t be surprised when folks take offense at being treated like fools. For all the clever put-downs I have heard in the classroom or at a conference, not a single one has ever been an aid to any greater understanding. One man walks away feeling self-satisfied, and the other man walks away full of resentment.
The best teachers I had, the ones who rarely won tenure or got their pictures printed on dustjackets, didn’t look down their noses at me, or grow frustrated when I failed to immediately grasp what they were attempting to explain. They stayed by my side, and they would try again and again, eager to find some new perspective to give me a clearer view. If I stared back at them blankly, they did not blame me for being stupid—they challenged themselves to become more careful and considerate.
Those who have truly earned the name of “philosopher” are those who work by proposing rather than imposing. They ask you to think for yourself, and never to toe the party line. They will offer you a friendly nudge instead of twisting your arm. The wish for you to understand the reasons why by your own power, not to comply with the pretentious fancies of their power.
“But these kids are just so damned ignorant!” Pray tell, whose fault is that? They don’t know any better, and yet you claim that you do know better. So why are you slapping them on the wrist instead of taking them by the hand?
—Reflection written in 8/2001
No comments:
Post a Comment