And not a lick of sense
We see gazillions of arguments on social media each day and shouting matches seem to be the lifeblood of most talk shows in Pakistan. However, many of these arguments remind me of a sketch from Monty Python’s Flying Circus, a British comedy television series, in which people visit an argument clinic and pay them to have five-minute arguments. In this sketch, the interlocutors just contradict each other and argue for the sake of arguing. It is, of course, an exaggerated example but like all works of fiction it is emblematic of an existing pattern in our society.
Most people argue to win, not to reach the truth. Today, rational arguments are like tiny islands in an ocean of shouting matches. Discourses on TV talk shows teach us that to win an argument we just need to raise our voice, insult our opponents and repeat our statements a few dozen times. Rather than striving to clarify our views and learn something, we just focus on defeating our opponents at all costs – while keeping our eyes, ears and minds closed.
Would it not be wonderful if the conclusion of every argument brought us enlightenment instead of frustration? The trick is to keep emotions and personal biases out of the discourse, which means that we would only have logic at our disposal. It is ostensibly a herculean task. However, if the ancient Greeks were able to do it such a long time ago, we are surely more than capable of doing so.
In Ancient Greece, people took discourse so seriously that they tackled it as an art and academic subject. By the time Socrates stormed the stage, the Sophists had developed an art of persuasive discourse known as rhetoric. Socrates criticized it for its dependence on the manipulation of emotions. Rhetoricians and debaters do not argue with the intention to learn. They are just interested in persuading their opponents that their viewpoint is correct.
Rhetoric can be used to disprove climate change and prove the existence of elves. Politicians often use debates to manipulate and deceive people. Plato strongly criticized rhetoric, which had been wrongfully used to persuade people to sentence Socrates to death. Even Cicero, the most famous Roman rhetorician, was of the opinion that besides being eloquent, an orator should be able to use logic and needs to be knowledgeable.
Perhaps the best approach is to adopt the dialectical Socratic Method. People with different viewpoints can use this method to resolve their disagreements and reach the truth through logical arguments. It is a sort of cooperative argument in which interlocutors raise questions to highlight contradictions and inconsistencies in each other’s viewpoints. All assumptions are also brought under scrutiny and dissected in a rational manner. Gradually, all persons involved in the argument are able to refine their views and move closer to the truth.
Unlike the know-it-alls of today, Socrates confessed that he knew nothing and made the interlocutors realize their own ignorance through a series of questions. The world would be a much better and peaceful place if everyone adopted this approach and only argued to reach the truth. Like Socrates, talk show hosts would gently nudge their guests to resolve their disagreements and help each other in uncovering the truth instead of rousing negative emotions. Our legal system would become more efficient and fair. Instead of rigidly presenting arguments for or against the accused, defence lawyers and prosecutors would collaboratively examine the case to ensure that a just verdict is reached. Judges would take a more active role in the courtroom and question lawyers in a Socratic manner. Social media would become a place of learning where people only get into arguments to refine their viewpoints. Couples would be able to settle their disagreements in a calm manner and quickly find a common ground that suits both of them. Psychologists already use this method to make their patients realize that many of their fears and anxieties have no rational foundation. Many educators also appreciate the usefulness of this method.
It is only natural to develop a habit of getting into arguments. By choosing why and how we argue, we can turn it into one of our worst or best habits. Just arguing for the sake of having the last word and defeating your opponents is a counterproductive activity. An argument that does not lead to the truth is not only useless, but also harmful. Since rhetoricians and debaters rely heavily on the manipulation of emotions, we need to steer away from their methods and make logic the backbone of our arguments. Socrates and Plato showed us the right way to argue more than a couple of millenniums ago. It is high time for us to realize the importance of logical reasoning and cooperative argumentative dialogues in the pursuit of truth.
