Whenever someone said to my father, “Let’s have a conversation,” he would reply, “No, let’s have an argument.” Today, that would sound aggressive, but it wasn’t at all. We need more people today who are willing to engage in this way.
My father explained to people what he meant by “having an argument.” He did not mean that we should shout or get angry with each other. And he absolutely rejected violence as a way of resolving disagreements. What he meant was that when two people genuinely argue, they are trying to understand each other’s perspectives and opinions in the hope of learning from the other. In a mere conversation, all we do is proclaim what we believe and hold back from challenging others.
Most people today want to spout their views, rather than engage in a spirited argument. They believe they are absolutely right and that anyone who disagrees with them is evil and dangerous. And, to be fair, they are also a little afraid. It is scary to have to defend your beliefs with words. What if you can’t defend them? What then? Would you have to look at things differently? Change your mind? Abandon previous thoughts and positions?
Arguing is risky. You have to allow yourself to be vulnerable. It is never about “defending your positions.” When you really argue, you set your ego aside and set aside the safety of your views. Arguing demands that you are willing to discover that your opinions are weak, misguided or woefully insufficient. For many people, this is more than they can handle because their primary goal is to cling to their views, regardless of the evidence.
My father’s love of argument was based on classical Greek philosophy, which championed the idea of dialogue. Socrates taught that no opinion is ever wholly right or wholly wrong. Opinions are just glimpses of a fuller truth that we do not grasp. When we argue with another, we are seeking a more comprehensive understanding, which involves revising or rejecting some or all of what we currently believe. An argument is about making an ascent from opinion to knowledge.
For my father, an argument was not what we would call a “debate.” Mere debate is a game of trying to “win” a verbal contest. In ancient Greece, there were professional debaters. They were called sophists. Debate is vacuous. The goal of an argument is to enhance understanding, to discover weaknesses in your opinions. Debates are about winning. Arguments are about learning.
I am, of course, saying these things as the country tries to come to terms with the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. I don’t know enough about him to tell if he encouraged real argument or if his life’s work was limited to debate. I leave that to others. However, I can join his supporters in saying that violence is no answer to dealing with opinions with which we disagree. When people embrace violence to oppose those with whom they disagree, they harm themselves as well as those they target. When you silence others, you condemn yourself to ignorance.
And now Vice President JD Vance has declared war on “leftist ideology,” which he identifies as the motivation for Kirk’s murder. Going to war with an ideology — especially one as amorphous and undefined as “leftist” — is no answer either. All opinions are flawed, those on the left and those on the right. What our society needs more than anything right now is for different views (what some call ideologies) to be taken seriously and engaged in actual argument. It is always dangerous when the government goes to war with any ideology. We need more argument and less war.
Right now, we need to be cautious as a country in deciding how to respond to Kirk’s death. While it might be tempting to seek to crush his opponents, to seek retribution for his murder, our country needs more engagement, not more division.
We can, if we choose, all be a part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. I challenge you to respond like my father next time you encounter someone who says something with which you disagree. Don’t dismiss what you hear. Don’t get angry with someone who expresses an opinion you find distasteful or even repulsive. Take a deep breath and engage in an argument with that person. Don’t debate with the hope of winning. Argue in the hope of learning. As a country, we have never needed authentic learning more than we do now.
Solomon D. Stevens is the author of “Religion, Politics, and the Law” (co-authored with Peter Schotten) and “Challenges to Peace in the Middle East.”
He wrote this
for InsideSources.com.
