Academicus

A Dialogue, By Mark Dobbins, Drexel University

When engaging in discussions of a philosophical nature it is very important that one disassociate oneself from one’s biases and then proceed in as rational a manner as possible.

As rational a manner as possible?

Yes, one’s emotions get in the way of rational thought. It is through rational thought that we can sort out what is really true and what is just bias.

And you think it is possible to remove yourself emotionally from an argument?

I don’t think it is very easy, but perhaps it is possible.

But it is true that you believe it is important to disassociate?

Yes.

Why?

Well, for the reasons I just said. Biases get in the way of the search for real truth.

How?

Isn’t it obvious? A bias is what you believe without good rational, and therefore cannot be trusted as being really truthful.

Is philosophy about obtaining truth?

Of course, what else would it be about?

Well then, you would say that truth is the same as wisdom?

Well, no… Very well then, biases cannot be trusted as being truly wise.

Ah, and biases are synonymous with emotions.

No, that’s not what I mean. Some emotions result in biases.

So those emotions which result in bias are those which counter a pursuit of wisdom.

Yes.

And what of the other emotions, are they neutral to or supportive of a pursuit of wisdom?

Some may be neutral and I suppose others may be supportive.

So then one should not pursue philosophical discussions in as rational a manner as possible.

What? Of course one should do so!

But you say that some emotions are supportive of a pursuit of wisdom, so certainly they should not be discarded.

No…

Then certainly one should not be so rational as to ignore those emotions.

Perhaps, but how can one tell a disruptive emotion from a productive one? It is safest and best to be rational, because then you know you are being unbiased.

And it is better to sacrifice the potential gain in wisdom resulting from productive emotions than to risk being occasionally biased, which would be detrimental to wisdom?

Yes!

Wisdom is the objective of philosophical discussion?

Of course, that is inherent in the word philosophia.

Wisdom for whom?

Well, for the pursuer of the discourse of course.

So when you engage in philosophical discussion you are only pursuing your own enlightenment?

No that is not what I meant, the wisdom of the other is important as well.

Less than, more than, or equally as important as your own wisdom?

Equally I suppose. A true philosopher is a lover of wisdom, so it should be wisdom that matters most I think, and not the wisdom of any particular person.

So you mean to say that it is wisdom overall that should be bettered by a philosophical conversation?

Yes.

And rationality, you claim, is the best means of benefiting wisdom overall?

Yes.

So you believe that rationality is the best way to benefit the wisdom of those with which you speak?

Of course.

Suppose you meet a man who disagrees with you, what would rationality have you do?

It would have me tell the man in as precise a way as possible the exact reasons for my believing what I believe.

And if he will not listen?

Then what can I do? I cannot force him to hear me. I can only speak the words I know to say.

And if he does not understand?

Again, what can I do? I cannot make him understand me. I can only offer him my reasons; it is up to his mind to grasp them.

And if he understands but still does not agree?

If my rationale was good, then what else can I do?

Then he must be irrational?

Well, no, not necessarily…

But if you have been rational and he does not agree, then clearly he is not rational enough to understand you.

No, we can agree to disagree.

So each of you can be rational, provide your arguments, and still disagree?

I think so.

That seems strange to me, and I am not sure if I agree, but perhaps the answer to that riddle will reveal itself if we continue.

Perhaps it will.

Very well then, In any of these three cases has wisdom been benefited?

Well in the last case we have each gained new arguments on both sides of the debate.

And are arguments the same as wisdom?

Well, no, I suppose not. But arguments improve the rationality of future arguments, which benefits wisdom.

So wisdom is the ability to convince others of your point of view?

No, no, of course not.

Perhaps we aught to say what wisdom is before we continue. Would you like to offer a definition?

Certainly; Let us say that wisdom is how well one understands things. A person who understands reality better and can act in that reality better is wiser.

Do you mean to say that a fast sprinter is wise because he can complete the race in little time, and thus could be said to act in the world better than slower sprinters.

No, of course not. When I say act in the world I mean make decisions.

Ah, so a man wise in the ways of sprinting is rather the one that knows the best ways to hold and move their body.

Yes.

And a man wise in the ways of carpentry knows how best to use tools, and how best to cut and arrange wood to make for better structures.

Yes.

Then a man who is wise in the ways of argument knows the best arguments to use and how to apply them to convince others of his view.

Exactly so.

And is this the sort of wisdom that a philosopher seeks?

No, I suppose not. It seems the sort of wisdom that a Sophist might seek, and before you continue I concede your point. Merely gaining new arguments to use in future discussions does not necessarily translate to the kind of benefit to wisdom that a philosopher should seek.

This is your view on the matter?

It is.

Then in the case of not listening, not understanding, or agreeing to disagree, wisdom has not been benefited.

After considering it, I must say no.

Very well, then what of the case of the man who already agrees with you? Can wisdom be gained by merely rationally stating your arguments?

In this case yes. By exchanging arguments each person may learn new arguments, which can result in a deeper understanding of the matter being discussed.

But does quantity of arguments directly translate to greater understanding.

Ah! You’ve caught me again. You are a sly fox. Very well I shall be forced to admit that wisdom is once again not necessarily benefited by this exchange, though I maintain that in many cases it is benefited.

Very well, but in all four of these cases you admit that pure rationality does not directly translate to a benefit to wisdom?

I admit it, though an exchange of arguments does take place which can benefit wisdom. Furthermore these are not the only cases, and I think you will find that the other cases do result in a benefit to wisdom.

Of what cases do you speak?

I speak of cases where my peer begins with a different opinion than me and ends with the same opinion as me.

Are opinions the same as wisdom?

No, but a man who has the right opinions is clearly wiser.

But earlier you said that two people can agree to disagree.

This is true.

And it is acceptable to you that they do so.

Of course.

So it is not detrimental to wisdom to agree to disagree.

No, there are many viewpoints. Who is to say which is correct?

So then, having one opinion or another does not necessarily impact wisdom one way or another?

You twist my words and arguments against me! Very well, I will admit that changing one’s opinion does not necessarily benefit or harm wisdom.

It does neither?

No, rather, it may do either; it is just hard to tell whether wisdom has been benefited one way or another.

Then how can you say that it benefits wisdom in the case where you change a peer’s opinion to be the same as your own?

If your arguments are valid, then it appears that I misspoke. A benefit to wisdom is not necessarily gained when you convince a peer of your point.

Then does a purely rational argument have any particular power to benefit wisdom?

Ah, I see your conclusion, but your logic is flawed.

I have come to no conclusion, but please explain yourself.

In all of the cases above it is uncertain whether wisdom will be benefited. It may be and it may not be. However, that does not mean that rationality has no power. I would argue that wisdom is benefited more often than it is harmed when people engage in conversation in a rational manner.

A very good point, but I believe the question at hand was whether pure rationality is better for wisdom than using beneficial emotions with the risk of also letting in harmful emotions.

And as I said, one would have to know which emotions are beneficial or the risk is too great.

Well, if you have such faith in the wisdom that can be gained with rationality, then why don’t we see if we can determine which emotions are beneficial? If we discover such a beneficial emotion then certainly you will consent to using it when you have discussions of a philosophical nature, will you not?

I will.

Then let us try to change our tactics. So far we have talked about our power to increase the wisdom in others. What of the power to increase the wisdom of ourselves.

I believe that there is such a power. In fact, I think that power is greater and more under our control than the power over the wisdom of others.

By what mechanism is this power used?

By listening to the rational arguments of others.

Only the rational arguments?

What benefit is there to be gained from listening to irrational arguments?

So you believe that nothing can be learned from an irrational argument?

Nothing rational can be learned.

Well, but remember that our objective is the benefit of wisdom. Can no wisdom be gained from listening to an irrational argument?

I don’t see how.

Will you not gain an understanding of the mind of your peer by listening to such an argument?

I suppose you would, but what use is it to learn the mind of an irrational person.

Are you asking of what use wisdom is?

No! I’m asking what use understanding an irrational person is.

We had agreed that wisdom means understanding had we not?

Yes.

Then understanding your irrational peer benefits your wisdom.

Well, I’m still not sure that is the sort of understanding that is useful in any way.

Then answer this. Suppose you want to instill wisdom in another. Would you stand a better chance of doing so if you understood truth perfectly or if you understood your irrational peer perfectly?

A tricky question, but I think I will side with truth.

But remember that your peer may be biased even if you have a perfect understanding of truth.

True.

And remember that a biased and irrational mind will not benefit from a perfectly rational argument.

So you have shown, though I still am not sure that I am convinced. But I will grant you that for the time being.

However, would you not agree that understanding something allows you to manipulate it. If you don’t understand a door, how can you open it?

I see that.

Then would you agree that understanding your peer gives you a better chance of imbuing your peer with wisdom?

I would.

Then certainly an understanding of your peer has a better chance of benefiting wisdom than a perfect understanding of some external truth that you are attempting to communicate. After all, who could even comprehend a perfect truth were it offered to them.

A valid point and I will accept your view for now.

Then you agree that understanding an irrational peer does benefit wisdom?

I suppose I must.

And do you agree that understanding a peer will benefit wisdom whether that peer is rational or not?

I suppose I must.

But certainly it is not listening to the rational arguments of your peers that will lead to such an understanding, is it?

What? Why not?

We have established that it doesn’t matter if the peer is rational or not, we should still seek to understand them. So by what means does one understand an irrational peer?

By listening whether they are being rational or not I suppose.

And asking questions?

Of course, asking questions too. An engaged conversation is always more productive than a passive one.

Ah ha! Then I think we have found what we were looking for.

What’s that?

An emotion that benefits the pursuit of philosophy!

And what emotion is that?

Why don’t you see it? It has been in front of our eyes all this time!

What? Get to the point. I don’t have time for your gloating.

Earlier we said that wisdom is definitively a part of philosophy did we not.

Of course, that is what sophia means.

And what is the other part of the term?

Philos.

And what does that mean?

Love.

And love is what we have been looking for.

What do you mean?

A true philosophical dialogue is a conversation between two people. You can’t ignore that you are speaking to another person. Whether they are rational or irrational in your eyes, you should still care what they have to say. You mustn’t merely listen but you must engage with them, no matter what you think of their views. Your own vision of truth will not help you or them. It is in sharing each of your visions with each other that you both learn to see new things, and even when they want no part of what you have to offer, you can still pursue wisdom in trying to understand them. The only way to overcome bias is to recognize that you can never truly escape it and to care, truly care, for the biases of your peers. This is what a dialogue is, an exchange. Without that emotion of caring, of love, of engagement, all you have is a series of soliloquies.

Nonsense! Love can lead just as easily to accepting the bad argument of an irrational peer as it can to a mutual understanding. How often are men fooled by love? Why should it be trusted in a serious philosophical debate?

Ah, very true. But isn’t that a paradox of all virtues? Courage without wisdom is foolhardiness. Reverence without wisdom is blind faith. Love without wisdom is just an obsession. And yet how is a man wise without the benefit of these virtues? Do we throw virtue away just because it is hard?

I think I’ve heard enough of this rubbish. Think what you want. I have real philosophical work to attend to. I have papers to write and books to read and I’d better not spend the rest of the day trying to teach you about rationality.

Very well, I hope you will consider this conversation in the future. I too have important philosophical matters to attend to. I think that I shall have many more conversations before this day is through. Fare well Academicus, I hope to speak with you soon.□

©Mark Dobbins, 2007