I read Voegelin's article called "On debate and existence" a few weeks ago, and this is a topic that has troubled me for some time. I do not know about you, but I am tired of hearing the same vacuous attacks on Christianity, against reason, against the Scholastics, and any of the great achievements of Western culture. Usually, I find myself holding the less popular opinion, or sometimes alone by myself with nobody else to support me. Now, I have had a few discussions with some people in my family, and they have been fantastic, but when it comes to the academic setting I feel rather repulsed and unwilling to enter into argument.
Aquinas said that we should try to correct those who say untruth, but to what point can we do this? Is it not most of the time hopeless to argue because, as Voegelin notes, the assumptions of the two confronting parties are so different that no dialogue can take place with ideologues? Is it our duty to always confront those who say untruth, or should we just learn when to shut up?
At this point I feel like a coward for not holding up in conversations when I know the material very well; I tell myself that I do not want to cause problems and sour relationships, but something inside says that I should be fighting, and fighting hard. What do you think about this? Would we not fall into the danger of becoming merely vocal, like they are? Or should we speak out more loudly? Thank you.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Aitor,

As a student, I was plagued with this problem, and as a professional I still am. I am not so sure where the really creative outlets are. Personally, I find them in the lives of the majority of the people I talk to outside of the University setting; there are someday when I think of going to the University to lecture, or for symposia is like going to another world. I find that if you make declarations about the truth, your conception of it, and your understanding about it, ostracism is as likely as people ignoring it.

I am not sure how to broach this subject, because I think there is a real risk if alienating professors, distancing yourself from other students and being labeled. Under the ideological lense, people are capable of anything. Right and Left. And I think as conservatives, we should always guard against the insidious effect of stifling creative research. At the same time, I know legions of colleagues who would disagree with my point of view. They would argue that their Marxist interpretation of a topic is the truth, and then shut their ears to whatever else by way of research or scholarship they see. So in this respect, I think we need to be aware that people will interpret the same thing in a number of different ways. That said there is nothing I dislike more in an academic setting when people cannot debate the truth of a given idea. I have always wondered why it is that in the free market of ideas, everyone thinks the same way? And, that way seems to be uniformly toward the left; it is an exegesis is explored in the Bonfire of the Humanities. I would certainly suggest you get a copy.

Either way, I am glad you have the courage to ask the right question.

quote:

... something inside says that I should be fighting, and fighting hard. What do you think about this?

Try not to view it as a fight, but rather as a dialogue. People can be very intransigent in their ideas, and they have the right to be. We have no power to change another person. All we can do is share our views, feelings, and experiences honestly and open mindedly. Some will listen, some won't. But in either case, live your convictions, often that is the greatest persuader. Remember the martyrs and the slogan "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of Christianity".

Good advice, Benedict. Looking back at my post, I think I was a bit rash at the time. I think the ancient Greek philosophers are a good example of open dialectic, discussing an issue from all angles with the common interest of finding the truth. In addition, as you pointed, the ancient philosophers lived the truth as opposed to just arguing about it. I think you can also find this in Christianity where the emphasis is on the transformation of being rather than on empty argumentation.

I think the main issue is that the base assumptions with which you and your debate partners are starting with are very different.


Which is why, I think, if you are debating an issue, you should get down to those base assumptions. If you cannot convince one another on the base assumptions, you will at least come away with newfound respect for how the opponent's position may be logical, given those base assumptions.


For instance, when debating the virtue of the Iraq war with a pacifist, my arguments for the good things the war has brought about will simply bounce off -- since their base assumption is that all war is immoral, no matter the reason.

So then, one must go to the source, and attack pacifism itself. Meanwhile, I can at least show how if one does not assume that all war is immoral, the Iraq war can be seen as a good thing.

By this route, a deeper understanding on both sides can perhaps be achieved.