Serious conversations can be tough. People rightfully feel strongly about a lot of things and they often find statements by those who feel differently difficult to stomach. Nobody likes their, sometimes life-long, assumptions and beliefs challenged because most of us just want to "get along to get along." And thus, because we don't want to face the emotional stress of facing such challenges we sometimes either ignore the persons speaking, or we try some other avenue of confrontation.
The problem is, of course, a serious discussion is, well, serious. If it weren't serious we would be far less bothered by the disagreement, wouldn't we? But serious discussion is the type of discussion we should, I think involve ourselves in for two reasons.
First, we involve ourselves in serious discussion because the questions usually raised have significant impact upon how we and those who we care about, live. Victor Frankl, in that famous discussion of life. "Man's Search for Meaning" argues that a man can endure just about anything so long as he has a reason for doing so. In many cases that reason may seem trivial to others and sometimes quite profound, but in all cases whatever it is, it is important to the person. It is what gives that person hope. Serious discussion leads us down into the depths of our beliefs and challenges us to find the reasons for our hope. The person who has not found good reasons for his hope has little reason to hope. You cannot fully hope in something if one part of your person, your mind, is not engaged.
Second, if one of our core beliefs is that we should care about others, then we owe it to them, out of that compassion, to challenge them on their core beliefs. Plato had Socrates say, "the un-examined life is not worth the living," but of course, that was a value judgement by, supposedly, Socrates. The question is: is an un-examined life less valuable than an un-examined one? Should we do, as the Christian scriptures say, "walk circumspect-fully?" Let's ask the question in another manner. What lives in the history of the world have impacted the world the most? Which ones have shaped society and helped others the most? I'm not going to suggest a list but only that you must consider the long-term impact. Comparing the impact of just two contemporaries of Greece a few hundred years before the advent of the Christian era will show the distinction. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great. Aristotle wrote and taught many things and Alexander the Great conquered pretty much the known world in just a few short years. Then, they died. It's been over 2000 years and today which has had the greater impact, the military conquering of Persia, the Levant, Egypt and all the rest, or the ideas of Aristotle spread, in part, by that conquering? 2000 years later we still discuss the ideas of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. We seldom discuss the ideas of Alexander the Great.
Richard Weaver's book, "Ideas Have Consequences" makes the argument that it is ideas that shape the world more than armies. A point with which I agree.
But how do we enter into a serious discussion of heart felt beliefs? How do we recognize and deal with the emotions stirred up by the challenges to our belief systems inherent in truly serious discussion?
One thing I've observed is that many cannot discuss a subject when they have been hurt by that subject and have not, as of yet, recovered from the pain. A person who has been wronged by a lawyer and has never been able to forgive that lawyers, tends to hate all lawyers and discussing the benefits of the legal system with him or her, is sometimes almost impossible. So the first thing a person needs to do in facing an unpleasant topic, is to examine if they are in an emotional state where they can handle the discussion. If not, might as well avoid the topic altogether.
As a corollary to the above observation though, there comes a point in the healing process where it is necessary to have an honest appraisal of the subject. That lawyer hating person, once they get to the point that they can admit they only hate a particular lawyer, may then be able to discuss the legal system, it's faults and merits, more calmly and rationally. Usually we have been hurt by a particular and in our pain begin to hate the general as if every specimen of the general is exactly like the particular by whom we have been hurt.
Once we have reached the point of psychologically restricting the pain to the actual pain giver rather than a class, we are ready to explore that subject. In doing so the first thing we need do is to recognize that, "I could be wrong." This is important. It's important because if you are so convinced of your position that you can't be persuaded you are wrong, then you are not entering into a serious discussion, you are entering into an opportunity to "defend the truth"… i.e. to "preach". You can tell a person in a discussion who is merely preaching by their unwillingness to give even the smallest ground to their interlocutors. Every point is hotly debated, they never say, "you have a good point there" and they never, ever, change their mind.
In addition they seldom have real arguments. As a substitute they quickly begin to question your motives. They will put the worst spin on what you say and claim that you are arguing for what you are not. This does not mean they are wrong, but in most cases my motives are irrelevant to the question at hand.
Let us suppose I were a US Senator. I own a large share of stocks in a cancer research company. There is, before the Senate, a bill to end cancer in five years. It's a massive amount of money but the general consensus of science is that it can be done if we spend the money. Everybody is for it. I am too. So I vote for it. Does that mean I voted for it to make a lot of money or because it was a good thing? Even if I did vote for it for the money, does that automatically mean the bill is a BAD thing? We seldom address the world from pure or singular motives and even if we did, it is seldom those motives actually impact logic or reasoning of the question before us.
This personal attack on the motives of the person is the first indication that the person making the attack has run out of arguments, and the earlier in the discussion this happens, the more likely it is that the person didn't have sufficient evidence for their position in the first place. In fact, it argues that their commitment to that position is personal and emotional rather than objective and rational. This is not to say they are wrong, but only that they don't have the intellectual reasons needed to persuade me or pretty much anybody else, that they are right. When faced with personal experience as the primary source of evidence, you do not persuade anyone who has either not had that experience or having had it, interprets it differently.
Two things really constitute the raw ingredients of a good discussion. First knowledge. Not just of your position, but of the other's a well. I believe it was John Dewey who said: "those who understand their side of an issue only, scarcely understand that." By knowing the opposite point of view even better than your own, perhaps, you insure that you are ready meet the challenges you face in the discussion, gain confidence you yourself and your position (which tends to make the discussion more interesting AND to keep you more calm and rational regarding the subject matter), or may even make you change your mind!
The second thing that constitutes a raw ingredient for good discussion is to not put yourself in a position where other are looking to you to "defend" the point of view you take. Plato called people who were in charge of "defending" the society the guardians. Once a person is a guardian of a position it adds a layer of social responsibility to them. To the weight of the seriousness of the discussion should not, if possible, be added the weight of preserving ones social status amidst those one is thought to represent. In other words, one seldom changes their mind outside of either private or anonymous discussion. When our friends are cheering us on we seldom join the opposition.
In terms of the actual discussion, if we have the knowledge, have distanced ourselves from whatever pain we have experienced related to the subject at hand, and aren't in a position where we are the "guardian of the truth" then we can be ready for a real serious discussion, a sometimes life changing one at that.
AJ