Most of us enjoy a good argument, not a fight, but an argument, a lively exchange of contradictory ideas. Arguing is an ancient and noble activity, one of the best ways to stimulate the sluggish brain cells, and perhaps to learn something at the same time. In teaching, we still use the Socratic method of asking questions and challenging the answers, although Socrates had more questions than answers.
The great French essayist Michel de Montaigne, writing in the mid-fifteenth century, proposed some essential rules for a civilized argument. He himself was a man of strong opinions, much involved in public life, and lived at a time of great religious and political turmoil. But he believed political disagreements could be both calm and intelligent. What does an ancient French essayist have to teach us in the 21st century when we are so much more sophisticated with our artificial intelligence and 5G smartphones? We must have learned, in six hundred years, how to argue at a higher intellectual level. Or perhaps not.
Here are Montaigne’s basic rules for civilized argument: keep in mind that your opponent may actually be right, and that he or she may know things that you don’t know; never be too sure of yourself; respect the truth even when it comes from the opposing side; avoid intolerance; forget your self-esteem, and give up your urgent desire to have the last word. Those who are infatuated with themselves and their beliefs will never change, so be courteous to them and try to disengage from the debate without causing offense.
None of these rules is easy to follow. A little self-control is required, and that seems to be the problem. Arguments over fundamentally disputed topics like politics, religion or the economy should be lively and interesting, because there are opinions and facts on both sides, and so they more or less cancel each other out. There is never a “right” answer that would end the debate, so it can roll on indefinitely, providing hours of entertainment, or indeed decades or centuries of entertainment. A really good argument never needs to finish at all. Some, started by the philosophers of ancient Greece, have been going strong for two thousand years.
It is important to have at least a few facts in an argument. This is why debates about the future are so unsatisfying, whether they are about global warming or the next election, the fate of your pension plan, or the end of the world. There are, by definition, no facts about the future, only hopes and fears. So nobody is thinking about facts at all. They always descend into increasingly shrill assertions of what each side believes to be true. “Yes, it is,” “No, it isn’t,” like two five-year-olds.
Some commentators shy away from the very concept of argument, and substitute the word “conversation.” But a conversation is just a sociable chat, a way to pass the time, like a committee meeting. It is not expected to produce any result. An argument is a negotiation, designed to persuade your opponent. Probably it won’t, but it keeps the lines of communication open. The people we need to worry about, according to Montaigne, are not those who disagree with us but those who are so much in love with themselves and their beliefs that they refuse to argue at all.
