A lost Art? Disputation
I meant to put this quote up for quite awhile. It describes the art of disputation as it should be: a genuine pursuit of the truth through sincere and thoughtful debate,with careful attention given to listening to your opponent . Much of what happens in modern debate creates such a muddle with personal attacks, straw men, etc, which detract from the real issue. It would do much for the discussion of theology (and other things as well!) if we could emulate what is described in this quote:
"If this fundamental conviction is genuine, it must necessarily affect the mode of listening as well as the mode of speaking. Dialogue does not mean only that people talk to one another, but also that they listen to one another. The first requirement, therefore, is: Listen to the interlocutor, take note of his argument, his contribution to the recherche collective de la verite (anyone translate French?) in the same way that he himself understands his own argument. There was one rule of the disputatio legitima which made this kind of listening mandatory: No one was permitted to answer directly to the interlocutor's objection: rather, he must first repeat the opposing objection in his own words, thus explicitly making sure that he fully understood what his opponent had in mind. Let us for a moment imagine that the same rule were put into effect again nowadays, with the infraction of it resulting in automatic disqualification. How this would clear the air in public debate!"
While I certainly can't claim to have practiced this habit of disputation the best myself, I think the author is right that it would clear the air in debate. This doesn't mean it would be a miracle cure and everyone would suddenly agree, but it would eliminate so much wasteful talk and confusion about what people really mean. And in ecumenical dialogue, it would make it more evident that there are REAL differences between the various Lutheran, Reformed, Arminian, Roman Catholic, etc confessions of faith. After all, how can we communicate if we don't rightly understand both our own, and our opponent's views?
>>Quote by Josef Pieper, in the essay "Disputatio: A Needed String to Theology's Bow?" by John R. Stephenson. p284, All Theology is Christology: essays in honor of David P. Scaer 2000.
"If this fundamental conviction is genuine, it must necessarily affect the mode of listening as well as the mode of speaking. Dialogue does not mean only that people talk to one another, but also that they listen to one another. The first requirement, therefore, is: Listen to the interlocutor, take note of his argument, his contribution to the recherche collective de la verite (anyone translate French?) in the same way that he himself understands his own argument. There was one rule of the disputatio legitima which made this kind of listening mandatory: No one was permitted to answer directly to the interlocutor's objection: rather, he must first repeat the opposing objection in his own words, thus explicitly making sure that he fully understood what his opponent had in mind. Let us for a moment imagine that the same rule were put into effect again nowadays, with the infraction of it resulting in automatic disqualification. How this would clear the air in public debate!"
While I certainly can't claim to have practiced this habit of disputation the best myself, I think the author is right that it would clear the air in debate. This doesn't mean it would be a miracle cure and everyone would suddenly agree, but it would eliminate so much wasteful talk and confusion about what people really mean. And in ecumenical dialogue, it would make it more evident that there are REAL differences between the various Lutheran, Reformed, Arminian, Roman Catholic, etc confessions of faith. After all, how can we communicate if we don't rightly understand both our own, and our opponent's views?
>>Quote by Josef Pieper, in the essay "Disputatio: A Needed String to Theology's Bow?" by John R. Stephenson. p284, All Theology is Christology: essays in honor of David P. Scaer 2000.
Comments
If that rule were in practice, and people first had to demonstrate that they accurately understood the position of their opponent, as they themselves understand it, THEN argumentation would be much more productive.