As one sees the debate on health care proceed, one is reminded of Epictetus and the Discourses. There is an interesting discussion in the Discourses II.121-17 where Epictetus tells his followers how to debate the layperson. It may help in today's debate. I was reminded of this when I viewed the Representative Frank debate. He and I may not agree on may things, yet I have found him to be one of the best legislators for his people, exceeded only by Senator Robert Byrd. He is from Bayonne, NJ, just over the Bayonne Bridge from my birth place, a place I cycled to many times.
He has that New York edge which seems to do him well in politics but perhaps Epictetus would help him in his debates:
Epictetus says:
"Our Stoic authorities have been quite precise in specifying the knowledge necessary for engaging in discussion; but we are quite untrained in our proper application of it. Give us a layman as our interlocutor and we are at a loss in dealing with the person. Having stirred him a little…we are unable to handle him further, and either we abuse him or mock him, saying:
"He's a layman; it is impossible to deal with him."
Yet, when a real guide finds someone going astray, he leads him to the right path instead of mocking or abusing him and going away. You yourself then should show him the truth, and you will see that he does follow; but as long as you don't show him, don't mock him, but rather be aware of your own capacity.
How did Socrates Act?
He made a habit of compelling his interlocutor to be his witness, and did not need another witness…because he exposed the implications of that person's concepts so clearly that whoever it was became aware of his inconsistencies and gave it up…
Socrates did not say:
"Define malice for me."
and then when it had been defined respond with words;
"A bad definition, for the definition is not extensionally equivalent with the thing to be defined."
Laymen find such technical jargon tiresome and difficult. But we can't give up. Yet, we are quite unable to stir them when we do use terms that enable them, by focusing on their own impressions, to respond yes or no. Understandably, then, at least those of us who are cautious recognize our inability and give up the matter. But when the impatient ones, who are more numerous, are involved in it, they get flustered and cause fluster, and finally walk away, after an exchange of abuse.
The first chief thing about Socrates was that he never got worked up at a discussion, never uttered anything abusive or aggressive, but put up with others abuse…What then? Well the thing isn't very safe, especially in Rome…"
Just switch Washington for Rome.
He has that New York edge which seems to do him well in politics but perhaps Epictetus would help him in his debates:
Epictetus says:
"Our Stoic authorities have been quite precise in specifying the knowledge necessary for engaging in discussion; but we are quite untrained in our proper application of it. Give us a layman as our interlocutor and we are at a loss in dealing with the person. Having stirred him a little…we are unable to handle him further, and either we abuse him or mock him, saying:
"He's a layman; it is impossible to deal with him."
Yet, when a real guide finds someone going astray, he leads him to the right path instead of mocking or abusing him and going away. You yourself then should show him the truth, and you will see that he does follow; but as long as you don't show him, don't mock him, but rather be aware of your own capacity.
How did Socrates Act?
He made a habit of compelling his interlocutor to be his witness, and did not need another witness…because he exposed the implications of that person's concepts so clearly that whoever it was became aware of his inconsistencies and gave it up…
Socrates did not say:
"Define malice for me."
and then when it had been defined respond with words;
"A bad definition, for the definition is not extensionally equivalent with the thing to be defined."
Laymen find such technical jargon tiresome and difficult. But we can't give up. Yet, we are quite unable to stir them when we do use terms that enable them, by focusing on their own impressions, to respond yes or no. Understandably, then, at least those of us who are cautious recognize our inability and give up the matter. But when the impatient ones, who are more numerous, are involved in it, they get flustered and cause fluster, and finally walk away, after an exchange of abuse.
The first chief thing about Socrates was that he never got worked up at a discussion, never uttered anything abusive or aggressive, but put up with others abuse…What then? Well the thing isn't very safe, especially in Rome…"
Just switch Washington for Rome.
Posts
