Debate

An experiment that is being tried at the moment in the School is to have a formal debate, with a motion and speakers being appointed to propose or oppose that motion. It seems that the aims are to foster a more intelligent discussion, and to develop skill in speaking about philosophical questions. These are pretty laudable aims, and it will be interesting to see how it works in practice.

Much of this blog has focused on the theme of conversation or dialogue as essential to philosophy. Does the philosophical conversation resemble a debate? According to Theodore Zeldin, a real conversation is one in which both parties are prepared to learn something or to change in some way their ideas, perceptions, preconceptions or experiences. In the Laws, Plato made the surprising statement that "drinking parties" (Symposiums) should be at the centre of an educational system for adults. This was because the effect of alcohol in moderation was to loosen the corsets of our thought, feeling and behaviour. Possibly the traditional educational method for barristers of eating dinners with experienced lawyers in the Inns of Court was a formalisation of this same insight. In the Vedic system the prayers that preface some of the Upanishads (literally, "to sit down together") are touchingly concerned with the emotional atmosphere of the meeting between teacher and student: "May He protect us both. May we not cavil at each other".

In my experience of debating at school, I always found that it was quite a cavil-some activity. Abusing one's opponent was not only permitted, a devastating put-down was a blow from which most debaters could not recover and which generated great enthusiasm from the judges and the audience. I would say that a philosophical conversation differs from an adversarial debate in the way that they deal with inadequate understanding. In a debate, the admission of ignorance is forbidden; but in philosophy it is essential. According to Plato's Symposium, a "philosopher" is someone who is in pursuit of wisdom; and therefore, is someone who lacks it. Admitting what one does not know is the first step towards knowledge; pretending to oneself or others that one does know is the first obstacle. Therefore, what is a virtue in a debating chamber could well be a vice in philosophy. Where debate ends, in a cacophony of democratic vote-casting, philosophy has not yet begun its work.

It may be that the debate will differ from the traditional adversarial format. It may be that it is a useful step towards a culture of inquiry and truthfulness.

PS I've just set up a separate blog for the group that I tutor, as a way of reflecting on the practices of the week. Each student will have equal ownership of the blog and will be able to create new posts. I've not made this blog so open, I suppose because there's a worry that it might degenerate into criticism and mud-slinging. But perhaps I should? Please let me know what you think.