Intellectual Discussion and Dialectic.

Finding Agreement, Quality and Beauty in the World.

When two people discuss a concept intellectually – naturally there will be disagreement.  What then?

In the two and a half thousand years since Socrates and the Ancient Greeks what two people aim for has been the truth. Disagreement has immediately implied that what one person thinks is false and therefore wrong, while what the other person thinks is true and therefore right.  The way to determine this right and wrong has been to logically argue about what is true and what is false.  Each participant in this dialectical discussion – using the rules of logic – determines the truth by watching for things like contradiction and consistency from their interlocutor.   If someone is inconsistent, or shows contradiction, then what they are saying is false and thus the person demonstrating the contradiction is right.  Quality, Values and Morals in these discussions are unimportant.  Truth and logical consistency is the focus, not Quality or Values or Morals.

But of course – this isn’t how things are.  Quality, Values and Morals do exist and *are *very important.  Values actually create our ideas and opinions. And so if we are to ever reach agreement, we will not find it simply with the aid of logical consistency (although it helps).  If we only keep our eyes on logical consistency we will be forever stuck in muddy water at the bottom of a waterfall – not in the clean water at the top.   Unless we explain, beautifully, the values, the morals which form the quality of our opinions we won’t get anywhere but be stuck with a bunch of meaningless, valueless, truths.

This is true not just of one or two discussion – but of all discussions  – everywhere.  Why do people value the things that they do? Why do some people call one thing moral, while another group call something else moral?  Of course, in these discussions there will be disagreement.  But unless there is an openness to this disagreement, an openness to see something better, an openness to even try the values of another, an openness to be honest with yourself about your own values – then things will stay the same and not get any better.

“Lying just beneath the surface of (political) arguments with passions raging on all sides are big questions of Moral Philosophy.. But we too rarely articulate and defend and argue about those big moral questions in our Politics”
Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel has a great series on Justice which explains the currently competing philosophical theories of social justice that exist in the world today. Unlike anyone else I’ve seen he’s bringing the problems of Moral Philosophy to the public at large in an easily accessible way.

In the TED Talk above, Sandel gives a passionate plea to bring some of this intelligent philosophical discourse to our political dialogue. I share his frustration and it is heartwarming to see someone make such an argument in a public setting. Of course, the Metaphysics of Quality provides us with a vastly improved language with which we can discuss morality and it brings with it coherence and evolutionary context to these discussions where there previously was none.