Ch. 12
Of disputation or discussion.
WHAT things a man must learn in order to be able to
apply the art of disputation, has been accurately shown by
our philosophers (the Stoics); but with respect to the
proper use of the things, we are entirely without practice.
Only give to any of us, whom you please, an illiterate man
to discuss with, and he can not discover how to deal with
the man. But when he has moved the man a little, if he
answers beside the purpose, he does not know how to treat
him, but he then either abuses or ridicules him, and says,
He is an illiterate man; it is not possible to do any thing
[p. 134]
with him. Now a guide, when he has found a man out of
the road leads him into the right way: he does not ridi-
eule or abuse him and then leave him. Do you also show
the illiterate man the truth, and you will see that he fellows. But so long as you do not show him the truth, do
not ridicule him, but rather feel your own incapacity.
How then did Socrates act? He used to compel his
adversary in disputation to bear testimony to him, and
he wanted no other witness.297 Therefore he could say, 'I
care not for other witnesses, but I am always satisfied
with the evidence (testimony) of my adversary, and I do
not ask the opinion of others, but only the opinion of him
who is disputing with me.' For he used to make the
conclusions drawn from natural notions298 so plain that
every man saw the contradiction (if it existed) and withdrew from it (thus):
Does the envious299 man rejoice? By
no means, but he is rather pained.300 Well, Do you think
that envy is pain over evils? and what envy is there of
evils? Therefore he made his adversary say that envy is
pain over good things. Well then, would any man envy
those who are nothing to him? By no means. Thus
having completed the notion and distinctly fixed it he
[p. 135]
would go away without saying to his adversary, Define to
me envy; and if the adversary had defined envy, he did
not say, You have defined it badly, for the terms of the
definition do not correspond to the thing definedThese
are technical terms, and for this reason disagreeable and
hardly intelligible to illiterate men, which terms we
(philosophers) cannot lay aside. But that the illiterate
man himself, who follows the appearances presented to
him, should be able to concede any thing or reject it, we
can never by the use of these terms move him to do.301
Accordingly being conscious of our own inability, we do
not attempt the thing; at least such of us as have any
caution do not. But the greater part and the rash, when
they enter into such disputations, confuse themselves and
confuse others; and finally abusing their adversaries and
abused by them, they walk away.
Now this was the first and chief peculiarity of Socrates,
never to be irritated in argument, never to utter any thing
abusive, any thing insulting, but to bear with abusive
persons and to put an end to the quarrel. If you would
know what great power he had in this way, read the
Symposium of Xenophon,302 and you will see how many
quarrels he put an end to. Hence with good reason in the
poets also this power is most highly praised,
Quickly with skill he settles great disputes.
Hesiod, Theogony, v. 87.
Well then; the matter is not now very safe, and particularly at Rome; for he who attempts to do it, must not do
it in a corner, you may be sure, but must go to a man of
consular rank, if it so happen, or to a rich man, and ask
him, Can you tell me, Sir, to whose care you have entrusted your horses? I can tell you. Have you entrusted
them to any person indifferently and to one who has no
experience of horses?By no means.Well then; can
you tell me to whom you entrust your gold or silver
things or your vestments? I don't entrust even these to
[p. 136]
any one indifferently. Well; your own body, have you
already considered about entrusting the care of it to any
person?Certainly.To a man of experience, I suppose,
and one acquainted with the aliptic,303 or with the healing
art?Without doubt.Are these the best things that you
have, or do you also possess something else which is better
than all these?What kind of a thing do you mean?
That I mean which makes use of these things, and tests
each of them, and deliberates.Is it the soul that you
mean?You think right, for it is the soul that I mean.
In truth I do think that the soul is a much better thing
than all the others which I possess.Can you then show
us in what way you have taken care of the soul? for it is
not likely that you, who are so wise a man and have a
reputation in the city, inconsiderately and carelessly allow
the most valuable thing that you possess to be neglected
and to perish.Certainly not.But have you taken care
of the soul yourself; and have you learned from another
to do this, or have you discovered the means yourself?
Here comes the danger that in the first place he may say,
What is this to you, my good man, who are you? Next, if
you persist in troubling him, there is danger that he may
raise his hands and give you blows. I was once myself
also an admirer of this mode of instruction until I fell into
these dangers.304
|
