Discussion & Democracy

Day 1,955, 21:17 Published in Ireland Ireland by Damhnaic


First Witch
When shall we three meet again?
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

Second Witch
When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.

Third Witch
That will be ere the set of sun.

-SHAKESPEARE, Macbeth, Act I, Scene I.


What of Democracy and Discussion? Strange subject, in a strange website, by a strange person. I may not have the sympathy of all eIrish citizens, but I will dare write a small essay, mainly based on John-Stuart Mill, about why discussion should be an integral part of our so-called democracy and how it would make the in game tensions least.



LE PIGEON NOIR - On the importance of discussion in Democracy

In the recent days, we had numerous opinions voiced from all sides of the political spectrum and from more or less every eIrish political parties. Should it be about the (training) war with eUK or about the referendum to join CUA, tensions had risen in congress and in the media. One thing was surprisingly common to the answers given to these opinions: except from very few citizen, the opinions were often violently dismissed by the opposite side/clan/sect(?)/etc. By dismissal I mean every way one can discredit another citizen opinion without considering it. This includes ignoring it, mocking it, ad hominem attacks (a form of sophism where the sophist answer an argument by attacking the person that voiced the argument in an attempt to discredit him/her, without answering the argument itself), and numerous other sophism used to hinder dialogue.

In an attempt to convince my readers of my point, that I think this political climate isn't desirable and that if we want to get the country progress we should see how listening, understanding and discussing opinions can be useful for everyone, I will try to expose a few thoughts from Mill's book, On Libery, that I think fit very well the current political situation of the eCountry.


John-Suart Mill



Firstly, an argument often used to excuse the hindering of dialogue is that the voiced opinion is, to out eyes, erroneous or false. Should we suppress wrong opinions under the guise that they could mislead people? This would be a very arrogant way to think that we are infallible:

« To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common. »

«While every one well knows himself to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion, of which they feel very certain, may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable. »
-John-Stuart MILL, "Of the liberty of thought and discussion", On Liberty, 1859.

These two quotes, I believe, express how we should be aware of our fallibility, that we should take precautions against it and work together in such a way we can take into account things we didn’t think before. Every opinion, however badly it is expressed, always hide a proportion of truth (even if sometime it is very very very tiny). And even if you can’t find the truth in an opinion, you can always try to think about “how did he come to think of this, why is he voicing this opinion?”. This way, it can make you realize how other people can have different opinions and why, in this way you can make your own opinion stronger.

It is a well known fact, many ideas and ideologies are known nominally but not conceptually. Many people say they are Marxist, libertarianists, wafflists and other –ists without actually being aware of the thoughts and the motives behind the thought. We can call these “dead and empty shells”. One effective way to prevent this is by constant confrontation of your ideas. This way, you can find the flaws in your thoughts; you can also try to construct new arguments to prevent the said flaws. By the confrontation of thoughts, you can activate your ideas/opinions and find better and better arguments to explain and defend them, making them truly yours and not opinions known only nominally for whatever question. Furthermore, by this dialogue, you can also realise some of your ideas were erroneous. It is often hard to accept it, and it is often why we discredit other people's arguments, but I think that for our own sake, the realisation of our errors is the first step into wisdom:

« In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. »
-John-Stuart MILL, "Of the liberty of thought and discussion", On Liberty, 1859.



To conclude, I think we should all realize that freedom of speech, and liberty of discussion, even if the people thoughts can sometime be absurd or badly expressed, can make us progress in our own opinions or make us realize we might have been wrong on certain points of our thoughts. Even if it is easy to discredit someone else voiced opinion, to ensure ourselves superiority in politics or for whatever reason, I think we should try to listen one another and ease the huge tensions currently afflicting the country.

When you are speaking to a wall, or to a mocking person, the very human reaction is to speak louder, until you yell in indignation at the ultimate injustice of not being listened to. I’ve seen people call them whiners or trolls, I call them humans and comrades, and I try to listen to them even if I don’t share the same beliefs.

Often, we try to mock, discredit, and marginalize people with eccentric thoughts. Let us not forget, Socrates, the fairest and best of mankind, was killed by his fellow citizens in a society that called itself a democracy because he went against the popular opinions and beliefs. Let us listen to each others, and ease the tensions, we should try to live together.

Damhnaic


-Jacques-Louis DAVID, La Mort de Socrate, 1787.

P.S. I think Sweet recent article can illustrate (in a way) the subject of this short essay. No one listened to him, they all mocked him, while he is the one that can say today: "I was right when no one listened to me".