Why Don’t We WANT To Be Wrong?
How can we develop our Many-sidedness?
Dear Classical Wisdom Reader,
Like many great stories from the ancient world, this one certainly falls into the ‘apocryphal’ category. Indeed, one could go so far as to say it has entered into that additional level of ‘lore’... a potentially dubious but certainly rarified honor.
But just because it’s most likely not factual, doesn’t mean it’s not important or can not convey a critical lesson. The very fact that it was preserved and repeated throughout the eras, that it survived the savage ravages of time, goes to show how each and every generation found value in its message... that is, perhaps until now?
Alright alright already! I hear you cry, enough with the preamble... What's the story??
Fair question. I actually heard this one from the Stoic philosopher Donald Robertson while we were eating just overlooking the Stoa in Athens...so feel free to likewise pass it on to friends and family.
The story begins with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. Known for his beliefs on pleasure as a method of seeking happiness, he regularly engaged in philosophical debates on the nature of pleasure. One day a student of his approached him with an eloquent and well laid out refutation to one of Epicurus’ popular points...and was able to prove his famous teacher wrong.
Epicurus listened attentively. At this moment, one might expect him to be embarrassed, to lash out or respond defensively... After all, being proven wrong is a somewhat painful experience, contrary to a life seeking pleasure. Instead, the legend goes, that Epicurus smiled warmly and thanked the young student for the opportunity to learn something new.
He explained: If he has a debate and wins, nothing really changes... but if he has a debate and loses, then he has gained knowledge and growth... and that is truly something to be happy about.
This idea was further developed by the 19th century English philosopher John Stuart Mill. The purpose of our life, according to Mill, is to develop ourselves through discovery and many-sidedness or Vielseitigkeit.
Vielseitigkeit is the ability to actually listen to people and ideas that we disagree with and change our minds -or synthesize our own ideas with the new ones- if proven wrong. This improves our lives as well as those in our community (because he feels we have a moral responsibility to each other).
Great. Easy. Let’s just be cool with being wrong. Right?
Well, the problem is that it appears nowadays no one WANTS to be wrong. Indeed, we go to great pains and boundless cognitive dissonance to try to always be right. Of course we can’t actually learn many-sidedness if we pursue self reassuring media/friends/conversations. To bridge the divide in our increasingly polarized culture, we need to first be able to even listen to the other side... seriously.
So how can we break out of this cycle both as individuals and societally? Why don’t we WANT to be wrong? And how can we develop our many-sidedness?
And perhaps for the bravest among you... what is an example of something of which you recently changed your mind?
As always you can comment below, reply to this email or write to me directly at anya@classicalwisdom.com with your thoughts and musings which I’ll post in next week’s mailbag.
In the meantime, please enjoy your fellow wisdom seekers’ thoughts on a just war... and whether or not it is better than an unjust peace.
Enjoy!
All the best,
Anya Leonard
Founder and Director
Classical Wisdom
P.S. A warm welcome to all our newcomers who have found Classical Wisdom via Tanner Campbell’s awesome podcast channel “Practical Stocisim” (he recently interviewed yours truly here.)
Now, I have gotten a few emails saying our Ebook “How to Be Happy” is not downloading properly. I had thought I had resolved it quickly, but it turns out it is a more complicated problem than I initially thought (hmm... a lesson in there perhaps?)
Always tricky for us Classicists to keep a foot in the ancient world and another in computer programming. Why did the worker throw the java exception?! If you were able to download it, fantastic. If not, I greatly appreciate your patience on this matter and I will get it resolved ASAP... also I’ve been told you can access it via the Substack app. So that’s an option as well!
Finally, for those of you not yet acquainted with Tanner’s podcast “Practical Stoicism”, it’s one of the top philosophy podcasts in the world and he does an excellent job in discussing Stoicism and how it can help us in our here and now - a passion we both share! Check it out here:
https://stoicismpod.com/spotify
Monday Mailbag
Re: Is an unjust peace better than a just war?
Just a quick thought on the Cicero quote. This meme omits the end of the sentence. It's from Letters to Atticus 7.14 where he is expressing concern about the wellbeing of his family and that of Atticus in the impending civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey. I put asterisks around the omitted words. He writes: equidem ad pacem hortari non desino; quae vel iniusta utilior est quam iustissimum bellum *cum civibus* ('For my part I do not cease from encouraging [everyone] toward peace, which is more beneficial than the most unjust war *with fellow citizens*.
I wouldn't say that Cicero isn't complex about war in general (I think we see that he can be in some of his writings), but civil war was a highly distinct type of conflict for Romans -- especially in the first century BCE -- than war against non-Romans.
Sean E.
-
Hello Anya,
I decided first to take on your question, “And can we who are not destined for bloody battlefields opine on the matter in the first place?”, with this answer: “Until one has experienced war, they cannot truly appreciate peace nor know the value of life.” So not really.
As for, “Is an unjust peace better than a just war?”, I must retort with the questions, “What is ‘just’ about war?”; “What constitutes ‘unjust’ if there is peace?”
Across the ages humans have waged just wars, but never raged for an unjust peace that is by its nature doomed to failure.
Just what dropped out of my brain.
All the best.
Darrell P. B.
-
First off, I haven't experienced war, so I am ignorant of the realities involved. However, I will say that we can no longer measure or judge war and its possible virtues (or legitimacy) on the basis of ancient wisdom; it may well be that there is no longer wisdom deep enough. The reason is that the means of destruction at our disposal—which were at least partly the consequence of the last great war (nuclear weapons, computers, cybernetics, etc.)—far exceed our capacity to control them and understand their consequences. The future will only be worse because we are constantly creating new and more powerful ways of dispatching each other. Only since 1945 has war threatened all life (or at least its intelligent form) on this planet. This is a completely new situation and it's clear that we have not, and perhaps cannot, come to terms with such a profound existential dilemma; I'm afraid we'll go on fighting to the end.
Timo K.
Anya,
I would quote Thomas Jefferson who said, "We are friends of liberty everywhere, but defenders only of our own."
I would stand firmly on the grounds that defending ourselves (whoever ourselves may be) from invading forces is just and proper, and at times necessary. But we should also strive to avoid conflicts, to not provoke our neighbors, and to show ourselves as strong and capable of resisting aggression.
It is not easy to determine who is principally at fault in most wars, even though both sides paint their opponents as totally to blame, but generally, there is sufficient blame on both sides, and a lack of sincere and honest efforts to avoid the conflict. I will also note that the event that causes war to break out is generally only the last in a long series of aggravations on both sides, making it easy for both sides to paint the other as at fault.
Gordon F.
Cuenca, Ecuador
-
Anya, first of all, thanks for your great work with Classical Wisdom! Now about war -- I have a background in Christian churches with pacifist teachings (Mennonites, Brethren and Quakers have been known as the Historic Peace Churches) and continue to believe taking another person's life under any circumstances is wrong, And folks always ask, "What about Hitler, what about Putin? They were/are aggressors and threaten our security." (I am in the U.S.)
Good question, but do we really know their long range intentions? Will the proposed aid package to Ukraine really make us more secure? I am more concerned about our nuclear weapons stockpile. How about splitting the military budget and giving no less than 50% to peacemaking communications and efforts?
Frankly, I don't believe that will ever happen. As I read Islam Issa's new book, Alexandria, I am floored by the thousands, the millions, that lost their lives in the numerous regime changes over the centuries. We humans are wired to war. It is in our very being. Self preservation and eliminating the OTHER is our way. How do we change the DNA? And so Heraclitus, what are we gonna do about it? I stand for an unjust peace that might mean I live in a failed democracy. To even speak of these things from my bubble of Appalachia protected from the dark clouds of Gaza and Russo-Ukraine seems so pathetic.
Yada, yada.....Roger
-
No war is ever just but it may be necessary in defense of family, friends, community and nation. When the foe comes to kill and destroy you the resulting struggle may or may not be quote or unquote just, but it is necessary at the very least. A peace is unjust if it contributes to or results in war later.
Just wars lose their status if the peace imposed at their conclusion is not. The Treaty of Versailles is a case in point. Unjust peaces always lead to war. The war that results will often be just for the aggrieved party and not for the victorious party. You might say an unjust peace assures a subsequent war necessary for one side and unjust to the other.
Charles F.
-
Why? Why, with all that Humans have achieved since we dragged our knuckles across the Savannahs, have we not found a better way to move forward as “brothers & sisters” in our journey than to find reasons to kill each other in some misbegotten notion that someone is better than the other? If we could identify the chromosome(s) that relentlessly drive us to repeat this destructive and heartbreaking stupidity, we might break this cycle. Godspeed to those that might deliver this.
Brien C.
War as a means for survival of a species or subspecies is probably a rule of nature. The natural law of survival of the fittest mostly depends on a species having natural predators. This helps to wean the weakest from the herd and to pare its population. As humankind is at the top of its food chain, war becomes an alternative. Hence this thought justifies Cicero’s belief.
David C.
-
Can that which is unjust be just? Can that which is just be unjust? Can that which is morally right and fair be morally wrong and unfair? Ethics: "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so". Life: Whoever has the biggest stick makes it so! War makes peace, peace makes war. Why? Man is always in the middle.
Rich
-
War is an evil for those subjected to it. However, it seems to be a political instrument of last resort, and it is part of our genetic makeup. Humans make war like squirrels bury nuts. It has been given a false glory in the past, which has been more recently corrected by television and videos showing what it is really like. But even with this reality check, we humans still look for a villain and want to destroy him, and so wars continue. Capitalism also allows rich and protected shareholders to benefit from the sale of arms, and they can use their ill-gotten gains to bribe politicians to support wars and make more money. I don't see an end to this. What is just or unjust is a matter of opinion. Peace is better than war for those in the line of fire, yes. But human nature drives us to war, and we invent reasons to do it.
Michael S.
So, so, SO glad that you name-dropped Epicurus! Epicureanism (and later utilitarianism) has been such a big influence on my own life and way of thinking.
"To bridge the divide in our increasingly polarized culture, we need to first be able to even listen to the other side... seriously."
I see this statement as the key to opening the doors or perception. If we understand ourselves as being on the other side, we perceive that our beliefs are in opposition with another. And when debating oppositions, we are likely to experience hostility toward that person or group. Truth is a tricky thing as ee know from the allegory of the cave. If anyone has read peer to peer Scienticic Journals, you will understand, it's not about boasting intelligence or truth, but compiled information to see if it can be corrected or built on. -all swans are white and all cats have tails, right?