Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
On the Art of Discussion

On the Art of Discussion

Last updated on: June 1, 2025 at 6:00 am by Vance Morgan

0 Comments

On the Art of Discussion 2025-05-31T09:25:17-04:00 Vance Morgan

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I’m currently reading through my book Nice Work If You Can Get It for the first time in eighteen months. Here’s a section from Chapter Three:

I do as little lecturing as possible in all of my classes, preferring discussion—preferably with opposing perspectives whatever issues happen to be our focus on a given day clearly presented. Given the power of social media and the toxic nature of social and political discourse over the past several years, it is not at all surprising that few students arrive at college with the ability to converse or discuss beyond competing sound bites and memes.

Have you ever been involved in a conversation, either in person or on social media, in which everyone turns defensive in short order and immediately starts posturing instead of discussing? Of course you have. A philosopher who has had a great effect over the years on my teaching describes and reflects on this very dynamic. Human beings have been angry, defensive, prideful, and fearful for a very long time:

We flee from correction; we should face it and go to meet it, especially when it comes in the form of discussion, not ex cathedra. At every opposition we do not consider whether it is just, but, for better or for worse, how we can get rid of it. Instead of stretching out our arms to it, we stretch out our claws.

This is from “Of the art of discussion,” one of the final entries in Michel de Montaigne’s magisterial Essais, an 800+ page collection of essays that was written over several decades during the French Wars of Religion during the 16th century. In many of my classes, “Of the art of discussion” is the first text I assign in a new semester.

In the passage above, Montaigne correctly notes that our reaction to contrary ideas and opinions is often not to consider them, but rather to dismiss and get rid of them. Accordingly, he writes, “We learn to argue only in order to contradict; and with each man contradicting and being contradicted, it turns out that the fruit of the argument is to ruin and annihilate the truth.” It is in the spirit of Montaigne that I regularly advise my students to introduce qualifiers into their conversations, even when considering their most deeply held beliefs. “This is what I believe, but I might be wrong.” “This is what I believe to be true, but I have a lot to learn.” Such qualifiers serve as reminders that no one is omniscient and that no one knows the mind of God—despite our pretensions to the contrary.

Montaigne knew how to discuss and dialogue effectively. Before he retired for all intents and purposes from public life to write in his late thirties, he served as a liaison and diplomat highly respected by all religious and political factions in his war-torn country, effectively picking his way through the minefields of the complicated and often violent political and religious landscape of 16th century France. Written toward the end of his life, “Of the art of discussion” contains several of Montaigne’s insights about what makes or breaks a discussion in which the various parties disagree with each other.

Early in the essay, Montaigne writes that,

The most fruitful and natural exercise of our mind, in my opinion, is discussion. I find it sweeter than any other action of our life; and that is the reason why, if I were right now forced to choose, I believe I would rather consent to lose my sight than my hearing or speech.

A few paragraphs later, Montaigne uses the imagery of jousting to identify the purpose of discussion, indeed of human enquiry in general:

We are born to quest after truth; to possess it belongs to a greater power . . . the world is but a school of inquiry. The question is not who will hit the ring, but who will make the best runs at it.

The point, in other words, of discussion and conversation is the process and the cooperative pursuit of getting closer and closer to the truth, not the attainment of it. People in discussion and conversation are partners in a foundational human activity, not competitors in a game with winners and losers. When we forget what conversations and discussions are for, things go badly very quickly.

Why are we so inclined to hang on to our most entrenched thoughts, even in the face of evidence that our most deeply held beliefs are rooted in anything but experiential evidence supported by logical reasoning? The most obvious answer is that adopting the thoughts and beliefs of one’s culture, family, and favored group is easy, while critically challenging one’s default settings and perhaps even changing them is hard work.

We tend to believe that those things to which we are most accustomed are true, without ever wondering how we came to be accustomed to those things in the first place. We resonate most strongly with people who mirror back to us what we are already thinking. Parochialism and attachment to what we think we know is not a problem exclusive to any particular set of beliefs or experiences. All of us, from conservative to progressive, from atheist to dedicated religious believer, assume that the way that we think is not only the epitome of common sense, but also the standard of reason well used. We are convinced that what we believe is unassailably true simply because we believe it.

One effective way that I use to bring the randomness of our deepest convictions to light is to simply ask my students the following question: “How many of you think that you would be a very different person today if you had been born in rural Tibet instead of where you were actually born?” All hands go up. Why? Because, as everyone knows, we are shaped early and often by features of our existence—our society, family, location, social status, economic status—that we do not choose. Yet we often wander unreflectively through life relying on these foundations that we did not choose as if we had magically been given the universal truth about all important issues at birth. The fact that our most deeply held beliefs would be different had we been born elsewhere on the planet (or even to different parents down the street) should disconcert us.

Of all the things I deeply believe, those that I have come to through challenging preconceptions and previously unchallenged assumptions are the ones that are now the most definitive of who I am. We should regularly reexamine our beliefs and practices, become alert to weaknesses and inconsistencies in our own thinking, discover something plausible in another’s point of view and in so doing, become better than the parochial and myopic creatures that we naturally are. After all, none of us needs to believe everything that we think. These are some of the most important tools in each person’s lifetime learning kit.

One of the things that I most appreciate about Montaigne is that he describes things as they are with little or no sugar coating. In his more annoyed moods, he calls our defensiveness and judgment of each other in conversation what it is: stupidity.

Nothing vexes me so much in stupidity as the fact that it is better pleased with itself than any reason can reasonably be . . . Obstinacy and heat of opinion is the surest proof of stupidity. Is there anything so certain, resolute, disdainful, contemplative, grave, and serious as an ass?

I have been asked occasionally over the years to reduce to one sentence the most basic moral lesson I want my students to take away at the end of the semester. Montaigne’s “Don’t be an ass” is one of my top candidates.

Previous Post

May 29, 2025

How Alasdair MacIntyre Changed How I Teach Ethics

Next Post

June 3, 2025 The Terrain of the Sacred

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Mary did have a choice. And she was able to make it before the Holy ..."

madalyn baumstark

Mary Got To Choose

"i cannot read beyond your recommendations for the books since i like to have a ..."

madalyn baumstark

A Doubting Faith

"AI will never be able to utter with honesty, feeling, or humility, the greeting: "Namaste".It ..."

madalyn baumstark

AI and Human Dignity

"They do. I'm sure you could find discussions of the same topic from any of ..."

Vance Morgan

AI and the Life of Faith

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion Advent AI Angels Artificial intelligence atheism attention baptism Baptists beauty belief Benedictines Bible bicycling Big Bird books Bovina Camaldoli hermitage Canada Catholicism cats certainty change Christianity Christmas Collegeville Covid-19 creativity Development of Western Civilization dogs doubt Easter Enneagram Epiphany Episcopal ethics Eucharist evil extroverts Facebook faith family fear flowers forgiveness freedom friends God goodness grace happiness heaven hell history Holy Spirit Holy Week hope human nature humility humor idolatry incarnation introverts irreverence Islam Jeanne Jesus Joe Biden joy Judaism justice Kamala Harris knowledge Lent listen literature liturgy love Marsue Memorial Day miracles movies music mystery mythology NPR Old Testament optimism paradox peace Penguins philosophy piano podcast politics power prayer Protestantism Providence College Religion Rhode Island sabbatical sacrament science seeing silence Simone Weil Socrates soul sports St. John's College stories suffering tattoo teaching technology television theology thinking time tolerance transcendence travel trees trust truth Uncategorized Vermont wisdom wonder writing

Select a Month May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz