I think it’s safe to say that generally, humans like to be right. There’s a certain sting associated with being told that one is wrong and we often try to avoid such criticism in a variety of ways. Socrates, on the other hand, argues that we shouldn’t avoid it; in fact, he goes as far as to say that he prefers being refuted than refuting another, declaring that it is better to be saved from injury than to save someone.[1]
Though prominently featured in Plato’s Gorgias, the actual word refute only dates back to 1545, coming from the Latin refutare, which means to suppress or check.[2] Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary declares that to refute means to “prove wrong by argument or evidence: show to be false or erroneous.”[3] The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy goes further, stating that refute is “a success word; to attempt to disprove something is to argue against it or to reject it, repudiate it, or rebut it, but not yet to refute it.”[4] When refutation has happened, the debate is over, and clear judgment has been made that one party is in the wrong.
With this new understanding of refutation, let’s put it back into place in Gorgias and Socrates’ discussion of the concept. Socrates argues that being refuted is far better than refuting someone. We must understand that Socrates is not merely saying that it is good and proper for argumentation or debate to take place; rather, he is saying that actually being entirely disproven and shown to be wrong isn’t just a good thing, but rather, it’s the ideal thing. Essentially, Socrates states that there is greater value in being wrong than right.
Later in the dialogue, Socrates puts forth the idea that it’s better to let a tyrant rot in his own tyranny; he makes the controversial claim that a tyrant should not be refuted but instead allowed free reign to be wrong and thus further jeopardize his own soul. Refutation would simply bring this tyrant to justice; it would be a sort of revenge to assist the tyrant in becoming an even worse person. I found this startling; typically they liked to promulgate virtue and acted to oppose it.
It’s unsurprising that this extreme opinion is rarely echoed today. More surprising is that Socrates’ claim that it’s best to be refuted isn’t a concept modern society is familiar with. Conceptually, it’s a great idea – being able to take criticism. However, most studies put the focus on how to avoid refutation by bolstering arguments.[5]
Accepting refutation is perhaps then an area of studied that needs to be studied in greater depth. While it is important to study and analyze better ways to make stronger arguments, learning to accept defeat and criticism is an important idea that deserves more scholarship. This could perhaps be its own subgenre of rhetoric, akin to what argumentation is today. The acceptance of refutation is an important concept that deserves a greater share of critical acceptance and study today.
Word count = 500
2 comments:
I think is a valid discussion. There is fear of criticism in every aspect of life. Although the only way to improve or strengthen any type of art, rhetoric, or philosophy is indeed by refutation, improvement, and revision.Very interesting!
"...he is saying that actually being entirely disproven and shown to be wrong isn’t just a good thing, but rather, it’s the ideal thing. Essentially, Socrates states that there is greater value in being wrong than right."
This idea makes me think that refutation is more of constructive criticism. It recognizes a weakness, but provides the person with an opportunity to improve on it. Whereas, in other viewpoints, refutation is the pursuit of victory through defeating the weakest point. However, this raises the question: is it better to be the strongest, but quite possibly the most wrong or is it better to be the weakest, but the most right?
Post a Comment