The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is traditionally considered the author of the expression “truth is born in a dispute”. However, some researchers argue that Socrates meant something completely different.
What did Socrates really say?
In fact, Socrates denied the fact that truth can be born in a dispute, opposing it with a dialogue of equal people, none of whom considers himself smarter than the other. Only in such a dialogue, in his opinion, is the search for truth possible. In order to understand exactly where the truth is found out, it is necessary to distinguish between different types of communication: dispute, discussion, dialogue. In principle, the difference between them is rather arbitrary, but it does exist. An argument is simply an attempt by either side to convince the others that their point of view is correct. Such a discussion is rarely constructive and reasoned, largely based on emotion. As for the discussion, this is a type of discussion of a controversial issue in which each side puts forward its arguments in favor of a particular point of view. Dialogue is an exchange of views without trying to convince the interlocutor. Based on this, we can say that the dispute is the least promising way to find the truth.
Socrates believed that if one of the opponents considers himself smarter, then he should help the other find the truth. To do this, he recommended accepting the opponent's position and, together with him, proving its erroneousness.
Where is truth born?
The birth of truth in a dispute is unlikely, if only because each of the participating parties is not interested in clarifying the truth, but seeks to defend their opinion. In essence, a dispute is an attempt by each participant to prove their superiority over others, while the search for truth usually fades into the background. If we add to this the negative emotions that often accompany heated debates, it becomes clear that the point is not at all about truth or error.
If you are going to argue, it is worth learning about public speaking techniques for conducting discussions, as armed with them, you will most likely be able to prove yourself more confidently.
On the other hand, if you translate the dispute into a discussion or dialogue, be ready to take the side of the interlocutor or admit your own wrong, you can get quite a lot of benefits. First, you will learn to argue your position, look for logical connections, draw conclusions and conclusions. Secondly, you will learn the point of view of the interlocutor, his argumentation, ideas about the issue under discussion, which will help you expand the boundaries of your own worldview. Third, by trying to make any argument constructive, you will greatly improve your emotion control skills. In addition, discussion, and even more so dialogue, presuppose a joint search for the most correct solution, which will move you much further along the path of finding the truth than the most violent argument.
