Epicurus\u2019s Vatican Saying #74 runs: \u201cthe one who loses in a philosophical dispute gains more the more he learns.\u201d\u00a0 I remember reading that line as an undergraduate, thinking it curious and perhaps a bit perverse.\u00a0 How would Epicurus himself apply this to his own views, after critique from the likes of Stoic, Skeptic, or Christian critique?\u00a0 It sounds more like the kind of advice one gives, but rarely takes.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The college sophomore version of me, I think, was on to something, but in sophomore fashion, I missed something important, too. There is, on the one hand, a deep insight behind Epicurus\u2019 point, and it is one that lies at the heart of what we are trying to do when we argue with each other.\u00a0 And there\u2019s a practically useful turn the view has, too, in helping keep the heat down in significant disagreements.\u00a0 But on the other hand, there\u2019s a problem with the vision of argument, especially when bearing on significant disagreements.\u00a0 It seems the more we need Epicurus\u2019s advice, the less likely we can take it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Let\u2019s start with Epicurus\u2019 insight \u2013 if you\u2019ve lost an argument, that means your opponent said something (gave an argument, produced a counter-example, made an objection) you had no response to. Generally, the argument game is played, like chess, until one side has no more (legal) moves.\u00a0 The side making the last legal move wins, the other loses. Assuming the reasons that pass inspection in the exchange are ones that improve our cognitive position with regard to an issue, the views and reasons for them endorsed after the argument (assuming they\u2019ve been revised in light of the reasons exchanged) are better than those before.\u00a0 So, if your views don\u2019t survive the critical scrutiny of an exchange, you\u2019ve learned something.\u00a0 At least that what you\u2019d originally believed was at best poorly supported, or at worst just false.\u00a0 Further, you could learn that some new view is true, or perhaps just better supported than the competitors.\u00a0 You leave the exchange with new views, and new views about views.\u00a0 That\u2019s not nothing.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 One nice upshot of taking this point to heart as an arguer is that it promises to mitigate the sting of argumentative loss.\u00a0 In fact, the promise is that it turns losses into gains.\u00a0 And the threat of losses, too.\u00a0 So, after an argumentative loss, we\u2019re supposed to say something like: Yes, I was wrong, but now I don\u2019t make that mistake!\u00a0 See how far I\u2019ve come?! For sure, this is a kind of secondary virtue \u2013 being able to admit mistakes and learn from them.\u00a0 Yes, that\u2019s good.\u00a0 But the primary virtue is in not making mistakes in the first place, being the one who can correct those who make the mistake.\u00a0 Not in being the one who needs and must accept the correction.\u00a0 Yes, it\u2019s good to exercise that virtue of learning from mistakes, but it\u2019s better not to have to.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It is with this last thought that I find myself pausing.\u00a0 The analogy of winning strategies with chess goes only so deep when it comes to arguments, and one reason is simply that it matters little to anyone before the chess match which color wins.\u00a0 It is only after the colors have been assigned does anyone care.\u00a0 Not so with argument \u2013 we choose our sides and set up our boards well before argument games with others commence.\u00a0 Moreover, we generally argue with others over matters that, well, matter.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, here\u2019s the problem.\u00a0 Generally, if you\u2019re arguing with someone over something, the issue matters.\u00a0 And it matters to you that you\u2019re right and that you defend that view that\u2019s right.\u00a0 We argue to win, at least in the sense that a good arguer will find ways to defend her view against objections, make as minimal a change to the view as is required, and produce counter-arguments against competitors.\u00a0 That\u2019s how you argue well (and back to the analogy with chess \u2013 you check mate the other king, not your\u00a0 own).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 So arguing well means that you\u2019ve got a side, one you\u2019re interested in, and not just for the sake of the argument, but you\u2019ve invested in it because you think it\u2019s true.\u00a0 Often, with these commitments, we live in light of them, we make plans, we see our lives as meaningful on their basis. A lot hangs on many of these things.\u00a0 So when you lose an argument, and especially one about values or general conceptions of what human life should look like, there\u2019s another sense that you haven\u2019t just failed to win an exchange, you let yourself and the life you\u2019ve invested in down.\u00a0 You are often in these arguments to defend yourself.\u00a0 The truths we live in light of aren\u2019t just things that we can bear disinterested interest toward once we\u2019ve accepted them in. We\u2019ve cast our lot, we\u2019ve joined a team.\u00a0 It\u2019s part of who we are.\u00a0 So, surely, it\u2019s a problem for apologists when they are bested by skeptics, and the same goes for defenders of views when faced with counter-evidence.\u00a0 Argumentative losses aren\u2019t just losses at a game, but they are cases where we\u2019ve failed our truths.\u00a0 It just feels bad. And the only lesson we can see ourselves learning isn\u2019t about the truths and alternatives, but rather it\u2019s a lesson about how we aren\u2019t worthy of the views we adhere to.\u00a0 It\u2019s not hard to think that thought \u2013 after losing an argument, you don\u2019t change your views, but rather you are hard on yourself for being a bad representative of the views.\u00a0 This is a consequence of our investment in our views, and that\u2019s ironically the whole reason why we need argument.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Epicurus\u2019s philosophical program was one committed to promoting comity between people and placidity of mind for individuals.\u00a0 In short, Epicurus was hoping to help us find a way to relax.\u00a0 So, a piece of advice accentuating the positive in an argumentative loss is certainly in the spirit of his ethical vision.\u00a0 The strategy can work only if we can see it on the right track.\u00a0 And, for sure, there\u2019s a sense that it is and we can see it.\u00a0 But the advice requires that we see ourselves as learning something substantive as a result of the loss.\u00a0 And any good piece of advice must not only be good, but it must be advice we can take and follow.\u00a0 And the problem with Epicurus\u2019s advice is that those who need it most are those who are least able to follow it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Picture of Epicurus’ bust taken by Scott F. Aikin<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Epicurus\u2019s Vatican Saying #74 runs: \u201cthe one who loses in a philosophical dispute gains more the more he learns.\u201d\u00a0 I remember reading that line as an undergraduate, thinking it curious […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":630,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"A great post by Scott F. Aikin on Epicurus' advice when Losing Arguments","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[60,5,168],"custom_author":[169],"class_list":["post-624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-argumentation","tag-debate","tag-value","custom_author-aikin-scott-f"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-a4","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2233,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/being-pluralistic-about-philosophical-pessimism-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":624,"position":0},"title":"Being pluralistic about philosophical pessimism (Part 2)","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"March 31, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In part one, I argued that the conceptual core of pessimism is the twin judgments that the human condition is very bad and likely to remain so. However, this does not deliver a full philosophical doctrine of pessimism. Content and context. A philosophical pessimist takes these judgements and tries to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/03\/mark-de-jong-WDqURPfH4so-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":584,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/public-debates-testing-your-intellectual-abilities\/","url_meta":{"origin":624,"position":1},"title":"Public Debates \u2013 Testing your Intellectual Abilities?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 14, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Engaging in public debate can be a scary thing.\u00a0 You make yourself vulnerable to criticism when you express your views in public \u2013 risking a critique not only of the specific beliefs you endorse, but also of your intellectual abilities more broadly.\u00a0 How might you respond to such critiques?\u00a0 Are\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/01\/hands-220163_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/01\/hands-220163_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/01\/hands-220163_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/01\/hands-220163_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/01\/hands-220163_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":445,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/group-membership-moral-criticism-and-self-affirmation\/","url_meta":{"origin":624,"position":2},"title":"Group membership, moral criticism and self-affirmation","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 21, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Public debates often involve issues that people find distressing, especially if they involve accusations of moral wrongdoing (even in the past) by groups with whom one identifies.\u00a0 People want to avoid guilt \u2018by association\u2019 and maintain a general belief that they are good, rational, and moral creatures. Avoiding such feelings\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/05\/black-and-white-bridge-dancing-70402.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/05\/black-and-white-bridge-dancing-70402.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/05\/black-and-white-bridge-dancing-70402.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/05\/black-and-white-bridge-dancing-70402.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/05\/black-and-white-bridge-dancing-70402.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/05\/black-and-white-bridge-dancing-70402.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":709,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/putting-academic-skepticism-to-work\/","url_meta":{"origin":624,"position":3},"title":"Putting Academic Skepticism to Work","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 29, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"The Academic Skeptics were philosophers who modeled themselves on Socrates and his method of questioning.\u00a0 When the Delphic Oracle reported that no one was wiser than him, Socrates reasoned that whatever wisdom he had was to be found in his recognizing that he does not know many important things.\u00a0 And\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/07\/Philosopher-16-6-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":852,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/political-debate-in-the-digital-age\/","url_meta":{"origin":624,"position":4},"title":"Political Debate in the Digital Age","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In an ideal democratic world, all citizens are invited to debate political necessities and possibilities to the best of their knowledge and to forge their country\u2019s future in this way. In an ideal democratic world, political debate is, in other words, both inclusive and evidence-led. In a dystopian world, by\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Social media links","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/02\/nordwood-themes-cNXqmO0Z24U-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":21,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/open-for-debate\/","url_meta":{"origin":624,"position":5},"title":"We are now open for debate","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 18, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Welcome to 'Open for Debate', a blog associated with the project Changing Attitudes in Public Discourse.\u00a0We hope to use this space to debate all aspects and forms of debate. Ultimately, we would like to develop together, in the spirit of collaboration, some suggestions to improve the quality of discussions in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/04\/19945231246_a0ea274061_k.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/03\/Epicurus-BW.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/624","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=624"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/624\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":631,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/624\/revisions\/631"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/630"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=624"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}