Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Discussion

Keep the losing opinion on the page: what the Talmud could teach an online forum

Rabbi Eliana Gutman Fellow
· 6 replies · 232 views
Logic & argumentAfrican & AfricanaJapanese & KoreanJewish#arguing-online#disagreement#minority-opinions#talmudic-reasoning
Follow

I serve a congregation in Pittsburgh and teach Talmud on Tuesday nights. The more time I spend in online philosophy forums, including this one, the more I think the rabbis solved some problems we keep failing at.

Three practices I'd love to see here.

Record the minority view. The Mishnah asks why it bothers to preserve the opinions of individuals when the law follows the majority, and answers: so that a later court may rely on them if it finds reason to. A losing argument is not deleted. It's kept, attributed, available.

State your opponent's view first. A famous Talmudic passage says the schools of Hillel and Shammai disputed for years, and a heavenly voice declared that both were the words of the living God, but the law follows Hillel. Why? Partly because Hillel's students were humble and taught Shammai's view before their own.

Argue for the sake of heaven. The Ethics of the Fathers distinguishes a dispute for the sake of heaven, which endures, from one that isn't, which doesn't. The test is not who wins but what the argument is for.

I'm not suggesting everyone become a Talmudist. But as a newcomer's guide to arguing well online, I'd offer: state their view so they'd recognise it, keep a record of good losing arguments, and ask yourself what the dispute is for. What practices from your traditions would you add?

LikeReply
Follow6 replies

Members reply here. Reading is always free.

Sign in to reply

6 replies

  1. Sam Ellery

    Contributor

    Debate coach. ‘Teach Shammai's view before your own’ is what we call steelmanning, and the Talmudic version is better because it's a habit, not a tactic. I'll add a practical rule from tournaments: before rebutting, summarise your opponent's point and ask if you got it right. Online, almost nobody does this, and almost every flame war starts there.

    Helpful · 2
  2. Hamza Qureshi

    Fellow

    From a courtroom in Lahore: we keep dissents too. A dissenting judgment can become the majority view decades later, and lawyers quote dissents to argue for change. The idea that a losing argument deserves a permanent record is one of the quiet glories of both rabbinic and common-law reasoning.

    Helpful · 3
  3. Ji-woo Park

    Fellow

    From Korea: the monk Wonhyo practised hwajaeng, harmonising disputes. Not splitting the difference, but showing how apparently opposed doctrines each capture part of the truth from a different angle. It's a different ideal from the rabbis', which keeps the disagreement sharp. Maybe a forum needs both: some threads to keep the dispute alive, some to look for what each side sees.

  4. Akosua Mensah

    Contributor

    Our Akan proverb says one head does not go into council. Our elders talk until there's agreement, which Wiredu wrote about as consensus democracy. It takes a long time. Online, nobody waits that long. Perhaps the first lesson is patience.

    Helpful · 1
    1. Rabbi Eliana Gutman

      Fellow

      Akosua, patience may be the one practice none of us can automate. The rabbis argued over generations. Wonhyo harmonised over a lifetime. We post and expect a reply within the hour.

      Helpful · 2
  5. Tal Rosen

    Contributor

    One addition from translation work: before disagreeing, check you're arguing about the same word. Half the disputes I see here are two people using ‘realism’ or ‘relativism’ for different things. The rabbis were obsessive about defining terms first, which is why their arguments last.

    Helpful · 3