Desiring Machine

For a very long time the notion of debate has been tainted in our popular civic culture. A seamingly common sensical but ultimately corrosive idea has dominated the popular notion of what constitutes debate. It is more often than not presented that debate is constituted through the engagement of direct and polar opposite arguments. Perhaps this view of debate stems from a hegelian dialectical intellectual tradition. The notion that progress only grows out the agonistic tension between thesis and antithesis. In the political sphere and mass media more often than not this has lead to a reactionary mode of discussion between fringe elements of the left and right that tries to pass itself off as informative to the public.

A real debate is one in which there is an oppositional tension but each side raises genuinely legitimate insights. Consensus can be built but simultaneously there are real points of difference. With a good debate the audience comes away from with a real dilemma. All sides are presented so well that coming to a single conclusion is nearly impossible.

It is in this spirit of debate that I point you to a most excellent debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges about religion and politics. A lot of subtle perspectives and insights are well served in this debate. Harris and Hedges have genuinely divergent points of view. I am sympathetic to Harris’ perspective, but I was equally impressed by how well Chris Hedges presents the case for religious moderation. I came away from this debate genuinely torn but equally satisfied and excited. The questions are difficult and the responses profound.