on the one hand ... on the other hand

I was thinking the other day:

On the one hand, it seems good to be able to see both points of view about everything, as this can enable us to have humility and to listen graciously to what people are really saying. On the other hand, it's perhaps not good to see everything from both points of view, as this can lead us to dither and be unable to make a decision, and can cause us to lose our moral clarity about things which really are black and white.

I think we need both either/or thinking and both/and thinking. Do you agree (or not)?

One of the most influential theological works of the Middle Ages was called Sic et Non (Yes and No) by Peter Abelard, in which he juxtaposed apparently contradictory quotations from the Bible and the Church Fathers on all the major topics of theology.

In the Renaissance, one of the popular rhetorical exercises taught in schools was called argumentem in utramque partem, which means arguing on either side, being able to argue both points of view on any given question. Often pupils would be told which side they were to argue, and perhaps the next day they would be told to argue for the other side. This was deemed to be a useful skill for future lawyers, courtiers and preachers to learn.

On the one hand, this seems like a fun exercise - they debated questions like “Which is better - day or night?”, “Should one seek to live a life of work or a life of leisure?”, “Was Brutus right to kill Caesar?”

On the other hand, there are some unsettling, even sinister, implications in developing this skill - it is said that one celebrated orator in ancient Greece argued passionately on one day that justice was of supreme value, and the next argued just as passionately that injustice was a great idea.

I am reminded of the words of the philosopher Protagoras:
“You can dispute about everything with equally convincing arguments on both sides, even about the problem whether everything is disputable on both sides.”

Some biblical passages for reflection:

The one who states his case first seems right,
until the other comes and examines him.
(Proverbs 18:17)

John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:49-50)

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23)

I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia, and to come back to you from Macedonia and have you send me on my way to Judea. Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” at the same time? As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we proclaimed among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No, but in him it is always Yes. For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. (2 Corinthians 1:16-20)

In other news:

The Naked Scientists (don't worry, the content of this site is entirely family friendly) have discovered that a chocolate teapot is less useless than previously thought.

The BBC reports that teachers can guess which children will be trouble from their names. For the teachers among my family and friends, this is not news.