
On Dialogue, Disagreement, and the Urgent Need for Humility
Dialogue is the lifeblood of friendship, which depends upon a certain moral courage: the willingness to be honest, especially about the limits of our knowledge.
I recently shared a quiet lunch with an old friend, an erudite American scholar whose accomplishments in the academy are as impressive as his loyalty to the Democratic Party is steadfast. Our conversation meandered, as good conversations often do, and eventually turned to the topic of tariffs.
With a scholar's curiosity, he asked, 'What do you know about tariffs?'
I smiled and replied, 'I know nothing. I would gladly match my ignorance of tariffs against any man.' He laughed, conceding that despite a career immersed in ideas, the finer points of economics—what Thomas Carlyle once derisively called 'the dismal science'—had somehow eluded him as well.
There was something refreshingly honest in the exchange. We were not posturing, nor pretending to possess a competence we lacked. Instead, we were engaging in something quietly radical: the admission of ignorance without shame, the willingness to say 'I don't know' in an age that prizes certainty above all. It was, in essence, a small act of what Socrates, deemed the wisest man in Athens, precisely because he knew that he did not know, would have recognized as epistemic humility.
Related Stories
3/7/2025
4/19/2025
In an age enamored with certainty and tribal affirmation, the willingness to admit ignorance has become rare. Yet humility opens the door to learning and the kind of genuine conversation that deepens friendship, advances understanding, and nourishes the fragile bonds of our shared civic life.
Yet, in stark contrast to this spirit, much of our public discourse is marked by a rhetorical style that is its mirror opposite—smug, condescending, confident, and performative.
This tendency crosses ideological lines, to be sure, but it is especially pronounced among certain progressive elites, whose tone exudes moral certainty and often drips with self-righteousness. Here, rhetoric is not a means of persuasion but a vehicle for display—not an effort to engage, but an assertion of superiority. In the most profound sense, it is corrosive to the spirit of democratic exchange.
We are increasingly divided not only by what we believe but also by how we discuss those beliefs. The epistemic divide that characterizes our political culture today is as much emotional as it is intellectual. It is not merely a matter of disagreeing over facts or policies. Instead, it is a question of how beliefs are framed, by whom, and in what tone. This derisive and dismissive tone forecloses conversation, deepens polarization, and makes meaningful dialogue nearly impossible.
A striking example of this attitude came from journalist Ezra Klein's recent appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher: 'If you follow the news, you voted for the Democrats, by and large. If you don't follow the news, you voted for Trump.' The implication is unmistakable. Following the news is presented as shorthand for critical thinking, rationality, and, by extension, moral superiority. Following the news becomes a kind of epistemic baptism in this framing, cleansing its adherents of the ignorance and prejudice allegedly endemic to the other side.
This tone of smug superiority is not merely alienating but profoundly counterproductive. I recognize it all too well from the university, where a kind of performative intellectualism often cloaks its condescension in credentials and polished prose. It fosters a class of 'knowers' more concerned with signalling their status and presumed expertise than with cultivating genuine understanding. And when these rhetorical habits seep from the seminar room into the broader culture, they do not elevate public discourse but impoverish it, corroding the very conditions that make democratic dialogue possible.
I was recently struck by this passage from psychiatrist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist, which captures this phenomenon with clarity: 'There is a belief that anyone who seems to be thoughtful must (surely?) adhere to a set of beliefs that I call the 'current narrative'. … Objectively, that is very odd. The general assumption during my lifetime has been that people's political views might vary very widely, without any adverse imputations on either side.'
This, I believe, cuts to the heart of the matter. That political views have always varied widely is a simple truth of pluralistic societies. But when our discourse becomes saturated with contempt—when disagreement is met not with curiosity but with derision—even the most carefully reasoned argument, however well supported by evidence, will fail to persuade.
Of course, this is not to exonerate the right, Trumpism, or the Republican Party—each facing its own challenges, from conspiracy thinking to anti-institutional cynicism. However, acknowledging those problems should not exempt the left from its rhetorical excesses. Indeed, the health of the democratic order depends on self-scrutiny across the spectrum.
This malaise—what we might call an outbreak of epistemic sclerosis—is, at its core, a cultural affliction. We are losing the art of good-faith disagreement, and with it, the epistemic humility upon which any functioning democracy depends. Too many public figures now speak as though the host of heavenly angels were permanently arrayed on their side, casting dissenters not merely as mistaken, but as morally deficient and intellectually suspect. Such assumptions do not invite inquiry; they extinguish it. They short-circuit curiosity and replace it with a withering contempt that corrodes the very possibility of dialogue.
We do not need a retreat from firm conviction but a renewal of respectful engagement. We need political rhetoric that is passionate without being punitive, principled yet free of pride. Above all, we must recover a forgotten civic virtue: the humility to acknowledge that none of us sees the whole picture, that all of us are fallible, and that democracy is sustained not only by rights but also by responsibilities. Foremost among these is the duty to listen to one another with respect, patience, and a willingness to change our minds in light of better arguments and evidence.
This kind of epistemic humility is not weakness; it is, as recognized since the time of Socrates, a form of wisdom. It enables us to live together in difference without resorting to violence, retreating into algorithmic echo chambers, or forsaking the public square in despair.
In a moment of rising polarization and performative certainty, humility—as Socrates might remind us—is not merely a private virtue but perhaps the most urgent civic virtue of our time.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Migrants deported from U.S. to Salvadoran prison remain under U.S. control, Salvadoran officials tell U.N.
WASHINGTON — The government of El Salvador has acknowledged to United Nations investigators that the Trump administration maintains control of the Venezuelan men who were deported from the U.S. to a notorious Salvadoran prison, contradicting public statements by officials in both countries. The revelation was contained in court filings Monday by lawyers for more than 100 migrants who are seeking to challenge their deportations to El Salvador's mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. The case is among several challenging President Trump's immigration crackdown. 'In this context, the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities,' Salvadoran officials wrote in response to queries from the unit of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The U.N. group has been looking into the fate of the men who were sent to El Salvador from the United States in mid-March, even after a U.S. judge had ordered the planes that were carrying them to be turned around. The Trump administration has argued that it is powerless to return the men, noting that they are beyond the reach of U.S. courts and no longer have access to due process rights or other U.S. constitutional guarantees. But lawyers for the migrants said the U.N. report shows otherwise. 'El Salvador has confirmed what we and everyone else understood: it is the United States that controls what happens to the Venezuelans languishing at CECOT. Remarkably the U.S. government didn't provide this information to us or the court,' American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Lee Gelerent said in an email. Skye Perryman, chief executive and president of Democracy Forward, said the documents show 'that the administration has not been honest with the court or the American people.' The ACLU and Democracy Forward are both representing the migrants. Administration officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The administration in March agreed to pay $6 million for El Salvador to house 300 migrants. The deal sparked immediate controversy when Trump invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to quickly remove men it has accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. In a related case, the administration mistakenly sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the same prison, despite a judge's order prohibiting the Maryland man from being sent to El Salvador. The administration initially resisted court orders to bring him back to the U.S., saying he was no longer in American custody. Eventually, Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., where he now faces criminal charges of human smuggling while legal battles continue. Last month, a coalition of immigrant rights groups sued to invalidate the prison deal with El Salvador, arguing that the arrangement to move migrant detainees outside the reach of U.S. courts violates the Constitution. Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Associated Press
23 minutes ago
- Associated Press
UN adopts resolution on Afghanistan's Taliban rule over US objections
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution Monday over U.S. objections calling on Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to reverse their worsening oppression of women and girls and eliminate all terrorist organizations. The 11-page resolution also emphasizes 'the importance of creating opportunities for economic recovery, development and prosperity in Afghanistan,' and urges donors to address the country's dire humanitarian and economic crisis. The resolution is not legally binding but is seen as a reflection of world opinion. The vote was 116 in favor, with two — the United States and close ally Israel — opposed and 12 abstentions, including Russia, China, India and Iran. Since returning to power in Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban have imposed harsh measures, banning women from public places and girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade. Last week, Russia became the first country to formally recognize the Taliban's government. Germany's U.N. Ambassador Antje Leendertse, whose country sponsored the resolution, told the assembly before the vote that her country and many others remain gravely concerned about the dire human rights situation in Afghanistan, especially the Taliban's 'near-total erasure' of the rights of women and girls. The core message of the resolution, she said, is to tell Afghan mothers holding sick and underfed children or mourning victims of terrorist attacks, as well as the millions of Afghan women and girls locked up at home, that they have not been forgotten. U.S. minister-counselor Jonathan Shrier was critical of the resolution, which he said rewards 'the Taliban's failure with more engagement and more resources.' He said the Trump administration doubts they will ever pursue policies 'in accordance with the expectations of the international community.' 'For decades we shouldered the burden of supporting the Afghan people with time, money and, most important, American lives,' he said. 'It is the time for the Taliban to step up. The United States will no longer enable their heinous behavior.' Last month, the Trump administration banned Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those seeking to come temporarily, with exceptions. The resolution expresses appreciation to governments hosting Afghan refugees, singling out the two countries that have taken the most: Iran and Pakistan. While the resolution notes improvements in Afghanistan's overall security situation, it reiterates concern about attacks by al-Qaida and Islamic State militants and their affiliates. It calls upon Afghanistan 'to take active measures to tackle, dismantle and eliminate all terrorist organizations equally and without discrimination.' The General Assembly also encouraged U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to appoint a coordinator to facilitate 'a more coherent, coordinated and structured approach' to its international engagements on Afghanistan.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats pick fight over how GOP's SNAP change hits states
Republicans are defending recent legislation aimed at incentivizing states to fight erroneous payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — but Democrats are picking a fight over a last-minute change they argue encourages states to have higher error rates. Legislation passed out of the GOP-led Congress on Thursday that could see some states pay a share of benefit costs for SNAP, also known as the food stamps program, for the first time. The federal government currently covers the cost of benefits, but under the plan that's been tossed around by congressional Republicans over the past few months, some states would have to cover anywhere between 5 percent and 15 percent of the benefits costs if they have a payment error rate above 6 percent — which factors in over-and-underpayments. However, changes were made to the text that allowed delayed implementation for the cost-share requirements for states with the highest error rates shortly before its passage in the Senate this week. GOP leadership sought to lock down support from Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, whose state had the highest payment error rate in the country in fiscal year 2024. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans made the change to comply with chamber rules. 'You have to give those states time to adjust because about all they're going to do is get down to that midrange, and then they're still going to have to pay a penalty because they're so high,' he said. 'So, it's about giving states a fair chance to adjust.' Under the plan that was greenlit by Congress on Thursday, some states would begin contributing a share of benefit costs in fiscal year 2028, depending on their payment error rate. But the plan also allows for delayed implementation for two years for states with payment error rates if they reach around 13.34 percent or higher — an effort Republicans say is aimed at providing states like Alaska with much higher rates to bring them down. Hoeven said the GOP-led agriculture committee, which crafted the SNAP pitch, 'came up with a lot of proposals' trying to comply with restrictive rules governing a special process that Republicans used to approve the plan in the upper chamber without Democratic support. Under the rules, Hoeven said, 'they always said you got to give states time to adjust in order to meet the test.' Republicans say the overall proposal is aimed at incentivizing states to reduce erroneous payments. But Democrats have sharply criticized the plan, arguing it would encourage states with higher error rates to continue making erroneous payments. 'The most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill: they have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska: AK, DC, FL, GA, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR. They are rewarding errors,' Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, wrote this week as she sounded off in a series of posts on X over the plan. In another swipe at the plan, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X that he had to text his state's governor that 10 states with 'the MOST ERRORS in administering the program' are 'exempt from food assistance cuts,' at that Hawaii is not exempt because the governor has done 'good work in reducing the error rate by 15 percent.' The comments come as Democrats and advocates have argued the measure could lead to states having to cut benefits because of the shift in cost burden. Recent figures unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) showed Alaska's payment error rate hit 24.66 percent in fiscal year 2024. The national average was 10.93 percent. Murkowski said after the vote that she didn't 'like' the bill but sought to 'to take care of Alaska's interests.' But she also said she knew 'that, in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.' 'I don't like the fact that we moved through an artificial deadline, an artificial timeline to produce something, to meet a deadline, rather than to actually try to produce the best bill for the country,' she said. 'But when I saw the direction that this is going, you can either say, 'I don't like it and not try to help my state,' or you can roll up your sleeves.' Republicans also criticized Democrats for challenging a previous GOP-crafted SNAP provision that sought to provide more targeted help to Alaska, as GOP leadership sought to win Murkowski's support for the bill, which ultimately passed the Senate in a tie-breaking vote. However, Democrats opposed previously proposed waivers for the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii, decrying 'special treatment.' In remarks on Wednesday, House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) the Senate 'had to add something to get to address that challenge that Alaska has.' 'The goal is, from a functionality perspective, they need to get their error rate down as soon as possible, because when the time comes, and they have to start to pay, they don't want to be that high error rate that you're coming in now,' he said. 'In most states, Alaska would be a challenge, I think, but most states have been under 6 percent at one time in past years,' he said. However, he also wasn't 'crazy about' work requirements exemptions for some Indigenous populations in the Senate's version of Trump's megabill that didn't appear in the House bill, as Republicans seek to tighten work requirements. 'It's what the Senate had to do,' he said, though he noted that 'economic conditions are challenging on those sovereign lands and in high unemployment, high poverty.' It's unclear whether the carve-outs were the result of talks Alaska senators had with GOP leadership around SNAP in the days leading up to the Senate passage. The Hill has reached out to their offices for comment. The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development said Alaska has 'one of the largest indigenous populations in the nation,' with Alaska Natives representing 17 percent of the state in 2010. At the same time, the Senate bill nixed temporary exemptions that had been preserved in the House bill for former foster youth, homeless individuals and veterans. Despite being preserved in the House plan, Thompson criticized the carve-outs, which were secured as part of a previous bipartisan deal in 2023. 'It cheats all those individuals from having access to that to us funding their SNAP Employment and career and technical education, because the whole goal here is to raise these people out of poverty if they're struggling in poverty, because that's how you qualify for SNAP,' he said. 'And the fact is, they were made ineligible for the really great benefits.' Other proposals in the party's SNAP plan seek to limit the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future, changes to work requirements and include a chunk of farm provisions. The plan comes as Republicans sought to find ways to generate north of $1 trillion in savings of federal dollars over the next decade as part of a major package that also advances President Trump's tax agenda, which is estimated to add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficits. Republicans say the proposed spending reductions, which are achieved also through changes to programs like Medicaid, are aimed at rooting out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in the federal government. But preliminary research released this week by the Urban Institute found that just the SNAP changes could affect about 22 million families, who researchers said could be at risk of 'losing some or all of their SNAP benefits' under the plan. Asked if last-minute changes to the plan to help other states and not his bothered him, Sen. Jim Justice ( who ultimately voted for the plan, told reporters this week, 'Yes and no.' 'But at the same time, I think they probably had more severe need and so I think it'll be fine,' Justice, a former governor, said Tuesday. 'If it's like any business deal that I've ever seen in my life, you know, the parties of a good business deal walk away after they get something done, and they walk away, and they're probably holding their nose a little bit, and they're probably regretting certain things and saying, 'Doggone, we didn't do good on this and that and everything,' That's a good deal.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.