"combative collegiality"
In an article in in the Aug 2009 issue of Psychology Today, I read this paragraph about [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel's family:
The center of the Emanuel universe was the family dinner table, a boisterous place where all the meaningful issue of the day were hotly debated. While Rahm has called the verbal combat that took place there "gladitorial," [older brother] Zeke described it to me as more of a Talmudic Debate -- the Jewish tradition of argument where one's opponent is viewed as an ally in the search for truth. "It's a sign of love to take someone's view seriously," says Zeke, who has fostered at NIH a style modeled directly on the Emanual dinner table; he calls it "combative collegiality."
Fascinating.
Is this a strange thing, to argue with someone as an ally in the search for the truth? Is it a different kind of argument from some "normal" kind...?
The center of the Emanuel universe was the family dinner table, a boisterous place where all the meaningful issue of the day were hotly debated. While Rahm has called the verbal combat that took place there "gladitorial," [older brother] Zeke described it to me as more of a Talmudic Debate -- the Jewish tradition of argument where one's opponent is viewed as an ally in the search for truth. "It's a sign of love to take someone's view seriously," says Zeke, who has fostered at NIH a style modeled directly on the Emanual dinner table; he calls it "combative collegiality."
Fascinating.
Is this a strange thing, to argue with someone as an ally in the search for the truth? Is it a different kind of argument from some "normal" kind...?