Civil discourse

Re: The dying art of civil disagreement, Bret Stephens, Sept. 30

Not since my undergraduate studies in philosophy have I read such a spirited and balanced defence of reasoned argument.

The writer makes a strong case for his position that people and society function at their best when all viewpoints can be expressed, examined, assessed, modified, refuted or agreed with.

He emphasizes that this process can only occur by means of civilized and respectful exchanges of opinion between people of good will, and that the ability to do this is a major goal of liberal arts education.

Debating well is exercise for the rational mind and this exercise is essential to maintain a vibrant, lifegiving society and healthy minds in its citizens. Rose Marie Jaco, London, Ont. The excerpt of Bret Stephens lecture whet my appetite to read his full speech, which I found in the Sept. 24 issue of The New York Times. Unfortunately, the excerpted version did not do full justice to the critically important issues included in the original text. The latter should be required reading for journalists, university students and their professors, and the public at large. This would probably require more time and effort than most self assured and outspoken partisans on both sides of the political divide would be willing to spend and exert. Then again, it reflects what Bertrand Russell is reported to have said: “Most people would sooner die than think. In fact they do so.” And the most likely response to this observation by partisans of any one side, is that surely, it must apply to partisans of the other side. Eli Honig, Toronto