“Most people do not seek the truth; they only gather reasons to defend what they believe. That's why debates produce stubbornness, not wisdom.”
What is more important than who this quote belongs to is how familiar it is today. For the landscape it describes seems to describe contemporary politics and public life rather than antiquity.
Modern politics remains ostensibly a contest of ideas. Elections are held, televised debates are organized, social media serves as a huge arena where millions of people express their opinions. But the key element missing in all this activity is often the truth itself.
Because in today's political culture, people are often not trying to find out what is right; rather, they are looking for ways to defend what they already believe to be right. When we listen to a politician's speech, we focus on finding fault, not on understanding the point. When we evaluate economic data, we don't look at what the number says, but whether it supports our worldview.
In such an environment, knowledge is transformed from a tool that illuminates the truth into ammunition for political identities.
Of course, people do not always consciously reject the truth. This tendency is reinforced by the increasing complexity of information, the acceleration of everyday life and the desire to fit in with the groups to which we belong. But the result is the same: Instead of shaping their thoughts according to the facts, people often begin to interpret the facts according to their thoughts.
The most visible consequence of this situation is polarization. Polarization is not just the presence of people with different opinions. The real problem is to start believing that the other side must be not only wrong but also malicious. The political opponent is no longer seen as a citizen who thinks differently, but as an enemy who must be defeated.
But the basic assumption of democracy is much more modest: No one person possesses the whole truth. The democratic system is based on the hope that more accurate conclusions can emerge from the encounter of different views. But this hope is only meaningful to the extent that the parties are willing to listen to each other and, when necessary, to revise their own convictions.
Today, politics is increasingly turning into a show of belonging rather than a search for truth. People are afraid to change their minds because changing one's mind is seen as a loss of identity, not a learning process. Admitting that you are wrong about something is considered a weakness, not a virtue. For this reason, political actors find it safer to say what their constituents want to hear than to say what they need to hear.
Social media reinforces this trend. Algorithms often bring us content that we like, while reducing the likelihood of encountering different opinions. But it's not just algorithms; people also often consciously or unconsciously choose to avoid content that challenges their own opinions. While digital platforms offer unprecedented opportunities to hear different opinions, in practice, most users choose to stay within the content that confirms their own opinions. In the end, people looking at the same country see completely different realities.
At this point, the biggest crisis facing politics is not an economic or institutional crisis, but an epistemological one; that is, the problem of what information people can trust, how to distinguish between fact and interpretation, and how to meet on a common ground of reality. If society cannot agree on this ground, it will not matter which ideology is in power. Because when the ground for debate collapses, all that remains is the struggle for power.
Perhaps what we need today is not more talk, but more doubt. To doubt our own thoughts, our own sides and our own certainties.
Because wisdom does not begin with being right. Wisdom begins with admitting that you might be wrong.
And if we want politics to be able to produce common sense again, we must first remember to be citizens, not supporters. Because democracies survive not only with people who vote, but also with citizens who accept that they might be wrong. Otherwise, instead of producing common sense, debates will only continue to generate more stubbornness.