As the years pass, I am increasingly aware of my ignorance. I seem fated each day to confront an ever growing mass of all that has escaped my knowledge. Much to my chagrin, many in politics appear to have avoided my fate. They protest that they know almost everything and that everybody agrees with them. For example, they are convinced that whatever they say is true whether supported by facts or not. They also facilely declare that “most Americans” agree with them regardless of whether the polls support their claim or not. Further they may even excoriate any who disagree with them as dupes or, worse, liars. Whatever they claim must be true for no other reason than the fact that they said so. Their minds are either so superior that they can create certainty at will . . . or perhaps so inferior that they are self-deceived. Befuddled by my personal ignorance in these matters, I turned to somebody more astute, a philosopher from the 5th century BC.

Socrates, in Plato’s dialogue “Phaedrus,” states the case. “Now to him who has a mind diseased anything is agreeable which is not opposed to him, but that which is equal or superior is hateful to him . . . “

In context, this quote refers to a selfish or narcissistic lover. But it really applies to anyone who values his/her opinion above all else and who finds intolerable those who disagree with him, most especially if they show better judgment. Since none of us can claim total immunity to our baser instincts, it tasks our humility to admit ever having had such a diseased mind. But it is more than likely that most of us, at some point in our lives, believed beyond a shadow of a doubt in the superiority of our opinions or beliefs. Many political arguments derive their inexorable correctness from this sense of superiority. The danger in this form of political correctness is that it dooms one to live without apology in a state of mental purgatory: imprisoned in ego’s tower, engaged only with sycophants or those in agreement, and insulated from the wisdom of others not so agreed. And if impugned or corrected in this state of mind, a person’s likely response would be reactive and perhaps filled with vitriol and even hate. Anybody so doomed cannot accept any reality other than the one dreamt by a self-serving and closed mind. To quote Socrates, “. . . not to be able to distinguish the dream from the reality cannot in truth be otherwise than disgraceful to him, even though he have (sic) the applause of the whole world.”

Of course, it is difficult to accept criticism; and being “talked down to” is humiliating. Any one of us would resent being addressed in this manner. In the political forum, opponents will necessarily contest each other’s arguments and accusations. So we should anticipate some friction in their political debates. But when they become exceedingly demeaning to each other, the voter must assess whether their arguments might come from a “mind diseased.” I think Socrates helps us make that assessment. Most would generally agree that disease incapacitates an organ or function of the human body. Socrates’ reference to a diseased mind, then, is a statement of incapacity. We might call this incapacity “shortsightedness” or “uninformed.” But Socrates is specifically addressing a prejudicial mindset that may indeed present these characteristics but is born of a much deeper character flaw: a self-willed arrogance and an uncontrollable urge to seek retribution against any who may be seen in opposition. This emotionally driven mindset is the very definition of hubris.

Now disagreements between candidates for office are not only common but beneficial to a democracy. But when candidates become so disagreeable that their discourse is actually hateful, something other than honest debate is occurring. Their campaign is more than a contest of ideas, but of will, specifically, the spiteful arrogance that claims power as its right. And that is the height of hubris. In a few days, Americans will tune into the Presidential Debates. We need to listen to the opposing views, dissect the supporting arguments, and assess the character of the candidates. I do not believe it will be that difficult to distinguish the differences in their ideas. But the emotional content of their respective performance may reveal something about their character that could easily be missed. Specifically, you may see an underlying motive born of hubris. In that instance, just remember Socrates’ warning of a mind diseased.