Lessons for Lawyers from the Great Conversation: Agesilaus

For as it is the opinion of philosophers, that could you take away strife and opposition out of the universe, all the heavenly bodies would stand still, generation and motion would cease in the mutual concord and agreement of all things, so the Spartan legislator (Agesilaus) seems to have admitted ambition and emulation among the ingredients of his commonwealth, as the incentives of virtue, distinctly wishing that there should be some dispute and competition among his men of worth, and pronouncing the mere idle, uncontested, mutual compliance to unproved deserts to be but a false sort of concord. And some think Homer had an eye to this when he introduces Agamemnon well pleased with the quarrel arising between Ulysses and Achilles, and with the “terrible words” that passed between them, which he would never have done, unless he had thought emulation and dissensions between the noblest men to be of great public benefit. Yet this maxim is not simply to be granted, without restriction, for if animosities go too far they are very dangerous to cities and of most pernicious consequence.

- Agesilaus, (a king of Sparta, of the Eurypontid dynasty, whom Plutarch described as “as good as thought commander and king of all Greece”) on the virtue of dissent.

The practice of law is, at it’s heart, adversarial in nature. Dissent and debate are second nature to lawyers. Many say that the general contentiousness of lawyers lay at the heart of many problems in today’s world, or that involving lawyers in a situation exacerbates discord. However, too often people place a “happy face” on their problems and are politically correct in their desire for resolutions. The reality is that dissent, when properly managed and not allowed to become overwhelming, actually strengthens  the participants. When two participants on opposite sides of an issue argue and discourse they are forced to justify their own positions as well as attack their opponents, which in turn forces them to examine and grow in their understanding of the issue.

Persistent, false harmony leads to stagnation and weakness. Risk, challenge, and dissent lead to growth.

Sign up for free updates
No Spam Ever

Tags: , ,

3 comments
Keith Lee
Keith Lee

Mr. Chan, I appreciate your comment and you bring up a good point in regards as to who benefits from such dissent. Agesilaus stated above "dissensions between the noblest men to be of great public benefit." Are lawyers the noblest of men? Why I definitely do not think this universally to be the case, I would like to think that the best of attorneys would aspire to be so. However, as you stated, argument (and costly legal fees) do little for the clients involved. If a lawyer is to make client service his primary responsibility, than resolution of a conflict with low cost, impact and haste are to be of the utmost importance and any sort of personal growth of the attorney or benefit to society should be a secondary goal. While society or the lawyers might benefit from a legal battle, it is not the reason clients retain the services of lawyers. As such, while dissent should be seen as an opportunity to grow and test one's mettle, it is also not something to be sought after in order to fulfill one's (perhaps selfish?) desire for growth or change at the expense of those to whom you are responsible. There are other avenues (sports, debate) available that do not jeopardize the clients interests. It is a fine line to walk I suppose. Thank you again for your comment, it made me re-examine my position and further clarify my thoughts on the matter. Glad you are enjoying the blog.

Kevin Chan
Kevin Chan

Just call me Kevin. I don't think I have more practical experience than you do (6 months doing my articles in-house), so we're peers. In any case, I very much like your approach using greek and eastern philosophy though since that is largely my own. I practice martial arts and come from a political science background (with heavy doses of philosophy). I would consider them my main sources from which I draw my principles for developing myself as a professional. I'm not sure how many people take this route, but I'm glad I can say we're at least two of a kind!

Kevin Chan
Kevin Chan

Hi Keith, I like the blog. I always found it harder to post than to comment -- maybe because in the one case you’re putting your mind up to be scrutinized while in the other you anonymously leave your two-cents and walk away unworried – so I respect the effort put into your blog. Anyways, here’s my two-cents: "Many say that the general contentiousness of lawyers lay at the heart of many problems in today’s world, or that involving lawyers in a situation exacerbates discord. However, too often people place a “happy face” on their problems and are politically correct in their desire for resolutions. The reality is that dissent, when properly managed and not allowed to become overwhelming, actually strengthens the participants." While I agree that this might be said of the lawyers representing both parties, I find it hard to apply to the parties themselves. I don't see how a drawn-out, costly legal battle is to the benefit of either lawyer's client. At the end of the day, one will be miffed and the other one will have thought he was right all along and shouldn't have paid so much to get what should have been coming to him anyways. I would have to say that it is more society that gains from the painful experience of the parties. Jurisprudence and the lawyers involved are enriched with each bout in court. If it's a case of first impression, we're making new law; if it's application of a precedent we're nonetheless adding to the corpus of rulings. As for the lawyers, they have the opportunity to fine-tune their understanding of the law which makes them more effective in future cases. Win or lose, they have grown. Nonetheless, I still believe that to say that the parties directly involved have grown "stronger" from their ordeal would be a little far-fetched. KC

New Here? Like What You See? Follow Me on Twitter
More in Great Conversation
Lessons for Lawyers from the Great Conversation – Aemilius Paullus

At last, he began to discourse of fortune and human affairs. "Is it meet," said he, "for him that knows...

Close