“Do not answer a ksil (fool) according to his foolishness, lest you also be like him. Answer a ksil according to his foolishness, lest he view himself as a chacham (wise person)” (Mishlei 26:4-5)
The major problem with these two verses is that they explicitly contradict each other. King Solomon leaves us in a quandary: are we supposed to answer the fool or not?
The Targum (Aramaic translation) helps us resolve the contradiction with a few clever interpretive maneuvers: inserting the word “rather” between the two verses and replacing “lest” with “such that.” The verses now read: “Do not answer a fool according to his foolishness SUCH THAT you also be like him. RATHER, answer the fool according to his foolishness SUCH THAT he doesn’t view himself as a chacham.”
The Targum may have helped us out of the contradiction, but we still have to understand: what advice is King Solomon giving us?
The first step is to define the term “ksil.” There are numerous descriptions of the ksil throughout Mishlei: “ksilim hate knowledge” (1:22), “licentiousness is a sport for the ksil” (1o:23), “turning away from evil is an abomination to the ksil” (13:19). In short, a ksil is a person who shuns the life of the mind and embraces the life of the instincts and emotions.
The key phrase
here is “in accordance with his foolishness.” The fundamental
principle of arguing with a ksil is to recognize that
he is a ksil. King Solomon warns us not to respond to
the ksil in the same way we would respond to someone who is ignorant
or mistaken. The ksil’s problem runs so deep, that he requires an
answer tailored to his distorted personality. [1]
A ksil, like a chacham, has a lot of conviction in his ideas, as King Solomon says, “a ksil is bold and self-assured” (14:16). The difference is that the chacham’s conviction stems from his intellect, whereas the ksil’s conviction stems from his emotions. As such, no amount of reasoning will convince him that he is wrong. Any attempt to present rational arguments to the a ksil is a waste of time, as King Solomon says, “Do not speak in the ears of the fool, lest he mock the intelligence of your words” (23:9), “a ksil does not desire understanding, but only the inner desires of his heart” (18:2). Close-minded, self-confident, and hostile to knowledge - the standard dialectical approach is wasted on the ksil.
The ksil knows little, but perceives himself as a genius, as King Solomon says, “a ksil broadcasts his foolishness” (13:16). Ordinarily, the goal of a discussion is to arrive at the truth through reasoning. But the mind of a ksil is closed to truth. Thus, we must aim for a more basic goal: to open his mind to knowledge. How do we do this? By shattering his self-image that he is a chacham. So long as he thinks he is a chacham, he will never learn. The only way we can help him is by disabusing him of that notion.
How do we accomplish this? King Solomon doesn’t tell us. The answer will depend on the person and the subject matter. Of course, there a handful of universal methods as well: show him that he contradicts himself, that he utilizes fallacious reasoning, that he doesn’t define his terms, that he flip-flops whenever proven wrong, that he is making up facts, etc.
However, King Solomon warns us of a potential pitfall: do not, at any point in the argument, conduct yourself like a ksil. When arguing with an aggressive, self-confident ksil, it is all too easy to slip into employing the same tactics as the ksil: ad hominem attacks, setting up a straw man, appealing to authority, etc. [2] Your goal is to show him that you and he have fundamentally different approaches. Once he catches a glimmer of ksil in you, he’ll be able to write you off as just another idiot.
The bottom line: don’t argue with a ksil, but if you do, recognize that he is a ksil and make him recognize it too.
[1] This point may seem obvious, but I
have seen many intelligent people get sucked into arguments with ksilim
and attempting to refute them in the same manner they would attempt to refute
anyone else. They don’t seem to realize that a ksil is a different
animal, and must be dealt with accordingly. Perhaps this is the simple meaning
of the statement, “eeveles ksilim eeveles” – “the foolishness of the ksil
is foolishness.” On the surface, this statement is a tautology. Mai
hava amina - why would we think otherwise? But the point is that people do
think otherwise. Although they recognize that the ksil is wrong, they
fail to recognize the nature of his wrongness. They treat his position like a legitimately
incorrect position, failing to recognize that it is an illegitimately incorrect
position, since it stems from a distorted approach to knowledge.
[2] Perhaps this is alluded to by King Solomon in the verse: “Go far away
from a man who is a ksil, for you will ultimately lose your wisdom” (14:7)
- not that you will suffer permanent intellectual damage, but that in the
course of arguing with the ksil, his foolishness will rub off on you,
and you will suddenly find yourself conducting yourself like a ksil.