I have two conflicting sayings to present to you today:
- The pen is mightier than the sword.
- Actions speak louder than words.
If the pen is mightier than the sword, does that mean words actually speak louder than actions? And if actions really speak louder than words, then is the sword actually mightier than the pen? Which is it? Or are they both true? I would argue that they both actually have some truth to them. I'll start with the truth behind the first of the two.
What this first statement says is that the words of a skillful writer can sway a mind more thoroughly and more efficiently than a conquering king can in battle. A king can conquer a land, but that does not necessarily put the minds of the conquered people in his hand. They may be in his power for a time, but they do not necessarily believe what he tells them to. The conquered people may follow his laws but rebel against him in their minds if they believe his laws are unjust.
On the other hand, a man can sway a whole country to his views if he uses the right words. He does not even need to conquer the people in battle to win their hearts to him if they believe what he says is true. Even if what he says is not true and he poses his ideas in a desirable way, the people can be swayed. So in that sense, the pen is mightier than the sword.
The second saying can be applied more generally than the first. In any situation in life, if you have to prove an idea is true, you can speak all you like about it and still not have anyone believe you. Even if you speak well, the best method to back up your ideas is to have actions supporting them. This is not to say that words cannot convince people, but that actions are more powerful. Not just actions involving physical combat, like in the first saying, but any kind of action. For example, if you wanted to show the power of forgiveness, you could talk all you liked about and still not make any sense. But if you proved its power by actually forgiving someone yourself, or showing the result of another person forgiving someone, that would have much more weight with your audience.
This idea can also be applied to the first saying. If a man took the first saying to heart and attempted to sway a people with his words instead of the sword, he would still need actions to prove his ideas. He wouldn't have to conquer the people to prove he is powerful, but if he were simply trying to prove the validity of a scheme of government, he could point out examples in history of when it has worked. This would have much more weight with the people, because the man has made it no longer about his own words, but about the proof of the past.
Thus, both ideas are true and can be applied in the same instance. Words are powerful, but can only get you so far before you need examples to back up your ideas.
The second saying can be applied more generally than the first. In any situation in life, if you have to prove an idea is true, you can speak all you like about it and still not have anyone believe you. Even if you speak well, the best method to back up your ideas is to have actions supporting them. This is not to say that words cannot convince people, but that actions are more powerful. Not just actions involving physical combat, like in the first saying, but any kind of action. For example, if you wanted to show the power of forgiveness, you could talk all you liked about and still not make any sense. But if you proved its power by actually forgiving someone yourself, or showing the result of another person forgiving someone, that would have much more weight with your audience.
This idea can also be applied to the first saying. If a man took the first saying to heart and attempted to sway a people with his words instead of the sword, he would still need actions to prove his ideas. He wouldn't have to conquer the people to prove he is powerful, but if he were simply trying to prove the validity of a scheme of government, he could point out examples in history of when it has worked. This would have much more weight with the people, because the man has made it no longer about his own words, but about the proof of the past.
Thus, both ideas are true and can be applied in the same instance. Words are powerful, but can only get you so far before you need examples to back up your ideas.
