~~ i disagree to agree to disagree :/
Sep. 25th, 2003 05:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaThe concept of agreeing to disagree is strange to me, as is the idea that agreement is therefore the goal of debate or dialogue-type discourse to start with.
Thinking about this, it seems like a major fallacy. The continuous process of thinking would seem to rely on the formulation of questions, rather than that of ready rhetoric, thereafter merely used for comparison with others'. If your goal is to consider a topic, the idea of agreeing to disagree implies that your opinion is somehow intrinsically right and moreover unshakeable, and that talking about it is basically a pleasant exercise in wagging your mouth or fingers.
I'm not saying that having an opinion is somehow bad or unhealthy, but I've come across people saying "let's just agree to disagree" often enough so that now it just annoys me, whether it's said to me personally or not. It's like one of those no-no's in conversation from a list of "Nazi Conversation Tactics" I've come across on the internet once (or whatever it was called). It really kills discourse and it's just awful because there's nothing you can say to it by definition.
I suppose I'm an unusual case because I almost never disagree with anyone 100%. Everything is a question of degree, and it's within the degrees of truth that the question of refinement and improvement lies. It becomes apparent that most people who engage in so-called "intelligent conversation" don't really care about thinking (which should really be termed re-thinking, because it's not like one only thinks -once- and that's it, job done). Neither do they care about the search for the "truth", assuming that truth is worth searching for or even exists outside of the minds of some fanatics who think they've touched the mind of god. That, or they're mathematicians. Hee. Kidding.
I've noticed that a significant number of semi-random people friend me, so supposedly they read what I say, and yet the amount of replies I get is significantly lower than that of some people who're "plebes" or don't say much beyond "I had pizza today" or whose fics are questionable quality at best. (Bitter? Meeeee?) The greatest amount of discussion, whether from my own posts or those of others' seems to involve instances when people disagree strenuously, most often for personal reasons, like when I've hit upon a pet-peeve or project of theirs, so somehow I've become immensely relevant all of a sudden. If I'm just talking in general non-offensive terms, I'm not all that relevant, I guess, so discussion's at a standstill. Lasair tells me it's because what I say is either entirely convincing or I'm just confusing, neither of which inspires much commentary. And of course, it's not as if I -want- a bunch of me-too's. If anything, because hive-minds are scary, man.
I find it interesting that agreement means silence. The silence of the majority, I suppose. I also find it interesting that this complete agreement is even possible on a large scale. On the other hand, the very duality of agreement/disagreement (while apparently natural) is what concerns me, of course. I don't want to be the prophet of the righteous and the morally/philosophically correct. I also don't want to be that gibbering madman in the corner. Hopefully, there's a happy medium where I can inspire questions and discover new answers by others' questions to me. It is most often in the re-thinking of my position that I really feel that wonderful buzz of sudden insight. Taken alone, my thought is necessarily constrained by a multitude of assumptions and short-cuts and biases I take for granted. It is only when someone asks why and wonders that I can wonder with them.
I don't know what the point of this is. It's not trying to make anyone agree or disagree, by god. I don't think imploring my readers to question me would do any good, since I believe you would if you wanted to. But I feel better having verbalized it, anyway.
Thinking about this, it seems like a major fallacy. The continuous process of thinking would seem to rely on the formulation of questions, rather than that of ready rhetoric, thereafter merely used for comparison with others'. If your goal is to consider a topic, the idea of agreeing to disagree implies that your opinion is somehow intrinsically right and moreover unshakeable, and that talking about it is basically a pleasant exercise in wagging your mouth or fingers.
I'm not saying that having an opinion is somehow bad or unhealthy, but I've come across people saying "let's just agree to disagree" often enough so that now it just annoys me, whether it's said to me personally or not. It's like one of those no-no's in conversation from a list of "Nazi Conversation Tactics" I've come across on the internet once (or whatever it was called). It really kills discourse and it's just awful because there's nothing you can say to it by definition.
I suppose I'm an unusual case because I almost never disagree with anyone 100%. Everything is a question of degree, and it's within the degrees of truth that the question of refinement and improvement lies. It becomes apparent that most people who engage in so-called "intelligent conversation" don't really care about thinking (which should really be termed re-thinking, because it's not like one only thinks -once- and that's it, job done). Neither do they care about the search for the "truth", assuming that truth is worth searching for or even exists outside of the minds of some fanatics who think they've touched the mind of god. That, or they're mathematicians. Hee. Kidding.
I've noticed that a significant number of semi-random people friend me, so supposedly they read what I say, and yet the amount of replies I get is significantly lower than that of some people who're "plebes" or don't say much beyond "I had pizza today" or whose fics are questionable quality at best. (Bitter? Meeeee?) The greatest amount of discussion, whether from my own posts or those of others' seems to involve instances when people disagree strenuously, most often for personal reasons, like when I've hit upon a pet-peeve or project of theirs, so somehow I've become immensely relevant all of a sudden. If I'm just talking in general non-offensive terms, I'm not all that relevant, I guess, so discussion's at a standstill. Lasair tells me it's because what I say is either entirely convincing or I'm just confusing, neither of which inspires much commentary. And of course, it's not as if I -want- a bunch of me-too's. If anything, because hive-minds are scary, man.
I find it interesting that agreement means silence. The silence of the majority, I suppose. I also find it interesting that this complete agreement is even possible on a large scale. On the other hand, the very duality of agreement/disagreement (while apparently natural) is what concerns me, of course. I don't want to be the prophet of the righteous and the morally/philosophically correct. I also don't want to be that gibbering madman in the corner. Hopefully, there's a happy medium where I can inspire questions and discover new answers by others' questions to me. It is most often in the re-thinking of my position that I really feel that wonderful buzz of sudden insight. Taken alone, my thought is necessarily constrained by a multitude of assumptions and short-cuts and biases I take for granted. It is only when someone asks why and wonders that I can wonder with them.
I don't know what the point of this is. It's not trying to make anyone agree or disagree, by god. I don't think imploring my readers to question me would do any good, since I believe you would if you wanted to. But I feel better having verbalized it, anyway.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-09-25 04:41 pm (UTC)For instance, I'm responding to your post because you seemed to be requesting a reply, but you don't actually say that, and people do like a specific question to respond to--I certainly do, because I like to have the perimeters of discussion defined, anal woman that I am.
Silence isn't always agreement, either; I've read some posts (in general) that I didn't agree with, but had neither the time nor the energy to argue my case. On the flip side, I've responded to posts that I didn't agree with only to have the LJ owner become upset, interpreting my comments as an attack and not as part of a dialogue, and I don't want to upset anyone.
no subject
Date: 2003-09-25 05:39 pm (UTC)And yeah, I do see how silence wouldn't always be agreement. That's way too much of a generalization, anyway. I suppose... it's also partly that I see people who're more "popular" (in the BNF way) get a lot (like, 10-20! if not 30!) comments on their most obscure and intellectual queries, but I guess that's where the query comes in, 'cause I write rambly monologues instead. Hmmmm.....
And wow.
I got metablogged! *blushes*~:)