~~ i disagree to agree to disagree :/

[reenka]

The 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.

Comments

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I sometimes find it hard to reply to posts that seem too complete - it's as if the writer is totally self-contained and the post is like an egg - it may be delicious and nutritious, but there's just nothing to grab on to (unless one wants to post 'word' or 'me too'). Posts that are more open ended, ask questions of the reader, or bring up topics that engender strong feelings are more likely to get a response, in my experience.

As for agreeing to disagree, that's a point I come to when the divergence of opinion has gone so far that one step further would mean insults and hard feelings, and I only do it when I care too much about the person with whom I'm conversing to take that step. For example, I won't agree to disagree with neo-Nazis, or homophobes, or KKK members. I think they're wrong and I'll fight them to my last breath. But one of my very dearest friends is a fundamentalist Baptist and on some matters of God, faith and religion we have come to a largely unspoken agreement that we just don't go there. To me, that's agreeing to disagree.

[ex_mrs260625]

That's interesting: I often do agree to disagree with homophobes; I find it easier to debate emotional subjects with friends. I agree to disagree when my opponent's expression of hir point of view upsets or angers me: I can't debate effectively when I'm upset, and trying will eventually drive me to attack my opponent. That makes for a poor conversation no matter what the original goal may have been. :0)

For me, it's not the goal of the conversation, it's the tone.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think I'm more like that. With a (close) friend, I feel free to debate anything (emotional territory or not), simply because we trust each other and understand where we're coming from, and it's -fun- to come to the brink of maddening annoyance, and (mostly) always stop short of crossing over into fighting.

But if it's a stranger and I don't respect them or the way they voice their opinions, there's really nothing to be gained from what will inevitably be me yelling at them.

I mean, I'm a rather open-minded person who has partly seen the points of many people I initially would have disagreed with-- but homophobia is one of the things that'll just get me to yell and scream and call you names in public. *laughs*

ANd er... that's just not my style.~:)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

So I suppose what it comes down to is a misuse of the agree-to-disagree concept as put forth by you and a few others here. I can see how the way you use it is healthy and a perfectly valid conversational tactic (ie, when it's in place of possible insults).... Although honestly, if it's a close friend, I wouldn't let them off the hook about religion/faith-related things, not because I'm an atheist proselytizer but because I believe that a thinking faith is the only faith I can respect; and if Thomas Aquinas can do it, so can my friend~:)

Also, I find theological debate interesting in its own right, and I'm theoretically willing to suspend my hyper-awareness of my atheism for the purposes of discussion. On the other hand, both I and my close friends are often given to over-intellectualism in all aspects, so I suppose this doesn't work with the average sort, heh.

As far as a post-as-an-egg.... Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess I have a tendency to try to answer my own questions, simply because I ask them and in my experience no one else is going to answer them as completely and consistently as I will, though I want feedback. In other words, it's a thinking-for-myself sort of thing. Hmmm. But yeah, I see how that would put people off the desire to cut in. Must consider this more ~:)

~reena