I like using self-organizing systems metaphors. If the universe(or multiverse) is an auto-peiotic development, then it moves progressively from a state of lesser dynamic differentiation-integration-stability to a state of greater integrity. What this means at the level of cultural evolution is that our origins are necessarily violent and chaotic , but our future holds the promise of the sort of interpersonal agreement you state as a fact, but most would hold onto as a dream. — Joshs
Of course, whether we judge the other to be agreeable or not is a function, among other things, of the breadth of our perspective. The fact that Western Europe, for instance, is in the midst of its longest period without war, is considered by some a sign that we know how to agree with each other at the most general political level in a way we didn't used to. — Joshs
At a more up-close level, however, real intellectual disagreement can be measured by the negative affects(hostility, disgust, bewilderment, ridicule,etc) that run rampant in discussion forums and many other places, as reflected in the vast machinery of the litigation industry.
On this forum there are almost as many philosophical worldviews represented as there are contributors. These world views are not reconcilable in the sense that you can't reduce Hegel to Kant or Kant to Plato. — Joshs
If agreeing to disagree can be considered "being all in agreement", then we are all one big happy family here. But I suggest what is missing from this near-utopia is the resources to understand each participant's view as pragmatically true relative to their own perspective, and the ability to link each participant's perspective to those of all the others via some superordinate undestanding.
That is the means by which I can, if not move the other towards my position, at least see their viewpoint as valid and necessary for them given the world as they see it. — Joshs
The best way to fool yourself into thinking that everyone agrees on the fundamental
philosophical issues is to use a naturalistic vocabulary borrowed from mathematics and physics. These descriptive languages are designed to be so conceptually abstract as to mask important differences in worldview. — Joshs
The title of this thread is an update: disagreement is real; but it exists in spite of everybody essentially being in agreement. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I essentially disagree with this. — Marchesk
-we exist (can't imagine a substantive dialogue between a being who believes he and the other exists and a being who believes his own self and/or the other does not exist); — WISDOMfromPO-MO
the symbol "1" represents a particular quantity; — WISDOMfromPO-MO
words uttered aloud are associated with thoughts in the mind of the utterer and are not random sounds; — WISDOMfromPO-MO
The exchange of ideas is probably mostly referencing that essential core. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Well, the solipsist argues that others do not exist. And then the Buddhists and other like-minded folk say the self does not exist. Descartes can be criticized on the grounds that he assumed there was an I to the experience of having a doubt, given that he was supposed to be entertaining 100% radical doubt. — Marchesk
Or it exists platonically independent of any actual quantity. — Marchesk
Alternatively meaning does not exist in the head (semantic externalism), and language does not reference private states (Wittgenstein). You also have the behaviorists and the eliminative materialists. — Marchesk
For many years now I have sensed that we are all in agreement.
I used to say that disagreement is an illusion. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
No matter how you prefer to explain it, the more that I hear/see people interacting intellectually, the more apparent it becomes to me that we are all basically in agreement while nitpicking and splitting hairs over superficial differences. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
You could not be more wrong.
It's all about Point of View. — charleton
Disagreement would be two people with identical points of view getting different results. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and disagreement is millions of minds trying to put everything back together. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
If naturalism suits your taste: the mind was unified when if first appeared; it then diverged into hundreds/thousands of languages and/or cultures; disagreement is that fragmentation. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
No matter how you prefer to explain it, the more that I hear/see people interacting intellectually, the more apparent it becomes to me that we are all basically in agreement while nitpicking and splitting hairs over superficial differences. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
If people were not essentially in agreement--we exist (can't imagine a substantive dialogue between a being who believes he and the other exists and a being who believes his own self and/or the other does not exist); the symbol "1" represents a particular quantity; words uttered aloud are associated with thoughts in the mind of the utterer and are not random sounds; etc.--the exchange of ideas would not be possible. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Did heliocentrism prevail over geocentrism because disagreement came to a head and the facts settled that or because agreement could no longer rationally be denied? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Does not change the fact that a consensual exchange of ideas is highly implausible between people who do not mutually believe in each other's existence. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Depends on what everybody has agreed on. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.