Axioms of Discourse

Mikie

Clearly we live in highly divisive times, and this isn't only an Internet phenomenon (although social media has helped accelerate it) but at its core a problem of thought and perception, founded on beliefs and values. This is why we hear so much talk about how citizens are living in "alternative realities."

This has led to political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other," reminiscent of religious wars.

I'm as guilty as anyone. But I was thinking today, while forcing myself to listen to an old Milton Friedman Q&A video on YouTube, about ways to overcome this temptation to dehumanize.

For example, I personally hold Friedman -- the preeminent purveyor of neoliberal doctrine -- as one of the small group of intellectuals responsible for many of today's problems, through his influence on economic and political ideology. Yet I have also always believed (perhaps naively) that he was sincere.

So how can someone who is generally bright, well-meaning and sincere be so wrong and pave the way for so many issues? This is a silly question -- because nearly every evil person not only justifies their actions to others, but believes it all themselves. So the real question is: why do otherwise normal people make choices that go against their goals?

Again, I'd argue that the problem of bad decisions ultimately amounts to the basic beliefs and values that shape thought and perception -- certain axioms. By "axioms" I mean answers to basic (and often tacit) philosophical questions: about what constitutes the "good," and especially about human nature and the legitimacy of power.

It's not only a matter of definition. We frequently see many discussions on this site fail before they even get going because of a confusion of meanings. We ask our opponents to define their terms, etc. But what we're essentially asking about are their basic beliefs. Do we believe in "liberty"? Democracy? Are we against dictatorship and slavery? Assuming we can agree on the definitions (and I think most of us do), what is our general position?

Beneath all the liberal and conservative propaganda which has ensnared a good number of us, I think there exists a hidden consensus about these questions. Who of our fellow citizens, for example, will stand up and say "Yes, I'm in favor of massive wealth inequality" or "I'm racist," or "I think only the elites should run the world"? Very few.

With that being said, I argue that it's best to avoid in-depth discussion of anything until this consensus is confirmed, if for no other reason than to avoid wasting time.

It would be absurd to discuss a problem of geometry if your interlocutor has beforehand rejected Euclid's axioms, or problems of algebra if arithmetic has been rejected. The same can be said of political or economic problems as well, and indeed for nearly any intellectual conversation worth having. This is my thesis.

- - - -

So, given the above, a few proposed axioms of discourse:

1. Establish agreement not only about basic definitions (which is important), but also about basic beliefs.

This is an essential place to start any discussion, as mentioned above, because it saves a lot of time, effort, and confusion. I can't count how many times an argument eventually loops back to these questions somehow.

2. Make sure to understand the other person's position.

This is best demonstrated by stating what you believe to be their argument, and by them confirming your accuracy. No straw men, no caricatures, and hopefully far less later misunderstanding.

3. Build on commonality.

Once basic beliefs and definitions are agreed upon, and positions accurately understood, then go on to problems and proposed solutions.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted?

Manuel

Yet I have also always believed (perhaps naively) that he was sincere. — Xtrix

Yes and no. He was quite a bit more nuanced in private affairs with his fellow Mont Pelerin and Chicago School contemporaries. I know that Phillip Mirowski and perhaps even Janek Wasserman speak about this - not much, but enough to get the idea that he "knew more" than what he said publicly.

So it's hard to judge.

So, a few axioms of discourse — Xtrix

As for the rest of your post, it's a good idea for a thread. I think #2 and #3 make sense, but we have to avoid the temptation of generalizing person X for saying he is a "classical liberal" (as it's used in the US).

We can't help but associate such ideas with free marketism, for example. We can temper our hesitancy if we engage in good faith and sometimes we even learn something.

#3 is probably the best one. We both agree that we want less gun related deaths and less victimless criminals in prison. From these general premises we can work on something. However if we frame it as "gun control" or being "soft on crime", we've already doomed ourselves to a conclusion, most of the time. At least that's been my experience.

#1 is sisyphean. Just look at philosophy for heavens sake, we can't even agree on what consciousness or matter are, simpler notions than politics by far.

tim wood

↪Xtrix

You forgot the big gnarly club - or worse - with which to bash the recalcitrant on the nose - or worse. Yours an invitation to civil discourse, but hypocrisy is not interested, and these days doesn't even bother to disguise itself. The question becomes, when will they be subject to real punishment and under what circumstances. Because imo, many have long since earned it. .

Streetlight

It would be absurd to discuss a problem of geometry if your interlocutor has beforehand rejected Euclid's axioms, or problems of algebra if arithmetic has been rejected. The same can be said of political or economic problems as well, and indeed for nearly any intellectual conversation worth having. — Xtrix

The same cannot, in any sense, be said of political and economic problems. Why? Because the latter issues are lived. You may never have to deal with Euclid's axioms, but economics and politics will deal with you whether you like it or not.The liberal idea that we're all in this together tra-la-la happy-happy hold-hands simply does not hold. When some corporation is poisoning your water supply for profit, the idea that one must hold equal in discourse what is unequal in reality is to side with said poisoners. There are issues in which if you are not engaged and partisan, you do not deserve to comment. When you erase considerations of power and positionality and treat discussion as some abstract game disconnected from real life, you cede power to those who, in that 'real life', make moves that matter, while defanging and making tea-time out of discourse among fake equals who are anything but.

If you cannot exercise power in discourse when massive power in reality is being everywhere exercised by those who would be more than happy to watch you rot, then you may as well lay down and die. There are lived asymmetries that cannot be papered over by fake, idealized symmetries without exacerbating the former. Division and incivility is a public good. Perhaps the last remaining one, in a world in which all actual power has accrued to but a handful. Sometimes, you don't want to 'understand' and 'communicate' with the river poisoners. You want them to stop poisoning your river.

T Clark

The liberal idea that we're all in this together tra-la-la happy-happy hold-hands simply does not hold. When some corporation is poisoning your water supply for profit, the idea that one must hold equal in discourse what is unequal in reality is to side with said poisoners. — StreetlightX

In the US at least, environmental protection enforced by government is part of the liberal agenda, resisted by business, often conservatives. The air and water in the US is dramatically cleaner than it was before 1970, when the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed. To be fair, they were passed with the support of Richard Nixon, a Republican.

Division and incivility is a public good. — StreetlightX

Perhaps in Australia, but not in general and not in the United States. The division and discord we see here, with the Trump presidency the most recent example, has been building for decades. It was engineered implemented by the Republican Party to advance their particular agenda. Governing takes a certain minimum level of civil discourse. There are a lot of people in the US not interested in governing.

Mikie

#1 is sisyphean. Just look at philosophy for heavens sake, we can't even agree on what consciousness or matter are, simpler notions than politics by far. — Manuel

I don't think that's true. There seems to me as much consensus about things in politics as there is about anything -- it's just deliberately been targeted for confusion and propaganda. But when the buzz words are removed -- "socialism," "communism," "capitalism," "free markets," "liberal," etc. -- it's a much different picture.

A major caveat: this isn't always true. Some people are simply too far gone to even bother with.

Yours an invitation to civil discourse, but hypocrisy is not interested, and these days doesn't even bother to disguise itself. The question becomes, when will they be subject to real punishment and under what circumstances. Because imo, many have long since earned it. . — tim wood

I agree, of course. I'm interested only in civil discourse if I believe the other side is acting on good faith, which is why I brought up Friedman, and I restrict this mostly to the domain of the intelligentsia.

You may never have to deal with Euclid's axioms, but economics and politics will deal with you whether you like it or not. — StreetlightX

We live with technology, and its basis in science and mathematics -- and don't have to understand it. Likewise we live with the decisions of those in power, both in government and in business; the basis for those decisions come from political and economic paradigms -- whether we understand them or not. The idea of the efficiency of free markets is as much taken for granted as Euclid's postulates in many minds.

When some corporation is poisoning your water supply for profit, the idea that one must hold equal in discourse what is unequal in reality is to side with said poisoners. — StreetlightX

Yes of course. But I'm not a pacifist. I fully acknowledge that rationality and civil discourse necessarily break down, righty, in many situations. Sometimes we simply have to punch back -- no more words.

What I think you're objecting to is two assumptions which I may not have made clear. One is that the other person is rational, and the second is that this person is acting on good faith -- however wrong or deluded they may be. This is why I say it's simply a waste of time to argue with anyone before at least securing this.

I like the example of games. If you and I are playing poker, and we establish we both want the same outcome (to win money), then we can discuss the best strategies. I may hold a very losing strategy and not know it, and if I'm rational I should be more than happy to be corrected. If I'm a drunken imbecile, and don't give a damn about winning money, then there's no point discussing strategy (or anything else).

What I'm trying to ultimately attack is the false dogma that the ruling class have used to maintain their power.

"The capitalist class was in a great deal of difficulty. They decided to push back real hard in the 70s. But like any ruling class, they needed ruling ideas. So the ruling ideas were that freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty, and all the rest of it, should be the ruling ideas of a new social order. It was this order that got implemented in the 1980s and 1990s. In the course of that, certain adjustments occurred; for instance, a much stronger emphasis upon financialization and financial power -- because finance is one way in which an individual can accumulate a vast amount of wealth." -- David Harvey [Emphasis mine]

This fight may not be won with words or by changing minds -- I'm doubtful about that myself. But as long as we're here discussing things, I think my rules of thumb are generally helpful to keep in mind. Otherwise what's the point? The only alternative is physical force, and if that's the case, so be it.

Streetlight

The division and discord we see here, with the Trump presidency the most recent example, has been building for decades. — T Clark

The division and discord you have in the US is between one set of working class plebs pitched against another set of working class plebs. What you don't have is a righteous division between those with power and those without. The fact that you under the absurd impression that this works along party lines - blaming 'Republicans', as though democrats are note complicit and in fact part of the same machine - makes you exactly one of the said working class plebs.

Mikie

The division and discord we see here, with the Trump presidency the most recent example, has been building for decades. It was engineered implemented by the Republican Party to advance their particular agenda. — T Clark

When it comes to the population interested in politics, I do believe it's almost entirely hopeless. There's no longer anything rational about it, and no one is acting on good faith. There's no consistency, no principles -- it's pure tribalism. In that case, it's best not to waste our time with argumentation, and my "axioms" go right out the window. We simply must overpower them -- through force, though voting, through organizing, through greater outreach, etc.

But to the leaders in government and business who still have some semblance of reason left, I think there's still a chance -- and the only way to win is to play the game better. If the Chicago School could transform the intellectual landscape by infiltrating Harvard and Yale, corporate boardrooms and Capitol Hill, in just a decade or so, through nothing but articles, interviews, lectures, television appearances, books, etc., then there's no reason to believe the pendulum can't swing the other way.

The only question is whether it's too late. That may very well be the case -- and indeed I fear it is.

But still we should try in the meantime -- while also organizing as quickly as we can.

T Clark

The division and discord you have in the US is between one set of working class plebs pitched against another set of working class plebs. What you don't have is a righteous division between those with power and those without. The fact that you under the absurd impression that this works along party lines - blaming 'Republicans', as though democrats are note complicit and in fact part of the same machine - makes you exactly one of the said working class plebs. — StreetlightX

Serious question - are things different in Australia?

T Clark

When it comes to the population interested in politics, I do believe it's almost entirely hopeless. There's no longer anything rational about it, and no one is acting on good faith. There's no consistency, no principles -- it's pure tribalism. — Xtrix

I don't agree. I think the values of most Americans are pretty mainstream. Discord has been intentionally engineered to keep people with common needs and goals separated.

Streetlight

↪T Clark

Well we are becoming more and more Americanized every day, which is the worst possible thing that can happen. In some respects we are much worse, considering we just passed the most authoritarian and utterly terrifying cyber-security law on the face of the planet. In any case, I most certainly want more division in Australia. So long as the lines between us and them are not properly drawn, we - in Australia as in the US - will continue to lose.

Mikie

I don't agree. I think the values of most Americans are pretty mainstream. Discord has been intentionally engineered to keep people with common needs and goals separated. — T Clark

Sure, which is why I said "almost." Some can be reached. But it's been engineered all too well, to the point of a cult. I do pity those people, but I'm not totally convinced that they can be persuaded that they're mistaken. (Because they don't want to be.)

Manuel

I don't think that's true. There seems to me as much consensus about things in politics as there is about anything -- it's just deliberately been targeted for confusion and propaganda. But when the buzz words are removed -- "socialism," "communism," "capitalism," "free markets," "liberal," etc. -- it's a much different picture.

A major caveat: this isn't always true. Some people are simply too far gone to even bother with. — Xtrix

But it's extremely difficult to begin a conversation without these buzzwords coming up very quickly. People want to save the mental effort of trying to figure out every single major political issue one may have. So if someone will ask "are you a libertarian/liberal/socialist?", many topics are stalled.

If you can avoid these labels to a latter point in the conversation, it's better I think. First explore the ideas as much as possible before a label comes up, then you can use them. But starting with definitions is problematic.

As soon as you say, I'm for "freedom/democracy/human rights/etc.", people assume "democracy" means choosing candidate A over candidate B (and sometimes a C), "freedom" means (in the US context, much of the time) not having the government interfere with my life.

But if you say "by freedom, I mean freedom to be able to do things instead of starving", people frequently don't understand what you're saying or retort to saying "that's not freedom".

So, it's not about not defining labels per se, but not beginning your axiomatic system with definitions. It becomes contentious too soon. In my opinion.

And yes, I agree, some people are not worth engaging.

Streetlight

We live with technology, and its basis in science and mathematics -- and don't have to understand it. Likewise we live with the decisions of those in power, both in government and in business; the basis for those decisions come from political and economic paradigms -- whether we understand them or not. The idea of the efficiency of free markets is as much taken for granted as Euclid's postulates in many minds. — Xtrix

Right, but only one of these is differential in its effects. Whatever the discourse around parallel lines, my life is exactly the same as Jeff Bezos. It is not the same when it comes to political and economic structure. These cannot be analogized, not by any sensible stretch of the imagination. Again, power and positionality. Who is speaking? To what end?

freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty, and all the rest of it, should be the ruling ideas of a new social order. — Xtrix

Does it not twig that 'the marketplace of ideas' is exactly of a piece with this? And another point - I always think it's terrible when people discuss neoliberialism as a regime of ideas and not actions. The ideas are retroactive. Had Friedman's ideas not provided the ideological cover for what would have, in all probability, be done with or without them, they would have used another set of ideas. The idealist approach to understanding neoliberalism is totally misguided. Instead, one ought to begin with privatization; devolution of power; the demolishing of workers rights; inequitable trade agreements. The 'ideas' are so much window dressing added on top. While they feed back and crystalize what is already happening, to begin with neoliberalism as a doctrine of 'ideas' rather than material effects is completely wrongheaded. This is yet another reason why I do not believe in civility politics.

And just to be clear, I'm all for bad faith arguments, tactically employed. I want to win in reality, not 'be the most rational' in discussion. The enemy ought to be exasperated. They ought to have to waste hundred and thousands of hours and money and resources. The powerful have this down to a tee. The left - or more precisely, American liberals - need to learn to argue smart (as them), not argue well. Liberals like to self-aggrandize and scoff about how 'the facts have a liberal bias' - it doesn't occur to them the game is played exactly where the facts are irrelevant, and that they are the biggest dupes in the building.

Ennui Elucidator

↪Xtrix

Why?

I think there exists a hidden consensus about these questions. — Xtrix

I appreciate the sentiment, but reject the premise. People actually do have different ideas about “the good” or “justice” or the proper relation between state and citizen. While in some circumstances there is sufficient commonality of culture that disagreements can be resolved by appeal to straight thinking and common purpose, in general there is sufficient diversity of interest that spending time looking for consensus on big issues simply diverts from agreement on the particular issue at hand.

In any event, I wonder what circumstance you envision where your axioms would add to the discussion. Outside of a relatively small group of participants who may be interested in making a shared decision, the process seems likes it will overwhelm the actual reason for the discourse. If it is purely about two individuals having a chat on some topic that is sufficiently complex that it warrants a three step process of establishing common beliefs/meanings, fully stating each person’s position and having the other repeat it to their satisfaction, and then mutually agreeing upon the problem and solution, there may be some context in which your proposed process is more efficient than some other process.

Can you provide a few examples of conversations that would have been improved by this process? Additionally, please provide some indication of how improvement is being assessed - from who’s perspective, by what criteria, etc.

Ennui Elucidator

And just to be clear, I'm all for bad faith arguments, tactically employed. I want to win in reality, not 'be the most rational'. — StreetlightX

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Mikie

It is not the same when it comes to political and economic structure. These cannot be analogized, not by any sensible stretch of the imagination. Again, power and positionality. Who is speaking? To what end? — StreetlightX

Exactly right. I'm failing to see the disagreement, beyond my use of analogy (which is admittedly limited).

Had Friedman's ideas not provided the ideological cover for what would have, in all probability, be done with or without them, they would have used another set of ideas. The idealist approach to understanding neoliberalism is totally misguided. — StreetlightX

Every destructive action taken the last 40 years, in what amounts to nothing more than a capitalist-class power grab, has its intellectual justification -- and that's true across the board historically. It was true with National Socialism. Whether those in power truly believe these justifications or not isn't my point -- my point is the effect it has on the public.

Since they can't express what amounts to a belief in the divine right of kings, they need cover. I argue that this cover matters in the same way that propaganda, through education and media, matter. That's not the same as ignoring actions. Besides, is there any doubt that certain actions can't be taken without first fooling the public into permitting them?

Just look at real examples -- like the slogans that get repeated about small government and the welfare queens here in the US. Very effective propaganda. If ideas like these take hold, as they did, then it opens the space for the concrete actions of cutting taxes and eliminating social programs, which is what was desired all along by the wealthy and powerful.

You're quite right that if it weren't Milton Friedman it would have been someone else -- but I bring him up only because that's what in fact won out. So there's no doubt that the neoliberal program is a set of actions like deregulation, destroying unions, cutting taxes, and so on -- but do you think any of these actions could have occurred in the Keynesian era?

And just to be clear, I'm all for bad faith arguments, tactically employed. I want to win in reality, not 'be the most rational'. The enemy ought to be exasperated. — StreetlightX

Sure, but I don't think this is how the Chicago boys won the universities and most of the public. I think they truly believed this bullshit, and so were in essence acting on true convictions and in good faith. Much more persuasive.

I could be wrong about that -- in which case, fine: bad faith it is. I'm all for effective propaganda. It's true the left sucks at this.

Mikie

But it's extremely difficult to begin a conversation without these buzzwords coming up very quickly. — Manuel

Right, which is why I think they should be avoided or at least clarified. Otherwise it's a complete waste of time.

Why? — Ennui Elucidator

Why what?

Can you provide a few examples of conversations that would have been improved by this process? Additionally, please provide some indication of how improvement is being assessed - from who’s perspective, by what criteria, etc. — Ennui Elucidator

I think this forum provides plenty of examples, but there are many from my own experience and mistakes. I often misunderstand and misrepresent the other person, and in the end, only after a long argument, come to see that I was mistaken and had misattributed beliefs, values, attitudes, or characteristics to them without knowing it. Had I not assumed the other was an idiot, or deluded, or childish, or otherwise simply reacted, and first made an attempt to understand, it would have saved me time -- I would have either confirmed I was correct or else realized I wasn't and went on to more constructive discourse.

I think progress is when two people are collaborating on solving a problem and learning rather than wallowing in misunderstandings before anything happens.

Tom Storm

1. Establish agreement not only about basic definitions (which is important), but also about basic beliefs.

This is an essential place to start any discussion, as mentioned above, because it saves a lot of time, effort, and confusion. I can't count how many times an argument eventually loops back to these questions somehow.

2. Make sure to understand the other person's position.

This is best demonstrated by stating what you believe to be their argument, and by them confirming your accuracy. No straw men, no caricatures, and hopefully far less later misunderstanding.

3. Build on commonality.

Once basic beliefs and definitions are agreed upon, and positions accurately understood, then go on to problems and proposed solutions.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix

Sensible ideas however:

I think there's room for a lot of acrimony in attempting to clarify points 1, 2 and 3. Just the process of working to summarize, or even to steel man the other persons' view, can escalate quickly indeed. A simple word may trigger a reaction, especially on questions of values.

'Building on commonality' is a frequently mentioned strategy, used by negotiators and relationship counsellors. It can come across as disingenuous and forced. Also commonalities are often the foundations of division.

Take the issue of cutting down old growth forests for the timber industry. We can argue that both the loggers and the conservationists want the same thing for their children. A viable future. But at this point it can go south very quickly. In identifying the how and why the problems begin. The loggers want an immediate future that is empirically certain while the conservationists use predicative science to highlight a contested potential future. What's going to be more compelling - jobs or climate change? Jobs, for the most part.

I think the the tools you describe are useful and can work if people come together in good faith.

My experience in mediating disputes between parties has taught me one thing. People only benefit from mediation and consensus building if they both agree to participate fully as honest interlocutors. And it's often when you arrive at the question of values that you start to hit the rocks.

Ennui Elucidator

My experience in mediating disputes between parties has taught me one thing. People only benefit from mediation and consensus building if they both agree to participate fully as honest interlocutors. And it's often when you arrive at the question of values that you start to hit the rocks. — Tom Storm

I was actually going to mention negotiation/mediation, but figured it might be too far afield. Often in a negotiation (shuttle diplomacy style), you can get two parties to agree on what to do for profoundly different reasons. If for instance the agreement is about money, you can calculate/justify the figure in all sorts of ways. If the goal is to agree on the number, you hack it up as necessary to make each side feel like the number reflects their values/interests regardless of what the other side believes that the number represents. In such circumstances, the two sides “understanding” each other and their reasons for accepting a deal would likely preclude a deal. (E.g where one party wants attorney’s fees, the other doesn’t want to give them, but each values the underlying dispute differently and the asymmetry of value is greater than the fees in dispute)

Mikie

We can argue that both the loggers and the conservationists want the same thing for their children. A viable future. But at this point it can go south very quickly. — Tom Storm

I think the the tools you describe are useful and can work if people come together in good faith. — Tom Storm

Things can go south very quickly, yes. That's a possibility.

But if they truly do want a better world for their kids, there is a right answer about the decisions they're making to cut down trees -- an answer that can only be given when that goal is established. This then requires evidence, reasoning, etc., to show. But unless we establish (or assume) that they really do share this goal (of a better life for their kids), there's no point in engaging. At that point you reach the level of dealing with a rabid bear.

Joshs

↪Ennui Elucidator

Often in a negotiation (shuttle diplomacy style), you can get two parties to agree on what to do for profoundly different reasons. — Ennui Elucidator

It sounds like perhaps you have a background in the law.
If money is at the center of a dispute, or things money can buy, then this kind of negotiation can work. But in most emotionally fraught conflicts, it is contrasting worldviews that are at the center, in which case separation-violence and insight constitute the opposing poles of action.

frank

I lean toward trying to understand the world. That helps with understanding your neighbor.

TheMadFool

1. Establish agreement not only about basic definitions (which is important), but also about basic beliefs.

This is an essential place to start any discussion, as mentioned above, because it saves a lot of time, effort, and confusion. I can't count how many times an argument eventually loops back to these questions somehow.

2. Make sure to understand the other person's position.

This is best demonstrated by stating what you believe to be their argument, and by them confirming your accuracy. No straw men, no caricatures, and hopefully far less later misunderstanding.

3. Build on commonality.

Once basic beliefs and definitions are agreed upon, and positions accurately understood, then go on to problems and proposed solutions.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix

It looks good on paper, like all things I suppose but when the rubber meets the road, all hell breaks loose. I commend you for the effort but I fear your noble project is doomed from the start. Good luck to all, we'll need it.

Joshs

↪Tom Storm

I think the the tools you describe are useful and can work if people come together in good faith. — Tom Storm

Hermeneuticists like John Caputo and Richard Rorty call this working together in good faith toward a fusion of horizons of understanding the ‘conversation of mankind’. It has been critiqued by postmodernists like Derrida and Lyotard , who point out that in many cases the two parties are not operating with the same senses of meaning , and there is no meta-understanding that can arrived at, no perfect agreement, through an effort of ‘good faith’ What is needed in these cases is respect for the disagreement rather than pursuit of fusion.

Cuthbert

So how can someone who is generally bright, well-meaning and sincere be so wrong and pave the way for so many issues? This is a silly question -- because nearly every evil person not only justifies their actions to others, but believes it all themselves. So the real question is: why do otherwise normal people make choices that go against their goals? — Xtrix

Other people will presume that we are crazy, evil, brainwashed, hypocritical or dim in order to believe what we believe. I don't think there is anything we can do about that. But we can check the same presumptions in ourselves. Until we do, I suppose we won't get far with agreeing definitions or any other finer points of debate.

Mikie

Other people will presume that we are crazy, evil, brainwashed, hypocritical or dim — Cuthbert

Probably, yes. That shouldn't stop us.

Ennui Elucidator

↪Joshs

Yes law, but no, not always things that can be solved with money. There is, perhaps, a difference between conversations in which you want people to do certain things as compared to conversations where you want people to "believe" certain things (though presumably a change of beliefs will have some manifestation in behavior). Having rules of discourse in intellectual communities might be fine because it doesn't matter if people walk away with unchanged minds. Having rules of discourse when something must be done simply frustrates the doing. Xltrix's suggestion tries to bridge the two, but makes it seem like those that need to get something done can simply walk away if the first two steps go unresolved.

Understanding the person you are trying to get to do what you want doesn't dissolve the conflict or lead to immediate cooperation, but it may prove a useful tool in getting them to do what you want. The problem, so far as I see it, is one of efficacy - do the rules more often get what you want? If not, they don't sound very good even if they otherwise satisfy our aesthetic sense of how discourse should proceed.

Cuthbert

Probably, yes. That shouldn't stop us. — Xtrix

True. I'm suggesting that whilst it cannot stop us making the same presumptions, it is an opportunity for us to stop of our own accord. That may in some cases give a chink of possibility of improving the level of debate. In some cases it may not.

I think my point reduces to giving your second axiom first place. Understanding the other's position includes accepting their definitions, at least for the sake of argument.

Shawn

In a perfect world every discussion would end with a Rogerian agreement.

I agree to disagree.

James Riley

If I recollect correct, in logical argument, both parties run backwards together as far as necessary to find a premise upon which they agree. Then and only then do they go forward with disagreement. Otherwise, they're just two ships passing in the night, or risk being so. I think the same analysis would apply to the definition of terms.

Axioms of Discourse

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions