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. — Ennui Elucidator
Perhaps one simple (if not already mentioned) issue is what is the agenda, the motivation of someone to engage in a discourse. This can vary a lot.How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted? — Xtrix
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
That all sounds very liberal and pleasant, but what process goes into "establishing agreement not only about basic definitions... but also about basic beliefs"? And what if such agreement cannot be found? What if the other person's position remains obscure? What if the difference of commonality is exactly what is significant?
Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong — Banno
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. — Joshs
In a perfect world every discussion would end with a Rogerian agreement. — Shawn
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. — James Riley
How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted?
— Xtrix
Perhaps one simple (if not already mentioned) issue is what is the agenda, the motivation of someone to engage in a discourse. This can vary a lot. — ssu
Philosophical debates can lapse into a competition about who knows best. Some think it's a contest of who is the most intelligent. Not that we can learn something from each other and different viewpoints and arguments are beneficial. — ssu
That all sounds very liberal and pleasant, but what process goes into "establishing agreement not only about basic definitions... but also about basic beliefs"? — Banno
And what if such agreement cannot be found? — Banno
What if the other person's position remains obscure? — Banno
What if the difference of commonality is exactly what is significant? — Banno
Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong. — Banno
An unwelcome truth is that the folk who are wrong can equally be ourselves. — Cuthbert
I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal."
— Xtrix
Really? You set out some of the basic tenets of liberalism. Was that not your intent? — Banno
Your axioms of discourse appear typicaly liberal to my eye. It seems I presumed too much. We might leave it there. — Banno
Many of those that have an agenda have the best intentions. They are there just to change your mind. :wink:Sure, and I didn't make clear in the OP, but I'm assuming good faith. If there are ulterior motives, then that's a different story — Xtrix
And naturally we take things personally. Someone telling us we are incorrect feels to many like an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. We are social beings and in real physical meeting with people there is a multitude of factors on how we approach the other. In the internet there is just a name without anything else. Hence we can be incredibly different in the social media (or here, where we are anonymous) than when actually meet people or have to work with them.Yes, which is unfortunately what "debate" has often turned into: scoring points. As if it's a boxing match. That can be entertaining, but I for one am often left disappointed by interchanges like that. — Xtrix
Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.
Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban.
Trolls: You know who you are. You won't last long
Sockpuppets
And naturally we take things personally. Someone telling us we are incorrect feels to many like an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. We are social beings and in real physical meeting with people there is a multitude of factors on how we approach the other. In the internet there is just a name without anything else. Hence we can be incredibly different in the social media (or here, where we are anonymous) than when actually meet people or have to work with them. — ssu
But what's the difference between moderation and censorship? — ssu
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. — Xtrix
This assumes that people want or should want to cooperate, that their basic belief is something like "We should all be willing to cooperate with everyone else."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. — Xtrix
And for some people, sometimes, political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other" is precisely what they are in for in discussion, even if ostensibly, they're seeking to discuss advanced mathematics or climate change or whatever.This has led to political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other," reminiscent of religious wars. — Xtrix
But when there is such consensus, what will people talk about? — baker
This assumes that people want or should want to cooperate, that their basic belief is something like "We should all be willing to cooperate with everyone else." — baker
And for some people, sometimes, political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other" is precisely what they are in for in discussion, even if ostensibly, they're seeking to discuss advanced mathematics or climate change or whatever. — baker
These are good, solid ideas, Xtrix. But, like all rules for conversation, I think they will increase time and energy rather than reduce them. — NOS4A2
Yours and my own views are quite different and I fear pulling them apart would only lead to frustration. — NOS4A2
despite Friedman’s successes with the abolition of the draft and maybe floating exchange rates, he has had little influence worth noting, and the crimes of “neoliberalism” are too often overstated. — NOS4A2
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.