Oh I didn't mean to suggest, by any means, that we ever entirely grow out of unexamined irrationalities or blind spots. I think this is, specifically, why argument and debate is such a joy, and can be such a process of self-discovery through engaging other people. And part of the fun is just speaking frankly enough to reveal those blind spots, so they can be more effectively targeted by one's opponents. What I'm talking about, really, is more the phenomenon of "immunity" to argument, an absolute resistance to engaging contrary ideas. Which is a much narrower issue, and maybe wasn't your own point, so we may be off on a private tangent of mine. :)
The case of reading is an interesting subset of the general argument, because if you let the text stand in for the author's argument, you and the author don't really get to engage in a back and forth -- the text is just there, and you have to make the best of it. (Which may be one reason why talking about texts with other people can seem like such an exhilarating supplement to reading them.) And yes, there are cases where you and the author are so far apart that it's just hard to engage the text. I always find that depressing and disappointing, partly because of my master working hypothesis that the author is always onto something I'm not. But sometimes a text just falls flat for a particular reader, despite the best efforts. And sometimes I'm even inclined to sadly drop my master hypothesis and decide that the author is probably an ass, after all -- though that's usually about a feeling that you totally understand them, that you've been there yourself and found it to be a false or dishonest place.
But I agree that the great fun of any interaction, and the ultimate source of almost all comedy, is the fact that very often we are not hearing or seeing what other people are saying. And I agree with you that sometimes that perception of that failure can really set people off in an unproductive way in argument -- it's as though, you're free to disagree with me, but at least acknowledge that you hear me! And if you don't, then grrrrr!
I guess what I want to make a distinction between is the failure of communication and the refusal of communication, if that makes sense. And things that fall under the heading of refusal are, I admit, things that personally I am not at peace with, things that I have unhealthily intense feelings about even now. Probably because I see them as the root of fundamentalisms and intolerances and interpersonal abuse of all sorts. I find I am happy to confront alien and strange opinions but am frustrated by failures of dialogue, a failure of commitment to a basic mutual acknowledgment and engagement. For example, it should be possible at least in principle for a discussion to change my mind, to secure at least conditional assent to a proposition if one's arguments are persuasive enough -- which makes the contest interesting, because of course often one tries and loses. But the flip side of "I'll believe whatever I need to" is "anyone can believe whatever they want," which is just as wilfully nihilistic, I think. I sometimes get impatient with perspectives that seem to radically deny, just as a matter of will rather than argument, the value of argument itself, reducing it to an exchange of equally valid opinion rather than a process of weighing relative evidence and persuasiveness. Though a rigorous argument to that effect would be fun to engage. :)
I agree that argument is necessarily an open process, unending, yadayada. But scratch a relativist, and I think you will often find a disappointed metaphysician still bitter about losing divine access to the truth, and haunted by the idea that the only alternative to an ironclad guarantee is complete nihilism. And that, I think we'd both agree, is naive.
Hmmmm, I sense we are both, at a subtextual level, riding our own favorite hobbyhorses here, and it's kind of nice to trot along these paths with you once again! :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-15 10:07 pm (UTC)The case of reading is an interesting subset of the general argument, because if you let the text stand in for the author's argument, you and the author don't really get to engage in a back and forth -- the text is just there, and you have to make the best of it. (Which may be one reason why talking about texts with other people can seem like such an exhilarating supplement to reading them.) And yes, there are cases where you and the author are so far apart that it's just hard to engage the text. I always find that depressing and disappointing, partly because of my master working hypothesis that the author is always onto something I'm not. But sometimes a text just falls flat for a particular reader, despite the best efforts. And sometimes I'm even inclined to sadly drop my master hypothesis and decide that the author is probably an ass, after all -- though that's usually about a feeling that you totally understand them, that you've been there yourself and found it to be a false or dishonest place.
But I agree that the great fun of any interaction, and the ultimate source of almost all comedy, is the fact that very often we are not hearing or seeing what other people are saying. And I agree with you that sometimes that perception of that failure can really set people off in an unproductive way in argument -- it's as though, you're free to disagree with me, but at least acknowledge that you hear me! And if you don't, then grrrrr!
I guess what I want to make a distinction between is the failure of communication and the refusal of communication, if that makes sense. And things that fall under the heading of refusal are, I admit, things that personally I am not at peace with, things that I have unhealthily intense feelings about even now. Probably because I see them as the root of fundamentalisms and intolerances and interpersonal abuse of all sorts. I find I am happy to confront alien and strange opinions but am frustrated by failures of dialogue, a failure of commitment to a basic mutual acknowledgment and engagement. For example, it should be possible at least in principle for a discussion to change my mind, to secure at least conditional assent to a proposition if one's arguments are persuasive enough -- which makes the contest interesting, because of course often one tries and loses. But the flip side of "I'll believe whatever I need to" is "anyone can believe whatever they want," which is just as wilfully nihilistic, I think. I sometimes get impatient with perspectives that seem to radically deny, just as a matter of will rather than argument, the value of argument itself, reducing it to an exchange of equally valid opinion rather than a process of weighing relative evidence and persuasiveness. Though a rigorous argument to that effect would be fun to engage. :)
I agree that argument is necessarily an open process, unending, yadayada. But scratch a relativist, and I think you will often find a disappointed metaphysician still bitter about losing divine access to the truth, and haunted by the idea that the only alternative to an ironclad guarantee is complete nihilism. And that, I think we'd both agree, is naive.
Hmmmm, I sense we are both, at a subtextual level, riding our own favorite hobbyhorses here, and it's kind of nice to trot along these paths with you once again! :)