• PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    If your perspective differs, then to the extent that it’s not extremely outrageous, all the better!

    Argumentation doesn’t require a shared perspective and shared axioms (except concerning the conduct of arguing). Fundamentally, it requires that we be willing to be taken on the perspective of others and lead them to where we are, or allow ourselves to be led to where they are. This isn’t common on online discussions because of the incentives of online “debates”, which isn’t to be persuaded or to spend time typing out thoughtful responses with which someone can bite and chew on to serve up something equally worthwhile.

    In other words, it’s not that people disagree that’s the problem. It’s how we disagree that leads to the cesspool that internet discussions often devolve into. If you want to argue and try to understand another person, then there’s no reason that can’t happen.

    • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      6 months ago

      But language cannot convey perspective. It can only refer to it. Language only works when perspective is shared.

      If perspective is not shared then, tho we use the same words, the meaning we assign to them differs. We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite, there’s something broken there, and that brokenness generally gets translated as “this guy is just stupid”.

      This is a problem with language and the internet.

      • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I know exactly what you mean!

        But there’s a really easy way to solve that problem: ask for clarification and then check to make sure your understanding of the concept matches theirs.

        For example, when you say “We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite”, the meaning of the word ’ ‘communicating’ slides between different meanings. From my understanding, in the first case you mean a shared understanding of the terms under discussion, and in the second case you mean talking past each other, where people don’t really address the substance of the discussion.

        Right? And you’re saying this is a problem of language and the internet?

        If so, then I agree that it’s a problem of language, and one that language can just as easily solve. I don’t think it’s a problem of the internet, though, but the social dynamics of internet certainly don’t help.

        • spiderwort@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          6 months ago

          Some opinions cannot be explained. For example “chocolate is better than vanilla”.

          There are a lot of those. It’s the earth upon which all argumentation stands.

          So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”

          But for us, on the internet, the individual doesn’t really exist?

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            “I enjoy chocolate more” and “I associate chocolate with positive memories” are both explanations that are still personal experience that isn’t necessarily shared experiences but can be understood through communication.

          • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            6 months ago

            Aye, those are preferences and largely entirely subjective (because I prefer vanilla over chocolate).

            So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”

            This question is always there.