COMMENSAL ISSUE 97

12^th May 1999 : Michael Nisbet

THOUGHTS ARISING FROM BRAZIERS 1999

AGREEMENT, DISAGREEMENT AND COMMUNICATION

1. It seems to me that people accept or reject ideas in accordance with their personal needs. (Except where specific ideas are forced upon them e.g. by a dictatorship. But this amounts to much the same thing: people need to accept such ideas if they are not to suffer the consequences). There is no sphere, except possibly within the academic imagination, in which ideas are accepted or rejected entirely in their own terms and on their own merits. Hence ideas in themselves do not provide a context for agreement, except where the personal needs of a number of individuals coincide.
2. Facts that can be independently verified (that are within a sphere in which independent verification can be applied) can provide a context for agreement. But then, what such facts imply, and what to do about them, is something determined within the ideological sphere: the sphere of disagreement.
3. Only individuals within a strongly cohesive society or group, with a common sense of identity and purpose, can properly agree about anything. But such cohesiveness is established in contradistinction to the ideas that it rejects, and hence is divisive within a broader context. 'The selfishness of the group feeds upon the altruism of the individual'.
4. It is all very well to say, in a pluralistic society, that we agree to disagree, and accept the need to live together peaceably, but how many people regard this as a liberal ideology that is being imposed upon them ? It is something 'faute de mieux'.
5. If nobody agrees about anything, then nobody agrees about anything. So what ? Can't a lot of fun be had from disagreeing ? But, if there is no ground for agreement, there is no ground for constructive disagreement either.
6. These statements themselves probably represent ideas that I feel inclined to adopt in order to rationalise my imperfect ability to communicate. But they leave me wondering whether there is any point in a philosophical discussion group such as ours. On balance I think there probably is, because at least it allows me to put my thoughts into some sort of public arena.

Michael Nisbet

Michael : I’m receptive to much of what you say above, but think we must distinguish between the initial encounter with ideas, especially if this is in public, and their more considered entertainment, especially in private. Ideas have a subversive power working subconsciously as we make them our own. Criticism of ideas, provided we understand them, is a constructive help. Maybe we do occasionally break down into mutually uncomprehending sub-groups where we can’t even disagree. However, a belief that all ideas are equally open to criticism and elucidation is essential to the sharing of ideas, rather than the selling of ideologies. Ideas do tend to get lost because no-one cares to attend to them; there are, after all, so many themes demanding our attention these days that unless an idea is packaged for easy consumption - in the sense of having a readily comprehensible hook to catch the casual reader of listener - it may easily float by unappreciated. I have to admit, however, to being more easily caught by ideas that slightly modify or extend my own than by those of a more revolutionary nature, unless I happen to be on the look out for such.

Theo