Agree to Disagree? Not a rational concept

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edwest2

Guest
I have read one poster telling another that “we will have to agree to disagree.” Which makes no sense. It requires the consent of both parties. Explicit consent.

Two people can both believe they are right and for one party to suggest “we” should do anything is not rational. There is no “we” with just one party saying, “I’ve decided something for both of us.” That does not mean the other party is right at all. It also does not mean that the other party has changed his mind.

I encourage everyone to stop using this wording. It makes no sense.

Ed
 
I would prefer someone to say “I believe we are at an impasse - I haven’t convinced you and you haven’t convinced me. Have a nice day.”
 
“Charity has to with persons; truth, with ideas and with reality attained through them. Perfect charity towards our neighbor and complete fidelity to the truth are not only compatible; they call for one another. In the fraternal dialogue, the deeper love is, the more each one feels bound to declare, without diminuation or lenitive salve, what he holds to be true (otherwise he would wrong, not only truth as he sees it, but also the spiritual dignity of his neighbor).”

~ Jacques Maritain (The Peasant of the Garonne pg 90 emp added)
 
What is better? I am going to stop arguing with you because I am weary of your sophamoric attitude and it is clear that you are just hear to push your opinions and view on others without any regard to actually listening to what you might need to learn?

I think saying that I will agree to disagree is much kinder. I will continue to use it. FYI - “Let us” is an invitation to act, in this case to put aside foolish, vain arguing and move on with life.
 
I rather like: “Let’s agree to disagree. You can worship in your way, and I in His.”😉
 
Obviously, “agreeing to disagree” requires both sides. The person using the expression Is making a suggestion, not saying that an agreement exists.

The other party could say, “No, I don’t agree to that,” and continue the argument, but by the time one side has suggested TATD, the argument has become a waste of time.

TATD is not irrational per se. It is often a response to an argument that has become irrational, because once both sides have become unconvincable, irrational factors often are in play.

ICXC NIKA.
 
I think “agree to disagree” refers to a more general form of agreement than one requiring explicit consent. For example, if someone says they agree with Plato, Plato didn’t consent to the agreement. They mean to say that their opinions align with the opinions Plato held. So we can interpret “let’s agree to disagree” as “our opinions on this matter are not aligned”.
 
Oreoracle said:
I think “agree to disagree” refers to a more general form of agreement than one requiring explicit consent. For example, if someone says they agree with Plato, Plato didn’t consent to the agreement. They mean to say that their opinions align with the opinions Plato held. So we can interpret “let’s agree to disagree” as “our opinions on this matter are not aligned”.
Click to expand...
That’s better. Agreeing with what a dead person said is not my point. Two anonymous people on the internet should speak more plainly or just let it go. What? I don’t agree with “we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”? Instead of, “I don’t think this conversation is going anywhere” or making assumptions. Just be clear. “I don’t agree.” What’s wrong with that?

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Two anonymous people on the internet should speak more plainly or just let it go. What? I don’t agree with “we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”? Instead of, “I don’t think this conversation is going anywhere” or making assumptions. Just be clear. “I don’t agree.” What’s wrong with that?
Click to expand...
If we take my earlier suggestion that we not require consent for agreement or disagreement, then it would seem that one either agrees or disagrees with someone else on any matter in which both have an opinion. Suppose then that you and I disagree on some matter, and I bring it to your attention that we do in fact disagree. Presumably both of us would have an opinion on the matter of whether or not we agree, thus those opinions either agree or they disagree. If they disagree, then one of us has misjudged the situation, believing the other’s opinion to be at odds with theirs when it isn’t or in agreement with theirs when it isn’t. If we agree, then we agree that we disagree. This status could change with further discussion. However, if we wish to end the discussion, we have agreed to disagree.

So I suppose what you say is correct in the sense that the other person may not wish to end the conversation. Thus they may agree that there is disagreement, yet never actually agree to disagree. But if both parties want to end the discussion, I think the statement is appropriate.
 
It matters whether people agree or disagree, if the topic is merely subjective, a matter of taste.
When searching for truth, one tries to hear what the other person is saying in order to open one’s mind to greater possibilities.
I say what I see and think. The other person can share their understanding and we either move forward or it goes nowhere.
People are presenting different views and I note what is being said. Thinking about all this, I have come up with the above.
 
edwest2 said:
I have read one poster telling another that “we will have to agree to disagree.” Which makes no sense. It requires the consent of both parties. Explicit consent.

Two people can both believe they are right and for one party to suggest “we” should do anything is not rational. There is no “we” with just one party saying, “I’ve decided something for both of us.” That does not mean the other party is right at all. It also does not mean that the other party has changed his mind.

I encourage everyone to stop using this wording. It makes no sense.

Ed
Click to expand...
Good point.

Maybe it would sound better if the saying was, “we will have to agree that we disagree”.
Saying “agree to disagree” sounds like whatever the argument maybe we are saying it is okay if we disagree with each other and it is okay. That could be a problem if there are weighty issues in a disagreement.

Where as “agree that we disagree” might not mean that the parties are okay with the disagreement but the disagreement is not being solved or neither party is willing to change their mind.

Just my two cents.

God bless.
 
Wiktionary defines it as: To tolerate each other’s opinion and stop arguing; to acknowledge that an agreement will not be reached.
 
edwest2 said:
I have read one poster telling another that “we will have to agree to disagree.” Which makes no sense. It requires the consent of both parties. Explicit consent.

Two people can both believe they are right and for one party to suggest “we” should do anything is not rational. There is no “we” with just one party saying, “I’ve decided something for both of us.” That does not mean the other party is right at all. It also does not mean that the other party has changed his mind.

I encourage everyone to stop using this wording. It makes no sense.

Ed
Click to expand...
If the poster said “Let’s agree to disagree,” that would have been the better way to put it as an invitation to drop the point and move on to some other aspect of the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top