The nature of disagreement.....

[RadioRaheem84]

There has to be some reason out there for why someone could see the same scenario and interpret it differently from me?

Is there something in philosophy that can explain this? I have tried to spell things out to right wing people the easiest way I can but there is still no concession, the arguments keep coming and they keep on changing the debate to follow something else.

It's like we're speaking two languages, seeing things from different planes and have two polar opposite worldviews.

Did Marx ever write about this? Is the nature of conflicting worldviews that inevitably sparks revolutions and produces societal change?

It seems like it's determined. No amount of reason can save them all from being left in the past.

[The Jay]

Let's see

scenario 1) there are no preconditions relevant:

The person may not see the same evidence, or may not be logical.

scenario 2) varying relevant or pseudo-relevant preconditions between you:

With this case one may see different relations between two concepts/objects than another person, leading to different conclusions. Also, the other person may be illogical.

scenario 3) varying amount of win:

Depending upon the amount of win consumed before the discussion, one may or may not be able to produce win on one's own. See 4chan for more details.

[RadioRaheem84]

I guess I am bit slow to follow all that.

My point was that it is inevitable or determined that there will be just be people who will not see the change coming and will fight to maintain the status quo?

[yowhatitlooklike]

I think the allegory of the blind men and the elephant is useful here. You know, one blind man touches the elephants leg and thinks its a tree trunk, another touches the stomach and thinks its a wall, etc. At first they argue with conviction, though nobody is right. Only by comparing notes the blind men realize what the thing actually is. You see, the allegory is about truth: none of the blind men had total access to the truth, only a part, yet this part molded their perspective of the whole. Only the whole is truth, however.

As far as Marx, consider the fact that in order to develop his critique of capitalism he had to directly engage with capitalism's proponents. Capital is chock full of footnotes dealing with various economists and free market ideologues of his day and prior. He didn't simply agree with them, but nor did he reject everything they said in an adversarial manner. He was heavily critical, but also read them very carefully and conceded where he did find truth. There are moments of Capital where he almost seems impressed by capitalism, though at the end of the day he opposes it as we all should.

People opposed to you aren't all just completely stupid automatons, though they seem that way sometimes. Their failure is usually in holding on to one part of the elephant and calling it the whole. If you are to argue effectively with them (assuming such is your goal), you should learn as much about that part as necessary, and how it connects to the rest. You should also realize when you are holding too tightly to your own part of the truth, and be wary whether this is leading you to error. I am not saying to avoid having a political stance at all, but rather to be critical of your own (and that of your friends) as you are of your enemies.

My advice to you for persuading people would be to lead by example. Instead of tediously defending a position against political opposites, try to treat your discussions with them as an exercise in discovery, a dialectic. Try to figure out what part of your truth is completely foreign to them, and introduce your truths as possibilities instead of certainties. Be patient, humble and respectful, give your opinion only when pressed, etc. Look out for points they make that are foreign to you. Concede when you don't know something, but question thoroughly as Socrates.

Anyway, I hope I didn't come across as too pedantic I just thought I'd contribute some thoughts.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent post! I am trying to be patient and I usually start with their presupposed notions about reality and capitalism.

When I start to peel those away, they rabidly assert the nature argument, and it usually ends there.

[RedSunsZenith]

Things have meaning for us only insofar as meaning has been attached to things through our own experience. The word "table" is not the physical thing which we are calling a table, but just a representation of that thing. When we use the word "table," we immediately have an idea of its approximate apprearance, its purpose, and numerous other abstract ideas that are not inherent features of the table, but are, rather, ideas that have become attached to this physical object by our experience in life. So when it seems like someone will not listen to reason, it's usually because they have attached different ideas to different things than you.

[RadioRaheem84]

So when it seems like someone will not listen to reason, it's usually because they have attached different ideas to different things than you.

Even if these things are about social issues?

[RedSunsZenith]

I would say so. Our conciousness is determined by the material conditions in which we live, right? So there are no absolutes, only different interpretations. That's not to say the bourgeois interpretation should be accepted, only that it shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of any claims to absolute truth.

[ZeroNowhere]

I would say so. Our conciousness is determined by the material conditions in which we live, right? So there are no absolutes, only different interpretations.
Doesn't follow. Das Kapital, for example, was certainly a bit more than simply an interpretation (and likewise its treatment of prior economists was hardly of simply different interpretations). Of course, it's a historical truth, but that's not the same as an interpretation.


Is there something in philosophy that can explain this? I have tried to spell things out to right wing people the easiest way I can but there is still no concession, the arguments keep coming and they keep on changing the debate to follow something else.
That's how argumentative debate works. The machine isn't broken, it's functioning as it is supposed to.


Did Marx ever write about this? Is the nature of conflicting worldviews that inevitably sparks revolutions and produces societal change?
I don't think that Marx wrote much about it. He certainly didn't write that it was the nature of conflicting worldviews (!) which sparks revolutions and produces social change.


It seems like it's determined. No amount of reason can save them all from being left in the past.
That's assuming that progress will come about due to persuasive argument and debating, and people seeing reason (which is in itself rather nebulous).

[Rafiq]

Is the nature of conflicting worldviews that inevitably sparks revolutions and produces societal change?



No, it's not. Hegelian Idealism holds a similar view to the one you have stated above, however Marx couldn't disagree more.

Revolutions are not sparked by conflicting worldviews. Revolutions are sparked by the most radical move of a collective group of human beings we call a class.

Worldviews are determined by the mode of production as a whole, so therefore the mode of production is the "mother" of sparking things like revolutions, and it is the mode of production and the mode of production alone that produces societal change. There are branches, though. For example,e the mode of production could create a culture or religion, and that culture or religion could influence worldviews, etc.