No doubt there has been a time when each of us has discovered we have been indulging our ignorance. We license ourselves with a ticket of leave that proclaims: ‘what we don’t know won’t hurt us’. There might be a smidgen of truth in such an axiom that amours the innocent but few of us are innocent. Ignorance is no excuse before the law nor is it grounds for promoting a fallacy because we’ve been unable to persuade an opponent to accept the correctness of our position.
What I’m on about is that question begging inanity so often used as an escape clause when two opposing poles are stubbornly confrontational and each unwilling to cede to the other. I’m sure you’ve witnessed such an event followed by the proclamation “Well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.” Though a classic example of intellectual palsy, I’m sure there will be a number of protesters among my readers ready to defend it but let’s look at the logic of the phrase.
What does an agreement entail? It does not follow that two people who merely spout the same conclusion are in agreement. For example we cannot agree with a person who adds 2 and 5 and gets 6; we cannot agree to a mistake. If we earnestly hold that a person who adds 2 + 5 and gets 6 is correct then we are merely condescending to the person. We are both ignorant of how our numbers system works. However, if I should hold that 2+5 equals 7 and I cannot convince you that I am correct I cannot agree that we are merely in disagreement. Your conclusion is no answer at all. I cannot agree to your mistake; I cannot agree that your answer is as credible as mine. By the same token you must believe that I am mistaken, consequently you cannot agree to my believed-to-be mistake or in my credulity. We cannot agree to disagree on this issue for the collusion would be either fraudulent or the result of ignorance or both in which case there is no actual agreement. We would be merely blowing smoke.
Let’s approach the problem from a different angle; what does it mean to disagree? Should one person hold that 2+5 equals 7 and another hold that 2+5 equals 6, because in their system whenever a 2 appears you deduct 1, we cannot argue they disagree for they are working in different systems. In other words, in order to disagree with another’s argument you must be holding the same premises. We often confront contrary views that are not actually disagreements. Contrary views cannot agree by definition. The best that can happen is that each condescends to allow the other their position whereas it must be possible to resolve a disagreement (if only in principle); there must always be the possibility of agreement. And what is true of disagreements is true of agreements. In order to agree with someone you must be holding the same premises otherwise you merely hold either a complimentary or a contrary view.
There is probably no greater example in which contradictory views exist than in discussions concerning how we should describe a work as art.
Nevertheless there is little disagreement in these discussions because art enthusiasts very rarely appreciate art using an acknowledged principle or holding shared premises. Conversely there is also very little agreement about what constitutes art; how we should describe an object as art. It seems that everybody and his brother has a valid point of view and it also seems that this state of affairs is the preferred way of art enthusiasts and many artists. Why this should be so is anybody’s guess but mine is that it relieves the enthusiast of the burden of holding a view based on a principle that might be shown to be wanting. Consequently they are not obliged to defend why one wood pile is a work of art and another is not. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmeV8CXwo8)
I can only think of one reason we would want to call this pile of wood a work of art and that would be to sell it for a huge profit to a guileless art collector who has more money than sense.
Launt Thompson
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=Launt+Thompson&url=search-alias%3Daps&x=16&y=9
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=Launt+Thompson&url=search-alias%3Daps&x=16&y=9
No comments:
Post a Comment