I very rarely genuinely cannot see the other person's perspective, however, so it's easier for me to say things like, "I see what you're saying, but..."
Me too, actually. I just rarely say so explicitly.
I feel like this would just seem like bullshit coming from you
I agree, because I think it is bullshit. I get to the intellectual points, and leave out the fluff, usually. To me, that's just being polite, and I don't really give a crap about being polite. Maybe I should, I don't know. If you disagree with someone, that's what's interesting, that's what needs discussing--maybe you see what they're saying, but maybe be discussing it you'll both be able to refine your views. It's fantastic.
I'm not sure how to tell you to have a discussion instead of an argument except maybe that driving the discussion in a certain direction by only talking about something you personally take issue with, and not acknowledging any points the other person makes, is sort of going to invite an argument.
Hm. But why tell them that I agree on everything else? That's implied by the fact that I don't mention it. It's not very interesting. I mean, if we just agree, than we might as well end the discussion and go home. I don't see what the point of talking about agreement is. I guess I could question those too.
I think primarily the whole picking out things you disagree with and only commenting on those is what grates me. My mother does something similar: she only responds to anything with corrections. It feels like I'm just there as a critical exercise for your beliefs, instead of an actual person who gets to be genuinely excited or emotional about something, who gets to be my own person instead of a reflection of what matters to you.
Whoah. I can't speak for your mother, but that's totally not what I'm trying to do at all. When I respond with a disagreement, even if I responded with a 'correction', I would most likely see it more as being helpful, like, "Well, I think you're on the right track here, this is all great, I agree, but there's one point I take issue with, and it's this." And if you can prove my point isn't relevant, or isn't important, then it stands as is. It's also beneficial for me to think about, but that's not really my primary concern, to 'critically exercise my beliefs'. That's just how I deal with people I think are intellectual equals. Ideally, it makes us both emotional and excited, the discussion itself, but clearly there's a disconnect there for us right now.
I think the whole agreeing on the presuppositions to discussion is probably a large part of what's missing and what makes this not work.
Maybe...though I'm not sure we mean the same thing by this? Well, what presuppositions would be missing?
I'm not saying you have to accept what I'm saying, or agree with me or shut up. I don't know what to do really, except not write about things that are likely to incite arguments.
I certainly wouldn't want you to do that. I'll try to be more careful/considerate, though I think part of this must rest on misunderstanding...
no subject
Me too, actually. I just rarely say so explicitly.
I feel like this would just seem like bullshit coming from you
I agree, because I think it is bullshit. I get to the intellectual points, and leave out the fluff, usually. To me, that's just being polite, and I don't really give a crap about being polite. Maybe I should, I don't know. If you disagree with someone, that's what's interesting, that's what needs discussing--maybe you see what they're saying, but maybe be discussing it you'll both be able to refine your views. It's fantastic.
I'm not sure how to tell you to have a discussion instead of an argument except maybe that driving the discussion in a certain direction by only talking about something you personally take issue with, and not acknowledging any points the other person makes, is sort of going to invite an argument.
Hm. But why tell them that I agree on everything else? That's implied by the fact that I don't mention it. It's not very interesting. I mean, if we just agree, than we might as well end the discussion and go home. I don't see what the point of talking about agreement is. I guess I could question those too.
I think primarily the whole picking out things you disagree with and only commenting on those is what grates me. My mother does something similar: she only responds to anything with corrections. It feels like I'm just there as a critical exercise for your beliefs, instead of an actual person who gets to be genuinely excited or emotional about something, who gets to be my own person instead of a reflection of what matters to you.
Whoah. I can't speak for your mother, but that's totally not what I'm trying to do at all. When I respond with a disagreement, even if I responded with a 'correction', I would most likely see it more as being helpful, like, "Well, I think you're on the right track here, this is all great, I agree, but there's one point I take issue with, and it's this." And if you can prove my point isn't relevant, or isn't important, then it stands as is. It's also beneficial for me to think about, but that's not really my primary concern, to 'critically exercise my beliefs'. That's just how I deal with people I think are intellectual equals. Ideally, it makes us both emotional and excited, the discussion itself, but clearly there's a disconnect there for us right now.
I think the whole agreeing on the presuppositions to discussion is probably a large part of what's missing and what makes this not work.
Maybe...though I'm not sure we mean the same thing by this? Well, what presuppositions would be missing?
I'm not saying you have to accept what I'm saying, or agree with me or shut up. I don't know what to do really, except not write about things that are likely to incite arguments.
I certainly wouldn't want you to do that. I'll try to be more careful/considerate, though I think part of this must rest on misunderstanding...