To both,

‘Disagree’ is a descriptive word; ‘disagreeable’ is an evaluative word. Part of the problem may lie in the fact that some people are so wedded to their ideas, or so fond of them, that someone who disagrees is seen as disagreeable simply for that reason. For example, even to question some religious ideas is seen as blasphemous and morally wrong. Another part of the problem is that disagreement can be expressed in different ways, some more blunt than others, but what is succinct for one is rude to another.

Similarly it seems reasonable to use mild humour – to poke fun at an idea if it seems ridiculous. A lot of very fine philosophical writing would be lost if this were not permitted – think of Russell, Quine, Rorty, Dennett etc.

Finally, I wonder if being disagreeable is always wrong? In academic debate it almost certainly is, but what if your opponent is a fascist or a fanatic? Perhaps it would still be pointless and inappropriate, but this is not obvious.

Trevor.

From: A list to promote discussion of philosophical issues in nursing [mailto: [log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of June Kikuchi
Sent: 11 November 2008 19:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: And now for something completely different...

Bear,

You said what I've been thinking. I've often wondered why we barely make use of listserves' great potential. I've been told that lack of time is the obstacle. You've implied that it has to do with lack of safety.

In this listserve. I wonder if it would help if we all decided to take Obama's words to heart: "disagree without being disagreeable" -- easier said than done but possible. However, it seems to me that possibility depends, in great part, on our coming to understand why people so quickly become disagreeable in argumentation. Any thoughts?

June