Yes, symbolic actions are often of great significance.  I was involved with such activities (of a non-religious kind in my case) in the 1980s at the height of the peace movement and I think they were worth doing.  Inevitably, in matters of conscience of that sort, some of the symbolic acts, religious or secular, were interpreted as offensive and threatening by our “opponents”, despite our best intentions.

 

This illustrates Savina’s point that ‘disagreeable’ is in the eye of the beholder.  It also illustrates how difficult it is in practice to maintain the distinction recommended by Maxlorraine, between criticising what someone says rather than who they are.  This is because people often see their moral and religious beliefs as being intimately welded to their innermost being.  Hence, in debates about racism, sexism, abortion, nuclear weapons, religious beliefs and the like, people may take questioning of their opinions as criticisms of themselves.  For example, it would be difficult for me, as an outsider, to criticise the American gun laws or your commercial health system without people’s patriotic hackles rising.

 

Human interactions are very complex: I have spent a lifetime trying to get them right and still blunder along.     

 

Trevor.

 

Or a symbol maybe Trevor, for example the fast the Dominicans held following President Bush's decision to enter the war with Iraq. Some would see it as meaningless but surely other potent symbols, such as non-violence, have proved their worth. I'm reminded of a quotation by Timothy Radcliffe, ex magister of the Domicans. I paraphrase but the sense is that when we find ourselves disagreeing vehemently with someone, if we can find a wider truth that we can agree on and proceed from there, this can be a way of generating purposeful dialogue with those whose views we just can't sign up to. For example the imprtance of living together in some kind of settled peace allowed movement forward following the wars in Mozambique and the atrocities committed during the apartheid era in South Africa.

 

Margaret.

 

---

From: A list to promote discussion of philosophical issues in nursing [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Trevor Hussey
Sent: 14 November 2008 00:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: pointless to argue

You are right June: in the overwhelming majority of debates there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by being disagreeable.  However, when faced by, say, a ranting racist or a raging religious fanatic who is impervious to rational argument, simply to walk away is not always enough.  A protest by condemnation, rebuke or ridicule may be the best option even if the ranter sees this as disagreeable.

 

Trevor.

 

---

From: A list to promote discussion of philosophical issues in nursing [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of June Kikuchi
Sent: 13 November 2008 18:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: pointless to argue

 

Trevor said, 

 

>> "... with someone who you think does not respond to reasoned argument it might be appropriate to be disagreeable ... Being disagreeable would at least demonstrate opposition and act as a protest."

 

I'm wondering why just disagreeing and giving your reasons for disagreement but not entering into an argument would not suffice. What would be gained from being disagreeable?

 

June

--
Email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

Any queries regarding these services should be emailed to [log in to unmask] or you can check our web site at www.lsbu.ac.uk/ict/email/ for up todate information about this service.

--
Email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Altman Technologies' email management service

--
Copyright in this email and in any attachments belongs to London South Bank University. This email, and its attachments if any, may be confidential or legally privileged and is intended to be seen only by the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please note the following: (1) You should take immediate action to notify the sender and delete the original email and all copies from your computer systems; (2) You should not read copy or use the contents of the email nor disclose it or its existence to anyone else.

The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and should not be taken as those of London South Bank University, unless this is specifically stated.

London South Bank University is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales. The following details apply to London South Bank University: Company number - 00986761; Registered office and trading address - 103 Borough Road London SE1 0AA; VAT number - 778 1116 17; Email address - [log in to unmask]