The Hinges Must Stay Put for the Game to Begin
A discussion worth having presupposes agreement more than disagreement
If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty. (115)
That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn. (341)
If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put. (343)
—L.Wittgenstein, On Certainty
In chess, you can always interpret your opponent's moves in a way that is consistent with the assumption that he is an irrational player. But assuming the irrationality of your opponent will not get you very far in chess, unlike some other games perhaps. The game is such that it penalizes your assumption of the other player’s irrationality to the extent that the other side is a rational player.
As I’ve pointed out in my previous post, this makes the assumption of rationality pragmatically justified: the assumption of an irrational opponent has a higher potential cost than the assumption of a rational opponent.
What about other games we play?
Misinterpreting the behavior of other people does not seem to carry a similar cost in other domains of life as it does in chess. Other games have a slightly different structure, a slightly different payoff matrix. Moreover, some games create incentives for misinterpretations—they are the strategically optimal move in the game. The desire to win is not always realized by thinking or understanding the perspective of other actors.
It is intuitive to think of a discussion as something that results from a disagreement, and that the more disagreement there is, the greater the need for a discussion. But on second thought, a discussion actually makes the most sense if you disagree with the other side on just a few things.
If you disagree with the other side on 99% of things, everything becomes questionable. You can't even agree on what constitutes evidence for or against a position, and if you can't agree on that, why discuss at all?
For any evidence can be dismissed if you make sufficient adjustments in your web of beliefs. For example, someone who believes that the Earth is 10.000 years old can dismiss evidence in the form of fossils by claiming that the Creator planted those fossils to test your faith in him.
What can you reply?
It is as if trying to play chess with someone who does not play by the same rules. The game—like a discussion—presupposes a sufficient degree of agreement, at least about the rules of the game.
For a disagreement, it may be sufficient to deny the interlocutor's claim, but the same is not enough for a discussion. Some things have to be taken for granted in order for the game to even begin.
People often reach a point in discussions that reveals that they do not play by the same rules, or that some of them make up new rules as they go along. And so anything indeed can become questionable. This made me formulate a kind of “law” that states that the longer the discussion about a certain topic goes on, the greater the chance that it will turn into a discussion about the meanings of the terms used.
An appendix to the law further states that the more you think about the meanings of the terms used, the more you realize you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise, and everything precise is so remote from everything that we normally think, that you cannot for a moment suppose that is what we really mean when we say what we think," Bertrand Russell wrote.
It is a rather curious fact in philosophy that the data which are undeniable to start with are always rather vague and ambiguous. You can, for instance, say: “There are a number of people in this room at this moment.” That is obviously in some sense undeniable. But when you come to try and define what this room is, and what it is for a person to be in a room, and how you are going to distinguish one person from another, and so forth, you find that what you have said is most fearfully vague and that you really do not know what you meant. That is a rather singular fact, that everything you are really sure of, right off is something that you do not know the meaning of, and the moment you get a precise statement you will not be sure whether it is true or false, at least right off. (B.Russell, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, 1918.)
Adjustments in your web of beliefs and vocabulary are always possible since vagueness abounds. Where there are motives, there are ways.
You could see this dynamic playing out during the pandemic when people started debating what “death” or “infection”, and related terms, even mean, similar to how it is now—in the context of transgenderism— being discussed what a “woman” means.
However, in a game where players disagree about the very rules of the game, there may be no winners or losers. Moreover, there is no “game” to be played. Although it may seem that way.
Wisdom comes when you are able to recognize different rules and different games, and refrain from further play.
To a person playing with a different set of rules, you may only say: “We are not playing the same game, what you did is not a "move" in my game.”
And then look for another player.