What if we all agreed?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

No. All humans are a scourge on mother Earth.

In the line of this thread I agree. Only its perfectable scourge.

 

[Arwon]

Maybe we'd fight over who agrees the *most*.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think we can agree on everything only in the far future, when "we" are hyper-intelligent entities. Much like in the Culture of Iain M. Banks' novels - the minds in that universe do not agree on everything, but imagine them being advanced a bit further. Eventually you reach a stage where the knowledge attained by each being is so great that being might as well be a God-like being that's all-knowing.

If a collection of all-knowing beings exists, they may very well all agree on everything, because they know everything. I doubt we'll ever "evolve" or improve ourselves to such a stage, but theoretically speaking, I think this is the only scenario I can think of in which a collection of 6 billion minds would agree to everything. Unless they were all brainwashed or something, but that seems like a cop-out.

I also agree that without disagreements there would be no progress. That seems so obvious in hindsight, but I wouldn't have thought to say that, I guess probably because I'm not a philosopher.

I think this can be achieved on two lines:
1. Purified emotion. When men are together with happiness itsnt even matter of agreement. They just enjoy the moment they mutually share with strong positive emotion. The more potent/pure this emotion is the less likely its going to be corrupted by some destructive element leading to disagreement and frustration.

2. Enlarged mental capacity. Here i dont mean purely intelectual mind which is good enough to justify the greatest evil becouse it is prone to (and often satisfied with) seeing reality only from certain angles. It often doesnt strive to have the global perception or consider essential minute details.
This enlarged mind even without the capacity of all-vision has to start with premise that although truth may be one its understanding, meaning and practical use is subject to a great many variations.

But for either the emotion to be purer or mental capacity to be enlarged some form of more universal element has to be introduced into the life of a mass of a humanity.

 

[Borachio]

I also agree that without disagreements there would be no progress.

I don't see why.

I suppose it depends on how you define progress. But I see no reason why the scientific pursuit of the truth about the universe couldn't proceed without disagreement.

Of course, you might say, that as one theory supplants another that's a matter of disagreement. But I don't think it necessarily is. It could be that knowledge, and theory, expands to take in new discoveries.

Christopher Columbus, by discovering America, wasn't disagreeing with those geographers who were open enough to suppose their knowledge was not complete.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't see why.

I suppose it depends on how you define progress. But I see no reason why the scientific pursuit of the truth about the universe couldn't proceed without disagreement.

Of course, you might say, that as one theory supplants another that's a matter of disagreement. But I don't think it necessarily is. It could be that knowledge, and theory, expands to take in new discoveries.

Christopher Columbus, by discovering America, wasn't disagreeing with those geographers who were open enough to suppose their knowledge was not complete.

The reason is that no matter how much we sincerely try as an individuals our approach to reality (becouse of our innate incapacities) is bound to be limited. Luckily everyone represents slightly different approach and perception of reality and this uniqueness contributes in its more positive aspect to progress while the adverse side of this contibutes to disharmony.