People can easily agree on general principles and yet disagree on certain details, especially if the subject matter contains empirical matters and judgments. They may also elect to express the same idea with different words.
I was refering to absolute truths and the use of logic. After all logic can be applied in one way and one way only, right? By this I mean: There's no such thing as bad logic. It makes sense to think of it as one path to reach a desired destination. So, it seems to me, that one person may lose direction and take a longer route, while the other takes the shortest one. This seems to be why people argue and have different opinions and so on.
I don't see how there can be two enlightened people at odd ends with each other. That is, unless there are degrees to enlightenment.
What were or are some differences that have been resolved by two sages, why did they even occur? (examples please)
Check and Mate :D
Being guests here, we should show some manners and not point out everything though... bad manners imo. They are pretty bright guys, never the less. Is that really important what they call them selves? It's like pointing out to your doctor that he has bad BO... might be true, but still a bad call :D There are more important things to worry about :(
That's only because they don't seem to disagree in terms of philosophy. Even in a radio transcript about David vs Kevin, they still agreed on everything (though, I'm not sure that this actually happened...). Each individual is logical and open to question, so why would one disagree with the other if they both know the outcome of such disagreements?
Yes they are! Two people cannot disagree on purely logical questions and issues; if they do, one of them is wrong. If the matter involves complexities like empirical matters, then opinion enters the domain of reasoning. It's the difference between the logical and the empirical. The latter is always uncertain and given to variance in judgement. The former is something you just understand or don't.
1+1=2 is something everyone agrees on logically.
How it should be applied and what significance it might have is up to subjective judgement; i.e. it is contextual. But the formula itself is never up for disagreement.
You need to point to specific disagreements you have seen that made you ask this question and ask yourself what nature they have.
It's the difference between the logical and the empirical. The latter is always uncertain and given to variance in judgement. The former is something you just understand or don't.
