From Deadlock to Trialogue: A Gravitational Solution to Deep Disagreements in North Macedonia

This paper challenges Robert Fogelin’s influential “impossibility thesis,” which posits that “Deep Disagreements” are immune to rational resolution. While Fogelin views these deadlocks as terminal logical failures, this study proposes a structural solution by reconstructing argumentative discourse as a trialogue rather than a traditional dyadic exchange. Using the “Law on the Uses of Languages” in North Macedonia as a contemporary case study, the paper illustrates how ethnic identity and state sovereignty function as clashing tectonic plates, creating a strong “hinge” where rational evidence is swallowed by existential attachment. To bridge this gap, the author introduces the concept of the “Great Attractor,” which is an external force possessing sufficient “gravitational force” to pull disputants out of their isolated orbits. The study concludes that resolution is achieved not by forcing one side to surrender its “truth,” but through a rational collapse toward a higher “meta-framework.” By shifting the focus from horizontal persuasion to vertical alignment with a legitimate third party, this paper argues that even the deepest social stalemates can be rationally managed, transforming potential systemic entropy into a shared orbit of survival.

Deep Disagreement, Hinge Commitments, Law on the Uses of Languages, Trialogue, Great Attractor

1. Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2017). Advancing polylogue analysis: Aspects of behavioral design in multi-party argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.1.001aak [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of disagreement: The good news. The Philosophical Review, 116(2), 187–217. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2006-035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Feldman, R. (2006). Epistemological puzzles about disagreement. In S. Hetherington (Ed.),, Epistemic Futures (pp. 216–236). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Fogelin, R. J. (1985). The logic of deep disagreement. Informal Logic, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v7i1.2727 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Government of the Republic of North Macedonia. (2019). Law on the Use of Languages. Official Gazette of the Republic of North Macedonia, No. 7/2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Lavorerio, V. (2021). Deep disagreement, hinge commitments, and fundamental epistemic principles. In M. Lewiński & D. Mohammed (Eds.), Argumentation in Context (pp. 235–252). Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Lynch, M. P. (2010). Epistemic circularity and epistemic incommensurability. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchard (Eds.) Social Epistemology (pp. 262–277). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Lynch, M. P. (2012). Know-it-all society: Truth and arrogance in political culture. Liveright Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Matheson, J. (2021). Deep disagreement and rational resolution. Topoi, 40(5), 1011–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-020-09715-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Pritchard, D. (2011). Wittgensteinean hinges. In K. M. Higgins & D. L. Sherman (Eds.),, The Blackwell Companion to Wittgenstein. Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Pritchard, D. (2021). Skepticism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ranalli, C. (2020). What is deep disagreement? Topoi, 39(5), 983–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9600-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ranalli, C. (2021). Deep disagreement, hinge commitments, and the possibility of rational resolution. Inquiry, 64(1-2), 140–163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Shields, M. (2021). Conceptual disruption and deep disagreement. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 7(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2020.19 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Smith, N. R., & Lynch, M. P. (2021). Epistemic arrogance and deep disagreement. Topoi, 40(5), 1081–1091. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Van Eemeren, F. H., et al. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. University of Alabama Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Venice Commission. (2019). North Macedonia - Opinion on the Law on the Use of Languages, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 121st Plenary Session. (Opinion No. 907/2017). Council of Europe. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Orientation and Mobility Training as a Core Component of Supported Employment for Employees with Visual Impairment
• Chamar Caste Movement and Its Leaders in District Bijnor (1900–1950 Ad)
• Influence of Menstrual Health Management on Mental Health of Adolescents in Thrissur District
• Echoes Beneath the Earth: Cultural and Spiritual Beliefs of Miners in the Mining Industry
• An Analytical Exploration of Construction Contract Terms from Legal Cases