The goal of dialogue is dissent or paralogy, not consensus

Evidence

The second assumption is that the goal of dialogue is consensus. But as I have shown in the analysis of the pragmatics of science, consensus is only a particular state of discussion, not its end. Its end, on the contrary, is paralogy. This double observation (the heterogeneity of the rules and the search for dissent) destroys a belief that still underlies Habermas’s research, namely, that humanity as a collective (universal) subject seeks its common emancipation through the regularization of the “moves” permitted in all language games and that the legitimacy of any statement resides in its contributing to that emancipation. — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 453

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘paralogy’ as the true end of dialogue, directly contrasting consensus — a key concept for the novice theory reader.
• XREF: Directly overturns the Habermasian discourse-ethics consensus ideal; Jameson’s reading of Lyotard hinges on exactly this dissent-versus-consensus split. — connects to: Deliberative democracy is agonal dissent atop constitutional consensus, not consensus-seeking talk. — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 19; Speech is fundamentally agonistic play, not mere communication — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on…, 142; Dialogic interactions create open, critical, constructive spaces for negotiating differing ideas toward consensus — ‘Dialogic scaffolding’: Enhancing learning and understanding in collaborative contexts (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Speech is fundamentally agonistic play, not mere communication #corroborates (0.80) — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 142