I recognize having “nomenclatures” for things is a somewhat sensible thing.
I get the idea of having a word that has a specific definition that makes it possible for one to pass along ideas in brief ways.
I think it a wonderful thing that people attempt to do exactly this using what ought to be appropriate language.
That said, there are multiple problems with this approach.
Maybe one of the most significant problems, is the fact that a given word or turn of phrase doesn’t mean the same thing to one person as it does to another.
What makes this worse is that:
- Different lexicons are prone to define a given word or phrase differently than do others.
- Even if people settle on a given resource by which to define or explain a given lingual tool, there’s an ongoing issue with fidelity. By this, I mean to say the same source may redefine a term from one time to the next.
Additional to this is the tendency for individuals to expect others to recognize and understand terms with which they are not familiar.
There are folks to whom I pay mind, who spend much of their time in philosophical pursuits. These individuals expect others to understand various terms, and what they ought to mean.
Given the already-expressed issue with inconsistent definitions, there will be obvious issues “off the bat” with various not-so-commonly-known expressions.
Furthermore, even if there isn’t an issue with “competing definitions,” yet and still, it’s likely that folks who don’t spend their time in the world of philosophy will not understand these uncommon expressions.
As if all of this is not sufficiently problematic, there are many who become “polluted by” existing philosophical concepts and ideas.
That is to say, they accept the veracity and infallibility of the ideas presented, rather than doing due diligence.
I get there are people far smarter than myself. I comprehend that such folks have potentially done a large amount of research into a variety of ideas.
I’ll even assent to the idea a given turn of phrase may well do an adequate job of expressing some idea or concept those people trying to get across.
And to be fair, the more we interact, the more likely it is I’ll come to understand what such a one means when they say a particular thing.
The rub is, when you use an expression or concept with someone who hasn’t had the opportunity to interact with you, they may either have no idea what you’re saying, or potentially understand the terms you’re using to mean something entirely—or at least partially—in conflict with what you intended to impart.
What’s the lesson I believe needs learned from the series of aforementioned concerns?
Allow me to seemingly “step into the weeds” for a moment.
Years ago now, I became fascinated by the “inner workings of” that thing referred to as “The Internet.” I spent a great deal of time poring over the RFCs (Requests For Comment) “published by” the Internet Engineering Task Force.
You may’ve heard various people referred to as “Fathers of” various network related technologies.
One name you with whom may not be familiar, is Mr Jon Postel.
If you’ve spent any amount of time in the aforementioned documents—particularly the early ones—that name will be familiar to you.
Mr Postel had a sort of “motto.” You’ll forgive me if I don’t express it perfectly as he would’ve done. My “translation of” that idea is, “Be conservative in what you send, but liberal in what you accept.”
Put another way, one should work to express things in ways others will be readily able to understand, but not assume one comprehends the ideas of others, choosing instead to work to come to recognize what others are trying to say.
My tendency is to work to not assume I know what someone is trying to say without putting it into the context of that person’s other expression of ideas where possible.
Even then, when it’s possible, one ought to confirm with the person putting something out there, exactly what they’re trying to say if it’s not abundantly clear what they mean.
Put simply, it’s far too easy to assume one knows what another is trying to impart when in reality, one’s grasp is not as strong as one might assume it to be.
Only by working to understand what another is getting at, is it possible to decide whether the ideas they intend to express are valid.
On top of this idea, if I wish to bring a person to a more correct place, that’s going to be far more difficult if I don’t understand “where that person lives.”
Paramount in this “battle” is a thing that has been a matter of frustration to me personally.
I cannot assume a person’s failure to recognize the terms I count clear means they don’t have a grasp of things expressed by those terms.
Because this is the case, we must be ready and willing to find alternate ways to explain what it is we’re trying to get others to understand.
I’m not naive enough to believe there aren’t many folks out there uninterested in understanding and objectively considering that which I put out there. I don’t expect you to fail in that understanding either.
I get too, there are those who are “emotionally invested” (whether as a function of “sunk cost fallacy” or not) in some perspective or set thereof.
If you know that’s the case, it’s likely no matter what you do the person in question won’t accept what you have to say (in fact, it’s pretty likely they’ll intentionally “bend” what you put out there in order to avoid acceptance).
For pretty much all other cases though, your intent should be to work to understand the ideas of others.
Following that, you should be attempting to put things out there in ways that will “maximize” others’ ability to consider those things.
As usual, here’s hoping things are going well for you, and if not, that they begin to do so at the earliest possible moment.