To speak with someone you must speak the same language
To name something there must be a word for that thing in that language
And to describe something there must be words capable of describing that thing
Given two individuals not always speak the same language
Sometimes an individual refers to concepts which are not understood by the listener
Obviously if the listener doesn’t understand the words, doesn’t understand the concepts — then he doesn’t understand what you’re saying
He will not agree with you. He will NOT DISAGREE with you either. He just doesn’t understand it
That’s most debates, most conversations.
And the speaker is at fault too. Because he himself rarely understands what he’s saying. He doesn’t understand the words he’s using.
If the speaker doesn’t know what he’s saying and the listener doesn’t know what the speaker is talking about — of course you can’t agree
But even if the speaker knows what he’s saying — if he fails to realize that the listener DOESN’T UNDERSTAND, DOESN’T SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE — then he is utterly wasting his time, AND listeners time.
And that’s most debates, most conversations
Of course you don’t have to always reach consensus
In truth — why would you want consensus, cooperation with someone who doesn’t understand the concepts and ideas which you cherish? If he doesn’t understand them then he doesn’t value them.
Go ahead speak engineering jargon to a would-be engineer. If he doesn’t get it — he DOESN’T GET IT. The conversations ends there. The relationship ends there.
Go ahead share your precious philosophical ideas to whoever you meet. If she doesn’t get it — she DOESN’T GET IT. The conversations ends there. The relationship ends there.
JUST UNDERSTAND that you are NOT REACHING THAT CONSENSUS
And what if you DO need consensus?
If you need consensus then you must first speak the same language.
Which means you must TRANSLATE, EXPLAIN your concepts into something that is UNDERSTANDABLE.
Likewise the other side must do the same. And if they are not smart enough to understand that you don’t understand — then you must ASK QUESTIONS.
(Of course the speaker may not be interested in consensus anyway (and will therefore refuse to answer your questions and speak with someone unqualified).
However it’s so rare for someone to own their ignorance and genuinely crave understanding and ask sincere questions — that sharing with such person is rather reinvigorating and meaningful in and of itself)
Now, unfortunately, EXPLAINING CONCEPTS is often more difficult then USING CONCEPTS.
Using tools is one thing — understanding how they work is another thing.
You don’t have to know HOW something works in order to know that it WORKS.
Of course, stating that “something works” is often enough explanation. You don’t have to explain HOW it works.
But how often do you truly know that something “works”?
Our makeshift understanding is a jumble of some facts, some probabilities, some correlations, some apparent cause-effect relationships, some deductions, many via-negativa observations of what-doesn’t-work and what-isn’t, some concepts and ideas… and all the rest of it,
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN IT?
How do you explain it to someone who doesn’t share those observations, that background, and never heard of those concepts?
How do you explain it?
Ideally you simplify, find common language, explain the concepts, share your observations, share how your conclusions followed from that background.
IDEALLY you manage to simplify it so much that it will be reduced to a YES/NO answer.
Of course few things are black-and-white — however if you can reduce something to a black-and-white perfect precision — you remove the vagueness which is the enemy of understanding, and enemy of consensus.
TO AGREE with something is BLACK AND WHITE too.
I genuinely encourage you to DEBATE ANYONE
NOT WIN DEBATES, mind you — which corrupts the truth (desire to win corrupts desire to understand)
But I encourage mastery of your subject matter and attainment of such clarity which allows you to explain it to a FOOL.
Of course — don’t confuse it for sophism. There’s nonsense and untruth that SOUNDS COMPELLING — but is nevertheless nonsense. Don’t be a sophist, don’t be a seller.
IF TRUTH CAN’T BE EXPLAINED EASILY — DON’T EXPLAIN IT. Don’t corrupt it with your insubstantial words. Just ACT IT.
But if you actually can broaden your understanding, clarify your vision, attain a more broad perspective and perception of the subject matter — then surely it is beneficial
Again: your performance will not always benefit from your ability to explain it,
If you’re a true master — you often CAN’T EXPLAIN how you do what you do,
But then again — often you CAN explain things
And often you’re not yet a master,
And when you attempt to explain your understanding in simple terms — you realize the HOLES in your MODELS.
And this forces you to improve.
Conclusion:
—Very often we don’t speak the same language
—Consensus is not always the end goal — but if it is — then we must speak the same language
—This will require the debaters to clarify their language, their statements, their concepts
—Process of clarifying one’s ideas and concepts is generally very beneficial to the speaker himself — as he broadens his understanding — and also finds flaws in his edifice
—However this must not be confused for sophism — which is an attractive presentation and compelling (false) explanation of some nonsense and untruth, or half-truth
—And it must be understood that not always is the simplification and explanation even possible — KNOWING THAT SOMETHING WORKS and KNOWING HOW SOMETHING WORKS are two different things