Contract in two parts

[lhexa]

Words do not have absolute precision in their representation of reality; however, the necessary task of turning a critical eye towards another's (or my own) words requires that I act as if I know with considerable exactitude what the words mean, or, to say it more accurately, what the writer intends them to mean. However, thought itself hinders this analysis: whenever I myself am able to use words in a consistent manner, and in fact know almost exactly what I mean when I say them, then I am tempted to treat this knowledge as something that is true of others as well - that is, when I come to know what I mean when I say "duty", "objective", or any other similarly meaningful word, then I will treat others as if their words carry the same meaning and implications as mine - and then argue, as often as not, with the utterly nonsensical things that they say.

I suspect that this is common in others, as well. It is never possible to, in an absolute sense, know what words mean - it is only possible to know what I mean when I say them, or what another does. The latter case is that ability upon which all communication rests - the ability to comprehend what another is saying, and to pass along an idea in a manner that allows the other to understand. I think, however, that it is the method upon which this skill is most often grounded, that causes words to be treated as absolute: the assumption that other people are basically identical to oneself in the manners in which they speak, that a certain set of words coming out of another's mouth mean exactly what they would if they came of one's own.

Comments

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

I don't know what to say in response to that.

[raki.livejournal.com]

You don't have to say anything.