Discuss. Discern. Discuss Again.

How often have you found yourself sitting there after an argument replaying the conversation in your head, and processing their replies, only to realize that you were arguing 2 completely different topics?

Over the course of my life, I have been guilty of doing just that. As I've gotten older, I see it everywhere: personal, professional, platonic, romantic, religious, political, ethical, moral, etc. As vast as our vocabulary is, it seems that society as a whole has developed an increasingly toxic trait: colloquial appropriation as definition.

Consider this: what image, what feeling, comes to mind when you hear the word "confront"? Is it happy? Is it inquisitive? Did your heart smile in anticipation? Oh, none of those? Why?

I suspect that it's because, as I feel the average person would, you heard the word "confront" and felt angry, defensive, and perhaps your heart rate sped up. Maybe you felt fear. Maybe you felt shame. And again, I ask you: why?

You see, I think that this is but a singular example amongst a myriad of others in which society has borrowed subjective meaning, common association, and emotional resonance, and substituted it as definition. Our linguistic history, both oral and written, is full of such phenomena. We use generational slang, we suffer homonymic distortion; we're all speaking the same language, and yet, we've never been more misunderstood.

If your childhood was anything like mine, you grew up hearing that "The pen is mightier than the sword", and "Words have power". I agree. But a sword in the hands of an untrained squire is as equally effective as a debate about meaning when we're not even using the same definitions.

So, how do we fix it?

Well, I think it starts with claritive certainty. Regardless of discussion topic, if it can be broken down to its epistiological definition, many debates dissolve because the disagreement was definitional, not substantiative. But how are you expected to win then, if clear definition makes arguing your points...pointless?

That, my dear friends, is the entire premise of this blog. Winning should never be the goal of a debate; understanding should be. I would rather be clearly disagreed with, than mistakenly conceded to.

So, join me. Let us traverse the idiosyncrasies of language and the incomprehensibility of philosophy together as we try to understand the increasingly murky and ever-changing landscape that is clarity.

*homonymic distortion: The alteration of an identical word's interpreted meaning resulting from differences in language, dialect, or cultural context, despite the lexical form remaining unchanged (i.e. USA thong vs Australian thong)

Ah, the age old question of “Whose opinion should carry more weight: the conductor’s stated intent, or the recipient’s stated impact?”

I say, that’s an impossible question to answer the way it’s currently worded because those two things are not directly comparable. Furthermore, I’d posit that because both views are explicitly subjective and can only truly be defined by the people immediately involved, the best society would be able to do from the outside is approximate and appropriate. So, why did I pick this topic then, if, by my own definition and stance, it would be impossible to solve and irresponsible to weigh in on? Well, is that what I actually said?

Fact: the only person who can truly discern intent is the person who conducted the action. Fact: the only person who can truly, and accurately, assign weight to the impact of the action is the recipient.

To me, it seems that this topic garners so much attention because people approach it from 2 different standpoints: the logic of intent vs the emotion of impact. Some people jump to defend intent, because intent is crucial in deciding how to move forward. Even in our own justice system, the very first thing that is questioned and needs to be proven is intent. 

So, does that mean that impact doesn’t matter? Not at all. But impact should be identified and weighed separately of intent. Neither impact nor intent should be weighed more than the other because they are asking fundamentally different questions: what was meant vs what it cost.

If I’m sitting on my couch, and didn’t realize my cat was under me, and I accidentally step on her tail when I get up, am I a monster? I feel that most people would say no, it was an honest mistake. Why? Because my intent was not to step on her. Does that mean the cost she paid, that brief moment of pain/fear is irrelevant? Of course not. It happened, she felt it, and whether it was intentional or not does not negate the reality of her experience. So again, why am I not a monster?

If you have a tone deaf and socially oblivious family member, whom every time you see them at a family function says something that hurts/offends you, are they a monster even if they’re not meaning to? I think the answer is still, by definition, no. But, why then, are people so much more likely to rally against the clueless family member? We established that their intent is harmless, as was mine if I accidentally step on my cat’s tail, so why is the family member seemingly more likely to receive hate, avoidance, and disparaging remarks against their character?

Because in a situation like that, I feel the question is no longer intent vs impact. Strictly speaking, the intent has not changed, even if the impact has due to repeated/continued interaction. It seems to me that the actual question at that point is “At what point does grace due to ignorance get superseded by the individual's obligation to say something”?

A one off comment or incident can be squarely played out within the confines of intent vs impact; we make 100’s of those decisions every day even if we don’t consciously recognize it. I think the real reason this question bears such weight is because we are guilty of still trying to attribute ‘intent vs impact’ rules to a situation that is actually asking ‘malicious ignorance vs obligation of boundaries’. And that, my friends, is a very different question that requires a very different framework to address.

So, what matters more? Impossible to conclude as a comparative analysis. Intent matters, and to the best of our ability, it needs to be discerned and weighed appropriately. But, impact also matters, and it matters separately of intent. There are many situations where impact could be disproportionately weighed against intent. Intent does not absolve impact, but impact does not determine intent.

1: Above all else, define the topic. If it is broad, define the scope. If it is vague, define the feeling. Definition leaves little room for ambiguity, and ambiguity breeds volatility.

2: Follow definitions to their logical end point. It will not always be pretty. It will not always be easy. Definitions exist independently of moral, religious, societal, or political connotations. Define first, defend second.

3: A shared conclusion should never be the goal. Mutual understanding should supersede mutual agreement. It is better to know we truly disagree, than it is to falsely believe we’re in sync.

4: Discomfort is expected, disrespect has no place. Clarity, truth, definition, and conflation will be challenged. A person’s beliefs are less important than their willingness to engage in clarity.

5: The process matters more than pride. We are not here to assert, we are here to comprehend.