Clarity In Speech

There is an interesting article over at Appeal To Heaven, that is a tad old, but touches upon the difference between inalienable, and unalienable rights. This is a distinction largely lost to time, and also phonetics as well, but it serves as a good springboard for what makes for useful discussion.

There is the notion of jargon, overly complicated terminology, which prevails in the culture of expertise. The great irony is that the very jargon that is criticized is simply a function, a reference, and it seeks to keep the discussion from being too complicated, particularly for those outside of its field. However it also runs the risk of assumption, and mistaken implicit definition, which can further the divide in an exchange between two individuals. The difference between inalienable and unalienable is a great one, both convey the natural order of a trait, but one binds it to the possessor’s will, it gives the possessor capability that they would not have in the other. The difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is similar, a simple difference can mark some very different views on theology, and to not clarify this, or to assume the listener is intimately aware of the difference, is to leave the impact of the dialog up to chance almost. There are many more examples, where using these references, without reiterating their definition clearly can cause further divide, to the point of even actual conflict.

When debating with someone regarding the existence of a deity, using the argument from miracles, whether the debater is a believer in consubstantiation or transubstantiation is of the utmost importance. When debating health care, whether the other person believes that life is inalienable or unalienable is the very dividing line of the debate itself, and all other points are mere particulars in contrast.

This post exists largely as an appeal, to embrace longevity in speech if it brings about further understanding, and if whoever you are engaged with uses terms that are either loaded with multiple perspectives, or perhaps seen as jargon, employ the spirit of Socrates and seek honest inquiry, not to keep them on their toes, but truly try and understand them. Disagreement is natural, but conflict over disagreement rooted in misunderstanding is a tragedy we should all seek to avoid, as that is a seed for violence.