In the Age of the Imbecile, what is said is rarely what is meant—much less what is intended. We all too often communicate and converse under the illusion that we are cognizant of the true meaning of the words we utter. To worsen things off, we conduct ourselves as though this [emphasis added] meaning—given that it is falsely-perceived to be ‘true’—is universal; eo ipso requires no further explanation or inquiry. We simply wouldn’t deign so much as to ask another person what they mean by one word.
The same grammar and words could be used, and it would still—metaphorically speaking—feel as though one person is speaking English and the other Mandarin. For an understanding to be established between interlocutors, their lexical resource ought be synchronized in two respects: meaning and intent. In which case, the first must needs be universal; whilst the second particular i.e. autonomous.
Within the context of the further development of his thoughts as to render them wholly practicable, René Descartes (1596 – 1650) in, “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences,” which was originally published six years after his death, stated that there can be no other person besides himself who would qualify for the task, which he justified, accordingly: “… though I have often explained my opinions to persons of much acuteness, who, whilst I was speaking, appeared to understand them very distinctly, yet, when they repeated them, I have observed that they almost always changed them to such an extent that I could no longer acknowledge them as mine [my formatting].” (Descartes 115)
That’s not quite rare, is it? Very seldom do we hear or read an argument, opinion, or idea repeated in verbatim—or, with the original source’s intent unaltered. That is, in large part, due to unfettered interpretation.
Unfettered interpretation is not one and the same faculty as critical analysis [emphasis added]. The latter never discards context; nor dismisses the universal (or, more precisely, standardized) meaning of words; all the while factoring in the notion that some communications are to be taken at face value—i.e. literally, where no further interpretation or analysis is required. Contrariwise, the former fails on all three accounts.
This gross failure of unfettered interpretation is time and again the result of mistaking meanings to be particular, intent to be universal, or both. Were meanings always particular, languages wouldn’t manifest as governing structures; and, inevitably, no intelligible communication would be possible. Were intent universal, the notion of free mind—autonomous, that is—would not exist.
Since intent is peculiar, it might at times [emphasis added] necessitate the employment of terminology in a specific manner—which constitutes the channel for its proper communication to the recipient. Notwithstanding, it would always maintain, explicitly, that this particular devising of a certain word applies only within the bounds of a given context; lest, the language itself is distorted. Hence, we have generic and specific meanings for words.
In a nutshell, when we inquire about what a person means by a certain word or phrase, what we are actually asking for is a revelation of intent, rather than the universal (i.e. generic) meaning of which. And, to presume that we are privy to all plausible intents prior to any inquiry or investigation is the highest form of imbecility—crowned with arrogance and ignorance. But, hey! We are all wiseacres in this Age of the Imbecile, let’s continue to relish misunderstanding one another!
Reference
Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences. Apple Books; produced by Ilana and Greg Newby (n.d.), HTML version by Al Haines (n.d.), originally published in 1656.
