Agreement on basic concepts is a prerequisite for discussion

For people to have a useful, meaningful discussion about philosophical issues, it is critically important that they adopt a common framework for that discussion. Otherwise they will end up just talking past each other, hearing each other's words, but not comprehending. When we each employ our own vocabulary, and don't use a common toolbox of concepts, both parties to a conversation are just engaging in separate monologs. It becomes impossible to have a useful exchange of ideas if the speakers can't come to a basic agreement on some the underlying terminology, assumptions, premises, and rules for discussion. They don't need to agree on the conclusions, but they must at least agree about what they are discussing!

Consequently, this requires a minimal acceptance of some basic basic rules of logic. A common understanding of basic terms must be reached if we wish to avoid talking in circles. At some level, this means we must have a respect for the basis of tradition Western Thought, Aristotle's Three Laws of Thought (Law of Identity, Law of Non-Contradiction, and Law of the Excluded Middle). Why do we need help from traditional Western Thought? It is not an arbitrary bias. When we ignore Aristotle's Laws of Thought (especially Non-Contradiction) the conversation quickly becomes surreal. Common terms - truth, value, reality, consciousness - can imply entirely different and contradictory things to the parties of the discussion.

As Socrates said, "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms". If we allow an important term simultaneously refer to multiple contradictory or vague concepts during a discussion, all hope of common understanding vanishes. This is the basis for any discussion I intend to have, and won't waste my time or energy (or sanity) by pointlessly arguing about idealistic fantasies based on shifting and vague definitions. G. E. Moore strongly believed that muddled thinking and imprecise language confuses our thinking about reality. He thought that a combination of common sense and precise language were sufficient to address most philosophical questions. Because of the laxness in our use of language when addressing complex issues, philosophers exacerbate already complex issues and frequently create problems out of nothing.

I have been frustrated in my conversations with the kind of people who toy with words and meanings simply for the pleasure of being clever and evasive. They equivocate on the important concepts like truth, meaning, free will, faith, belief, trust, experience, existence, good, bad, etc. They redefine these, sometimes in mid-discussion, using them in varying ways that suit their desired outcome. This convenient juggling of meanings is very much in the spirit of the disreputable philosophical style called "Deconstructionism". In particular they frequently equate "faith" in science (belief or "trust" based on methodology and evidence) with "faith" in religion (belief in the complete absence of evidence). It is unfortunate that the word, "faith" spans both of these domains. Its use with respect to the evidence of our senses only confuses the discussion. "Truth" is another word that is used in entirely different ways by different people. To a person taking a rational approach, truth is the outcome of a logical process (a proposition is either true or false, but not both). To a person approaching philosophical questions from a religious or mystical point of view, truth can mean whatever concepts they feel are enlightening, thrilling, uplifting, motivating, or emotionally satisfying. The multiple, inconsistent use of words like these are cases of allowing ourselves to be confused by the imprecise use of language. The entire epistimologies feeding these different world views (science/evidence vs mystical/religious) differ. The religious belief is based on revelation / inspiration / emotion, and the scientific world view is based on observation / experiment / measurement / evidence / methodology / replication. As Wittgenstein said, "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language". These questions are hard enough without allowing additional confusion to creep in through the lazy and imprecise use of language.

There is one clear prerequisite for people to be able to understand, evaluate, and debate the reasons that others offer for their viewpoints, and that is that they have to understand each other. The only way to understand each other and to engage in meaningful discussion is to use a common, neutral, language, not one that is front loaded with irrational assumptions. As soon as you inject religious or mystical beliefs or doctrine into a discussion or debate, it essentially shuts down the discussion with anyone who doesn't share that mystical belief system. Falling back to religion, mysticism, miracles, serves as a conversation stopper. Once someone invokes a religious or supernatural doctrine as a basis for their position, they are effectively shutting out anyone who doesn't share those precepts and that is the end of the discussion.

All discussions of vocabulary aside, we are all "realists" when dealing with the physical world and living our lives. It is only when sitting around the coffee table debating late into the night that the "idealist" comes out of hibernation. Idealism (roughly, the theory that reality is created by the mind, or that the objects of perception consist solely of ideas) is an intellectual indulgence and luxury. When someone says "how do you know that reality exists?" they are usually being coy. I say this because anyone can observe that with every action we take, we all demonstrate a complete trust in the physical reality of the external world. Every action is an accommodation and/or reaction to real world events. None of the several billion people on the planet conduct themselves as if the bus racing towards them on the highway is an illusion or someone else's biased view of reality that they may not necessarily subscribe to. To propose that they don't truly know if the bus is really barreling down on them shows a huge mismatch between their actions (i.e. running for safety) and their words, and in my opinion shows them to be, at best, disingenuous or confused, and at worst, liars.