# Competing Language Games



## No Name #5 (Apr 20, 2012)

Something I always wind up struggling with when arguing a topic or evangelizing to a skeptic is the issue of competing language games in communicating our points. It appears that if each interlocutor does not first concede to the same premises - even if it's merely for the sake of argument - the whole dialogue inevitably becomes fruitless, with each interlocutor continually speaking past each another until one of them finally gets too exhausted and calls it a day. Case in point: at bottom, a socialist would maintain that equal wealth distribution is the "right" of the populace, whereas a capitalist would maintain that it is something that simply must be _earned_. Or a Catholic will stubbornly insist that for a theological point to be valid, the Catholic Church must first confirm it, whereas a Reformer would term that idolatry because, of course, their premise is Sola Scriptura.

This might be asking a lot, but is there any argumentative technique which would at least enable this ambiguity in communication to become a bit clearer? Does anyone think there is there an effective way we can at least *somewhat* break down this communication barrier? At this point, I typically just pray, hoping the Holy Spirit will convict (if the point is theological). But what if the point is political, for example?

Thanks!


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 20, 2012)

No Name #5 said:


> It appears that if each interlocutor does not first concede to the same premises - even if it's merely for the sake of argument - the whole dialogue inevitably becomes fruitless, with each interlocutor continually speaking past each another until one of them finally gets too exhausted and calls it a day.



You are quite right. I know of no fruitful way to bypass the necessary plowing of the field, doing the laborious work on the front end to agree unambiguously to the several terms which will carry the weight of the subsequent argument. One means of eliminating wrong turns along the way is to call him on every logical fallacy which intrudes.


----------



## Philip (Apr 20, 2012)

To a certain degree, one has to look past the positions and appeal to the values and practical forms of life which form a common ground for any sort of communication. Pointing to tacit knowledge, practices, and that sort of thing. With a Catholic, for instance, point them to the reformational teachings of the Church Fathers and show how things like Anselm's view of atonement logically leads to reformational theology, etc. To address a language-game properly, you really have to get inside it.


----------



## CharlieJ (Apr 21, 2012)

I agree with Philip. I think one has to find out a person's core concerns, and then show how one's position does a better job establishing, executing, and preserving the other's concerns. The discussion then becomes more of a gentle redirecting than an abrupt contradicting. I work at a Catholic university, so I try to situate my discussions around the challenges and goals of the Catholic Church.


----------

