History can be seen as a bunch of events being occurred based on different collaborative work in the past. Looking back to 20th century we see it happening between countries. County is just a form of representation of a group of people sharing similar background, culture, and location. Lately problems like climate change have changed our ways of seeing the world. Raised issues are not the problems of small groups of people but a shared duty to correct and collectively change our behavior.
When looking at all of those events taking place on the planet Earth, we all seem to know the right solution. When going through the catalogue of TED Talks about climate change almost every significant talk carries through a unique idea for solving some parts of the issue. Even when all the solutions seem to exist, we (meaning all the people on planet Earth) are not able to make a change. Hereby the issue gets another position in the development of the solution. Another aspect of a perfect solution joins the discussion – it’s the interpretation or simple understanding of the problem. If the human population (previously referred as “we”) should carry a main purpose of communication and sharing while complementing each other’s ideas then why do get stuck in situations where the idea/solution, representative of the solution and receiver’s interpretation plays such a big role in solving problems?
Humans create with their ideas and thoughts an unlimited network of sharing and eliminating ideas that are not the best outcomes for the society. If the communication between people consists of uncountable propositions and improved ideas, then at some point every idea should improve until the mind web of human population sets a limit of ideas. No idea can improve more than the best knowledge existing in someone’s mind, which has been shared at least once in the “web”. That being said, in reality such situations do not take place, because of the limitation of understanding each other’s ideas.
For a receiver of the proposition, he needs to first evaluate the sentence being heard, then the background or additional information plus the emotional aspect. A capacity of belief in this case will not only be affected by the knowledge or thought but also by the representation. Disagreeing with something in our example does not mean that a person would not agree merely with the idea represented, but it means that the person does not agree with any aspects of the information analyzed. The human brain does not separate the idea from other information, but it easily creates links between information which will affect the understanding of the idea and affects it therefore. An American modern philosopher Donald Davidson thought that any way of interpretation or living should honor semantic opacity. To understand any idea a receiver must have a perfect knowledge about everything that is behind it. This also explains why people who have lived together for a long time can easily understand each other’s ideas, because they have near perfect information about the experiences and knowledge that the other person has.
In conclusion, the understanding of any idea or theory in the world should not be seen as having a lack of proficiency in the field of study, but should be seen as having a variety of influences that cannot be controlled. Being careful with the interpretation of any proposition on any level might need more time for people to understand and explain their thoughts, but it is the only way to lead to a near perfection efficiency of the existing “mind web”. It is not about how somebody phases the idea, but what the whole idea is about, because when interpreting an idea, we should not judge the representation of it neither the representative.