There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.
It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.
Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.
It's not sophistry, either.
Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.
However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.
And that is the true beginning of understanding.
I agree that reaching an understanding is not sophistry. But "framing" with the intention of winning an argument is sophistry, which was my point. Yes, we all come to any discussion or argument with our views, or "frameworks", or whatever other word you want to use to characterize the fact that we cannot share our minds with each other. But don't confuse theories about how our minds work with the actual work of discourse. Too often theoretical categories of knowledge only interfere with the real work needed to approach a "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to achieve effective discourse and understanding.
We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them...
Don't think of it as a "fight over how to name our problems" Think of it as a "fight over how to frame our problems"
Because, as a general principle, he who frames the issue can load it so the debate is weighted one way or another. For example, calling a doctor "Tiller the baby killer" effectively spikes a legitimate debate from the beginning.
I'm not sure if you're serious; but if you are, then you're confusing sophistry with real debate and understanding. Winning an argument, i.e., getting someone to agree with your view, is not the same as reaching understanding. Supposedly that was Sanchez's point too, but I think he doesn't really understand the difference.
"If Diet Coke did not exist it would have been neccessary to invent it." -- Karl Lehenbauer