You know that old saying, that people can speak the same language, and still not understand each other... Alarmingly, I find this is increasingly true, given that people's minds are now trained to privilege "fact" and "reason". But meaning does not always lie within those two domains; sometimes meaning lies beyond what we are able to see or to empirically test at a given time.
For example, it is now outmoded to seek lessons from observations of the natural world: like saying, "because honey is created through such orderly work, we, too, must seek some level of discipline if we are to have nectar". This is because some smart aleck will riposte, "Schrödinger's cat!" or, "bestial chaos also secures a solid meal" - ostensibly also citing observations of the natural world in their counter argument, and in this way, losing sight of the meaning that would help us to be more constructive as a people.
Or, to take a more banal example: someone is asked if they are tired, because they look it, but later that day, is praised for looking good, and that person refuses the compliment in the name of logical inconsistency. When really the point was that overall, they have been looking good, despite their unusual tired appearance on that one day.
Where we seek "reason" or "fact" we often lose the essence of constructive meaning. We are trained out of being able to accept the gift of that which would help us. And instead, we criticise it for its inconsistencies. Does that not make us some sort of scrooge? Linguistic cheapskates, forgoing comfort and necessity in what turns out to be a spurious economy of counterfeit meaning.
You know what I mean? Meaning is supposed to have intention. Intention is like the wild card in the game of communication: it is the element of surprise that can, at the discretion of the player, bring new value to the table. Intention can infuse the insinuation that one looks tired with the compliment that even when tired, one looks better than one did before.
It may be that too rational a society loses its meaning. Meaning exists in a realm beyond proof: it is what it says it is, and that's that. The interlocutor insisting on proof therein destroys it.
I do not know how many educated people speak today. I think they lecture, but we all know lecturing is a one-way street - and that isn't true to life. The one-way street of reason insists it is in the right- because it is all it knows and all it can justify - and recognise.
And like everything that is taxed by self-importance, it is missing the boat.