One of the things analytic philosophy does pretty well is break down terms to clarify the point if disagreement. If you see people arguing over nothing but the meaning of a word they're probably not doing philosophy very well. A lot of philosophy is learning boring jargon to get away from that.
Wittgenstein's account of meaning as use within a group of speakers is fairly simple as a concept even if his writings can be hard to track, and that I think gets us away from the idea that a word is ever what matters as opposed to the meaning the speaker attaches.
I think it's unfair to characterise Socrates as arguing about the meaning of words. When Socrates poses the dilemma to Euthyphro, for example, it's not the meaning of the word "'piety" that's at stake, it's the implications of a concept.
When I think of arguing over the meaning of a word I think of a purely verbal dispute where someone is disputing another person's usage. One person says the falling tree in the forest makes a "sound" in that it causes waves in the air, the other says there's no "sound" in the sense that it's the experience of a listener. At that point, they aren't actually having a substantive dispute, simply using the word "'sound" differently.
It's a common tired debate tactic. The kind of debate tactic that if you ever actually take a debate class they explicitly tell you to avoid because arguing semantics is always aside from anything of substance. If you're arguing in good faith, you both agree on the meaning of a word from the outset and if you find a conflict you just agree to use one definition or the other in order to proceed.
As soon as someone pulls out the dictionary, it's like someone who just quoted Star Wars to make a philosophical quote (happens a ton, too). It's like "oh, you didn't actually want to talk about this, never mind then" and just disengage. Not worth it.
Especially when someone completely ignores the point being made to poke fun at the grammar instead. I think it's a form of the ad hominem fallacy. If you can't attack the argument, you attack the person.
Sometimes if i don’t use a word often, I forget the exact spelling and meaning and might mix it up with similar words. I wonder if this is what happened.
Ahh, that's actually helpful. Thanks! Unfortunately, the most common corrections are to real words that I actually use, they just aren't the word I mean. For example, "the" gets fat-fingered to "rhe" which gets autocorrected to "rhea" which is a type of large South American bird that I actually keep as pets. I also work in a very specialized industry with a bunch of its own jargon so my autocorrect might sub in an industry term or my own personal abbreviation over the completely unrelated word that I meant.
Lmao of course you happen to keep rheas as pets so the autocorrect is actually relevant to you. That’s actually hilarious. I guess I’d take the trade off of having cool giant birds over being annoyed at autocorrect though haha
![[ Removed by moderator ]](https://i.redd.it/cf6f1308rr6g1.png){kind=link}
Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, your post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s):
Do not post conversations you are a part of.
Please contact the mods if you feel this was wrong.
All chat requests and pms about your removed post will not be answered. Contact the mods instead!
You know you've reached peak internet fight when you start arguing about what words mean.
Either peak internet fight or peak philosophy debate.
Then again: the two are basically interchangeable.
How dare you claim being on the internet makes it philosophy, that basically means you are hitler.
Sorry but it is friday and I wanted to speed this argument along for an early finish.
One of the things analytic philosophy does pretty well is break down terms to clarify the point if disagreement. If you see people arguing over nothing but the meaning of a word they're probably not doing philosophy very well. A lot of philosophy is learning boring jargon to get away from that.
Have you tried reading Wittgenstein?
Arguing bout the meaning of words is like philosophy 101, even in Plato's dialogues, Sokrates argues with Sophists about the meaning of words.
Wittgenstein's account of meaning as use within a group of speakers is fairly simple as a concept even if his writings can be hard to track, and that I think gets us away from the idea that a word is ever what matters as opposed to the meaning the speaker attaches.
I think it's unfair to characterise Socrates as arguing about the meaning of words. When Socrates poses the dilemma to Euthyphro, for example, it's not the meaning of the word "'piety" that's at stake, it's the implications of a concept.
When I think of arguing over the meaning of a word I think of a purely verbal dispute where someone is disputing another person's usage. One person says the falling tree in the forest makes a "sound" in that it causes waves in the air, the other says there's no "sound" in the sense that it's the experience of a listener. At that point, they aren't actually having a substantive dispute, simply using the word "'sound" differently.
It's a common tired debate tactic. The kind of debate tactic that if you ever actually take a debate class they explicitly tell you to avoid because arguing semantics is always aside from anything of substance. If you're arguing in good faith, you both agree on the meaning of a word from the outset and if you find a conflict you just agree to use one definition or the other in order to proceed.
As soon as someone pulls out the dictionary, it's like someone who just quoted Star Wars to make a philosophical quote (happens a ton, too). It's like "oh, you didn't actually want to talk about this, never mind then" and just disengage. Not worth it.
They're not even arguing about the meaning. They're arguing about whether the word just "exists" !!
What do you mean by "peak" internet fight?
Especially when someone completely ignores the point being made to poke fun at the grammar instead. I think it's a form of the ad hominem fallacy. If you can't attack the argument, you attack the person.
I feel like they were thinking of "Euphemism".
Which is even further away from eugenics.
Definitely, but at least it's a real word
And there is no way autocorrect switched a misspelling to a nonexistent word, unless they type that word all the time
Or enthusiasm or euthanasia maybe? Probably euphemism though.
An enthusiasm for euthanasia sounds about right in a discussion about eugenics.
Euthanism
A feeling of enthusiasm for euthanasia.
Perhaps 'euthanasia'?
Why is it the responsibility of the youth in Asia for killing someone else?
That you Ali?
A'iiight!
Or Eugenism, but that's just a joke by Eugene Levy.
I actually read Euphemism first time and thought the other guy would be incorrect
Oh interesting, I assumed enthusiasm or euthanasia
Sometimes if i don’t use a word often, I forget the exact spelling and meaning and might mix it up with similar words. I wonder if this is what happened.
Euthanism definitely is a word, its definition is:
"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above."
It has many synonyms.
Euthanism is a euphemism for eugenics, isn’t it?
No. It is often used to forward the goals of eugenics, though.
You’re thinking of youth in Asia
My tired brain was reading "enthusiasm" and it took a solid minute for me to even see the problem 😅
Same
lol, me too.
Someone demonstrating enthusiasm for euthanasia?
Eugenics -> euthanism is incredible, a whole two letters in common
They also both have an 's', so 3 letters in common. Easy mistake really, I also often mississipi one word for another.
Also an n. And an i.
So basically the same word?
They're clearly anagrams of each other
Its a pretty cromulent saying, like "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
👏👏👏
r/boneappletea
It auto corrected to a word that doesn’t exist.. righhhttt
This is what happens when you replace spellcheck with ai
it exists
...
euthanasia gang. no euthanidm
Mine does that regularly. I'm so bad typing on a touch screen that I have inadvertently trained my autocorrect into all sorts of nonsense.
Lmao well if it bothers you, you can delete the words that you don’t want it to autocorrect to.
Settings > General > Keyboard > Text Replacement, tap Edit, select the red minus sign next to the word, and tap Delete
Ahh, that's actually helpful. Thanks! Unfortunately, the most common corrections are to real words that I actually use, they just aren't the word I mean. For example, "the" gets fat-fingered to "rhe" which gets autocorrected to "rhea" which is a type of large South American bird that I actually keep as pets. I also work in a very specialized industry with a bunch of its own jargon so my autocorrect might sub in an industry term or my own personal abbreviation over the completely unrelated word that I meant.
Lmao of course you happen to keep rheas as pets so the autocorrect is actually relevant to you. That’s actually hilarious. I guess I’d take the trade off of having cool giant birds over being annoyed at autocorrect though haha
Confidently incorrect or just incorrect?
They didn’t double down. We don’t know it they accepted the correction.
"...a rebuttal." Dude, it's a stupid Internet spat. You're not Cicero arguing against the Catalines.
Hey /u/Kinks4Kelly, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I just wanna know what their response to that was loll
Crickets.
That really is some hill to die on.
Hey OP, Rule 8.
For the love of god people rule 8
https://www.reddit.com/r/complaints/s/kpnJyz0ivz
I think they’re combining euthanasia and euphemism. Ironically euthanasia is already a euphemism on some level, I think.
My dyslexia ass reas "enthusiasm" at first
Euthanism feels like a useful term for slang like "unalive" that people have to use to avoid algorithm censorship
Sounds like something they’d say in Wicked
When I was young and first heard the word euthanasia, I always wondered why we were so concerned with the youth in Asia.
That is not a hill I would die on.
It’s a word now. It was just used in a sentence with an intended meaning. Not all “official” dictionaries contain the exact same set of words
Dezzlebluck to that idea.