2 ms·
Semantic arguments are wrongfully vilified. Philosophy requires precision, and imprecise definitions lead nowhere. At a meta level, it's an interesting question
by ahelwer 10y ago
Semantic arguments are wrongfully vilified. Philosophy requires precision, and imprecise definitions lead nowhere. At a meta level, it's an interesting question whether we can satisfactorily define any term at all; see the failure of philosophy to adequately define what is and is not science: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
- tdb7893 10y agoUnderstanding the precise meaning of words is obviously important to a discussion. My problem with semantic arguments is generally a practical one, not theoretical. I've found arguments over disagreements in definitions of words to either be resolved trivially or ultimately futile. There probably are situations where semantic arguments are worth it to really argue but they seem very seldom. This is just a value judgement on my part so honestly I expect people to disagree