4 ms·

I reread the relevant parts of the text again, and I don't find anything that supports that the author meant anything else with "semantics" than I do. Semantics

by Ma8ee 6y ago

I reread the relevant parts of the text again, and I don't find anything that supports that the author meant anything else with "semantics" than I do. Semantics is about "meaning", not only on a superficial level.

foldr 6y ago
"Semantic arguments are particularly insidious. Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary (unless the actual argument is about language). The worst thing you can do is to have an argument in which you talk past each other because you each have a different idea about what the words mean." It doesn't make sense to dismiss an argument as merely semantic if you are talking about something more than just arbitrary definitions. In many cases, pro- and anti-abortion people have a genuine disagreement about the point at which life begins. This isn't merely a disagreement about how to define a particular word. You can, if you want to, characterize it as a dispute about what it 'means' for something to be alive, but that's a much deeper issue than a mere semantic quibble. (The debate can't, for example, be resolved by introducing two new terms alive* and alive†, with both sides of the debate agreeing that a foetus is alive* but not alive†.)
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  But the author's point was that arguments shouldn't be dismissed as merely semantics, but that semantic questions are important and has to be resolved for it to be meaningful discussion. Yes, the different sides have a genuine disagreement about the point at which life begins, but that is because they mean different things when they say that something is alive. So this discussion is becomming a bit too meta, but now we are discussing meaning of the term semantics. Considering that the author himself took up the discussion about abortion as an example of something that is "purely a semantic one", I'm convinced that he meant the same thing as I do when he used the term semantic.
  - foldr 6y ago
    The article says the following. "Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary...Abortion is the canonical example of [a semantic] argument: once you have decided what 'life' is, there’s really not much else to discuss. It’s not a political argument, not even in theory. It’s purely a semantic one." So the author does seem to be saying that the whole abortion debate is purely a debate over arbitrary definitions, not merely that it's important to clear up semantic issues before getting into the meat of the debate. If the issue were purely semantic, it would be possible to resolve the debate simply by introducing unambigious terminology agreed on by both sides (e.g. using 'alive*' and 'alive†' rather than 'alive'). If this doesn't satisfy both sides, then they aren't really disagreeing over the meaning of the word 'life', they're disagreeing over the nature or essence of life itself. Informally we can say that they disagree over what it means to be alive. But philosophically it's important to be clear that this isn't just a semantic issue about the meaning of a particular word. Another way to bring this out is to think cross-linguistically. Do we really have to have the abortion debate over again for every one of the world's ~6500 languages and their corresponding words for 'life'? I think not, because at heart the debate isn't a debate over word meaning.
    - Ma8ee 6y ago
      > "Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary...Abortion is the canonical example of [a semantic] argument: once you have decided what 'life' is, there’s really not much else to discuss. It’s not a political argument, not even in theory. It’s purely a semantic one." Which is quite much exactly what I said. That a definition is arbitrary doesn't mean that it is unimportant. If I use one arbitrary definition, and you another one, we won't have any meaningful discussion. Sometimes this can be resolved, when the definitions themselves aren't the central issue and we can agree about at least some provisional defintions. Sometimes the definition itself is the central issue, and can't be resolved. Like when we disagree about the meaning of the term life. In this case, any provisional definitions won't help. > then they aren't really disagreeing over the meaning of the word 'life', they're disagreeing over the nature or essence of life itself Those two things are the the same. What is the meaning of a word other than the "nature or essense" of the thing it references?

by Ma8ee 6y ago

foldr 6y ago

"Semantic arguments are particularly insidious. Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary (unless the actual argument is about language). The worst thing you can do is to have an argument in which you talk past each other because you each have a different idea about what the words mean." It doesn't make sense to dismiss an argument as merely semantic if you are talking about something more than just arbitrary definitions. In many cases, pro- and anti-abortion people have a genuine disagreement about the point at which life begins. This isn't merely a disagreement about how to define a particular word. You can, if you want to, characterize it as a dispute about what it 'means' for something to be alive, but that's a much deeper issue than a mere semantic quibble. (The debate can't, for example, be resolved by introducing two new terms alive* and alive†, with both sides of the debate agreeing that a foetus is alive* but not alive†.)

Ma8ee 6y ago
But the author's point was that arguments shouldn't be dismissed as merely semantics, but that semantic questions are important and has to be resolved for it to be meaningful discussion. Yes, the different sides have a genuine disagreement about the point at which life begins, but that is because they mean different things when they say that something is alive. So this discussion is becomming a bit too meta, but now we are discussing meaning of the term semantics. Considering that the author himself took up the discussion about abortion as an example of something that is "purely a semantic one", I'm convinced that he meant the same thing as I do when he used the term semantic.
- foldr 6y ago
  The article says the following. "Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary...Abortion is the canonical example of [a semantic] argument: once you have decided what 'life' is, there’s really not much else to discuss. It’s not a political argument, not even in theory. It’s purely a semantic one." So the author does seem to be saying that the whole abortion debate is purely a debate over arbitrary definitions, not merely that it's important to clear up semantic issues before getting into the meat of the debate. If the issue were purely semantic, it would be possible to resolve the debate simply by introducing unambigious terminology agreed on by both sides (e.g. using 'alive*' and 'alive†' rather than 'alive'). If this doesn't satisfy both sides, then they aren't really disagreeing over the meaning of the word 'life', they're disagreeing over the nature or essence of life itself. Informally we can say that they disagree over what it means to be alive. But philosophically it's important to be clear that this isn't just a semantic issue about the meaning of a particular word. Another way to bring this out is to think cross-linguistically. Do we really have to have the abortion debate over again for every one of the world's ~6500 languages and their corresponding words for 'life'? I think not, because at heart the debate isn't a debate over word meaning.
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    > "Trained logicians should know that semantic meaning is arbitrary...Abortion is the canonical example of [a semantic] argument: once you have decided what 'life' is, there’s really not much else to discuss. It’s not a political argument, not even in theory. It’s purely a semantic one." Which is quite much exactly what I said. That a definition is arbitrary doesn't mean that it is unimportant. If I use one arbitrary definition, and you another one, we won't have any meaningful discussion. Sometimes this can be resolved, when the definitions themselves aren't the central issue and we can agree about at least some provisional defintions. Sometimes the definition itself is the central issue, and can't be resolved. Like when we disagree about the meaning of the term life. In this case, any provisional definitions won't help. > then they aren't really disagreeing over the meaning of the word 'life', they're disagreeing over the nature or essence of life itself Those two things are the the same. What is the meaning of a word other than the "nature or essense" of the thing it references?