When someone says "It's just semantics" is the moment I dis…

Was I guilty of this in our conversation?

The last time someone said this to me I said "You must be a fan of Wittgenstein" and she didn't know what I was talking about.

Haha. No.

Something completely unrelated reminded me to post that public service announcement.

Haha, ok, good. I was trying not to do that. Thanks for the engaging perspective you shared. I looked up a lot of the concepts you referenced, EPR, Bohr, Heisenberg, P.o.C. etc I'll spend some time digesting them. I like your take on capital a lot.

you are both being too harsh. (1). there is a point to saying 'your disagreement boils down to semantics' -- when it is meant that words in an argument are being used equivocally.

you are both being too harsh. (1). there is a point to saying 'your disagreement boils down to semantics' -- when it is meant that words in an argument are being used equivocally.

example: ALICE: "this is not art, it's ugly". BOB: "it may be ugly, but it's still art". COOL_DADDY: "ALICE, BOB, you do not even mean the same thing by 'art' at all. your discussion is futile unless you come to terms with this semantic fact."

(2). wittgenstein identified some very general conditions for there to be meaningful discourse. exceedingly interesting stuff.

Sometimes it is just semantics. Usually that happens when the participants in the conversation are using terms differently than each other, and at least one party doesn't know it.

Instead of disengaging, ask questions to find the equivocations.

By saying "it's just semantics" is initial disengagement. I'm only disengaging because it is that moment I realized they are not engaged anymore.

Obviously some circumstances are different, but I find in most cases, that isn't disengagement, but an expression of exasperation.