thirdin77

I live in the United States and, as others likely have, I've noticed some philosophically-derived words used in everyday language that I think are being used wrongly. I mention my living in the U.S. because this phenomenon may be limited to or suffered mostly in the U.S.

Here are the two words that I had in mind.

The first is pragmatism. I have read only some summarizations of this philosophy, but I understand it as a belief being "true" if holding it and utilizing it produces the desired results. The thing is, "pragmatism" seemingly is used by business people in place of the word "practical", e.g. "we will do what is pragmatic". I have to wonder, are people using this word because they think it sounds more sophisticated than just saying "practical".

The second word that comes to mind is aesthetic. It is used in the cosmetology/cosmetics business for some reason, especially regarding appearance-altering surgery like plastic surgery, breast implants, etc. Is this word being used as a euphemism? "Aesthetic" seems to also be used to describe anything visual, like when a person does something to customize his automobile, like buys some custom wheels, and says he finds the result "aesthetically pleasing". The word "aesthetic" seems too formal for this context. That is, customizing one's own car seems too superficial and activity to be described as "aesthetic".

Are these words being used wrongly?.. or, correctly, but in a very superficial way? What do you think?

Pitshade

Hello, thirdin77. Your thread might get better responses in Misc. Discussions.

Silent Dave

And WE think that it might get better results over in Philosophy. This sounds very much like an upper-fora discussion starter.

Hugo Holbling

Since no-one else has answered, i'll try.

If you take a moment to consider, or consult a good dictionary, you'll find that these words are not being misapplied at all. Even if we were want to presume a status of literary critics, the businessmen and plastic surgeons are "well within their rights" to use these words as they do.

On a wider note, philosophy is not a discipline above all others, holding court on what should or should not be said. I know this because i am a pseudo-philosopher and i have so decided...

Keith Russell

Greetings:

It depends on whether or not you believe that philosophy can and/or should apply to (and thus aid in the understanding of) the full range of human activities--

--or whether philosophy (and philosophical terms/concepts) should only apply to what philosophers do.

(In which case, I would ask, what is it--exactly--that philosophers do?)

Keith.

Dr. Retard

"materialism" for "avarice plus fetishism" instead of "doctrine denying immaterial entities"

"begging the question" for "prompting the question" instead of "presupposing tendentious premises"

The last one always makes me want to cry.

Dr. Retard

"utilitarian" for "focused on practical concerns above aesthetic concerns" instead of "advocating utilitarianism"

Feather

I think words have significance of meaning in the two arenas separately.

But then, being a physics student, I am perhaps more accustomed to seeing words that have specific meanings in my field being butchered, appropriated, and generally misapplied by the mouth breathing layperson public. (Yes, there is nothing like egomaniacal, touting oneself and self importance to get the day rolling.)

Examples include: friction, gravity, relativity, solid, plasma, energy, momentum, wavelength, speed, and power.

So I've come to the conclusion it's best to just them have their fun and games with the words and use them appropriately where they are meant to be.

And since science is a particular kind of philosophy, I might suggest that it is okay to generalize this notion to all philosophies.

thirdin77

Well, heh, I wasn't asking about rights or legality or ethics. What I was asking was..
Are these words being used wrongly?.. or, correctly, but in a very superficial way? What do you think?
I (can only) guess you have indirectly answered that they are being used correctly, but in a superficial way. If such is your answer, I can agree with it.

Why isn't philosophy a discipline above all others? I think it is, and if it isn't, it's one of the most comprehensive of the disciplines. It addresses the biggest questions in life, questions the most fundamental concepts that we take for granted and analyzes any of the (other) disciplines- the natural/physical and social sciences, the humanities, the arts.. I can imagine an argument that a philosophical paradigm is only one of many, but I don't think that any of the other disciplines are self-analyzing like philosophy is. Also, I can't imagine that any other discipline analyzes and puts into perspective all the other disciplines..

A few disciplines that I can imagine to be thought as comprehensive as philosophy would be psychology, sociology and maybe mathematics. I don't mean to catalog every existing discipline and analyze if or not it has the comprehension of philosophy and how it has such. I'm only mentioning a couple that come to mind. Psychologists may think that it is merely some chemical balance in the brain that determines why we think what we think. However, psychology is predicated on scientific/realism and if a person doesn't subscribe to SR, that person may dismiss some psychologist's ramblings about what determines how we think. Worst, it's not as if there is any mention of any other ontological philosophy unless maybe as a "disorder". Sociologists would argue that philosophers conclude as they do in order to adhere to or lash out at society... that philosophers are just programmed by and then are determined by, to some extent, the society in which they live. It, too, though, makes no analysis of ontology. What's characteristic of both is that they might predicate their arguments on deterministic conceptions of (free?) will, and the very concept of freedom is the domain of philosophy. Then there's math. Is what is professed by mathematicians "true"?.. For the pragmatist, well, it's kinda true- it's true if you get what you want out of it (heh). I wasn't especially thorough here, but these are only a few examples.

As for the court thing.. well, hardy har. It should be acknowledged, though, that philosophers have and will opine on how people should behave. That's what ethics is all about!!!!!!!! That's what political philosophy is too, to some extent.

If you disagree with my argument, that's OK but before you start to argue against it please do give the argument for the conclusion you stated above.

Hugo Holbling

Uh... well, that was a throwaway comment, as you could've figured from my quip following it. However, i would guess that not many people working in - for example - any of the sciences accept the right of philosophy to legislate for praxis, so it seems the burden of proof shouldn't be shifted my way. On the other hand, perhaps i have guessed wrongly...