[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 26 KB, 400x400, 1316033124444.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2235378 No.2235378 [Reply] [Original]

Words people use to sound intelligent but they probably don't know their meaning.

>actually
>literally
>quantum

>> No.2235388

>>2235378
>actually
>literally

Explain why I probably don't understand these two?

>> No.2235395
File: 61 KB, 465x700, ladysovhat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2235395

>>2235378
>thinks people use actually and literally to sound intelligent
Nigga what?
>thinks people actually use the word quantum.

Don't know that feel bro.

>> No.2235399

HE LITERALLY SAID TO ME "IT'S OVER." I MEAN LITERALLY. SAID TO ME.

That's the only one I agree with, OP. Bitches use this wrong errday.

>> No.2235407

And like yeah, you will never guess what happened. My alarm like went off this morning and it like woke me up. It was so ironic.

>> No.2235415

stop getting your knickers in a twist about "literally" for fuck sake. people clearly (and generally speaking) know what it means but use it as a form of emphasis. yer, its annoying! but so are the pricks that turn around, after having heard the word, saying "you keep using that word. i dont think you know what it means". stop being fucking morons and quibbling over inconsequential things like colloquial furtherances, you nobs.

>> No.2235418

>Words people use to sound intelligent but they probably don't know their meaning.
Cliche
Ironic
Passe
Antidisestablishmentarianism?
Suave

>Words people abuse.
Awesome/Amazing
besotted
Enormous/Humongous
Totally
Outrageous
Starving

>> No.2235428

More words/terms people abuse:
- random
- per se
- any word that has the "-ize" suffix stuck on that usually doesn't have it
- every single goddamn business buzzword (includes lots of -ize words, such as prioritize, utilize, etc.)

>> No.2235432

>>2235415
What else is there to be legitimately angry about? Short of Nazis, drowning kittens and chewing gum stuck to places, people knowingly abusing their native language in such a heinous way is possibly the most legitimate source of ire and wrath I can think of.

>> No.2235434

>>2235432

language is malleable, dude, somebody twisting and stretching it isn't going to break it

>> No.2235450

>>2235434
This is the same discussion as the /ck/-favourite: Is it okay to order an expensive cut of steak well done, if you like it that way? No, it's fucking not okay because if you like well done you can also eat an inferior cut or quality and it will hardly make a difference. Of course you can take the most exquisite vintage of Chateauneuf-du-Pape and dump some lemon-flavoured ice-tea granulate in it while heating it up, and it will taste better than using cheap wine for the same beverage. But that doesn't mean that it's not a fucking atrocity and you should be denied access to things you clearly cannot appreciate because you are a barbarous ruffian. Also don't 'dude' me, it insults us both.

>> No.2235454

>>2235432
as ive said, it truly is irksome. but i wholly believe that, in this particular context, people should be more frustrated with over-use than with mis-use.

>> No.2235457

>>2235428
It's ten times worse when people here in England start using 'ize' at the end of words.

>> No.2235466

>>2235450

Those things are still subjective. You may consider those acts to be barbaric, but the people doing them don't so there is nothing objectively wrong with them.

In fact, there is nothing that is purely wrong or naturally evil in this world. There are only opinions. That cannot be argued.

>> No.2235467

>>2235457
so true. sneaky american programing - defaulting Word to "American English".

i hear that the next volume(s) of the oxford english dictionary are being printed in america and that theyre americanising the spelling due to its global popularity... :(

>> No.2235465

Actually = Something did something.

Literally = Almost the same but in a literary sense.

Could that be correct? As if "actually" is practical and "literally" is theoretical.

>> No.2235480

>>2235466
Oh, you're one of those fucking "everything is subjective" people.

>> No.2235495
File: 11 KB, 168x262, 25936.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2235495

>>2235480

Are you the opposite?

>> No.2235501

>>2235480

No, he's just Deist.

Which is worst.

>> No.2235506

>>2235495
Oh, hell no. That's even worse.

>> No.2235691

Literally is misused; Actually is overused.

>> No.2235706

>>2235691
literally misuse literally all the time, it's literally awesome

>> No.2235710

Wait, so are we talking about misused words or words people use to sound intelligent?

>> No.2235712

Ever since I was a kid I have had a problem wrapping my head around the term "exact opposite"

Like, would the exact opposite of "up" be "down" or would it be the absolute representation of the opposite of the concept of direction?

I still struggle, and get quite uncomfortable, whenever someone brings up opposites in conversation.

>> No.2235711

>Look up "literally" on Google
>Check definition
>Read example
>lol

>> No.2235714

>>2235710
Actually, I think we are discussing words that are overused in order to make the appearance of intellect.

>> No.2235715

>>2235466
the meanings of words is definitely not an objective matter, bro

lrn2 semantic change, linguistics, etc.

>> No.2235716

>>2235715
But that anone IS advocating that words aren't an objective matter. L2 read.

>> No.2235718

>>2235715
when a word's natural, common usage comes to encompass a meaning different from what's in the dictionaries, then they just tack the new meaning onto the word's dictionary entry

>> No.2235721

The omnipotent they is the only word I can think of. Context:

"but they control everything.... Are ruining everything.... Blah blah blah... They said" I always want to punch people who bring this shit up during a good conversation.

>> No.2235726

>>2235466
>In fact, there is nothing that is purely wrong or naturally evil in this world. There are only opinions. That cannot be argued.
What about devilbro? He's pretty bad.
And if you think there's only opinion ever forever, then you're one hell of a solipsist. And it can't be argued otherwise, so you might as well not even defend yourself.

inb4 good=evolutionarily conducive to fitness

>> No.2235727

Are you guys arguing about if works even CAN be misused?

Of course they can. If i want you to understand something I'm trying to express, and i use words that don't convey what I mean, I've misused words. If i want you to think I'm smart and I use long words, but my usage doesn't fit with their conventional definition, you're going to think I'm dumb. I've just misused words.

If I am not using words correctly to get the effect I want, I am 'objectively' misusing those words.

I don't like people who use the word 'swag.'

I just hate the word swag. I know it doesnt fit the theme of the thread.

but i hate the word swag.

>> No.2235729

>>2235727

if works

*if words

>> No.2235732

>>2235727
>implying meaning can ever really be expressed to another

>> No.2235739

>>2235732

>implying it can't

Protip: it can. For objective, real world phenomena this is inarguable.

there are somethings that cant, like emotions.

>> No.2235741

>>2235732
>He doesn't know math!

>> No.2235744 [DELETED] 

>>2235741
>it can. For objective, real world phenomena this is inarguable.
Then convince me.

>> No.2235922

>>2235739
>it can. For objective, real world phenomena this is inarguable.
Then convince me.

>> No.2235938

I can't fathom this thread.

>> No.2235986
File: 57 KB, 145x183, 1307894737668.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2235986

>>2235938
>I know that feel bro
It is literally making me want to kill myself.

>> No.2235988
File: 82 KB, 311x311, youmustbenewhere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2235988

>>2235938
>>2235986

>> No.2235997

There was a guy in my physics class who thought "actually" and "literally" meant something wasn't really happening.

>It's literally pissing it down
>Haha, on the upside at least it's not "literally" pissing it down
>But it is - "literally" just means it's not really happening
>(I'm thinking WHAT THE FUCK) No, that's figuratively
>But you could say "It's actually pissing it down"

I felt trolled. Humanity, sometimes...

>> No.2235999

>>2235922

you see a rock. I see a rock. I say, that rock fell from on top of that rock, and point to another rock.

You understand what i mean when i say that.

Is imparting meaning perfect? no, but to argue that it is impossible is false, depending on what you're talking about there are degrees of meaning that can be imparted (the theoretical limits of this are actually metaphysical principles)

Math would be a case where perfect meaning can be imparted
followed by physical descriptions
physical descriptions caged in the proper language can approach the certainty of math if you use mathematical language.

I'd say the subjective content of emotions is the hardest to convey.

>> No.2236011

>you see a rock. I see a rock.
Prove it.

>You understand what i mean when i say that.
Nope.

>Math would be a case where perfect meaning can be imparted
>where perfect meaning
>perfect

Protip: You don't need to say "I'd say" when you're saying the thing being said.

Also, prove the concept of The Other.

>> No.2236024

>>2236011
>Prove it.

It was a hypothetical situation. Proof we both see the same rock? Take it as axiomatic. From independent accounts of situations it sure seems like we exist in a common reality.

>Nope.

If you are not going to be intellectually honest in the conversation, then there is no point talking to you.

Seriously, i can just be difficult and lie to try and argue with people. Who does that benefit? No one. You're taking untenable positions to try and be an asshole.

I'm just going to dismiss you if you dont feel like being honest.

>Also, prove the concept of The Other.

I don't think I have to.

You see, conversation requires a certain basis, a certain level of accepted axiomatic knowledge, in order for it to take place. The assumption of the other is one of them. You stepping outside of the context we were using during this conversation doesn't make you deep, it makes you on the run. It means you cant defend your position within what we were talking about and need to step outside of it, ignore the rules and structures of the intellectual plain we were on, and instead debate something completely different.

Our conversation, if you cast into doubt what you're trying to argue, makes no sense. You wouldnt engage in it.

I'm really tired of pseudo philosophers being intellectually dishonest

>> No.2236034

>>2236024
>For objective, real world phenomena this is inarguable.
>Take it as axiomatic

It's inarguable because it's inarguable; the Other exists because the Other exists; meaning exists because it exists, and furthermore, can be related because it can be related, perfectly no less. I see.
Your philosophical rigor really is astounding, Deist.

>> No.2236048

>dialectic

>> No.2236050

>Polemic/-al

>> No.2236059

>>2236034
>>2236034

To suppose otherwise is ridiculous.

What is your supposition? You've yet to make your point clear, I dont know what I'm arguing against. What is your position and statement?

Tell me where you're coming from and maybe I'll take the time to address you.

>> No.2236062

Once language exists only to convey information, it is dying.

>> No.2236067

>>2236059

why...take..the..time..to..explain..anything..to..someone..who..insists..that..highly..contentious..
ideas..are..axiomatic..and..who..obviously..hasn't..read..wittgenstein?

>> No.2236069

>>2236067
recommendation: ignore deist, just pretend he doesn't even post

>> No.2236071

Not related to this thread, but I didn't think it was necessary to make a whole thread for my question.

Do people post stories that they wrote on /lit/ to get constructive feedback, or is that frowned upon?

>> No.2236072

>>2236034

Also, i dont understand your meaning behind the term 'other'

or what you're trying to get across.

I will not argue with intellectually dishonest people, its not worth the effort, especially since assertion in the positive is far harder than arguing in the negative. I dont need someone to be charitable, i just need them to not lie like a motherfucker.

MEaning can be conveyed. I can point to a rock and say that rock fell from that rock.

You understand what I mean. This is intuitive, this is simple. I already stated there are degrees of hypothetical 'meaning' ceilings, which goes into metaphysics, which i refuse to ever engage in.

>the Other exists; meaning exists because it exists, and furthermore, can be related because it can be related, perfectly no less. I see.
Your philosophical rigor really is astounding, Deist.

If by 'the other' you just mean 'external reality'

it exists because I perceive it as existing and must act as if it exists.

Even if it doesnt ultimately 'exist' is irrelevant. But if it fulfills all of my subjective criteria for existence, it might as well.

>> No.2236074

>>2236071

you will not get constructive feedback, although by all means you can post

>> No.2236075

>>2236071
no you can totally go for it. generally the feedback is pretty harsh, though, so you should know that

>> No.2236077

>>2236074
>>2236075

Haha, alright, thanks for answering and the advice. I'll stop de-railing this thread now.

>> No.2236087

>>2236072
>MEaning can be conveyed. I can point to a rock and say that rock fell from that rock.

are..you..suggesting..that..simple..instrumental..reasoning..exists..in..all..human..cultures?..have
..you..ever..read..anything..by..clifford..geertz..or..evans-pritchard..or..any..other..social..anth
ropologist..ever?

you..are..dumb..the..theoretical...limits..are..not..metaphysical..limits..either..they're..cultural
..and..linguistic...limits..dumbass...

>> No.2236090

>>2236069
Who?

>> No.2236096

>>2236087

your entire post is irrelevant

>> No.2236097

>>2236077
no, please, continue

>>2236090
ah-ha. yes, i see what you mean.

>> No.2236098

>>2236096

can't..respond..to..a..criticism..which..undermines..the..so-called..axiomatic..basis..of..his..enti
re..argument...

>> No.2236102

>>2236087
>>2236098
seriously stop responding to deist, dude. he is an idiot who will never acknowledge he's wrong.

not sure if i agree with your position here tho, i don't know if i want to view cultural & linguistic differences as that fundamental

>> No.2236103

>>2236098

You really need to read ALL THE POSTS and then continue.

He hasnt clarified his position or defined his usage of the term 'other.'

if by 'other' he just means 'external reality' he should have said.... 'external reality'

either way, doesnt matter you still have to act as though it exists

and your argument undermines exactly nothing. It just points out there are differences among cultures. Not of any import to the argument. Its as if you said 'socks are nice'

ok. Thats the only response it warrants. ok.

Also the theoretical limits are metaphysical.

>> No.2236105

>>2236102

>he is an idiot who will never acknowledge he's wrong.


I want you to sum up the arguments in this thread, as well as my opinions on them

then tell me why each of my opinions is wrong. I dont think you read the fucking thread. What am I supposed to be 'wrong' about?

>> No.2236109

Are you a bad enough dude to read ALL THE POSTS????

>> No.2236110

>and your argument undermines exactly nothing. It just points out there are differences among cultures

now..you..have..ignored...the..criticism..again...(possibly..because..you..don't..understand..it)..a
nd..then..restated..your..position...

i..think..you're..done..here..retard..

>> No.2236111

>>2236103
>if by 'other' he just means 'external reality' he should have said.... 'external reality'
Not what I meant.

Why do you believe so staunchly that you exist? Why do you believe so stubbornly that information exists and that it can be relayed in any way shape or form?
So far all you've given me is a bunch of circular logic and assumptions.

>> No.2236120

>>2235415

It should be "snobs".

You see...when you call em nobs, you are telling them they are noble.

>> No.2236121

i have had the displeasure of hearing severely unintelligent persons using the word 'pretentious' incorrectly, on numerous occasions. it is depressing because they are not smart enough to be classified, even mistakenly, as pretentious - but also funny.

>> No.2236123

>>2236109

I can sum it up. They were arguing about if language can be objectively 'used wrongly'

I said it can, if it doesnt convey the meaning you're trying to send across.

by 'meaning' i meant 'intent' if it doesnt fulfill your intent. (intent is a broader term that fits better)

Someone then stated meaning can not be expressed to another.

Math is an easy counterexample. As is simple statements about external reality. If meaning could not be conveyed, something like this conversation couldnt even take place. We'd have no basis for understanding or communication.

The next 'argument' isnt really an argument. Someone asked me to prove the concept of 'the other'. He didnt define what he meant by 'the other' nor do i quite get why proving it is integral to my argument. I pointed out that he is trying to step outside the conditions of our discussion and argue about something completely different, which I'm not adverse to doing. But i asked him to define what exactly he meant. Provisionally i said assumed he meant 'external reality' and pointed out that even if it doesnt objectively exist, we have to act like it exists because it meets our subjective criteria for existence, and if nothing does exist his conversation with me is a little odd to say the least.

Thats been the thread and my participation in it thus far. I dont know what is objectionable here.

>> No.2236133

>>2236110

your criticism isnt a criticism. I re-stated my position because your argument... isnt one. Its like saying 'socks are nice.' Its just pointless.

If you feel like your criticism runs deeper than that, its up to YOU to make the point. Not me. You cant just make some obtuse statement and call me an idiot if i don't immediately realize the brilliance of your point. This is an argument if you have a point MAKE IT. You, no where in your post, related what you were saying back to my argument. Its YOUR job to make your argument understandable, not mine to interpret what exactly the fuck you mean.

>>2236111
>Why do you believe so staunchly that you exist? Why do you believe so stubbornly that information exists and that it can be relayed in any way shape or form?

I think, therefore I am. As for information, it certainly exists to me. I perceive it as existing. Thus it exists to me. What you think is irrelevant. Our very communication is information being transferred and discussion taking place.

I dont get how people can hold positions like the one you're stating. It makes no sense. I confine myself to sensible things.

Basically, because it seems like it. MY thoughts are information. You clearly mean external reality, since atoms and mollecules are essentially information. In which case, everything Ive stated stands. I dont have to prove it exists.

>> No.2236137

>>2236111

Like i stated before, this line of argument is a dodge, you're stepping outside the arena we were in, and if you actually hold the position you claim to hold, you conversing with me makes no sense.

>> No.2236138

'ignorant'

on the internet it used to denote someone that disagrees with you.

>> No.2236140

>>2236133
Valuing
Anything, including your own
Livelihood, perception, concept of
I, or
Self, is a fool's mistake, Deist. You should know this.

>> No.2236154

It looks to me as though Deist is responding to all challenges to his position with the same two accusations:

1) Your criticism is irrelevant, which is just another way of saying that he doesn't understand your criticism.

2) You haven't read all of the posts in the thread, which I think he's doing for the same reason as 1).

Is it really possible that someone can argue about this and be so hopelessly ignorant of the concept of language games? And that he can invoke the Cartesian self with no appreciation of the phenomenological interpretation of Heidegger and the absolutely compelling challenge to the aforementioned position?

Surely not.

>> No.2236157

ac·tu·al·ly/ˈakCHo͞oəlē/
Adverb:

1. As the truth or facts of a situation; really: "the time actually worked on a job".
>2. Used to emphasize that something someone has said or done is surprising: "he actually expected me to be pleased about it!".

Stay mad.

>> No.2236159

>>2236154
Deist believes that The Magicians is objectively better than Ulysses.
Oldtrolls used to eventry, but not Deist, no sah.

>> No.2236174

>>2236154

>1) Your criticism is irrelevant, which is just another way of saying that he doesn't understand your criticism.

You'd have made a better point if you'd have explained exactly WHY the criticism isnt irrelevant. If someone states something without once mentioning my position, it isnt my responsibility to somehow relate it back to what I said. Its HIS responsibility to make his criticism substantial.

>2) You haven't read all of the posts in the thread, which I think he's doing for the same reason as 1).

No, im doing that because people seem to be asking me to re-state things I've already said. If they have a problem with what I said they shouldnt ask me the same question, they should say 'what you said here is wrong, try again'

>And that he can invoke the Cartesian self with no appreciation of the phenomenological interpretation of Heidegger and the absolutely compelling challenge to the aforementioned position?

I really dont have anything to do with philosophy that isnt more than 150-200 years old. I find most modern stuff pointless wanking divorced from anything approaching reason.

>>2236159
I dont think the quality of literature is in any way objective.

>> No.2236183

>>2236174
>I dont think the quality of literature is in any way objective.
Then why were you talking about the objectivity of literature?

>> No.2236191

>>2236174
>I really dont have anything to do with philosophy that isnt more than 150-200 years old. I find most modern stuff pointless wanking divorced from anything approaching reason.

Oh, OK. So you missed the linguistic turn. That does explain why all of your posts in this thread have been so embarrassing, I suppose. Say no more.

>> No.2236201

>>2236191
>So you missed the linguistic turn.

Dont consider me as missing it. Consider me rejecting it.

My posts in this thread have all been on point. I even summed up the series of arguments in this thread. The only point I floundered is when he asked me to prove 'other' which came out of left field and was an irrelevant question. I dont indulge in pure philosophy. I met his challenge, pointed out why we're obliged to act as if it exists anyway.

>>2236183
Put simply: i wasnt.

>> No.2236207

>>2236201
>Put simply: i wasnt.
Sure you were.

>> No.2236212

>>2236201

>Dont consider me as missing it. Consider me rejecting it.

Wow, really? In favour of what exactly? The older view is dependent on a metaphysical understanding of concepts and their relation to objective reality... but you've already said that you don't really 'do' metaphysics. So on what grounds to you "reject" the linguistic turn, if not metaphysical grounds?

>> No.2236222

>>2236212

I believe everything in reality is a projection of myself. That I am god and I am creating everything else to entertain myself. I'm involved with the sciences because I think learning about the order and structure of the universe is really a way to learn how my own mind works.

>> No.2236234

>>2236222
Your fake trolling is lamer than your real, I'm-just-an-incompitent-retard trolling.

>> No.2236285

Guys...guys....guys...hey guys...GUYS THIS THREAD IS FUCKING LEGIT.
>legit.
>AAAALLLL my rage.
>fin.

>> No.2236302

>>2236222

I see that you have taken refuge in a nonsensical position (given your previous arguments in this thread) because the incoherence of everything you've said so far has been exposed. Boo hoo.

>> No.2236305

>>2236222
>The Magicians is infinitely better than ulysses, yes. Its a great fucking book.

>> No.2236306

>>2236302

More statements sans examples. You'll forgive me for dismissing your opinion.

All of you continually, without fail, assert that i lose arguments, am retarded, have been pwnd. I see no examples of this. If anyone in this thread has actually masterfully engaged me in argument, i fail to see it.

I've summed up everything this thread boils down to here:

>>2236123


And no, thats actually what I think.