I searched the site for this, b/c it seemed a likely YART, but no luck.
Do we have a list of words that don't mean what their etymologies suggest?
Context - without intending to debate, per se, I brought up the fact that there is disagreement about what the term 'atheism' means. However, I was aware that there would likely be disagreement. Most people who discuss these things will simply say, "My definition is the only correct definition and here are my sources. All other definitions are bogus."
Once again, I don't want to start a debate here. I don't want to argue about the existence of god or who believes what. For the sake of non-argument, let's just say that whatever you as a reader believe about god, that I believe the exact same thing.
Frankly, I don't really give a rat's ass what words mean - well, more like I don't care to define the words myself. I mostly just infer meaning from other people's usages. It seems to me that I'm just reporting the obvious.
What I'd like to know is:
1a) From the POV of people who do have an interest in definitions, do I have a point?
1b) If I do have a point, what are some examples of (other) words whose meanings don't jibe with their etymologies. I'm particularly interested in words whose meanings actually contradict their etymologies, but a stark contrast would be sufficient.
1c) Do you think the word "atheism" should be enumerated among that set?
2) I've attempted to make this point on numerous occasions with both atheists and nonatheists, but it usually falls on blind eyes. Is there a clearer way to say this than what I've done?
3) Citations would be good, but it would be better if I could get at least a few non-web citations.
Please, say whatever you think needs to be said. I WON'T RESPOND about what I believe, but only read (or clarify if requested). Will be going away for a week or so and may not see all responses immediately, but *really* look forward to seeing opinions - even if it's just to say I'm screwed in the head.
For the life of me, my observation seems so obvious as to be unworthy of mention, were it not for the fact that so many disagree with it.
thanks,
k
-------
For reference --
What I said:
The traditional view is
a) an atheist is someone who disbelieves in god.
b) an agnostic is someone who withholds judgement.
What the other person said:
Actually this is false. The common misconception is the above but this
is not the traditional view. Agnosticism is a position on the
availability of knowledge about god.It is the belief that said knowledge
is inherently unattainable. It says nothing about belief. Theism and
atheism are statements about belief in gods. Atheism, simply put, is a
lack of belief in a god or gods. You can be an agnostic atheist or an
agnostic theist. I have known both.
What I said:
The view of a great many people who call themselves atheists is this:
Anyone who does not actively believe in a god is an atheist (insisting -
stupidly in my opinion - that words have to mean what their etymologies
suggest).
What the other person said:
Rejecting this valid definition of atheism is usually done because of a
bias against the word itself. It literally means non-theist. Everyone is
either a theist or an atheist. It is a true binary pairing, your opinion
of my intellect notwithstanding.
k
Just to start things off let me offer that theist/atheist is not a true binary. Deists fit in neither category.
I can only contribute what the words mean to me. To me, agnostic, from "without knowledge," pertains to those who feel that there may be a God (or gods), but they are not convinced of it. They remain in someway open to the possibility of it, but they don't have blind faith in the existence of God. An atheist on the other hand, is someone who has a firm belief that there is no god.
agnostic, from "without knowledge," pertains to those who feel that there may be a God (or gods), but they are not convinced of it.
That's pretty much the normal definition. And, speaking of binaries, gnostic/agnostic is not a binary pairing, either, especially if you capitalize Gnostic.
If I describe myself as an agnostic it is with the intention of stating that I believe that we cannot know. This goes beyond the common definition.
More generally, I cannot agree with FF's other person if op is saying that words cannot change meaning and even diverge radically from their original meanings. One only need cite silly and nice to prove the point.
If I describe myself as an agnostic it is with the intention of stating that I believe that we cannot know. This goes beyond the common definition.
Does it? I thought Huxley said that the answer to the question "Who is this God person anyway?" was both unknown and unknowable I am, of course, speaking from my usual position of semi-ignorance, and am therefore likely to be wildly off-base, but since it was my understanding that he (Huxley that is, not God) "coined" agnostic, his definition should have primacy. Strictly my $0.02
More generally, I cannot agree with FF's other person if op is saying that words cannot change meaning and even diverge radically from their original meanings. One only need cite silly and nice to prove the point.
When I read the thread title, before reading its content, I thought of these two words first
Of course, one could say that God is unknowable in the intellectual sense but knowable in a transcendent mystical sense. Such a person could claim to be an intellectual agnostic and yet a believer, a theist.
In reply to:
Of course, one could say that God is unknowable in the intellectual sense but knowable in a transcendent mystical sense. Such a person could claim to be an intellectual agnostic and yet a believer, a theist.
In the immortal words of Oolon Colluphid, "well, that about wraps it up for God."
that about wraps it up for God
Careful on that next zebra crossing, Oolon.
Careful on that next zebra crossing, Oolon.
I would never cross a zebra - NZ's GE free doncha know?
And, speaking of which, I believe I'll have another drink ...
- Pfranz
Once again, I don't want to start a debate here.
Part of me laughs while the other part says "There is a word for that".
Uh, excuse me fallible but if you wanted a clear answer you should have phrased a clear question that even the slowest turtle in the tank could have understood. Here's what I think you've asked...
Do we have a list of words that don't mean what their etymologies suggest?
The answer to this is yes. All words are in a state of transition and the meanings of all words differ in the absolute with each usage. But the answer is also no because all words have deviated from their origins and no lists of all words exist.
So you must mean something else.
Frankly, I don't really give a rat's ass what words mean - well, more like I don't care to define the words myself. I mostly just infer meaning from other people's usages.
I see.
What I'd like to know is:
What are some examples of (other) words whose meanings don't jibe with their etymologies. I'm particularly interested in words whose meanings actually contradict their etymologies, but a stark contrast would be sufficient.
This seems pretty clear. You are asking for a list of words that at one point in their careers meant almost the opposite of what they mean to most people today.
Yes. I remember tsuwm had such a list. It was a small list and atheist, theist, agnostic, and gnostic were not on it.
Anyway Fallible, you didn't ask, but I think your definitions of "atheist and agnostic" come closer to being widely understood than those of your anonymous correspondent. Have a nice trip.