And since we are now discussing it... okay? Sounds like a self-fulfilling condition to me, so how useful, or effectful, is it to make that kind of statement?
I'm with the OP, "the word does not exist" is rather meaningless. The dictionary follows the people, not the other way around, and as soon as we are discussing some word... yeah. This comes down to discussing definitions, and I have a good summary for that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-... -- like "When can it be said that a certain word exists?" One person says as soon as they speak or write or read it, another one insist at least x% of the speakers of the language need to be aware of it and its meaning, etc. etc.
The problem is our arbitrary concepts, not rooted in physics for example, are especially useless near their edges, where they are not commonly used. That's where you end up with discussions about definitions, and you find out people actually only agree on some core of some concepts, the one actually in use, and when they reach new less visited meanings it becomes a free-for-all. That's also why religion is better off vague, as soon as they want to be as specific as possible the (unsolvable) arguments start flying and the unity provided earlier by what was a common idea is now gone.
On the other hand, such kinds of diffuse questions are sure to attract discussions. You don't need to know anything, everybody with an opinion can participate, and nobody can be proven wrong.
I'm with the OP, "the word does not exist" is rather meaningless. The dictionary follows the people, not the other way around, and as soon as we are discussing some word... yeah. This comes down to discussing definitions, and I have a good summary for that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-... -- like "When can it be said that a certain word exists?" One person says as soon as they speak or write or read it, another one insist at least x% of the speakers of the language need to be aware of it and its meaning, etc. etc.
The problem is our arbitrary concepts, not rooted in physics for example, are especially useless near their edges, where they are not commonly used. That's where you end up with discussions about definitions, and you find out people actually only agree on some core of some concepts, the one actually in use, and when they reach new less visited meanings it becomes a free-for-all. That's also why religion is better off vague, as soon as they want to be as specific as possible the (unsolvable) arguments start flying and the unity provided earlier by what was a common idea is now gone.
On the other hand, such kinds of diffuse questions are sure to attract discussions. You don't need to know anything, everybody with an opinion can participate, and nobody can be proven wrong.