It's just semantics.
Heh, I had a Senior/Grad level class on that with:
http://www.soc.northwestern.edu/justine/And to tangent, if you are heading toward 50, that's some good nerd stuff right there.
Unfortunately, my reaction to Semantics, was the same as PI's reaction to what Tsuyo posted.
... it's still reeling from the unexpected breakdown of words.
Semantics deals with the attempt to find the meaning of words.
Philosophy functions badly when it attempts to do Philosophy AND Semantics at the same time.
Expanding the "blowing" ...
Noam Chomsky in Linguistics, triggered a revolution in Syntax.
'Chomsky's Revolution in Linguistics', by John R. Searle (The New York Review of Books, June 29, 1972)
He had one competing idea in Syntax.
Now-a-days, both are pitched in the garbage can.
Doesn't mean it wasn't good stuff for the time.
When you use Google's el-cheapo Translator program, it uses the oft ignored syntax idea number 3.
And so it wins (syntax idea #3), because of volume.
Similarly, Semantics is gonna go through a computer based grinding.
Philosophy with Semantics excised off of it totally, will be in better steading.
I find it strange when two different fields use the same terminology, to refer to something completely different.
"Singularity" is something computer geeks know.
And when the SingularityA starts ~talking about SingularityB,
that's when we will all know the sign of the apocalypse is upon us (like what Sports Illustrated does).
jesus christ - actually yeah. Some of philosophy can not be talked about without going there.
No prostelitizing on my part. And that's not just semantics.