ACTUAL discourses, as opposed to JUST MERE discourses

Identifying a Common but Flawed Argument Pattern in Philosophy

This piece contains a dialogue that aims to expose a common rhetorical trick used in Philosophy, a subject which takes itself to value getting clear about problems and argument in good faith, aimed at getting to the truth of things.

First, you have probably heard of Euphemisms. Euphemisms you may be familiar with could be phrases like "X passed away", "X is no longer with us", “X and Y slept together”, “X is not feeling themselves today”. Euphemisms are devices that add a neutral or positive connotation or spin on some claim. The opposite side of the coin to the Euphemism is the Dysphemism. In contrast to the Euphemism, the Dysphemism puts a negative spin on things. — lets keep this in mind whilst reading the following dialogue!

Collins Dictionary Definition of Dysphemism

A Dialogue Concerning (in)Human(e) Rhetoric

A: OK, so we both agree that some linguistic evidence E exists, and we’re trying to provide some account of E

B: Yes

A: My Explanation (H) of E is this (H1), what about you?

B: I disagree, I believe that H2 explains E

A: Ah I see, so I say that when people engage in utterances of E, the correct explanation of what is happening there is H1, but you deny this and think it’s H2, is that right?

B: Yes

A: OK, so I understand your view, I understand we disagree, and I know that you think H2 is true. But from my point of view H2 is not true, and I don’t think that H2 explains E.

B: OK, why is that a problem?

A: Well, whilst I’m open to rational disagreement on this matter, this one problem remains for me. Whilst you say that H2 explains E, I don’t believe that it does. So, from my point of view, given H2, if people engage in utterances of “E” then they don’t actually mean E, because according to my views, to say E is H1.
That is, you say E → H2, but [according to me] ~H2, therefore when you’re saying E && (implicitly) H2, you can’t actually be saying E, you say “E” or merely E.
You know you believe E is just H2, but that’s an issue because ~H2, so E cannot be H2 unless you mean “E”. This is in contrast to what I have to say, my view is H1, E→H1, so I actually mean E! (not merely “E”). This means that by believing H1, I am able to full throatedly proclaim E! E! E! — with no tension with respect to E→H1.

B: No no no, you’re misunderstanding me. I think H2 does “actually” explain E. So I reject your characterisation.

A: Hmmm, but here is the taxonomy of the received discipline. The main views have the following names. There are those who are Actualists. Actualists believe in Reality, that there is such a thing as Truth. An Actualist believes that things actually are as they are, as opposed to a Mere-Justist, who just merely believes things are as they are! You are a Mere-ist, a Just-ist. You just merely believe E, which is to say E. not MY-THEORY-E. So you don’t think E. You can’t say E. If Mere-just-ism is true then nobody could say E, because “E” would be what they are saying!

B: I think you’re mistaken, and you’re just now applying the same mistake you made previously to a host of commitments about other topics { metaphysics, epistemology, truth etc. } In each of these cases we would dispute a semantic analysis of E*. So when Im saying E*→H2*, and you’re saying E*→H1* we are just straightforwardly disputing whether H1* or H2* is true. We both agree that words like “reality” and “truth” are used, but we both believe different things about these terms and what they mean and how they can be explained — we haven’t even discussed if there’s a disambiguation between the two!

I think it’s really unfair what you’re doing appending terms like "actual” or “real” as adjectives for your account. It’s nothing more than an attempt to question beg by bootstrapping anything you say to The Truth — but anyone can do that! How about I taxonomise your view as Falsehoodism! So, as a Falsehoodist, I guess you don’t believe in E and E*, because your theory for the use of all these words is a Falsehoodist Falsy one!

A: Wow! So E is just H2? E* is merely H2*? So you’re saying you don’t even believe E! But it’s just OBVIOUS that E. Everyone knows E. I have a seeming that E. Have you even read eminent academic Philosopher Michael Huemer‘s Knowledge and Reality? Contemporary Philosophers use this thing called “Phenomenal Conservatism”, are you even educated?
Your view is insane! You’re in the grip of a theory! So E doesn’t exist? That’s one hell of a bullet to bite!

B: Nah Chief, remember the start of the conversation, I obviously believe in E, that’s literally how we framed the conversation at the start. Did you even listen? smh this is like the 17th time just today someone in academic philosophy has made this argument and completely avoided theory comparison by doing so — never mind not bringing any empirical evidence for their semantic theses about what all people mean by E, E* etc. smh smh 🤦‍♀️

A: Oh, so you think the incredulous stare is an argument? I gave you an argument. Wow, your view is insane, I just don’t get it. If your view were true you wouldn’t even be able to say E. Crazy!

**Everybody Claps** 👏👏👏

Now, you might be thinking that’s very far fetched. However, you would be surprised the amount of professional discourse that is literally just this argument on a a loop—in fact, in a forthcoming post or series I’m going to begin to collect evidence of it to maintain my sanity and to feel smug and vindicated. It sucks.

In order to win the memetic warfare here, I’ve been thinking of coming up with names to give this thing a handy Fallacy label and am open to suggestions in the comments. Some thoughts:

• Dysphemistic Fallacy.

• Reality begging?

• Its JUST my hidden theory?

• Hey, my entire metaphysic ACTUALLY fits inside that semantic box-ism!

• You overlooked the one simple fact that you are ACTUALLY mistaken-ism!

• I know you think this is wrong, but do you ACTUALLY think its right?-ism.

• Anyway, stop pulling my leg now. I want to hear what you ACTUALLY think about <topic>-ism.

• And, finally, Au-tism

For those interested in this topic, this piece also sits hand in hand with an observation I have previously made about uses of “Reality” in Philosophical disputes.

If you like my blog, please engage with these posts to promote them, and subscribe to receive email notifications of them and consider financially supporting me either on this platform or through Patreon — I have additional content available on Youtube and other platforms.