[mittermayr]

Well, I don’t agree. Specifically on your point that this is a discussion about the meaning of words. It’s a discussion about the concepts and scenarios described by those words. We can call it anything we want, but those “concepts” we describe are not the same things. I do not care what word anyone wants to use to describe something — as long as it still ensures we’re talking about the same thing. I don’t run a philosophy or Latin class, it’s not about letters and words, at all. That’s entirely beside the point.

[fkcgnad]

The concept is arbitrary. It's a made up concept. It's an arbitrary collection of empathic and and sympathetic traits bundled up together to be a definition of another arbitrary word.

Similar to "what is sentience?" People are arbitrarily ascribing different traits like intelligence, free will and aspects of "understanding" to the word "sentience". When people debate over whether a thing is "sentient" or not they are simply debating about the definition of a vocabulary word. What traits does the word "sentience" encompass? That's it. The vagueness of the definition of the word is what's illusory here.

The collection of traits that make up a definition are arbitrarily chosen to be vague. The word actualizes the arbitrary concept and the vagueness follows it making you think that you are discussing a concept when you are only discussing a definition.

There is nothing profound to talk about here. You're just trying to differentiate subtle differences between two vocabulary words here. The concepts behind the words themselves are by themselves ultimately simplistic.

Something profound and related to empathy is the discussion of the chemicals behind the emotions. The exact neural and biological pathway to actualization of these emotions. Additionally the evolutionary origin of these emotions. Why has natural caused some of us to feel this way and others to feel less this way. This is profound. What is not profound is the difference between the vocabulary words: empathy and sympathy.

[mittermayr]

Well, I don't follow, at all. The fact that you seem to love getting lost in words (just as much as I do) is sort of demonstrated and at the same time diminished by your explanation on how (certain?) words/concepts are arbitrary — making it sound like it being 'arbitrary' has negative value. Why does that matter?

If I like a song, and say so, it's arbitrary. Why bother saying it? A mix of frequencies hitting my ear drums and matching some form of pattern in my brain is what I am technically excited about, but it's easier to say that... I just like the song.

I personally find it hard to follow the intention behind your argument, but I also feel it may be a waste of time for both of us to dive deeper, here.

I'd argue that the basic idea of a word is to describe "things", in a recallable form. If people want to discuss their interpretations of a word, I see no harm and wonder what the issue is.

You also seem to (unintentionally?) shift the original discussion over to a different context, from discussing the interpretations of certain words to "what is a worthy, or profound discussion to have", which you can freely do, but makes me wonder, again, what the intention is.