Recently, the word literally has come to be used for emphasis, rather than to express that something definitely happened.
If you look up the definition of literally on Google, the second definition is:
used for emphasis while not being literally true.
It feels wrong to me that the word literally is in the definition. It seems like this could be interpreted as circular logic since we don't know which definition of literally the definition refers—it could refer to itself.
I am not aware of any such convention where if you use the word you are attempting to define in the second definition, then you use the first definition.
It seems to me that it would be perfectly valid to leave out the word literally from the second definition altogether, and everything would be fine, i.e.:
used for emphasis while not being necessarily true.
Is it wrong that the word literally has been used in its own definition?