You don’t think half the terminology you use on this site is a “most unconventional manner” to the majority of people. The fact that you had to link me to an essay to explain your use of the word taboo is a gaping contradiction to what you are arguing.
The production of ideas beyond a certain level is pretty much the redefining of words. My use of the word paradox is unconventional, but no more than your own unconventional use of words. It represents a different sphere of ideas, but it is not wrong. If you re-read what I wrote above you will see I said that debating definitions is a waste of time, and that it is more fruitful to accept the plurality of words and try to acquire a new understanding of paradox, instead of fighting to hold onto one static interpretation of it.
The production of ideas beyond a certain level is pretty much the redefining of words. My use of the word paradox is unconventional, but no more than your own unconventional use of words.
In this instance it doesn’t matter whether you call it ‘paradox’. It’s either wrong or meaningless to present the following as a deep insight:
You don’t think half the terminology you use on this site is a “most unconventional manner” to the majority of people. The fact that you had to link me to an essay to explain your use of the word taboo is a gaping contradiction to what you are arguing.
The production of ideas beyond a certain level is pretty much the redefining of words. My use of the word paradox is unconventional, but no more than your own unconventional use of words. It represents a different sphere of ideas, but it is not wrong. If you re-read what I wrote above you will see I said that debating definitions is a waste of time, and that it is more fruitful to accept the plurality of words and try to acquire a new understanding of paradox, instead of fighting to hold onto one static interpretation of it.
In this instance it doesn’t matter whether you call it ‘paradox’. It’s either wrong or meaningless to present the following as a deep insight: