/lit/ - Literature

>>8165247
No, because b can still be a simple working hypothesis. To invent a word or a phrase and defining it to peers for further personal use is different from natural evolution of language.
Again, something that is done in academia all the time.
And it isn't the same as someone rambling.

Shit pham, people like Locke banged out new (and in the historical context unintuitive) concepts like a lyrical genius and did so organically, all the while making fun of Descartes.

Stop making excuses for people unable or unwilling to express themselves clearly.
We both know that 99% of the time these people either have no logical argument to begin with and attempt to hide (both from others and themselves) that fact by being convoluted.

Look, I'll prove it to you:
>I describe a person, who is willingly convoluted and makes no effort to express himself clearly, as a "Zizecancer". If said individual has anything meaningful to say is, for this definition, beside the point. Important is, however, that this individual attempts to appear as though his convolutedness is a sign of the complex and therefore is of surperior faculty of mind and intuition. The Zizecancer.

There. A new working term. Could be used to separate meme-continentals from proper ones, by making the simple differentiation of pseudo-intellectual self-gratification. The point being that I am literally the only one using it right now. But I could compose an entire Essay, explaining who does and who doesn't fall withing this category, based in its definition. And you would understand what I was saying, even if you didn't agree or thought my definition is shit.