Grivza UpTheShipCreek

Words tend to make sense in our minds, regardless of, or in spite of, any formal definitions. This leads to a peculiar form of conceptual argumentation, rooted not in classical logic, but in the amalgamation of intuitive concepts founded on our intrinsic understanding.
Okay.
Consider this phrase: "Hope is that which arises the more you start to lose it."
Sounds paradoxical; something emerging from its own absence. But it does resonate in a way.
Indeed. Language isn't math; it lacks precision.
I get it, language's flexibility. So, what are you getting at?
The word "hope" in actuality hides behind it two different signified concepts; the ideas of hope as the expectation of a desired outcome justifiable by concrete evidence and/or reasoning, and the idea of hope as the expectation of a desired outcome in spite of any evidence that contradicts it.
So, it's not the hope being lost, but our capacity to justify it. This clumsy definition is just trying to express the turning point from expectation to hope.
Yes, essentially.
So how can this be used as conceptual argumentation?
Well, I don't know how this specific phrase can be used in that way. It was just an example to demonstrate how we can make sense of concepts without them following a strict formal structure. You can take a familiar concept, reframe it, and this process itself will generate new meaning.
Really? You can't think of an example?
No.

Provide feedback