This was a good read and it's really cool to see others found this part of the book interesting too. I am, however, left confused by something you wrote.
It is understood from the novel itself that, for two words A and B, if the antonym of A is B, then it is not necessary that the antonym of B is A. I will refer to this fact as (*).
In a paragraph you wrote on the antonym of crime, you first argue that order cannot be its antonym because the antonym of order is (supposedly) chaos, to which you then observe that crime and chaos are clearly not the same, and therefore conclude that order cannot be the antonym of crime. However, only a few sentences later -- in the exact same paragraph -- you then say "the antonym of an antonym does not need to be the same concept" which is a similar but stronger restatement of (*), i.e. crime and chaos not being the same concept DOES NOT imply order is not the antonym of crime.
This is to say that I think you may have contradicted yourself, or at the very least I don't find this line of reasoning you have given to be convincing. Am I missing something? Indeed, I do believe that order is most likely not the antonym of crime, but that is because crime can exist in orderly fashion, evident by the Japanese Yakuza. Furthermore, I believe crime doesn't necessarily disrupt order in all aspects, and actually, some people commit crimes with the intent to establish some order into their own lives.
Just my thoughts and any discussion would be appreciated.
This was a good read and it's really cool to see others found this part of the book interesting too. I am, however, left confused by something you wrote.
It is understood from the novel itself that, for two words A and B, if the antonym of A is B, then it is not necessary that the antonym of B is A. I will refer to this fact as (*).
In a paragraph you wrote on the antonym of crime, you first argue that order cannot be its antonym because the antonym of order is (supposedly) chaos, to which you then observe that crime and chaos are clearly not the same, and therefore conclude that order cannot be the antonym of crime. However, only a few sentences later -- in the exact same paragraph -- you then say "the antonym of an antonym does not need to be the same concept" which is a similar but stronger restatement of (*), i.e. crime and chaos not being the same concept DOES NOT imply order is not the antonym of crime.
This is to say that I think you may have contradicted yourself, or at the very least I don't find this line of reasoning you have given to be convincing. Am I missing something? Indeed, I do believe that order is most likely not the antonym of crime, but that is because crime can exist in orderly fashion, evident by the Japanese Yakuza. Furthermore, I believe crime doesn't necessarily disrupt order in all aspects, and actually, some people commit crimes with the intent to establish some order into their own lives.
Just my thoughts and any discussion would be appreciated.