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... (read more)
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... (read more)