Why didn't it occur to you that they use that word because when they read what that author wrote, they felt for the first time identified with the concept? You can read about existentialism and nihilism and shadows and emptiness, and you can understand it all as information, and then you read the nausea and the way it's written touches you, and since it's the first time the information touches you, you accept that name it came with

>>24693839
because there's already a commonly used phrase to describe it. the motivation behind using it is pretentiousness either by you or your puppeteer. i will not be a canvas for your delusions of grandeur or your ignorance, whichever you choose to employ.

>>24693869
You are exhibiting all the hallmarks of a bonedeep Glaensis.

>>24693869
Did you read what I wrote? The point is that, that "commonly used phrase to describe it" didn't touch you, no matter how much you read or know or understand about it. That commonly used phrase is not what you feel, it looks similar but carries no weight for (You), I'm not saying the phrase used to describe the concept is wrong, but that another person writes about it in a way that gives form to what you feel, so you accept that name, and you share it, not because of pretentiousness, which is sad that you think would be the only reason
But because by using it with others you expect another to relate, to understand that you use that name because you're telling the other person "do you see it like that, too?"

That's just one other possibility for that to happen.
Pretentiousness is a valid reason too
Im sure we can think of tons of others
I'm just curious why you think that one of many is the right one that applies, enough to think it's "obvious"

>>24693839
if its niche, its on you to provide the context

Don’t debate philosophy with people unless you’ve accumulated the sum of all human knowledge.

I’d start with Garfield.