Right to neologisms

Those of us who have good taste and also a taste for freedom and for light air prefer to read a philosopher who does not use too many dense and techincal terms in his works. Generally these terms are borrowed from everyday vocabulary (or these everyday words are lightly modified, usually coverted to an "-ism" or "-logy" of sorts) and are elevated into central concepts or principles of thought around which, or rather behind which, the philosopher hides a wealth of presuppositions, contradictions, modest confusions and stupidities. Despite what the philosopher likes to believe a conceptual term (contextualism, relativism, pragmatism, Dasein, Spirit, realism, compatibilism) is, therefore, a grand metaphor of a not-so-talented poet. This conceptual philosopher is usually a stuffy person who makes way for the special term he wants to create by chopping the life out of the usual meanings of this term. He is like the hiker who is keen on leaving his pathmarks for the rescue team to follow, as if he is inwardly sure that he will lose his way in the wilderness! He thus invents a metalanguage, the language of languages, the essence of language. Such immodesty, as I said, must offend our taste.
But on the other hand, the philosopher with a more sublime taste, who in acutely observing the world he lives in, refuses to invent neologisms, but rather inventively and endlessly distributes the currencies of language already at his disposal, not wishing to rise above it once and for all, but swimming in it, going beneath and above it alternatively -- assuming that this philosopher performs this duty with great diligence, he will not only reveal that he is a wonderful writer, but soon will earn the noble and rare right to coin neologisms: it is as if life itself rewards him for his terrestrial struggle! With what? With philosophy! With the right to philosophy! And these newly coined terms would then be the pearls grown on earth, although they would resemble the tears of a god! These pearls of philosophy, then, would transfigure the very meaning of current language, extending its boundaries. But who has the strength equal to this task? Besides say Nietzsche or Kierkegaard?

Semblance

The wonderful way in which people with similar facial features also tend to have similar hand or expressive gestures!