»» IF communication shall be possible, it is necessary that all the participants use words with conventional meaning (conventional in the essential sense of the word); if we talk about different meaning using the same words - communication will always fail

It was due to statements such as the above that I gave up philosophy.
It seems that the above is part of "the liars paradox" that holds philosophy within the bounds of "good use of the dictionary" and "good grammar." Anyone who does not use the dictionary properly, or does not use words in the commonly accepted way, should be ignored, since at best they are speaking something which is unintellible.

However, it seems to me that people can, although not necessarily of course, be communicative while using words in a fairly novel, metaphorical way.

And there are those that suggest (again quoting Nietzshe, and Zen) that humans are bound within the constraints of language in a real, political, ontological way.

Hence I suggest that this is not just an epistemological/communication problem.

However, it seems to me that the vast majority of Western philosophy revolves around this one "language game." (I find that some of the worst offenders, from my point of view, are those of a Wittgenstian bent, even though, it seemed to me, that Ludwig was trying to point out the way in which language *would* constrain thought.)

What am I doing back? I ask myself. Perhaps philosophers have improved.