The air of paradox, however, is merely what Dennett calls (in conversation) a “deepity,” a claim that appears profound but is in fact a superficial equivocation. ... The deepity of unseeming seemings dissolves when one considers the unstated temporal dimension of all judgments, including judgments of appearance and reality.
A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.
2009 November 27, Schoen, Chris, “Deepity Structure”, in Underverse, retrieved 2012-05-31:
And yet, no clearer example of a deepity will you find than the assertion that math is an instinct.
2009 November 27, Christina, Greta, “Deepities on Parade: "Oh My God" Reviewed”, in Greta Christina's Blog, retrieved 2012-05-31:
And this abdication of the responsibility to understand reality, this utter dismissal of reality in favor of pretty stories and profound-sounding deepities, this casual shrugging off of the question "What is real?" as if it were irrelevant trivia, is probably the thing I find most maddening about religious belief.
2010 December 1, Gray, Michael, “Re: DNA”, in alt.talk.creationism, Usenet, message-ID <email@example.com>:
Another recipe for generating Pseudoprofundity, identified by philosopher Daniel Dennett, is the deepity. A deepity involves saying something with two meanings—one trivially true, the other profound sounding but false or nonsensical. Dennett illustrates this with the expression “Love is just a word.”
2011 December 18, Polanik, Joseph, “[analytic] The Mysterious Identity Relation”, in fa.analytic-philosophy, Usenet, message-ID <fa.mFqedYrRNgC4ktmNDci499gG/Ck@ifi.uio.no>:
problematic is your endless equivocation between the two aspects of this deepity. I am not contesting the interpretation of this deepity that has only trivial consequences.