What's Wrong with this Picture?

Here's a paradox:

Rule no. 1: Every rule has an exception, except from this rule.

They say, this rule can't be true. If it is true that every rule has an exception, than this rule must have an exception. Which it does - this rule is an exception, as it says, since it doesn't have exceptions. But if it doesn't have exceptions, how can it have an exception that is exemplified in itself?

But what some people miss is that at the same time it cannnot not be true. This is why it's a paradox and not just a false sentence. A paradox at the basis of set theory is what prevented from some mathematicians and philosophers to base Mathematics on logic. But that it precludes math means not that it precludes life. For, unfortunately, life is not math. Some may disagree. But human life is filled with paradoxes and it seems right to me that it is possible to base a life plan on something that, as I said, cannot not be true. I would not ride a spaceship built with that logic and please, if we schedule lunch - make sure that you did not schedule something else at the same time. In may fields of life, consistency is very important. But for these great questions of life, for these big issues that we grapple with anyway, does it not make sense to adopt a paradoxical approach?
When I was younger, I used to say that I'm principally unprincipled. To me, it meant that I am a person of principles and that my principles is not hold any principles so strongly that, as required by the spirit of the matter, I will never revise. How can I then hold that single principle and not revise it? Well, I cannot and am actually open to revise it. But for now, I have not - or so I said then.Does it not make sense?

Why Idleness?

It was Fung Yu-Lan, my favorite 20th century Chinese intellectual, who said that philosophy's usefulness is in its uselessness. As I hope to dedicate at least some of this space to notions that might be considered philosophical, it seems in place to show an appreciation of that aimless pursuit that I nevertheless find to be worthy of my time and effort; Indeed, I take it to be an important component of my very existence.

Dear Fung grasped a deep notion - you cannot aim for that usefulness. Even once you realize that there is some usefulness in it, you can not attempt it. By trying to reach philosophy's usefulness one misses it uselessness and it then ceases to be useful. I hope that this may help explain why I am unable to respond to any future comments that fall under that category titled 'what is it good for?'. It isn't good for anything. That's the point, or to be more precise - it's not even the point. There is no point, is the point, but if tried to be pursued further it will lose its meaning so let go of the no-point point.

What of this and Idleness? There is an inherent, deeper problem of justifying Idleness, as it carries a negative association by definition. However, aside from my logical perversion to seek truth in contradictions, there are various good reasons to resist this common notion. But apart from such arguments that fiddle with our understanding of what idleness is or challenge our common understanding of work and leisure, I would like to suggest here the kind of idleness that corresponds to the aforementioned concept of philosophy. Thus, I recommend to you doing absolutely nothing. It is not the free time which turns into recreational activities that I praise here, but the time in which one is not even reading this post, though arguably this kind of reading is in fact doing absolutely nothing. 

I laud doing nothing for nothing's sake, and I hope no one will ever ask me what is it good for.