Daniel Dennett defines a deepity as “a proposition that seems both important and true – and profound – but that achieves this effect by being ambiguous. On one reading it is manifestly false, but it would be earth-shaking if it were true; on the other reading it is true but trivial.” I might add that deepities are most likely to arise when we already expect the profound, and when we might be embarrassed if we did not actually find it.
Dennett cites the sentence “Love is just a word” as a short, sweet, and totally preposterous example: “Love” may be just a word, and a four-letter word at that, but what the word denotes is clearly no such thing. Or if it is, the claim is entirely unsupported.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Martin Heidegger:
Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it.
On the literal reading, the statement is manifestly false. On the figurative reading – reading it to say, rather, that we all make use of technology somehow, and that we would be greatly inconvenienced without it – one is inclined to shrug. Or perhaps cheer. It is in no sense a calamity or even a profundity.
And for an encore, not one paragraph later:
We ask the question concerning technology when we ask what it is.
That’s one question we might ask. Which is trivial. But is it the question? And if so, what would that mean? That all other questions aren’t questions? That would be false.
I begin to wonder, after the first page of “The Question Concerning Technology,” whether I need to go on or not.
 Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. New York: W. W. Norton, 2013, p 56.
 Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology.”