You want me to briefly summarize all organic life from the beginning of time? Life began as a contradiction, began at war with itself. There are two things that drive organic life--reproduction, which is a conflict against death, and conquest, which is a conflict against life.

An example. Just one would be fine. A "conflict" isn't the same thing as a contradiction, is it?

One contradiction is that, from the simplest to the most complex organism, all species are living and dying in simultaneous conflict against both life and death.

"Contradiction" has a few definitions, two of them being "opposing factor" and "logical incongruity". Yes, conflict represents contradiction--how can members of the same species kill each other with intent without representing a contradiction?

What I consider a contradiction is a non-equivocated instance of P & not-P (although I'd not require that a real contradiction is a literal proposition, but we should at least be able to state is as a proposition, as a non-equivocated instance of P & not-P, so we have to be both affirming and denying the same thing, in the same respect, at the same time, etc.)

So why would you then say, given the dictionary definition in addition to the description you've provided, that the word "contradiction" shouldn't be used to represent "opposing factors" such as behaviours within a species? Why would you limit it to representing "opposing factors" such as concepts within a paragraph?

A "conflict" isn't the same thing as a contradiction, is it? — Terrapin Station

You’re right - ‘contradiction’ means literally ‘opposed speaking’ (‘diction’) - so applies to propositions. Conflicts (and paradoxes!) occur in nature, contradictions only occur in speech.

Because "contradiction" is useful, especially in philosophy, as a very specific idea. Making the usage more vague doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

It's the dictionary definition. It's not vague, it's rather precise.

Are "vague" and "more vague" the same thing?

No. It is possible to be vague by degrees, for example by being vague about certain details while clear about others within the context of a broad statement, or being vague in one's communication of the entire statement. How does this relate to anything?

The broader senses of "contradiction" that you're referring to are more vague than the very specific sense that I mentioned.

They're not broader though, they're narrower variations within a broader definition. Why are we arguing semantics?

From what I remember, the implication of post-modernism is the breakdown of meaning while philosophy focuses more on the search for such.