Gasp! Yet another “I am not an objectivist!” avoiding the arguments I made above by making me the issue.
Instead, what he should be doing is taking up my suggestion to bring fascism out into the world of human interactions, noting a particular context involving conflicting value judgments and behaviors – fascism, communism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, conservativism, libertarianism, nihilism etc. – and exploring the choices that individuals make given his own fascist view and my own take on moral nihilism.
That way he could expose in great detail the manner in which I “overthink” everything.
Instead, he attempts to reconfigure that into his own rendition of…wit?
Look, I respect the man’s intelligence. He is far, far removed from some of the godawful Kids here. But my main interest [as everyone knows] is in testing the intelligence of others to determine what they think about the components of my own moral and political philosophy. How is being a “modern radical pragmatic fascist” applicable to a discussion of human identity, conflicting goods and political economy. Given a particular context, involving conflicting value judgments.
He can go there on the philosophy board or he can continue to huff and puff about me here.
The fact is, I don’t argue that I am more intelligent than he is. I don’t argue that my frame of mind here is more reasonable than his is. My main interest lies less in what other philosophers think they know about good and bad or rational and irrational moral narratives configured into political agendas. I’m far more intrigued with how they have come to think as they do. Existentially.
This part:
This either interest him in turn or he continues to just shrug it all off as “overthinking everything”.