You are asking me to explain that which motivates my intentions in posting here when I am the first to acknowledge how the intertwining genetic/memetic variables that encompass my “lived life” were, are and will continue to be in so many crucial respects beyond either my complete understanding or control. After all, I have attempted to grope and grapple with this many times with others here.
I merely suggest in turn that this is almost certainly applicable to you [and to them] as well.
And, in part, it revolves around this:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles
This truly resonates with me, but how do I explain it definitively even to myself?
And then these parts:
I merely assume that folks like you want to steer clear of assumptions of this sort. After all, what do they tell us about the profound limitations imposed on anyone intent on becoming a “serious philosopher”?
Then the part that revolves around a deep-seated and genuine interest in morality on this side of the grave, and the fate of “I” on the other side of it.
And, finally, the part that revolves around “waiting for godot”. And in a mind that has always been prone to polemics.
Of course this doesn’t surprise me. Over the years, I have driven any number of Kids, objectivists, and serious philosophers to retorting, to huffing and puffing, to making me issue.
I can only leave it to others to determine for themselves why this is the case.
Right. As though I am not able to make the same points about you and your own “technical arguments”. My “thing” however is to take “world of words” accusations of this sort down off the skyhooks and note their relevancy in regard to actual human interactions.
No? You come here and, among other things, insist that “universal truths” are “complete nonsense”. You pin me to the mat with your psycho-babble assertions in order to expose the “real me” to everyone else. You seethe with this indignant self-righteous sense of certainty…but you’re not an objectivist.
For example:
Note to others:
By all means, decide for yourself what this tells you about him. It certainly speaks volumes about one of us.
That I am still able to bring otherwise intelligent and articulate philosophers to this state never ceases to amaze me. Or is it surprise me?
On the other hand, they’ve got a hell of a lot more to lose if my own assumptions about the human condition come closer to the mark.
Whatever that means.
Right?