Here's the issue we're coming across. I'm not talking past you, you're talking past me. I'm not worried about what Dostoevsky thinks at this moment and I'm not worried about what Kierkegaard thinks at this moment. If I did, I'd pick up their books, read about what they have to say, and form my own opinions on their opinions. What occupies my mind, in this, are your thoughts and feelings on the matter, you, Odder, as a person. I've been trying to tease it out of you, first by bringing up the concept of what makes a person good. Then by bringing up the concept of why we fall short of our intent to be good and what why it's important we try to overcome it. Then by bringing up the concept of social contentedness and our responsibility to ourselves and each other to shape our environment to empower others to be good. Then by bringing up the issue of why we struggle, why we fail, why we suffer, and why those hardships matter. I figure sooner or later detachment could be brought up, if you really wanted to have this conversation with me. There is a lot of depth to this conversation to explore, because I've had these conversations before and I love exploring these issues, but instead you say this . . . Instead of having a conversation, you keep on leaning back into your original argument, instead of branching out, you're outright saying "I'm gonna be dismissive of your thoughts on the matter and consider them invalid until you read Dostoevsky (and now Kierkegaard)." I don't want to be "indulged" I want to have a conversation. I want to think "Wow, this person here on the internet has some really interesting points" and I want you to think "Wow, this person here on the internet has some really interesting points." But we don't get to have that, because apparently, in order to earn your respect I have to read Dostoevsky, as if that matters more than being an individual with his own books he's read, his own thoughts, his own experiences with triumphs and hardships, his own worldview. I mean, legit? I could try and talk about r/politics and where that anger comes from and what we can do about it. But why would I want to at this point? You seem to be more interested in championing the thoughts of dead men, however insightful and compelling they might be, than carrying a conversation with a live human being who is more interested in what you have to say. That's not healthy friend, not in the slightest, and it's part of why the world is what it is today. I'm not saying you're an r/politics kind of person, but I will say part of the reason people in r/politics are so angry is because they're more concerned about being able to crow about their worldviews than they are trying to actively engage and connect with the world. I could read Dostoevsky, but I don't want to. I got all the time in the world for that. I want to talk to Odder, because that's here and now.And regardless of whether or not you ultimately decide you agree with the Existentialist definitions of "Faith" and "Love," you will need to come to terms with them before you can decide if you agree with them or not. Otherwise we'll just keep talking past each other after a certain point.
I sincerely hope that I'm not coming off as condescending here when I say that you haven't even yet grasped what I'm talking about - the idea of Kierkegaard's "Knight of Faith" and Dostoevsky's "Active Love" are complex philosophical ideas that take a rather large amount of effort to comes to terms with, and I am doing them a bit of a disservice by indulging you here instead of just telling you to study the course that I linked five-ish posts ago.
No. You start with the abstract and drill down. We're going in circles because you don't want to drill. If you're telling me to go read Plato and Descartes, then no, you don't want to have a discussion. What you're saying is "I'm right. I don't value your thoughts. Go read these guys to see why I'm right. Conversations with you aren't worth it." Personal stuff edited out Honestly? If it wasn't for my wife and loving friends? I'd be one of those "deaths of despair" statistics you read about in the morning news and then tut tut to yourself about how the world is so cruel. I don't need to read Dostoevsky, because my life might as well be one of his novels. I want a conversation because these are concepts I care about. You want me to validate your worldview. So now there's no conversation, not because I'm mad at you, but because we can't agree on the conditions as to how this conversation should take place.Here's the problem with philosophical discussion, though - if you just discuss things in the abstract you'll be limited on where you can go and who you can learn from. We're already going in circles here
I'm happy to have those conversations with you even though I could just tell you to start with Plato and Descartes.
Because the arguments you are making? They're the kind of positions you take because you haven't lived them
I'm not mad. But honestly? You're being so dismissively condescending and assumptive of me that it's honestly baffling. I'm overwhelmed. Look at me, I'm not over here assuming and stating your positions for you so you have to waste your time taking them apart. Dude. Seriously? First of all, massively insulting. Second of all, I'm not the one who approaches conversations like "in order to have a conversation with me, you should read some Baha'i Writings, The Quran from cover to cover, a little bit of Tich Nach Hahn, some Saint Augustine." I can easily say "this is what I think and why" and when asked, expand on those thoughts. If you were to ask "Where did you get such an idea" I can often cite chapter and verse. I mean, the fact that you say "I can't talk with you about these things until you read these authors first" hints that you have less of a concrete grasp on your world view than I do on mine. Furthermore, I never asked you to expand on Dostoevsky, or existentialism, or anything of the sort. You just keep pushing the subject. Mercy. I mean, on I can go, but honestly? To be blunt? I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here, but make you understand the reality of the situation? You're being a condescending asshole. Like, massive, to the point of where everything you just typed is less of a conversation and more of an experiment in surrealist prose. I'm baffled. Utterly baffled. When you come here with your intro philosophy 101 student ideas of the nature of "goodness" and ask for debate without any references, you are being asked to be indulged without needing to learn.