My behavior here is the same as yours. I create posts. I read and react to the posts of others.
Piling words in a particular order in order to explore the question, “how ought one to live”? More or less existentially.
I’m proposing one possible answer to that question and that revolves around my own rendition of moral nihilism. And this has always basically been what my behavior has been here.
Then you come back with stuff like this:
I have made that clear time and again. How did I make this clear? By specifically referring to your behavior, in specfic examples, often quoted quite clearly which I then respond to. I do this in sequence in the thread where they happened. As concrete and clear as possible.
Words piled up in a particular order, true, but nowhere near as “concreate and clear” as I make the attempt myself here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
We just don’t approach the question in the same way at all. Or, rather, it seems that way to me.
Indeed, you just give us more of the same:
It means that you assume people get mad at you because of the philosophical questions you are asking and the philosophical position you present. It seems inconceivable to you that the things you do, here, the way you respond, that is, your behavior here, could be what pisses people off. Even when I specifically mention specific behavior here, you still write, even in this last post, you still assume that it has nothing to do with how you interact with people.
For someone yearning so hard to find out how one ought to live, it is ironic in the extreme that you cannot even conceive of the fact that HOW you interact might affect other people and piss them off.
And so, instead of noticing what I react to, as clearly laid out, you assume, again, we are afraid of your argument or whatever motivations you attribute to us, rather than actually reacting to the way you interact with us.
You keep telling me that I must have a contraption and that’s why I don’t react to non-ocbjectivism like you do.
You consistantly frame my reactions in objectivist language and viewpoints, as you do in this post.
I become the argument and you commense to huff and to puff to others about the manner in which I insist that arguments of this sort must be taken out into the world of actual conflicting goods construed from the perspective of “I” as an existential contraption.
For example asking how I know my actions and preferences are more rational than other people’s, when I have made it clear I don’t think like that. And then when I point this out, you can’t just admit you made a mistake lumping a request to me and Phyllo that really only could apply to Phyllo.
Again, you and I and Phyllo and any others interested in these fundamentally important human relationships, need to focus in on a particular context. Note the components of our own moral philosophies as we react to conflicting behaviors that revolve around conflicting goods that revolve around conflicting points of view.
After all, what in particular does it mean here to speak of arguments as being more or less rational? Or more or less virtuous?