"What I Want"

I guess I need to start this by saying this is an I speaking. An I, an ego I mean. It does not matter how you, yes, you, may understand the notion of I, whether you believe the ego is a philosophical construct or an undeniable reality, whether I am an illusion or a personalized entity created by the power of The Almighty. I exist. I am. I will always, henceforward, assume that I exist as this independent, self-conscious I. The whole discussion about the (non) existence of the ego has no place here. This needed to be clarified first.

These are, clearly, words of an egoist. An egoist is not that man who, foolishly, ā€˜believes’, ie, has faith, in himself. Like, say, a Muslim has faith in Allah. No, that one would be an egotist. A worshipper of his own self. An egoist simply:

a) assumes he himself exists as a separate entity from all the others

b) has his own person as his main, his fundamental concern on this world

This does not imply either worshipping of one’s self or exclusion of all consideration for others.

No, because I perfectly realize I exist in a world which I have to share with others, willing or not. These others, most perfect strangers to me, are not only sources of hindrance, of limitation to my wishes. They may as well be the means for the fulfillment of such wishes. Reason tells me insistently I need them right where they are. And most of the times, just as they are.

Now, it’s not necessarily easy to deal with these others, and I’m not talking about difficulty in comprehension, as language is a natural barrier between me and most of them. No, I’m talking about the uncomfortable perception of not being doing exactly what I want that comes all too often to my mind. This perception brings me to the realization of my imperfections, of my limitations. The others limit my will, limit my life, they are a limitation to the free, boundless exertion of my will. An all too immature I can easily come to the conclusion that he needs to get rid of all these others in order to exercise his all too immature will. Not taking into account the role the others play in shaping/exercising one’s will. This immature I is the natural victim of nihilism. He easily concludes nothing is worthwhile in a world where, apparently, you can do almost nothing you really want.

But as I don’t need either inclement constraint or soul-crushing nihilism, I need be more practical in ascertaining my will amongst these billions of other wills that seem to block mine in every possible direction.

Reason is a tool for the strong-minded, but it can easily become a burden for the weak-willed. It is perpetually pointing out our limitations, our weaknesses, our frailty in an all too unstable world which only accidentally permits our existence in it. I need reason for a lot of things, but whenever it only becomes a burden, a hindrance, invariably leading to pessimistic, nihilistic conclusions about my ā€œfateā€, I need to either

a) get rid of reason altogether or

b) teach it who is the real master of whom

Yes, a good thing I learned is reason is a tool, an instrument, a thing that can be almost entirely subject to my volition. It’s not an entity per se, a thing with a will of its own. So whenever I find my own reason telling me things which serve only to diminish, to limit or to annihilate my will, I need to ā€˜recalibrate’ the tool, so that it can work properly again.

What reason, proper reason, tells me then is that in most situations there are hindrances objecting the complete fulfillment of my desires. It tells me that I cannot eat all I want, or that the woman I desire is not ā€œmine for the takingā€. It tells me I cannot choose a country where to live, as my money limitations wouldn’t allow it. It tells me the people in my neighbourhood are more powerful than I am, as they are many and I’m only one, so that if they choose to do something with me, lynch me for instance, they can do it, but if I choose to do something with them, kill all of them for instance, I could hardly even try.

But then, proper reason will not leave me drowning in desolate despair thinking of how impotent an individual being is in this world of billions. Quite on the contrary. It will bring to my mind the old adage- Know thyself-, of which an important part is to know your own limitations, and know when to take advantage of them, and also when to take advantage of your neighbor’s limitations. I’m more than aware, as people repeat this to me all the time, of what I cannot do. What matters to me, however, is what I can do. Moreover, what part of what I can do corresponds exactly to what I really want.

Because, say, if I am part of a multitude who does something that my individual self would condemn, theoretically, I could say I did that for a reason stronger than me, such as peer pressure. However, if the achieved result was something that I really wanted (the overthrown of a government), I will not cynically say I would regret my participation in the act later. The same rationale can be applied in a plethora of cases where, apparently, the individual will is entirely absent, or at least subdue. I am not a crazy man, a person whose will is so confused he cannot give full account of his acts. No, I know most things I do, except when I’m asleep, of course. My self-consciousness works in such a way that, having self-mastery as a perpetual aim, I can hardly, if ever, say I take part in anything I don’t want to, so that if someone finds me killing someone, they can never say I did that ONLY for reasons independent of my will. I don’t resort to this excuse. External motives can be a thing, of course. Not the only thing. For unless I go insane some day, you will never find me killing anyone I would not willingly get rid of, for whatever reason.

Here we are walking a path where that aforementioned discussion (does the I exist or not) is seen through a light in which one has a strong reason to answer that, yes, there’s some firm foundation to state the existence of the individual self. For I am consciously affirming no act of mine, no act I practice knowingly, is 100% motivated by forces outside my will. There is at least a shred of self-consciousness, of personal will, in every single act of mine. This thing I call my own will- what I actually want. Of course, you could say, there’s a rational explanation for this perception of mine that I act voluntarily and also a good chain of cause and effect that, through my not understanding it perfectly, accounts for my illusory belief I have a will of my own (when all things are determined, etc). For all practical purposes, however, it matters little whether at the bottom of things, there’s s predetermined cause for my every action. As far as I am aware of what I am doing, and as far as what I do corresponds to what I think or believe it’s the best thing for me to do, there’s no difference wheter my every act is determined or I have free will to a greater or a lesser degree.

The important, the really importang thing is this- awareness of what I do and of what I want. The old debate (determinism x free will) is just another one of those endless discussions that never lead anywhere. Eager to prove that their side is the true one, the first of the two opposing parties may say that even my wants, my wishes, are determined by forces outside my control. Once again, an useless assessment. Because, for instance, I know what food is and I know I need food for my nourishment. There’s absolutely no shred of absurdity in my saying I want to eat this or that, knowing it will be good for my health, and that I eat it for my own volition. You will enter the realm of the absurd if you oppose me by saying: oh you don’t know what forces really cause you to eat that, that’s something beyond your control. The ultimate causes of our actions, of course, may escape me permanently. The practical reasons I eat, however, are clear as water to me. Nothing misterious at all about that. You have to spend years uselessly discussing about determinism, karma, and things like that to come to the obvious conclusion that you should simply stop and, humbly enough, give some credit to the evidence of your most primitive senses.

So, having let it clear I have absolutely no further use for determinism, or whatever philosophical ideal related to it, I will henceforward talk about my will as something to be taken for granted. Obviously it could be just a very succesfull illusion of my senses that makes me believe I have a will of my own. The illusion works for all practical purposes, though, and I see no reason to reject it, powerful as it is.

My will, what I want, is and will always be limited by a number of things, something which might prove very underwhelming sometimes, but which should not serve as an easy excuse for me to indulge in self-pity or something like that. The oh me! attitude of one who says he can do nothing he wants in this life doesn’t fit me anymore. My intention is to examine the real boundaries of my will, to know exactly what are its limitations, and how to do things which will guarantee me the most possible exertion of my will, ie, to avoid situations in life, under my control, in which I will go from self-sufficient individual to conscious automaton. The ideal thing, of course, would be to be entirely conscious of everything I do, in every moment, and, most especially, to be fully satisfied for being doing exactly what I am doing every given moment. This perfect scenario seems to be reserved for our dreams only. I have a stomach to fill, bills to pay, certain, uh, urges, to satisfy, I can’t simply live life floating among clouds.

Like everything else, the free exertion of my will depends on the extent of my power. My mind is at its easiest when I realize I’m doing things according to my desires, and it would be easy to become a spoiled child sometimes, not willing anything that may cause me the slightest unpleasantness. Reason tells me, however, that it’s not really positive for me to be spoiled, since my will grows stronger when it finds some obstacle to be trespassed, and since I only learn the limitations of my power by having it limited by other power, other forces. One would be eager to believe that I want more power, as much power as possible, only to exercise my volition arbitrarily, like a stubborn dictator who refuses to even listen a ā€˜no’ from whomever is subjected to him. It’s not like things work for me. For a spoiled child, a finicky dictator, is an easy target for either dislike or hate, which is a sure source of unpleasantness in the long run (a dictator’s life is never secured). I don’t want my will to be taken from me abruptly, like it can happen in either case.

So much for arbitrariness.

Both my will and my power are subject to myself, as my reason itself, and it’s this latter that serves as a tool for keeping the two first under control. It’s reason that tells me I want this or that thing, it’s reason that tells me I have some power, not all power in the world, but surely enough power to get all I need in this life, power enough to live today knowing I’m getting everything I want and need. Reason naturally prevents me from wishing anything unbridled, as I’d easily lose control of myself in wanting or having too much of a good thing. And reason ascertains that my power is a power of and for today, the present day, I don’t live in the past, I don’t live in the future, I don’t exist as a possibility, I am right now, and if I’m taking the freedom to write this it’s because, presently, my material conditions allow me to do so. I am a creature of the present. I live in the now.

But, one could ask, you first talked about bad things in the long run and now you say you live for the moment. How can there be a long run for you? When I say I don’t live in the future I don’t intend to say there isn’t a high probability that tomorrow will come after today. I meant that I make no plans, I postpone nothing that I can do right now for a future day that may or may not come. But the future may come. I’m 40 now, one day I may be 50. I don’t want to even conceive the idea of being alive at the age of 50 having my will entirely taken away from me. Call it simply precaution if you will. A dictator, as I said, can have his power taken from him at any given moment, he’s never really sure of himself, so he lives the life of a paranoid. I don’t want this life for me, not in the now, not ever. I want my life secured for this day and, if tomorrow comes, secured for tomorrow. This doesn’t change the fact that I live for today, that only today matters, even because, when tomorrow comes, it’s a new today.

We always think of a dictator or of a spoiled child when we think of a person fully exercising their will. But I would say both are irrational, the child for obvious reasons (immaturity, etc), the dictator for taking the idea of having power to its utmost consequences, not willing to consider the drawbacks of power. Both lack reason, which can lead us to feel all the positive sides of what the child and the despot feel without the undesirable side effects. But reason is a tool, as I said, and we can as well feel pleasure in abandoning it altogether, falling into the hands of some passion all too irrational, and doing that willingly, just to ascertain that we are more powerful, as an I, than reason itself. The good thing for me, however, is to always be in control, both of reason and of unreason, I want to use both things to counterbalance each other. I cannot do that either as a child or as a despot, because both fall prey to their own feelings, and for me feelings exist to be used and explored, never to be my masters.

Even leaving aside immaturity, pig-headed dictators, etc, I realize there’s a lot of things I can actually do in this world without being constrained to do this or that and without feeling I’m becoming a slave of my desires. I realize an effort I have to make- to try and limit the occasions to be conditioned to do so and so, the situations in which I will be forced to act this or that way, so that such occasions become so few I hardly take notice of them. I need the utmost degree of awareness I can get in this life. And I need it now- not in a hypothetical tomorrow. For instance, I’m writing this right now with 100% certainty of what I’m doing and of what I’m trying to say. Nobody is asking me or forcing me to do this. I’m only taking advantage of a present situation (to have a computer, to be in a place which allows concentration, etc), using it to produce a written expression of my ideas. I will never say that I did this, that I wrote this text, under constraint, that I was not 100% aware of what I was doing. This would be a blatant lie. It’s this kind of awareness I’m speaking of, the kind that doesn’t allow you to have any doubt in proudly proclaiming you know what you are doing.

Needless to say, I need my own kind of discipline. Not for the future where I’ll be older, more experienced, etc, but for this right moment, I need some discipline to exercise my will right now. I do not take others into account, it’s not fear of them, its fear for me that leads me to want this discipline. I know quite well that a man is, before anything else, an animal. I am an animal too. I know my instincts, I know I can fall prey to them. Again, not hypothetically, as the animal in me is all too real. I can easily picture myself acting in a way to make my rational self cringe for days. But as I’m easily embarassed, my discipline serves exactly to point me situations in which I would be ashamed of myself, or would be willing to do things that would be a source of mental torture later.

What I like about this world of today, so maligned by so many on the internet, is that it allows me a kind of solitude that would be unthinkable in times past. As there are little to no social obligations for a man nowadays he can’t avoid, contrary to what happened in the past, and I can actually choose whatever occasion to socialize I may want in life, if I want any. Also, what I like about my (financial) situation of today is that I can live a life of my own, satisfy all my basic needs, and enjoy a lot of leisure time doing precisely what I want (or nothing at all). This would not be possible if I lived in a time where the life of a man was determined by warfare. So, I’m not an ungrateful youth anymore in two senses, both physically, as I turned 40, and emotionally, for I will not spend my days complaining how great things were in the past or how great they would be ā€œif onlyā€¦ā€ I accept life as it is right now, both for the world and for me. I am an egoist. The world has a lot for me right now, I don’t spend my time complaining about it, as it’s highly counterproductive.

This is coming to an end.

I am glad for being able, today, to proudly ascertain I am an egoist, to boldly declare I only care for others as long as they are useful to me in some way, as in other times I would feel constrained to feign a social or religious commitment totally alien to my will. I recognize the existence of others and I realize their existence is a natural limitation to myself that is quite desirable, since, without that, unbridled will would soon lead me to exhaustion. I want to feel satisfied, I want a satisfactory life, I don’t want to go to bed every night lamenting another wasted day. Also, I don’t want to feel I acted today exactly as I didn’t want to, ie, I don’t want to be constrained, to act compulsorily, at least not 99% of the time. And reason tells me I get to behave exactly as I want, I manage to have exactly what I want and need, I somehow came to the point where everything is decently balanced- I don’t have too much, I don’t have too little, I don’t act arbitrarily, I’m not a clown following the masses. In other words, I don’t feel ashamed of myself and don’t spend half my time blaming myself for being incapable, for acting as a coward, etc. As things were not always so, I fear they may not be so forever, but this fear doesn’t dominate me, as my concentration on the present moment prevents me from indulging in too much conjecture.

So, if you asked me what I want, I would give you an answer that would be contrary to what 99% of the ever-dissatisfied crowd on the internet would have to tell you, and would sardonically say:

What I want is exactly what I have right now.

2 Likes

Hello iMaxx. Am I to understand that you are teaching me to treat you in the same way that you treat me, or to treat myself in the same way that you treat yourself? I’m having a little confusion, because we are both ego.

Well said, nice summary of the concept and of its phenomenological necessity (on this level) as well as to how that necessity is often erroneously violated.

Here we may disagree (I am not done reading your essay yet), because I will claim that reason is not or at least OUGHT NOT to be subject to your own volition, rather it OUGHT to be subject to the truth, to reality. That is the point of reason and why REASON and REALITY share a common linguistic root. Granted way back that root was more focused on the human power of thinking and not really a respect for the truth as such, but still.

Reason exists to separate truth from error, often within the space of a presiding values-consideration. ā€œWhat should I eat for breakfast?ā€ ā€œWhat is that big thing coming at me from the tracks down there, should I move out of the way?ā€ ā€œShould I put this sharp rock in my mouth and try to swallow it?ā€ Stuff like that. These situations and most everyday situations we encounter, often operating on rote instincts and repetition based on patters in our memory, really come down to reasoned calculations within the space of a value. The value is key, and reason while not being a slave to the value itself (always being a slave to the truth, instead) operated with regard to the value(s) determining its goals. The difference here would be like saying:

A. ā€œI want to eat something that is good for me, or at least won’t kill me. Therefore (I reason) trying to eat this sharp rock might be a bad idea because the combination of ā€œsharpā€ and ā€œrockā€ don’t seem to comport with what I already know of as to the meaning of ā€œwhat is edibleā€ or ā€œwhat is safe to try and eatā€.ā€ <— here reason is giving conclusions based on truth (identifying true aspects of parts of reality) for the sake of confirming or disconfirming a possible action. The confirmation or disconfirmation of the possible action in question is the values side of things, but the actual calculation itself is rooted in the attempt to correctly discern truth from false, to see reality accurately rather than inaccurately.

B. ā€œI hate my life, fuck this, I am going to put this gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. Goodbye cruel world. BAM.ā€ <— here reason can correctly discern that the possible action of putting a gun in one’s mouth and firing it will result in one’s own death. The presiding value here is of dissatisfaction with life and a desire to no longer exist. In that case, reason still performs its calculations correctly AND without regard to the final outcome. If the value were shifted in this situation, right at the moment just before the gun is fired the person’s presiding values in the situation changed, ā€œOh what am I doing, I can’t do this, I should liveā€ or whatever, and then they do NOT fire the gun. Either way, reason did its job AND reason was NOT subjected to the person’s volition. What was subjected to personal volition (it could be argued) were the presiding values of the moment. Reason itself, did its calculations not with any regard to personal volition or values or desires or ego, but simply was there to figure out what is true and what is not true–to ascertain aspects of reality accurately rather than inaccurately. (Although with regard to the claim I just made that the person’s presiding values were subjected to the person’s volition, in fact I would tend to argue the inverse and that it is our values that tend to subject our volition. ā€œWillā€ being relatively free as it is, in the ways it is (and not being free in the ways it isn’t) acts according to INTENT, as ā€œwillingā€ is just another word for intending, unless one wants to sully the concept of will by equating it with mere desiring, whereas what we intend to do or what we will to be must always occur as a consequence of our values in that particular space, whether or not we are actually aware of this or even of what those values are.

Therefore I would amend your list to the following:

a) get rid of reason altogether or

b) teach it who is the real master of whom (risking mere subjectivism, solipsism and error)

c) learn to reason better

I believe you should distinguish this better. Will and wanting are not the same thing. Will is much closer to intent, actually intending to do something. If I WILL IT then I am actually set on making it true, i.e. I really do intend to do whatever it is that would bring the result about. What we want or desire is far more fantastical and abstract, disconnected from the ego. I might see a commercial and now I want a coke, so what? That is just psychological trickery but it results in a real desire. I might want something for more firm reasons, like a better job. That is great, a sound desire to have. And what does it mean if I take no actions to achieve it? That would mean I did not actually will it, merely desired it.

Free will is a concept that attempts to capture certain aspects of how our self-consciousness works. Desires, decisions, willing, these all play their part AND always occur within a context of greater and lesser causal pressures and reasons. Nothing ever happens for NO reason at all, that is the principle of sufficient reason applied here. Therefore, our self/ego/will/mind whatever you wish to call it or think about its nature, is indeed one of those causes and pressures, one of the reasons we do, say and think what we do, say and think. ā€œWeā€ as an individual are able to trace back and condition these things to a more central, core part of ourselves that appears as the individual Self, what we really are ā€˜on the inside’.

All that is true, AND it is also true that this Self and everything it causes to occur, happen for reasons. The chain of reasons does not end at the Self. It continues through and beyond the self into the world around us, into the external more objective reality, and into truth itself. ā€œI desire food, therefore I will myself to some food and I intend to get some food, so my body moves around in space and time eventually arranging a situation in which my hand is putting food in my mouth.ā€ Why did that entire sequence of events occur? Because we are such and such types of beings that must consume certain kinds of substances every now and then in order to continue surviving, AND because of this fact (for whatever reason but most likely because of natural selection in the past) our bodies generate feelings and internal pressures causing us to feel hungry if a sufficient amount of time has passed since consuming nutritive substances. This feeling of hunger grows stronger until it is sated (ketosis and the stages of dying from starvation aside here). At some point our Self experiences the desire for food strongly enough that this generates intention, will, which animates the body in space and time to reconfigure the world around us in such a way so that ultimately there is food going into our mouth. So what is the point here? The point is that we cannot simply say ā€œmy Self caused thisā€ or ā€œthe chain of events happened because of my Self, which was the free will and deciding factor aloneā€. No, the Self only exists as it exists because of many other reasons and factor BEYOND and PRIOR TO the self. Tracing reasons backward to their truer sources always inevitably leaves the Self and moves somewhere into more objective reality beyond and prior to that Self, and upward into the truth as such, facts, logical necessity, etc.

So, ā€œthere’s no difference wheter my every act is determined or I have free will to a greater or a lesser degree.ā€ …there is actually a meaningful difference here. And to help clarify that and what I wrote above it is important to see ā€˜free will’ in the right way: the will (or Self, ego, whatever, also desire if you prefer) has available to it certain ranges and degrees of freedom with respect to the limitations that exist upon it. Knowledge can expand the degrees of freedom available to us, so can greater perception, so can a properly functioning and applied process of reasoning. We as a free will exist within the space of these possible degrees of freedom available to us in every given situation and context as these degrees of freedom do truly obtain in those situations and contexts and for the reasons why and how that happens to be the case. Outside of that space, we are not free. The will or the Self, the mind, can imagine all sorts of things in its own fantasy and abstraction of internal thought, and obtain great degrees of freedom here that do not exist in the outside world, as you were also writing about in this essay. In that sense the will/Self CAN indeed become a ā€˜Free Will’ in its own mind, disconnected from what is actually possible in the world outside of us. And that is also a huge part of what it means to say that we have free will. But this is not ontological or metaphysical, this is merely speaking to the more psychological nature of how the inner thoughts and mind are free to imagine via processes of conceptual and sensory addition, subtraction and combination outside the bounds of being subject to the natural limits and constraints of the real world outside us. So categorically there are two separate issues here, which should be distinguished if we want to tackle this issue more properly.

Yes, and as I have said before this is a particular form of fallacy, one that I identified and put into a list of new fallacies I think I have discovered. That topic is somewhere in this forum. Here this one goes something like, ā€œThe mere fact that a thing has reasons for being what it is does not belie or refute that thing itself.ā€ I see people making this error all the time. In order to try and refute something, they just start pointing to the underlying causes and reasons why it exists. Well, so what? You still need to explain HOW that amounts to any kind of refutation. Which is usually not forthcoming.

That’s all fine and good, as long as you acknowledge that determinism is the case (because its opposite, claiming that things occur for literally NO REASON AT ALL, is logically absurd). You are of course free to dismiss and ignore any practical meaning or value to the fact of determinism when it comes to your own life. Just don’t make the mistake of claiming that determinism is not ultimately the case behind the scenes (it doesn’t seem like you are making that mistake here, which is good. I am only giving a reminder here for purposes of context in this discussion. Now we can move on from all that determinism stuff).

I would push back against this. I have been in such a state, achieved once through deep meditation. The state lasted only a few minutes. I can tell you though, despite that given more time I am likely to have habituated better to this state of being, that it is not very desirable or pleasant at all. Imagine: your will, your Self/mind, is absolutely free and occupies the entire space of itself and for itself only. You exist as a PURE AWARENESS inside a bubble in your mind, inside that bubble is you, the absolute Will and pure awareness-as-such; outside on the surface of that bubble are thoughts you are having, feelings you are having. These are impacting softly upon the surface of the bubble and you can see them, physically-sensorily see and apprehend them clearly. Your free WILL is absolute and only YOU are deciding FOR YOURSELF ALONE which thoughts or feelings you CHOOSE to look at. Likewise, your body is completely immobile, a robot with no power. It does not move. Only when you WILL the body to move, does it immediately move according to your will. None of those little unconscious ticks or catching yourself scratching your ear when you didn’t realize you were doing it, none of that exists any longer. The body is a perfect obedient robot and does nothing without your express will, but the instant you will it then it responds perfectly. You are basically a floating disembodied pure mind in a vacuum, a bubble beyond which is the outside world including your own thoughts and feelings and perceptions.

I can tell you, the experience wasn’t very pleasant. In fact I found it pretty terrifying. But sure, you might like existing forever in a state like that, I don’t know. Apparently there are people out there who do exist like that all the time, having broken through the so-called natural somnambulist state we are all always existing within even when awake. Meh. For myself, I’d prefer to remain as I currently am. Will and thought and feeling and memory and desire and perception and proprioception and all of that bundled together into a single largely coherent experience. Whether and to what degree this remains in a kind of natural unconscious somnambulism, is acceptable to me as long as that remains within certain bounds.

Yes, I believe Aristotle was the one who said more or less that men who seek power over others do so because they lack power over themselves. In the reverse, we can understand that once we achieve power over ourselves, we have no need or desire to seek power over others. Spoiled children and hedonistic narcissistic ā€˜adults’ are clearly lacking power over themselves, giving into every fleeting pressure and desire and not thinking or understanding, knowing, the greater truths behind these things, often even being unaware of the likely consequences of trying to sate their plethora of neverending desires. For as one desire is satisfied, it immediately ceases and another takes its place. Desire is funny like that, people often act largely in terms of what they desire, what they want and how they feel, only when they actually get what they thought they wanted it turns out they aren’t satisfied like they thought they would be. That is because they psychologically confuse the pleasure power of desire-as-such with the actual pleasure-reward of having something they (thought they) wanted. The thing itself, the achieved reward, is not being analyzed beforehand for its own sake and what pleasure and purpose and meaning and value it actually is worth, rather it is being used as a sacrificial object, a shiny beacon to lure desire further and further up into the salient parts of our self-experience so that we might enjoy, temporarily, the pleasurable feeling of desiring something. Sexual desire and sexual pleasure is a good example of how this works too.

I’m going to stop here because your essay is very long and I think it would be too much to respond to all of it at once. But I will finish reading it some other time and respond then. Feel free to bring in anything I didn’t yet respond to what you think is relevant to what I wrote so far here. Including and especially if you think I am mistaken about anything.

ā€œā€¦thou dost speak too much, youngling! remember that time is of the essence! most especially for a self-proclaimed egoist who favors the enjoyment of life above everything else! so learn to be a little more concise and thou willst rip the most delicious fruit from this tree of knowledge thou hast just encountered!ā€

Are you talking to me? You’re the one who wrote a 10 page OP here. It’s so long I can’t even get through it with proper responses in a single sitting.

Ah, yes… skipping right to the end. I am beginning to see why you ignored everything I wrote, and why I have seemingly wasted my time writing you so many honest responses.

How utterly ā€˜bold’ of you indeed, to openly declare yourself just another common anti-philosophical turd with no concern or care for anyone but himself.

Cheers then. You have never even begun to philosophize, and from what I can tell never will. But please keep writing 10-page essays and mocking the people who take the time to carefully reply to them. You’re a really great guy, you know that?

Oh should I have put that in quotes, so it somehow absolves itself of meaning? Maybe a little italics would help allay the fucking terror in my soul. …naw. We got no terrors, do we brotha? We be chillin, rapin and killin in the name of USEFUL TO ME, the grand new philosophy for the grand new amazing brand new ILPstyle PhiLoZsOfUrSs oF tEh EgOo.

Interpret any or all of that as creative writing if you want, so conforms to this forum’s purpose. But either way, kindly fuck the fuck off.

(…)

ā€œhighly emotional, aren’t we?ā€

"of course you [insert ILP approved insult here]! took me so much time to answer, brilliantly btw, your asininely long OP and you have the guts to ignore me!

ā€œpray tell me, youngling, when did I ignore you? did you read the last entry of mine in this here discussion? I said ā€˜time is of the essence’. that means, put simply, that I don’t necessarily always have the time to offer long responses to people, because I have many other things to mind. that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t eventually answer you, whatever the worth your long-winded musings might have.ā€

ā€œwhatever, you write a 10 page turd which can be summed up in one single sentence, ā€˜do whatever you want’, your philosophy is meaningless [so the Gods have decreed], let’s go raping some 12 yo, what’s the meaning of everything, etc, etc, you [insert another insult here], you [babbles for more ten straight lines]ā€¦ā€

"first, this ā€˜turd’ was inserted in the ā€˜Creative Writing’ category because, I figured, it’s a place suited for me to post pieces of writings of my own. if I intended it to be a broad discussion on my philosophy of life I’d have posted it elsewhere.

second, I never challenged you for a debate. I simply suggested you COULD read this here text if you WANTED to understand my stance on life. your conclusions about it are all your own. and your outbursts don’t concern me, like, at all."

ā€œyeah, yeah, but a philosopher you ain’t, this I tell you!ā€

"again, did I ask you what the hell a philosopher is or should be? and did I promise you I’d submit myself to your idea of a philosopher?

but all in all, completely wrong you aren’t. I’m NOT a philosopher. I’m a homo liber. a free man. do you have the slightest shadow of an idea of what that would be? simply put, a homo liber doesn’t need your labels. he’s the center of his own universe. but this is the subject of another text I intend to post here. fare thee well."

(The dialogue ended here. I have tried to trace other fragments of this conversation, but futilely.)