Trust me: no one is more interested in knowing this than I am.
Here I will be the context. And Mags, Pedro and others, using every tool of philosophy at their disposal, will reconfigure all the fragments derived from “I” rooted in dasein, into the Real Me.
Maybe even capturing my [b]soul[/b] itself.
Me? Well, to date, the closest I have gotten to it myself is 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
Also, this being the philosophy board no Kids please.
Your whole M.O. has changed in recent months, and you constantly attacking Phon is odd IMO,
and others here too have been dropping the odd odd-slur her way, which isn’t cool either, IMO.
It’s the kind of thing females would do/do, and you are coming across as bitter about something,
but I’d rather not speculate what that is… though I have thought about the what it might be.
Sort of. But it’s not as if the gaps looking for are not obvious MO to find cohesive evidence. deductively or inductivelly, to firm an objective opinion.
It’s a game, repeated effort to hold at bay the mid 19thcentury ethos the overcoming of the gathering evidence of the approach of that objective.
There are those , and I am among them indicating as such, that that idiom has passed, and holders on have to pay an enormous price which can not ever surge the will to sow up the fractures.
On the contrary, I have made it quite clear that I have an enormous respect for both her intelligence and her wit.
I would merely like to explore with her the extent to which her frame of mind in regard to moral and political value judgments is at odds with my own given the arguments I make in my signature threads.
In other words “I” at the existential juncture of identity, conflicting goods and political economy. To what extent is she or is she not just a chip off the Satyrean objectivist block.
And if she were to engage in an exchange with me on the philosophy board, I can ensure you that it will not be me that reconfigures it into little more than huffing and puffing.
From the little I know of Socrates, you have a point - always asking unanswerable questions.
The difference being that Socrates asked MANY DIFFERENT INTERESTING questions - not merely already understood ambiguous contraptions used to derail a discussion into ad hom fetishes.
I have already made the attempt to explore who, what and why obsrvr524 and his objectivist ilk “actually are” here.
For example on this thread:
In other words, I am less interested in what these objectivist sorts claim to believe “in their head” in regard to their moral and political value judgments, and more fascinated instead with how their lives unfolded existentially to predispose them to embrace one set of political prejudices rather than another.
In fact, I dare him to go there in exploring the extent to which any of us can grasp who we “actually are”.