You’re basically agreeing with me but just wording it differently so that it seems like you aren’t.
Well, if you’re going to deny it’s the dogmatists you’re really pushing against, then you’re essentially generalizing to all objectivists, which makes you a hypocrite in regards to the either/or world.
Maybe you need to.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe when it gets to the point where it’s more productive to troll you than to take you seriously.
Oh God, now we have to worry about that? 
Sure! You want to be right, don’t you? To win the debate? You want to look smarter than me, don’t you? To the many onlookers reading this thread? You want to impress Maia, don’t you? You want to convince me of your point of view, don’t you? Spread your doctrine to as many listeners as you can? Don’t kid yourself, that’s seeking power. It’s just fortunate that the search for truth sometimes coincides with the search for power, and we can sometimes share in greater power when we cooperate together to find the truth than to battle each other for power kept all for ourselves. But I don’t know if you’ll ever know the former since you’ve grown so accustomed to being a contrarian and a leftist that you probably don’t know any other world.
Now I don’t even know what question you think you’re answering, so I’ll bring it back into perspective. The question was: how do you expect people to rise to your challenge–to give you a demonstration of their beliefs that all people must agree with if they are to be seen as rational and virtuous–when the only way to do that is to give you intellectual contraptions, the very things you invariably dismiss because they’re intellectual contraptions? ← Think you can keep focused on that for just one post?
Ok, existential trajectories and past experiences instead of intellectual contraptions. Is it possible to meet your challenge with existential trajectories and past experiences? What does that even mean? What would an example of that be?
The brute fact that I have certain emotions? Geez, what a radical claim I must be making. I mean, who could ever introspect to find–gasp–emotions in their own head!
But seriously, I’m starting to see this kind of venting from you more and more… almost as if you’re getting comfortable telling us what you really think–what you think of the pinhead objectivist dogmatists–as though bitching about them is what you really want to do here, and there’s becoming exceedingly less holding you back. I just wonder if there’ll ever come a day when you look in the mirror and see exactly that which you’ve been bitching about.
Ok, let’s pause on this, because this is not a proper response. I already told you I don’t get what this would prove (to you or to me). Which means that I’m left still saying that I support the truckers but supporting them falls short of saying I believe they’re morally right. All I get out of imagining saying this to the truckers is that it would sound weird–and it does! Even to me!–but I know what I mean by it and I stand by it. Do we need to go in depth about what I mean by this? Do you understand what I mean by this (other than your own concocted interpretation that I have an “emotional self” that transcends dasein)? Or does the prospect of inquiring about this scare you too much? Does the prospect of exploring a point of view or a mind set different from your own mean having to leave your cognitive comfort zone, that narrow mental sanctuary you built for yourself to preserve your comfort and consolation?
Note to others…
Don’t you just love how this drives Biggy crazy. He just can’t stand that people can feel the way they do without having a reason. Without knowing why. They can know how they feel. They can introspect and see it. They can admit how they feel. They can do so without hesitation. And they can accept how they feel. And there’s nothing he can do about it. It infuriates him to the point of insanity. I can even say literally. Look at the delusions he has to come up with to convince himself it’s nonsense:
I picture Biggy stomping his feet and waving his fist in the air as he bellows out this temper tantrum. 
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, I’m not saying I have no free will, I’m just saying this is true about what stirs my emotions. ← That seems to be on auto-pilot. Now what I do in response to these emotions is, of course, my choice. I could suppress them. Deny them. I could let them run wild with my thoughts (but I think that’s the path to pinhead-town). I could just sorta let them pass through my mind. Or I could let them govern my actions, or my decisions on what actions to take.
While the trucker protest was in full sway here in Canada, I chose the latter. I even went to a pro-trucker meeting to see how I could help. But alas, the protest was soon squashed and died a quick death, so that was the end of one of the rare occasions in my life when I almost became politically active.
Another thing I could do with my emotions is allow them to drive the construction of arguments and philosophies about why it’s morally right to support the truckers and why the Trudeau government are the “bad guys”… but I never really did that, not in earnest. ← I think this is what you’re expecting people to do when they feel a certain way (emotionally) about this or that contentious topic. I never did. I never committed myself to this anyway. Sure, I let my emotions push certain pro-truckers/anti-government thoughts into my head, but nothing I didn’t immediately second guess because I understood they were coming from a (very) fallible source (you call it dasein). So whatever pro-trucker/anti-government thoughts my emotions pushed into my mind, they kinda left my mind just as easily. Nothing really “stuck”.
Still, I think I have to say my “position” on the trucker protest is pro-trucker because I think a “position” can still be grounded in emotion, not always intellectual/philosophical thought. And so long as my emotions are “automatically” pro-trucker (on auto-pilot as it were) so is my position.
This is good, Biggy. This is progress. You made the right move by isolating the should. I know this makes my point seem mystical to you, but stay with the mystery for a bit. Don’t run from it and hide behind the protective wall of your invented interpretations. Stay with it and let’s mull over it a bit so that slowly, eventually, with your best listening cap on, we can (hopefully) make it less mysterious.
Actually, we don’t. Not as much as you’d like to think. You just look for the differences so that you don’t have to agree with me, and then those differences become important.
Then admit it. Admit there is a part of yourself that wishes not to understand.
YES!!! Exactly! 
Beats me. All I know is that the emotions we carry with us are pretty powerful determining forces. Whether that makes it “full blown” determinism depends on what you mean by that. Do you mean the entire universe is fully, exhaustively deterministic? Or just our lives? Just our emotions? I certainly don’t think that the fact of our having emotions, even if we can’t help it, rules out free will.
Yes, Biggy, please! Pretty, pretty please with whipped cream and a cherry on top! Because that’s all I ever meant to say. I have nothing to say about what exists in your is/ought world.
What boggles my mind is why this should boggle your mind–you know, since you of all people should understand what implications dasein has for the is/ought world–that nothing really definitive can be said therein
A couple things…
-
You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You’re trying to say we’re governed by forces we don’t understand and can’t control and yet we have full control over our attitudes and what we believe–over a time span no less of (what?) 5 years? 10 years? Even if I sincerely intended right here and now to change my attitude about the truckers (going from pro-trucker to anti-trucker), it likely wouldn’t be long (maybe a week) before I changed my mind or gave up on the prospect. Why? Because of psychological and social forces outside my control. If it were true that we have full control over our attitudes and beliefs such that we could change them over a certain period of time, you’d have a way out of your dilemma. All you’d have to do to pull yourself out of your hole is adopt a different attitude and set of beliefs. But instead, you’re waiting for someone to come along and pull you out, to change your attitude and beliefs (despite all your efforts to the contrary)–IOW, you’re waiting for some external force to do it for you.
-
You’re not asking me what my emotional state towards the truckers will be in 5 years, 10 years, however long–given the assumption that I will willingly change my attitude and beliefs in regards to them–you’re asking what it is now; and right now, I am pro-trucker in my feelings. And that’s not something I can turn on and off at will like a light switch.
Because you’re still seeking emotional gratification.
So tell me… do you equate coming from dasein with being unreal or untrue? As in, I have an opinion, but since it comes from dasein it must be wrong. Or I intuit X, but since intuition is a product of dasein no less than anything else in our heads, my intuition must be false. ← Do you agree with these statements?
You see? You can’t accept agreement, can you? You were born for conflict!
Sure, I could go with “robotic”, but it all depends on the nuances in the meaning you attach to that word.
The fact that you would ask this puts you on the cusp of insanity. One small step over the line and you’ll be consumed by madness. How do you bridge the gap between brute facts that are “just there” with everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya in a blissful state of joy and comradery? Oh yeah, the leaps and bounds you make know no limits.
Pay attention Biggy, it’s really this simple: emotions can be “just there” in one’s head while another harbors opposite emotions, equally “just there”, and they can still go to war with each other. How does this self-evident fact escape you? It’s not rocket science. It’s like you’re no longer debating a person but reality itself. It’s like you want to fight “brute facts” now. Like if I say “It’s just a brute fact that when I look at the sky, I see blue,” you want to fight that tooth and nail? Like it can’t possibly be true! Like you just can’t accept that there’s something about a person’s state of mind that you can’t poke holes in, that you can’t undermine, and it drives you crazy.
Ah, good ol’ Charlie and Donald. Those guys… uh… who are they?
And since when have you ever granted that excuse to anyone else? You never have! And so I don’t grant it to you. And I’ve already told you that so you can quit with the “How many times do I have to point out blah, blah, blah…”–you can point it out 'til you’re blue in the face for all I care–I’ll still call you out on your hypocrisy.
Besides, I don’t really believe it anyway. You say you apply your philosophy to yourself, but then why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Show us an example of you applying your philosophy to yourself. Show us an example of when you have treated yourself the same way you treat others here. Why don’t you follow up your apparently prejudicial objectivists statements with the same responses you give everyone else? Why don’t you accuse yourself of having a “deep down inside [insert adjective here] Biggy” that “just knows” that your objectivist prejudices are true? Why don’t you undermine your own prejudicial objectivist statements with the demonstration challenge? Or why don’t you ask yourself to go argue your points to the truckers (or pro-life advocates, or second amendment advocates, or [insert your preferred group here]) and come back to us with the results? Why don’t you admit that you hold onto the prejudicial objectivist beliefs expressed by your statements because it brings you comfort and consolation? Why? I’ll tell you why… because you don’t really challenge yourself with the same arguments you challenge others with. You don’t really charge yourself with the same accusations. You don’t really apply your own philosophy to yourself. You just say you do because you know you’d be exposed as a hypocrite if you didn’t. And once you say it, you feel 100% comfortable and free to express whatever prejudice or objectivist statement you want, because in your mind, the narrative goes: “Well, I can always play the ‘I apply my own philosophy to myself’ card and get a free pass.” ← Well, not this time, bro. I don’t take that card.
And yet that’s not an acceptable answer for anyone else. Why should it be for you?
I have no idea how many times you’ve done this. But no excuses! You get drilled!
It entails that you think this gives you a free pass to express your prejudices all over ILP like a stumbling drunk pissing in a urinal. It’s like you think it’s a diplomatic immunity card–immunity from all the charges, challenges, and accusations you throw at others, even those who consistently admit their prejudices don’t rise above dasein and that they don’t think they are infallibly right and that everyone must think like them. We’ve all said this to you–over and over and over–I have, Maia has, Mags has, Magnus has–we’ve all done the same as you–admitted our prejudices and fallibility and applied your dasein philosophy to ourselves… yet you don’t accept that from a single one of us. You instead paint caricatures of us and insist that we think we’re like the pinheads, that we think we rise above dasein, that while the “bad guys”, the “wrong ones”, are victims of dasein, we are “special”, that our “Real Me” selves “just know” the truth and the right thing to do. You accuse us all of this despite our numerous attempts to convey that we don’t think like this–that we think much more like you–and yet, you don’t allow us to say that we apply your dasein argument to ourselves… so why should we allow you to say it?
Hey, if this makes me a pinhead, that speaks volumes about your pinhead status. All I’ve said here are the things you’ve said to others countless times. Seems to me like you can’t take the heat, can’t swallow your own medicine. Be demoralized all you want. You’re only exposing yourself as a hypocrite.
But not in my case, right? It’s not a problem if someone else’s self is kept intact because they anchor it to being a father, an artist, a software developer… but when I do this, it makes absolutely no sense to you… that about right?
And I answered that in turn:
…or did this fall into the “to be ignored” bucket.
Well, as I explained, it’s not connected, not in any direct meaningful way. Remember, you’re puzzled over a concept you invented. To a certain extent, it’s pointless to ask what connection my ‘I’ that’s anchored to being a father, an artist, a software developer… has to the Emotional Gib since the latter is a conjured up fabrication of your own making. You might as well ask me what my ‘I’ that’s anchored to being a father, an artist, a software developer… has to do with the tooth fairy. How would I even begin to answer that?
Now, clearly the tooth fairy is an exaggeration I’m using to make a point. Your Emotional Gib concept isn’t that bad, but it isn’t totally rooted in reality either. I’ve given you some slack with that concept to the extent that I do have these pro-trucker emotions and that these emotions drive me to do and say trucker-supporting things, but I never said this constitutes an inner emotional self. I don’t know why I would think of my trucker-supporting emotions as a kind of “self”–as though there were a whole other “me” inside me that could be contrasted with all the other “me’s”. It’s not a “me”–it’s just an emotional state that I tend to go into when the topic of the truckers comes up.
The whole point of bringing up the fact that I’m a father, an artist, a software developer, etc… was to explain to you that I anchor my self onto things other than my emotional reactions to the truckers, things other than my thoughts and opinions on the trucker protest. I was trying to explain, in other words, that if you want to understand how my ‘I’ remains intact, forget about my emotional reaction to the trucker!!! ← It’s not there. My ‘I’ is not to be found hanging around my emotional reaction to the truckers, as though trying to anchor itself there. By obsessing over my emotional reaction to the truckers, I’m saying, you invented a fabrication!!! And you continue to do so now. You continue to insist that my emotional reactions to the truckers is exactly where to look for my ‘I’, so you (unconsciously) invent this concept of an “emotional gib” that, in your mind, explains the “real me” self, a self that keeps itself intact by anchoring itself to my pro-trucker emotions. But the reality, the thing I’m trying to say, is that there’s nothing there except a few fleeting emotions.
So how else can I answer your question but by saying “there is no connection between my father, artist, software developer ‘self’ and this Emotional Gib self that you seem to have concocted”? I can’t answer a question about a link between something real and something imaginary. Just understand (if that’s possible) that all I’m trying to do is answer your question: How is your ‘I’ kept intact? And my extremely simple answer is: it stays intact because I don’t anchor it onto my emotional reaction to the truckers; it stays intact because I anchor it to something completely unrelated to my emotional reaction to the truckers, something a lot more certain and real (you know, being a father, an artist, a software developer, etc.).
Now, if you reply to this by still insisting that there’s a connection, then this is clearly a psychological need you have, not just a simple misunderstanding. It would show that you need there to be an Emotional Gib for me to anchor my ‘I’ to–you need to believe in this caricature of me in order to preserve your comfort and consolation in “knowing” that you’re right, that you’ve got it all figured out. I don’t buy this crap that you’re just trying to understand. It’s all clearly laid out above. It’s yours for the taking. But if you don’t take it, then there’s no possibility that you just want to understand. Instead, you want to preserve your fabricated world where I’ve got an Emotional Self, Maia’s got a Spiritual Self, Mags has got an Intrinsic Self… a fabricated world where everyone has a Self and only you are fractured and fragmented–because at least that means you’ve got it all figured out, that unlike the rest of us, you understand how the world really works–and that kind of comfort and consolation is more addictive than crystal meth.
Oh My God!!!
Yeah, Biggy, you gotta read it.
Like, for example… oh, I don’t know… Liz, Eric, and Uccisor? The one’s who I clearly mentioned at the link above as having profoundly altered my thinking and thus the course of my life? ← But why would that count as an example of what you’re asking for? Clearly, it’s the 16 year old girl who is of the utmost significance to this story.
Well, if your intact-ness has to go to war with my intact-ness, put up your dukes.
I like that Elon took over Twitter. And besides, who gave you the inside scoop on whether Elon is an objectivist?
Miraculously, I think you might finally be understanding what I’m saying. Though I wouldn’t say the thinking part of me is “under the heel” of the emotional part–as though the latter is keeping the former suppressed–rather it’s that the emotional part of me drives the thinking part–and in my better moments (when the thinking part takes control) I’m able to more rationally assess the emotional part of me (specifically, the thoughts it drives) as being more emotional rants intended to make me feel better–and so the thinking part (when it’s in control and is thus more able to be rational) doesn’t think much of those emotion driven thoughts. It also happens to be the part of me capable of recognizing the power of dasein over our lives–indeed, over my own life and the fact that I’m emotionally driven to support the truckers–to come up with irrational, emotionally driven, trucker supporting thoughts–and therefore sees very little ground to erect its own opinion about the trucker protest–whether it’s right or wrong, whether to be for the truckers or against them–which is why I don’t have much of a response to your accusations that I think my emotional self brings me above dasein. Clearly I don’t.
But I digress… the point is, you’re more right than you might realize–with the thinking part at the beck and call of my emotions (not under its heel per se, but at its whim)–it’s the emotions which are the real significant players, not the thoughts–except, of course, in my better moments when I put a concerted effort into taking charge with my thoughts and expending the effort to “think rationally”–but those are the moments when my thinking is aligned more with your thinking–more aware of dasein and its all-encompassing prowess over our lives–and it’s extremely difficult to get a political prejudice–for or against the truckers, for or against abortion, etc.–off the ground when you’re that aware of dasein.
It’s just as mysterious to me–almost as mysterious as how you can invent such a concept in your own head and accuse me of saying it.
If what we’ve seen of you here at ILP is “already diluted down”, I can’t imagine how extreme your prejudices were when in full sway. My point is, I don’t think they’re ever going away fully–not when the road you’re on is that of the nihilist–they just can’t be pushed that far.
How bout Star Trek: The Next Generation!
What trucker protestors do you think are reading this? And the fulminating fanatic objectivists? (Let’s just call them FFOs.) Yeah, I think the FFOs would understand and agree with me for the most part. They might disagree about my take on dasein (which is more aligned with your thinking whether you want to admit that or not) and they may not understand my brand of subjectivism, but for the majority of this thread, we haven’t been talking about my subjectivism. We haven’t even been talking about dasein–not in relation to the trucker protest or any other political/social issue. Our conversation has been a lot more meta. We’ve been talking about your psychology vs my psychology–and given that you’re the one with the mental disorder (weirdo) everyone here probably understands (and agrees with) my psychology far more than yours. Even if they take an opposing stance on the truckers, even if they disagree with our take on dasein, they can at least appreciate where I’m coming from far more readily than where you’re coming from–which, from what I can tell, is a truly bizarre and wildly aberrant mental state that I don’t think anybody understands.
Besides, whenever the topic of you comes up with other ILP members, I’ve had nothing but agreement from them.
Yeah, especially this part. I’m still unclear on exactly how you’ve misconstrued what I’ve said about the “brute facts” about my emotions, or how when I introspect “there they are”, or how feeling certain pro-trucker emotions gets translated into an “emotional self”–but the way I originally conveyed these concepts is a lot more down to Earth than your warped misconstruals. So would most people here understand them? Depends who they’re hearing it from. If from you, then they probably wouldn’t (I mean, I don’t even fully understand you). But if from me, I don’t see why not. After all, I’m not conveying some exotic mysterious mental state unique only to me–I’m conveying something that I think most people experience; I think most people, when they introspect to find whatever emotions are stirred in response to things in the media, things people say, events in politics, etc., they will find (well) those emotions. You know, “there they are!” They’ll probably also find that they have little control over the fact that those emotions are stirred. I don’t think they’d have any issue agreeing that those emotions being there are just a “brute fact”. All this regardless of which side they take on an issue. And as for their “emotional self”–well, that’s a construal you invented, so if they don’t understand that one, that’s on you.
Disagreement. There’s a difference between understanding one another and agreeing with one another.
Yes, Biggy, get over it! And who says I can’t pat them on the back and exclaim “I’m with you all the way politically!”? Who here is 100% sure of anything? I don’t feel guilty about driving my kids to school, but who knows–maybe the environmental radicalists are right! Maybe by driving my truck everywhere I’m committing the gravest of sins polluting the atmosphere and I should feel unredeemably guilty. But you know what? I don’t. You know why? Because I’m not mentally sick. If I had to feel guilty about every move I make, every thought I think, every emotion I feel, just because I can’t be 100% certain I’m right, then I would be stultified–maybe even fractured and fragmented–torn by life defeating indecision–on the one hand, if I drive my kids to school I might be polluting the environment, one the other, I’d be depriving my kids of an education–a mental disorder indeed.
If you’re not saying my emotions being rooted in dasein makes them wrong, what the hell are you saying?
A lot more than you think. I don’t know where you got this idea that “there it is” is mutually exclusive with “that’s how it got there”. All I said is that I can’t be 100% certain about how it got there, but I can be 99% certain. But regardless of how certain I am, “there it is” means just that–there they are, my emotions when I introspect. I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical and natural reason why they’re there, but to the extent I’m uncertain about that reason, I have to speculate (a huge part of it most certainly being my backstory I linked you to which you refuse to read even though you asked for it).
Yes, Biggy, that’s exactly right. You know, you really gotta stop doing this. You’re trying to make it sound ridiculous in an attempt to (I guess) hold a mirror up to me so that I can see how ridiculous I sound. But to your surprise, you consistently keep getting it right and I keep reinforcing it. It’s not gonna convince me of anything. You get it right because, as hyperbolic or sarcastic or patronizing or whatever it is you think you’re being, it’s only you who thinks it’s ridiculous. For the rest of us, it’s just common sense.
I realize your interpretation of this comes with a whole bunch of hidden assumptions (ex. the one I had to cross out… again) so no doubt that’s why it comes across as ridiculous to you. But hidden assumptions aside… yeah… I don’t know with 100% certainty how my pro-trucker feelings got there… and yeah, those on the other side don’t know either how their anti-trucker feelings got there (though no doubt there are those on either side who will say they know with 100% certainty)… and yeah, these emotions are “just there” for all of us, “brute facts” for all of us… if you could just get over this (what do you call it?) existential leap you make from the brute facts of our emotions to the moral positions you seem to think this irrevocably leads us to take, you wouldn’t have a problem. But you seem to be so oblivious to the fact that you take this leap that you probably can’t even process what I’m saying here.
The result of all this is that we’d go to war, not hold hands around the Canadian winter fire and eat poutine, drink Kokanee beer, and sing Kumbya.
If only you spoke such respectful words of everyone else.
Just bringing up someone’s sexuality is creepy and salacious.
You are so pretentious to say this. This is not all you request. It’s only the bait and switch, the trail of bread crumbs that leads people into your trap. Once there, you attempt to mock and destroy their values and beliefs until all they have left is a fractured, fragmented soul, one that has no choice but to hop in the hole with you–like you think you can beat people into being your friend. It’s like an injured person who wants to form a club of injured people, so he goes around looking for healthy people and “challenges” their health to see how much they can take, the result being obviously that most of them will fail the challenge, become injured, and be compelled to join your club–only most people recognize what you’re doing before it gets too bad and they either back off or they “challenge” you more violently than you challenge them.
Well, then your problem is not with how I answer the question: why yours and not someone else’s? It’s with how my ‘I’ remains intact such that I’m comfortable with my emotions. Only you erect a fabrication to explain why I feel so comfortable: it’s that there’s this “emotional gib” that thinks he’s above dasein. ← And this keeps you coming back to the question: why yours and not someone else’s? I urge you to not be so hasty when you desperately forage the recesses of your mind for an explanation of why I feel comfortable in my own skin in the midst of the trucker protest. I urge you, as uncomfortable as it might be, to sit with the mystery for a while, to sit with not knowing how I can feel so comfortable with my pro-trucker emotions–without falling back on your “emotional gib” theory–and have a talk with me. Try to get at the actual reason why I feel so comfortable and intact. If you find yourself still asking “why yours and not someone else’s?” then you know you’ve gone too far. If you find yourself asking “how do you feel so comfortable?” or “how do you keep your ‘I’ intact?” then you’re still with me.
Oddly enough, I’ve seen you screw up something as overtly distinct as that–which is why I think it’s a cognitive disorder rather than mere misreading or misinterpretation.
That’s a very cryptic answer (but what else is new). I guess you mean to say that, for example, all rational men and women can agree that we all take shits (you’d have to be pretty irrational to disagree with that). But when it comes to things like the moral rights and wrongs of something like the trucker protest, there is no end to the factions and divisions–no unanimous agreement among all rational men and women.
But I don’t know if this is the correct interpretation as it seems inconsistent with other things you’ve said. For one thing, it would seem to suggest that one cannot anchor one’s ‘I’ to things like being a father (we don’t have to go so far as to bring in taking a shit) since I see no reason why all rational men and women would disagree about one’s being a father. Yet elsewhere in this thread you agreed that “who wouldn’t be intact [in the case of things like being a father]?” ← So which is it? Have I got the interpretation right? Do you even remember the question?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo[/youtube]
Ah, you finally let the cat out of the bag. You’ve wanted to call me an objectivist for the longest time, haven’t you? Too bad I beat you to the punch. Remember? I called you out on several occasions for being a closet case objectivist tormented only by the fact that he can no longer seem to justify his objectivism. But that doesn’t mean you’ve given up objectivism. You call yourself a subjectivist, but you’re not a true subjectivist. A nihilist maybe, but nihilism can be a form of objectivism. And only an objectivist would be tormented by the fact that he can’t justify objectivism, by his clinging to objectivism despite his understanding of dasein pulling him away from objectivism. A subjectivist is not tormented by this–he lets go of objectivism–he embraces the letting go, he embraces dasein–it’s the whole point–but if you’re fractured and fragmented like you say, if that’s what pains you, it can only be because you haven’t let go of objectivism.
And thus you appear strong by comparison.
Terror comes with facing it. Otherwise, what’s so “uber” about it?
on this thread.
=D> 
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
