There are plenty of people who show philosophical competence who I don’t agree with. The fact that I don’t agree with you is not least because you don’t show neither philosophical competence nor competence at moderation, the agreement bit is irrelevant to me for the most part - it’s how you get there that counts. Philosophical argument isn’t just opinion and asking questions if we’re lucky, it’s far greater than that. “Dealing in real results” has obvious value since the real is an ultimate test of whether something is viable, but dealing only with what’s viable now doesn’t show any wisdom concerning what could be. Most people simply accept how things are and struggle with their lot in the terms they’ve ended up with, and others might get lost in what could be through a refusal of how things currently are - one of them was instrumental in you being rightly demoted. I try to explore the possibility of bringing the real and the potential together through innovative avenues that are backed by sufficiently strong logic, which I enjoy discussing. Your sentiment that the smart adjust to different worlds and backgrounds is hardly wrong, it reminds me of iambiguous, but the smart also have the ability to explore the potential beyond merely accepting current realities. Funnily enough, this ability would help you at moderating because you’d be more familiar and capable dealing with those from a different world and background.
“I doubt this advice will go anywhere, ego is a barrier for the unphilosophical.” Sillhluette said,
The philosopher’s concerns with ego are limited by differences which may not purport to distinguish effect.from intention. Or, such may be conflated and redirected elsewhere, not for the obvious reason of finding some more objective causal agency, but for finding a way out, of an existential contraption , too difficult to apprehend.
Such is sometimes the anomalie that political expediency has with basic defensive gestures.
Vanity, is a much less profound criticism of existence then pride or narcissism, the latter consisting of deceptions of mythically created reorganized fragments , most often resulting in a blow up of image.
Such blow up’s as expressed in hyperbolae become characteristic of referential connections of prior manifested senses of connections of the self with such objects, regardless of the state of criteria which determine it’s descriptive awareness and form.
Because it emerges from the higher and not the lower mediums of description, they appears as vague and unbalanced , but referentiality has partially descriptive functions: to reorganize it’s self in terms of a continuum of progressed general to specific and more real attributes.
The motive behind it is shrouded in uncertainty, the ego may be caught up in it in an intentional need to fabriquate or caricature an image so as to fit all occasions.
The Joker becomes wild because the only form befitting it is one to please, to entertain the thought , that interactive guesses, provocative images depend on the intentional disunity, with life projects, ambitions , that are of mixed, creating a notion of displacement and bad faith.
I think Your analysis is apt, but misses it’s mark by not signifying more aptly the two variants between the profound and the apprehensive.
Existential vanity, is not separate from mere ego ridden narcissism, and may not be derivable to the lower levels of unconscious motivation.Disagreement may not harbor any other motive then trying to find the way into, and not out of the enigma of existence.
After carefully looking for the difference, according to some sources , vanity consisted in a simple admonition of appearance, a surface preoccupation with appearances, with no other intention then gaining satisfaction in one’s appearance, without intentions.
Narcissism harbors bad intent, such as harming of others at their expense, thereby gaining satisfaction and self worth. It is much more a deeply underlying functional malaise.