Ah, I forgot. You are never in a context or part of one for others. Your words and actions and choices are never part of a context. You have transcended. Me, I foolishly thought you were alive and making the choice to seek answers via repeating certain abstract demands for proofs of objective morals online with strangers. Making this choice and not others, and then presenting any other choice as implicitly foolish. I even thought presenting evidence of this objectivist position by quoting you and then also referring to what seemed fairly undeniable - your process here online - were part of one person’s context, yours, and how it played out concretely in this thread, for example. How in this context we have a person choosing one way to get knowledge over others and claiming that this process is a must and one that holds for ‘we’. Silly me.
There’s the various Buddhisms, where one generally engages, and investing quite a bit of time, in mediation and sometimes contemplation and service type activities and often intentionally reduces the amount of abstract thinking and striving with thinking in general. IOW…that approach.
Then there’s - oh, I laugh at my naivte - what I pointed out as your approach - posting on line with the request that people produce a proof that one choice is better than all others such that all rational people should choose to follow it.
There are of course many other possible choices IN THIS CONTEXT.
But I was pointing out that in this case (read:context) a real live person, you, is choosing to engage in an activity that has NOT BEEN demonstrated to be the right one for all people. Pointing out that, in this context, you are doing precisely NOT what you say we must do.
Despite this, this person asserts that
But he, this specific individual, you does not wait for HIS CHOICE to be so confirmed and engages in the practices of his path anyway. Oddly ignoring his ‘must’. He engages in his part, one of many, despite not having demonstrated to everyone it is the only rational one.
That’s a context. Instead of disagreeing with my description of the context or dealing with any points made…
you, as usual, repeat something you’ve said before, that does not apply, as if it does apply.
But you know why people get irritated with you. It has nothing to do with your behavior as a discussion partner.
And who the fuck is this ‘we’?
Objectivism again. You want some other kind of context. You want. Not we’ll need.
What to focus on? That there was a clear context and your response is idiotic?
Or the objectivism in your idiotic response.
Or perhaps it was you being ‘wry’ as an evasion.