What, because someone provides me with an answer. that settles it?.
.
No, but it has been answered and you never countered it. In other words you as a rhetorical question which is a statement. But it has been responded to before, and you never bothered to refute or try to that answer. But you continue to assert it anyway. IOW you act as if what you said has been determined to be true. You appealed to incredulity. That appeal to incredulity has been answered before. And you never even try to refute it. So I said ‘that has been answered’. This is a common pattern of yours. Just like when you accuse people of not giving concrete examples, when they have. There are many other examples of this behavior.
In this specific case you act like what you quoted had to do with racism and priviledge…
No, what happens here at ILP is that we react to the answers that others give us. Some will seem more reasonable/sensible than others. But when it comes to conflicting value judgments revolving around things like race and privilege, my suggestion is that the answers we all give are derived more from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein than in anything that philosophers have been providing us now for thousands of years.
That issue, the one you quoted above, that I responded to with ‘it has been answered’ has nothing to do with race and priviledge.
This kind of not responding is part of why you find people attacking you. You waste people’s time.
You actually quoted it. You actually quoted your own writing and my response, and then you go off on a tangent as if what you are writing about is relevent.
I responded to a specific assertion you made in the form of a rhetorical question.
Then you continue not responding with…
Given the gap between what “I” think I know about all of this and all that can be known about it going back to a complete understanding of existence itself, what does it even mean to speak of a logical or an illogical fear?
But that is precisely what you did and which I pointed out. You were saying it would make no sense for someone to take on the beliefs you have about the meaninglessness of life, etc. since they are unpleasant and lead to fractureness and fragmentedness. And I responded there and in earlier posts that people do take on unpleasant beliefs with regularity despite them being unpleasant, often to avoid something. You made an assertion in a rhetorical question that people (why would someone etc…) take on an unpleasant belief. That is you assuming in a rhetorical question that no one would.
You did it. Ask yourself why, not me. It may very well not fit with your philosophy. But you did it. People contradict themselves. You can’t deny saying something by saying ‘but I believe X’
You’re a waste of a interlocuter. Done. You’re no better than Ecmandu.
A couple of solipsists. Him functionally, you it seems literally.
You’ve started early on oblivion