Okay, choose a context, engage me in a discussion, and note specifically how this is true.
So maybe it might be better if you stopped interacting with me. No hard feelings from my end if you do.
News for you : I’m not the only one who is pissed off by that sort of stuff.
News for you: no one is required to read anything that I post here.
Then this part. The part regarding how and why, in my view, others – the objectivists in particular – react to me as they do:
I’ve narrowed it down to three possible reasons:
1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes “fractured and fragmented”.
Would you want to believe this is a reasonable way to look at the “human condition”?
Okay, let’s focus in on a context of your choice relating to the main components of Buddhism. Then as the exchange unfolds you can note specific instances of me doing this.
You’re going to deny that you make general statements about objectivists and religious people?
You’re going to deny that you just had a problem with me making general statements about Nazis, etc?
You’re going to deny being hypocritical in this instance?
In other words [yawn] everything but the actual context.