Lord J, why do you persist in illogical argument? All you are ever doing is an ad hominem sort of thing, and that's a logical fallicy, a rhetorical technique, not logic. It's always 'Krispin is this' and 'Krispin is that'... you sound like one of those bloody demagogues. All I said was a 'what if' and you shoot it down with your typical, dogmatic, bluster of rhetoric. And yes, now I'm getting ad hominem. You think you are greatly concerned with 'ideas' when, in fact, you've fooled yourself: all you are concerned about is beating the people who think wrong things. Because that's all your arguments ever devolve into. Indeed, though you argue with great passion, I've yet to see much of a cogent argument from you. Take in point that when I read Nietzsche I find him an excellent questioner and arguer, though he says many of the same things as you. You, in contrast, are not. Fire but no substance. Look how many times you say 'you' and 'he'... you are more concerned with defeating the individual than the idea; more concerned with how you are represented before people than the validity of your beliefs. And are we really to take seriously your appeal to the mood of 'freedom'... ie. that you start this 'well I preach freedom; THEY preach chains' as a method of winning over your audience? That'll catch the rabble, but no one of discerning thought. And if you win the mass, then you've become a preacher of your own dogma, haven't you?
If you want to be anything near to a philosopher - and you're not - what you must do is stop hating the people - especially those that disagree with you! - and actually, for once, have something that approximates an open mind. You have to stop, at every point, saying 'this is why this group is stupid' and 'this is why this individual deludes himself', speaking always against not the ideas but against the people. That, Lord J, is not the method of a philosopher, but the rhetortician, whose case is not truth, but to make the weak argument the stronger. Behind all your bombast lies a great deal of weakness, evidenced in that you always feel this inclination to direct attack.
Who is the one who questions? Definitely not you. At least I'm able to say 'well, maybe this, or maybe that', set my conclusions, but be willing to admit the necessity of many sorts of things. You're so stuck in the dogma of your own faith you can't even respect your opponents. That's the basic tenent of fanaticism. If you were anything of a free thinker you'd have at least considered what I said. But the very moment I started to speak you considered it so repulsive that it had to be wrong, no matter WHAT I said. Yet even I, as a believer in my faith, understand that sometiems even the devil speaks the truth. Yet you think yourself so entirely justified in your stance... Lord J, you'd make a very grand Inquisitor, of that I am entirely certain. At this hour you hold your flames and venom only for religion. Soon, all too soon, you might see that encompass everything and all that disagrees with your system of belief. Watch it, and for bloody once, at least consider that others who have a different view might be saying something worth listening too. It's nothing worth to just pat yourself on the back and be happy when people agree with you. That's just a soothing of your own ego, and that's all you ever seem to care about. When you meet with someone who can very much disagree with you, you automatically dismiss them as delusionary and use your twisted rhetoric to tear them down so that you can be victorious. How very small of you. I hope you grow up as a philosopher some day.
So if you want to give me a response, a cogent response, feel free. But don't just do this same old tired childish play we always see. Look at these last few paragraphs I wrote: that's the sort of dribble we have to put up with. Stop the rhetoric, and show us some of that philosophy you say you are so well versed in.
So in turn I've spoken harshly, because I'm calling you out on your facade and not willing to just sit idle while you vehemently descry anything that is not of your belief. You think you are open minded? You are more closed than the most ardent fundamentalist. If you want to be truly open, rather than just styling yourself as such, you need to respect those who choose to still wear clothes as much as those who have decided them not neccessary... to make an example out of your example. You call me incurious, yet I'm the one who can find benefit in Nietzsche, yet you are unwilling to see any good in religion, and at the first of my words you act as one who hears something they cannot abide, and in reply stop their ears and start murmuring their own safe words, lest they hear something that unsettles them. That's what you do as soon as I begin to speak: murmur your mantra of 'I'm right; I'm right; I know I'm right; he's wrong; he's just delusional.' Does that make you feel better? Does that soothe your ego or your security? Stop it. If you want to learn something, stop selecting only those things which support your current world view. You speak as though freedom of choice is the highest good... but is it? That's a question you've not asked, it seems. You seem content to merely assume that THAT is the highest good... a similar problem I have with Nietzsche... his arguments seem to be based on the idea that one should be a wolf rather than a sheep... but what makes THAT right? Ask yourself that: what makes that core idea right. You might bluster at that point 'well, that's self-evident; don't be so delusional' and like things, but that's only your ready answer to something you really don't have an answer for. You are making an assumption and leap of faith in things, but you fear to give it that name because that is anathematic to your nature.
I'll not grudge you arrogance... you once said to me you can speak arrogantly because you know what you're talking about, and I must admit I quite enjoy that sort of confidence. But this what you're doing now sounds like someone so worried that they might see something wrong in their system they angrily declaim those things which contradict. That's what you do to me each and every time. I'm beginning to think you genuinely are concerned to hear my argument, and as such have to put up these walls of fire because you cannot directly engage what I've said. After all, tactics like appeals and ad hominems are usually only used by those who have no actual justification for their stance (and yes, I understand the irony of using it in this post.) I don't think you entirely understand what you yourself are doing in this. I am one of the few who stands up to what you say, who actively disagrees, and with no small or constrained mind. Of course, you call me incurious, but is that because I truly am so, or because, lacking the ability to defeat me through argument you resort to what is essentially name calling and conveniantly saying 'oh, he's just that'... burying your head in the sand. You cannot stand that someone who holds an opposing view might actually do so intelligently, and so convince yourself 'well, he can't actually be intelligent; he's just limited; he's a fool.' Convenient balms to keep your dogma in place, so that you're not forced to examine yourself or doubt yourself. Who, indeed, is the incurious one amongst us?
You see? I can draw the same condemnations of you. At least I have no illusions about my dogmatic nature. But whatever you want to believe, leave off the rhetoric, if you can. But you can't, because it's the only way you can out-argue me, isn't it? I've seen your development. For a while you were directly trying to argue me, then suddenly, seeing that impossible, you devolved into this 'well, it's just his dogmatism' mantra. Everything I say, no matter how valid, is filtered through that bias - you don't even take into account that I plainly have some respect even for the likes of Nietzsche, though he would typically be my diametric opposite. If I'd had to guess, I'd almost think that some of the things I said did unsettle you once, and at that point you were forced to take your view of me down a few rungs so that your worldview would remain unscathed (I've done that myself a few times, of course... that's how I know the mood.) At any rate, you seem to have judged me for wrong not on the basis of my arguments, but on the basis of what I believe being contrary to yours. I... don't think you like disagreement much; more like a tyrant, you're happy when everyone thinks you're right and eminently wise; because whenever someone has directly questioned you, you've never said 'that's interesting, but I think you're wrong, and this is why', but rather 'you're an incurious fool and childish.' I don't think I've ever seen you give anyone who disagrees with you any consideration of having a valid point. Why is that? Are you so afraid of admitting truth in the words of others? In the words of your enemies? And you so vehemently declaim them... someone of a stable belief in one's own rightness has no necessity to that. You are not someone who wants to learn what others think, but wants others to think as you do. And with those you find impossible to convert - such as me, perhaps your oldest and sincerest foe - you resort to shouting down, lest I speak cracks into your fortress. After all, what sort of intellectual only admits right from those who follow his system? That anyone can do. No, Lord J, a true intellectual will look for wisdom even in the words of the devil. And your devil just happens to be religion itself. That, I think, is a lesson you have yet to learn. So, Lord J, welcome to the world of the Dogmatic. You're in it, whether you know it or not. And I still say you'd make a most excellent inquisitor.
