You brought Kierkegaard into it. Oh David you ruined the artistic flare of the whole thing (joke).
I was wondering if it were possible to get an emotional reaction out of you, you didn’t give me much, but I feel something here, no? Whatever it is, it is a strong response.
I agree it is important to recognize that we are all actual, breathing, human beings. That is why, for example, Kevin, Dan, and I have been open with our lives, publishing our real names, photos, personal details, private letters, etc, on our various sites. We want to show that we are real people practising real philosophy. We're not anonymous entities hiding behind psuedonyms and engaging in "impersonal, alienated debates" for mere intellectual entertainment. What is discussed here on this forum is intimately connected to real life for us.
Well that is very nice (NOT a joke), I forget that some of y’all have been posting for what nine years, I sure hope that some personal things leaked out in that amount of time. But my original intention was cleverly masked (by making warrentless accusations against you). It would have been much easier to ask you straight out, are you emotionally detached and to what extent?
Hi David. My name is Adam. AlyOshA is my screen name solely because I found this site via an egoist named RaskOlikOv (Alyosha and Raskolikov are both characters from Dostoevsky novels and Dostoevsky is my favorite author). I live in Los Angeles, drink good quality Japanese green tea, play chess, and practice Chi Kung.
As for your depiction of the discussions here as "shallow pondering of conundrums", I can only register my profound disagreement and suggest that you may be artificially confining the implications of these debates for the sake of your own personal protection.
I don’t think the postings here are shallow, I just think that without the human qualities they are shallow, I was trying to accentuate the “human†point (and I wanted your reaction in particular). But you can assume that I think everyone on this forum is shallow, if that suites you. After all – I am “bandyâ€. But please elaborate, in what way am I “bandyâ€, in that I take sides on issues during debate, or because I recognize similarities on a personal level (hence calling someone a kindred spirit)? Are you saying that you are not “bandy†with anyone on this forum? You don’t take sides on issues during debates or recognize similarities on a personal level? Beingof1 warned me against taking sides because he said it would cause resentment. In average cases there is a lot of validity in that, but I can’t honestly tell you the last time I felt resentment of any kind. I really do not resent the way things happen, and if someone resents me, well then maybe by my causing their resentment they will eventually learn that they are trapped in destructive thought patterns and I might actually bring them one step closer to breaking free. Personal Protection? Protection against what exactly? To be perfectly honest (without sounding defensive) I am beyond needing “personal protection†at this stage of my life. But personally speaking, I have spent my entire life pondering conundrums and it wasn’t until I stepped out of my head and into life, that I started to understand things. I am fishing you out David, trying to learn you better; I once heard a reference to having thick skin, so I don’t think my tactics were too brash, just a little bit of unwarranted judgments here, a little tickling there. Would you laugh if I tickled you David (and my question is not intended to be facetious)?
What if I was a child molestor who loved gaining sexual gratification from 5-year-olds. Would you be willing to pass over your child to me? Or do you plan on being selective with your choice of suffering?
I was referring to suffering “In the Christian sense†not the Michael Jackson sense (well I guess Jehovah’s Witnesses are a brand of Christianity). I don’t think there are too many Christians that would consider your proposition as equating to “Christian†suffering, but it sounds good in a debate.
Christian suffering, as conceived by people like Jesus and Soren Kierkergaard, has nothing to do with suffering for the sake of other people. It is purely about the spiritual man's clash with the world (which is steeped in lies) and his suffering for the sake of truth. Jesus frequently spoke about the realities of being persecuted for openly valuing truth, a theme that was fleshed out in great detail by Kierkegaard.
I am familiar with Kiekegaard, but thank you for the link, it has been a while since I visited him. Kiekegaard is foremost an existentialist, and is usually studied in the context of existentialism, he is undoubtedly Christian, but I don’t think all Christians equate his brand of Existentialist Christianity as being the mainframe. (Existentialism happens to be my favorite faux-category of philosophy by the way). But it can’t be denied that Jesus suffered for the truth. Jesus suffered for the truth, which entailed suffering for mankind, which ultimately entailed forgiveness. Under this context I say that I would suffer for you David. I am a balanced person, but I am not beneath dropping to my knees and weeping, moistening the earth with my tears, and begging it for forgiveness, just for the shear beauty of it, and just for the sake of forgiveness. Sound emotional? I acknowledge and utilize my emotions David, but I do not confuse them with my true substance.