Sorry to bruise your tender ears, my dear. I believe that when doctors have an aversion to blood or are disgusted by human anatomy, that they should consider retirement. Likewise, if the exploration of hypothetical truths makes you uncomfortable or shakes your feeble heart and you want to continue believing what makes you feel nice and warm, then maybe, just maybe, philosophy shouldn’t be your primary interest. “Over-analysis” might dishearten you or fill you with dismay and your soul might quiver at the sound of things that you would prefer to not believe, unfortunately philosophy is about analysis. What is considered as “over” is purely subjective and has no place here. It's an intellectual limitation, a censorship of the mind. And please stop thinking that just because you cannot deal with certain ideas and they would make you feel miserable if you believed in them, that all are as soft as you. I know people that feel enlivened by blood, especially their own, and feel more alive when in pain or under great discomfort. Then there are others that faint at the sight of blood and comfort is their only pleasure. Get it! The search does not end when comfort is found, nor is there any such thing as over-analysis. Exploration continues unending. It doesn’t stop at a point beyond which it is considered ‘over-exploration’, just because we fear that our delusions might shatter and our earlier ‘truths’ will be uncovered as frauds. If we fear what might be found around the bend then maybe we shouldn’t flatter ourselves by dressing up like explorers. Consider the alternative sub-forums of parapsychology and religion if you wish to remain enthralled by your need to think of yourself as special and your feminine desire to belong to benevolent, all encompassing, omnipotent entities. If happiness is your goal, then you have no place in intellectual exploration. Knitting might be more your thing.
Wanderer, You let resentment speak, you let it speak so loudly it clouds your reason. Just because you think you know how I think, does not mean you know how I think. Just because you might say you know me, does not mean you know me. It would do you good to stop playing the presumptuous martyr, you know. How unhappy you must be.
water Overanalyzes. Cease and desist. I don’t have to “think” much. You say what you think in a public discussion forum. Either that or you are lying. We come here to say what we think. Here is the crux of your argument: A hypothetical superiority in contentment. That’s an extrapolation of what I’ve said based on your poor ability to place yourself in another’s shoes. How happy I am and how happy you pretend to be is not the issues here.
Sure, but what I say here is not all I think ... No, this is what you read into my words. Try walking in my shoes, you'll stumble in my footsteps. Oh, you think I am *pretending* to be happy? And most of all, it is the issue here, how happy you are. As it has been pointed out before, a *man* would not have started a thread like this.
water How nice for you that you are so complicated. Sure. What size do you wear? And do you have ones with a stiletto heel? No, I actually think you believe it. No?! What kind of threads do “real” men start, then? Did it not get all the fishes biting? Considering the responses I’ve gotten to relevant subject matter in the past and the overall interest more serious threads get in general, only an idiot would persist in wasting much time being serious here. Now go off and find a thread with a game or a link attached to it.
Hiking shoes. You couldn't be more wrong about me. *Men* don't say "Now go off and find a thread with a game or a link attached to it." So this is what you wanted, eh? Uhhhhhhh.
"What kind of threads do “real” men start, then?" Real men don't start threads attacking their internet crushes for tiring of their pablum.
WATER says, "Good question -- What defines a human being? " WANDERER says, "The sum of his past. History held together by Will." Short, pithy sayings regarding the larger questions are usually incomplete. Your explanation is an example of this. First of all, what will is involved in the decision of which people your history will touch? You could say that it is easy enough to will to tread lightly on the earth, like a good backpacker might, but if you decide to involve yourself in humanity your will starts to lose control over where your "history" will step. And the more you are involved, the further your history spreads, and the less control you have over it. Also, the potential effects of an individual are an important part of who they are today. Eventually, they will become history, but today they are possibilities which, even only by their existence as possibilities, can affect others. Also, much of a person's perspective on who they are is formed before they are able to participate, and is usually not able to be completely erased later, even if they try to actively destroy elements of that perspective. P.S. Xev's statement seems correct. We have proof here that some men like gossip and silly personal intrigues as much as, or more than women are said to.
I hope you've got your supersonic laser shield ready ... Some people believe that they can control what happens to them, or that one should have control over what happens to one. But the fact is that we cannot choose our experiences, we ultimately cannot choose what will happen to us. Exactly, it is the *potential* and the *future* that also define a human. Even though the potential and the future haven't happened yet, our values and preferences that determine our course are effective already now -- even though we can see their impact only after we have acted on them, and this is in the future. Yes. As for myself, I seem to have lost all merit in Wanderer's eyes, and he now puts it against me for not living up to his idea of me ...
I just pointed out that wanderer's description is incomplete. I even gave some literary credit, even though that description was too concise to be meaningful. I would assume wanderer isn't "small" enough to fly into hysteria, just because I pointed out the inefficacy of a statement he made.
Look, Wanderer, we are talking about you! Ah, this should piss him off. And he will leave, leaving us to throw ... what ... aspersions?
