I'm not trying to offer an explanation beyond that. You never asked me for one, you never actually engaged in the discussion; you merely pointed out that you can't understand what anyone's talking about. No it doesn't. You only define happiness as something that is "madness" to strive for in the material world. That's not a definition of the concept itself, but a definition of where it can or cannot be found (but not really, since you only say it is "madness" to seek happiness in this world, not that it is impossible). That's like me asking you what the treasure is, and you telling me it's buried in your back yard. It doesn't even attempt to define the actual concept, let alone give an exact definition, as you claim to have done, but sets vague parameters for where it might exist. I did, I just can't see what your comments have to do with it. So you understood that he defines the Holocaust as an irredeemable evil that is, as you say, diametrically opposed to good, yet you still claim to have no understanding of what he considers good? I mean, am I supposed to take this BS seriously? You'd better come up with something better than that if you don't want everyone to realize you're just in another one of your intellectual holding patterns.