Essentially, I read this as an attempt at continental philosophy rather than analytic philosophy, and I don’t find continental-style work very interesting or useful.
That’s your personal opinion about their works. Continental rationalists have been useful to so many.
I believe you that the post is meaningful and thoughtful, but the costs of time or effort to understand the meanings or thoughts you’re driving at are too high for me at least.
So you’d dismiss any work based on the return on investment ratio?
I think trying to lay things out in a more organized and explicit manner would be helpful for your readers and possibly for you in developing these thoughts.
Not all thoughts need to be explicit, especially when describing links between ideas.
Have you ever watched the series Connections <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections (TV_series)>? If not I would highly advise watching it.
Can you clarify those points:
What’s the issue with having a post that is meaningful but not blatantly explicit about its “goal”? (If you’ve ever read rationalist philosophers most of their works are similar) I would argue that in my post there are many ideas and those ideas in themselves are explicit.
What part of the content did you not grasp and how do you not find them fundamentally plausible?
Where are you basing your statement that meditations, here in the sense of linking different topics in a thoughtful manner, are not helpful to truth-seeking?
I guess the main issue that the readers have with this post is that it doesn’t have a principal explicit goal to define something it’s more of an intent to pass a thought about links between ideas. It might be hard to read if there’s no obvious “end-game” at the end.
All and all, thanks for the insightful comment, I truly appreciate it.
I’m not sure what is your central point, what is the component you announce at the start of the post.
It has different names depending on how you perceive it, though none encapsulate the concept completely. Some call it “the extension of the self into the world”, as in getting so attached to objects (physical or not) so that you find stability to look into the world further. Some refer to it as immaturity, aka the opposite of Enlightenment. Some refer to it simply as control or hope for control.
To clarify the conclusion, it was a hint to the definition of Enlightenment given by Kant plus a bit of developmental psychology.
This post is more of a meditation on a topic rather than a redaction on how to seek truth about the topic (Which in my opinion is a start). This is why I wasn’t sure this community would be as interested in reading it.
First of all I love your sense of humor!
Here are some thoughts that have been running through my mind while reading:
Some battles are not worth fighting. When sharing ideas do you want to have an argument or a discussion. As you clearly mentioned in the beginning of the post, a lot of the time it’s about “winning”, however when both parties enter on different grounds then they won’t come out of it with the same ideas of what happened.
You might underestimate how hard it is to change someones mind on a certain topic. Appealing to feelings instead of rationality is a good beginning but it’s certainly not the ethical choice. It’s more of a sophist/rhetorical/social engineering way of handling those situations, which in my opinion isn’t admirable.
Have you considered that you might be on the same side as your “opponent”, you mentioned being repulsed by their stupid ideas. Maybe your ideas are as badly founded as the other person. A personal tip would be to separate yourself and your feelings from the discussion. It’s hard to remove this concept in our mind that our ideas define us and that fighting with our ideas is like if it was us fighting.
Overall I agree that sometimes it’s good to be able to pierce through the shield and get some ideas across but it highly depends on the scenario. I’m a practicioner of the rule of putting my ideas out in the wild and letting others seek them instead of force feeding them until they puke.
Apart from that I’ve still upvoted your post as it’s a good food for thought.