Considering your virtually non-existent attempts at explaining your position during my conversation with you (stating things as fact is not an attempt at explantion, nor is saying '+/-=+/-' any explanation without a great deal more background information)...and your avoidance of discussion of any of the issues I proposed....I went and looked up your post history, and found:
- the same pattern of non-existent explanation on your part
- the same pattern of short sentence statements (which perhaps you believe are explanations, but such statements require a great deal of explanation prior to them being considered explanations...same with all philosophy)
- the same pattern of lack of engagement with the other persons on a philosophical level (which involves discussion
, consideration of the others position, explanation, and attempts at logic, rather than the mere flinging around of statements).
- the same pattern of 'I'm right, you're wrong'
It seems obvious to me that no one will ever understand your philosophical position if you are unwilling to explain it in detail, so I'm left with wondering what benefit you get from continually not explaining your position while saying 'I'm right, you're wrong'...
Most would attribute such behaviour to a need to feel superior...but such methods would only build a futilely false sense of superiority, resulting in a constant need for validation - even if it is only by oneself.
Which thoughts lead me to ask myself 'why did you think philosophy could cause a person to feel faint hearted and cowardly?'