Zeraph: I'm confused. You complained that I wasn't contributing sufficiently, but when I compose a lengthy rebuttal to what I see as the flaws in your thinking, you then complain that it's too long.
I'm curious how you'd know I was taking you out of context if you didn't read what I wrote.
FelixP: I'm familiar with Schopenhauer's work and, in short, consider it to be a load of crap. Schopenhauer's views are not compatible with mine, and I find a lot of what he wrote to be quite frankly abhorrent. I suppose one could argue that he was more in line with the thinking prevalent during the early to mid nineteenth century, but that just makes him obsolete at best.
If you want a definition of my own views.. well, it's hard for me to do because I'm not big on labels. I do take a lot from Camus' existentialism though. If you haven't delved into that area yet, I strongly recommend Sartre and Camus for further reading. Coming from Schopenhauer, you'll see a lot of connections in the underlying principles, although the conclusions are quite different.
As for my point regarding elitism, it's simply that you seem to claim some form of uncommon knowledge. You may not consciously distinguish yourself from the rest of humanity, but you do seem to believe that your insight is unique, insofar as you've made implications to the effect that anyone who shared it would necessarily share your viewpoint. This is a very narrow perspective, to say the least.
For clarity, this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FelixP
It's just most people can't handle the reality of the situation, so they stick their heads up their own asses and live in a world of blind naivete.
|
is where I get the idea that you believe your particular insight to be uncommon, and this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FelixP
...if that were the case, I would be the only misanthrope...
|
is where I find the implication that said insight is tied fundamentally to your philosophy, and that therefore anyone who doesn't share your view must not have observed the same phenomenon you have to arrive at your conclusions. The conclusion I'm reaching here is that you believe the teeming masses are either unwilling or unable to face the reality you've defined/discovered, but you're made of sterner stuff.
I may be misinterpreting; text is a singularly poor medium for these sorts of discussions.
Assuming I'm correct, do you now see where I'm finding a sort of elitism here? Your way of thinking doesn't seem to allow for an individual who might start with the same data and arrive at a different conclusion. It seems to me as though you're suggesting that either people see it your way, or the wrong way (heads up their asses). And therefore it follows my prior observations about misanthropy being a form of narrow-minded elitism more than anything.