Noire_Nova

Yes. I replied to a comment that confused me. How else was I supposed to communicate? In all-caps? With profanity and multiple direct insults to the other person’s intelligence? If that is deemed a superior option to what I did, then I admit that I have been bested. Bravo.

Pardon my tautology (re: pieces) and my typo (*mechanic).

See? People can understand implied meaning without an explanation. You understood my tone quite well without a play-by-play. As for being detached from reality, I should apologize for that. I think I overestimated the educational systems across the globe as well as the human brain. Essays on free will vs determinism are commonlace in many secondary public schools. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of peices of accessible pieces of literature that features and explores these themes without being about them or even philosophy. Is it that unreasonable to expect adults to be familiar with their general principles and guiding frameworks? To finish it off, did you read this? Do you understand how hard it is to avoid reading something, even if you may not want to? We are on a reading platform for goodness sake. One that doesn’t advocate or enable the use of spoiler tags in general comments. Using the ‘just don’t read’ line here is like an auto-repair mechabic advising their customer ‘just don’t drive’. Technically possible, but just not feasible practically speaking.

Mainly in the usage of ‘brilliant’. By what metric did you evaluate his rebuttal? It was well worded when considering it is unscripted - yes - but ideologically speaking, his rebuttal was only one of the many familiar counters to determism. What makes his rebuttal so ‘brilliant’?

Yes. Layered. Not encrypted or indecipherable. It is at the level where most functioning adults would be able to piece it all together from context clues and the character histories established by the author. (That is why I am so confused by what you are doing.) Later in future chapters if not immediately. That is part of what makes layered conversations so meaningful and enjoyable - especially in a narrative. A breakdown of this level seems a bit redundant for all but those that are challenged with parsing social cues. If addressing that gap that was your intention, it is commendable, but nonetheless much like how exlaining why a joke is funny saps its humour for the vast majority of people, this sort of simple ‘breakdown’ renders the efforts the author took to craft the subtlety and depth of their characters’ interactions effectively moot. In my view anyways. I think that part of enjoying philosophy is relishing in what is left unspoken. Unlike in STEM, in philosophy or meta-sociology, the imlicit is your friend as you approach ideas of greater complexity, as eventually words will only be guides to shape the collective consensus of an idea, not descriptors. That is beside the point, so I will stop here. My rant aside, I have nothing against what you’re doing, but I am more confused as to what you are trying to actually accomplish via these ‘breakdowns’. That’s all.

Are you doing a play-by-play style of commentary? Seems that way. Your bias shows in your wording. Typically such commentary attempts to retain some semblance of neutrality, but whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

I fail to see what is accomplished by pointing put the obvious. Is it so surprising that two characters have different worldviews? Why the need to spell it out without bringing anything else to the proverbial table?

It be that way sometimes. You cannot please everyone, but that doesn’t justify depriving others of their right to complain. Well, it can, but we live in a society, so we pretend that it can’t.

No excuse.

That’s the goal. One can only wish. After all, true death is the erasure or absence of lingering information. An incomplete death is no way to go.