cont.

But I really have a hard time taking any of it seriously in this black and white sense of right and wrong and the necessity to be so. The Socratic search for truth, while it had its place, it had its place in a certain time in a certain age by a certain mind as a response to a certain situation (the Sophists, the wars, the chaos, the lack of foundation period that drove people wild back then with ideas and everything was up and down as Hercalitus said). For the most part, I am holding my breath until I'm maybe 10 years older before I start to make my own conclusions that are beyond mere references (I think it was Aristotle or Plato in his Laws or both who said that you should wait until 40+ before you even touch philosophy.. if at all - and I would side with them more than with myself so I would probably agree.. in fact now more than ever but now is a different time and I don't think I'm the guy for the job to make sense of it, at least not yet.. but I digress once again).

Anyway.. I didn't filter most of my ideas above and have no time to proofread them before my shift - so if something didn't hit, it is what it is.

p.s. In the end, it was certainly amusing when he dismissed the ideas on the supposed account that I was drunk, given that half of my ideas were references to the age of the Symposium (now that's a work of art in itself eh). Diluted wine or not, it still has more proof than 4% beer I was sipping. Hell, most philosophers dabbled in much heavier shit, especially back in the day.

A liar's paradox, heh. No, he definitely didn't get that reference at all, with that I think I have to agree - though not sure how much of it you got yourself (to be specific, the very possibility of the existence of the paradox even within.. actually especially within a logical 'system' like the Hegelian one to which Kierkegaard responded when he really picked it apart in his Postscript to his Fragments.. I won't repeat how since it's above and of course there is a bit more to it but that part is definitely lost on him given the liar's paradox link which is a throw back to the professional logic thought spawned after Hegel.. and just to be clear.. I am only referencing Hegelian thought through Kierkegaard, I'm not directly referencing Hegel himself, who, I think, is really fucking difficult and I don't think, despite major contemporary disagreement with this, that Kierkegaard ever responded to Hegel's thought, but only to the Hegelian schools that came after - could be a translation thing but I do not recall one instance of such response in any meaningful sense - his most cogent/strongest arguments were always against "Hegelians" and never against Hegel.. I mean shit, I spent a semester on the Philosophy of Right and I got through maybe 50 pages.. convoluted or not, each line is just fucking intense).

All right - hit me back in the PM - I doubt I'll make another public post like this one.