>That's a fine excuse for being a loser. When you get tired of that, however, you can always choose better.
Insults are unnecessary. This kind of individualist, man-as-an-island concept is appealing but it isn't true. What are "you" made of that doesn't originate as something outside of your control? Of course it all was at the start, the way we get to feeling individualistic is by laundering our experiences, pretending that we made each decision a bit on our own and building that up into an end-person who makes decisions totally on their own. But of course that narrative isn't true.
I think he is not interested in epistemology. But I always find discussions on the origins or human knowledge just as fascinating as you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
It sounds like you may have already been exposed to it given the content of your arguments, but there is a very enjoyable debate/discussion between Foucault and Chomsky on the acquisitions of human knowledge and human nature [1] and your position sounds quite similar to the one Chomsky elaborates on.
But of course, according to your narrative, his posting is the inevitable consequence of his genetics/environment/experiences to this point, so there is no point in trying to scold him for it.
Same reason you did. Right place, right time. If you were omniscient and knew everything that happened in the universe up to bow, you'd be able to perfectly predict the next instant, and the instant after that.
It was only after I understood that I had no control that I felt free to do whatever I wanted, ironically enough.
You are trying to instigate a bickering match with someone who is trying to educate you on epistemology. Dial down the toxicity and stop letting intellectual discourse fly over your head so swiftly.
