''Existential Absurdity" is When a Person Claims a Given State of Affairs Like

[Nick1911]

I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently; my readers are merely not toughminded enough to follow.

If your audience can't understand you, you're not communicating effectively.

[Tuco]

... I am a fabulously fantastic writer; I am fairly/accurately stating my case...

Duane, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this.  Your writing is neither fabulous nor fantastic. You may be a positively swell fellow but out of sympathy for all us test subjects take the time to study and incorporate (even just a little bit of) Strunk & White and Zinsser.
Please.

[WLJ]

You're confusing, like so many nowadays, indoctrinated with education.

[cordex]

Pure malarky in your first paragraph! I am a fabulously fantastic writer;

I am fairly/accurately stating my case;

I possess an absolutely excellent comprehension of Sartre's theory of freedom.

You insultingly denigrate me

But your steelman position is cool...

Build on it, then.  What did I get wrong?  How can it be improved?

[WLJ]

Mark Twain:  “Don’t use a five dollar word when a fifty cent one will do. ”

five-dollar word

Unnecessarily complicated or pretentious words that smug aholes use to assert their perceived intellectual "superiority."

Brad: "Frankly, the film's quality was substandard at best, leading to an inherent dissociation and disconnect to myself as a paying audience member. It was almost insolent in its pandering. Thus, I can only describe the experience in viewing the film as one of a cataclysmic nature."

Tina: "So, you're saying you didn't like the film. What's with all the five-dollar words?"

Brad: "That statement is a gross oversimplification of my feelings regarding what should be a work of art. I'm merely trying to open and nurture a dialog , so that we may enjoy eachother's company in the spirit of natural, healthy debate."

Tine: "You're just trying to impress me and get in my pants, aren't you? Ain't happening."

Brad: "Well... *expletive deleted*it."

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=five-dollar%20word

Term fits your style of writing very well
Note the underlined. Sound familiar anyone?

[griz]

Reminds me of the famous Dr. Sheldon Cooper who said "you know me to be a very smart man. Don't you think if I were wrong, I'd know it?"

[WLJ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRatMPUAhU4

[Boomhauer]

We’ve got a past good discussion here you might be interested in

https://tinyurl.com/mr438787

[WLJ]

Think we're missing the larger question here.

What are you doing in England?

[WLJ]

taH pagh taHbe

[HeroHog]

taH pagh taHbe

 

[WLJ]

Romulan

[dogmush]

The idea that human action and inaction originates from a person's intended future and particular projects, rather than from external sources such as laws, is a central tenet of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. Sartre argues that individuals have complete freedom and responsibility for their actions, and that external factors such as laws and societal norms do not determine behavior. Instead, individuals create their own meaning and purpose through their projects and the choices they make.

However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose.

The notion of "existential absurdity" refers to the feeling of meaningless and purposelessness that arises from the realization of the freedom and responsibility of human existence. According to Sartre, individuals must embrace their freedom and create their own meaning, despite the inherent lack of objective purpose in existence.

Overall, the idea that human action originates from a person's intended future and projects, and the concept of existential absurdity, are key components of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. However, they continue to be debated and discussed within the philosophical community.

[Perd Hapley]

The idea that human action and inaction originates from a person's intended future and particular projects, rather than from external sources such as laws, is a central tenet of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. Sartre argues that individuals have complete freedom and responsibility for their actions, and that external factors such as laws and societal norms do not determine behavior. Instead, individuals create their own meaning and purpose through their projects and the choices they make.

However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose.

The notion of "existential absurdity" refers to the feeling of meaningless and purposelessness that arises from the realization of the freedom and responsibility of human existence. According to Sartre, individuals must embrace their freedom and create their own meaning, despite the inherent lack of objective purpose in existence.

Overall, the idea that human action originates from a person's intended future and projects, and the concept of existential absurdity, are key components of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. However, they continue to be debated and discussed within the philosophical community.

.

He's making progress with dogmush!

[230RN]

"I have no difficulty writing the ideas I am positing. I am simply making the error of thinking the reader educated enough to follow/comprehend existentialist constructs. I am positing excellently; my readers are merely not toughminded enough to follow."

If you recognize your error and admit of the futility of trying to make us follow or accept your thinking, why do you keep doing it?  Einstein supposedly said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and getting the the same results."  (Or the equivalent sentiment.)

Are you, therefore, insane, according to Einstein's notion?  Or does the concept of insanity merely parallel "law" according to your insights?

I can appreciate your missionary zeal.  As Jesus said, "Follow me and I will make you a fisher of men." Mat 4:19

[WLJ]

A) Bot that someone let loose on the world.
B) Troll with way way way too much time on their hands
C) Crazy old hippie trying to give their empty life meaning by trying to convert people to the one and only faith and any push back forces him to stare more and more into an empty abyss.
D) Someone who is really this dense

[230RN]

Way back in my mind I still harbor the persistent idea he's a master prankster.  A bit bonkers for carrying it this far, but on the other hand, the farther he can carry it, the funnier it is to him.

I was also going to post about Sheldon Cooper's "I'm so smart if I were wrong I'd know it."  I also remember them wanting to get into that building and along come two girl scouts (or whatever) who ran a finger up and down the call buttons next to the front door.  The funniest part was that they were scrambling in a panic to get in before the door closed, when all they had to do was run their own finger up and down the call buttons if it closed on them.  Way duh.

Then the topper of the sketch was when object of their visit demanded to know how they got in and Leonard's response was, "Oh, we're scientists."

Terry

[WLJ]

Way back in my mind I still harbor the persistent idea he's a master prankster.  A bit bonkers for carrying it this far, but on the other hand, the farther he can carry it, the funnier it is to him.

That would fall under B

[230RN]

That would fall under B

Yes, agreeing and amplifying.

dogmush noted,

"However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose."
(Bolding mine.)

Isn't that also called "living in an ivory tower?"

Terry, 230RN

[Perd Hapley]

Yes, agreeing and amplifying.

dogmush noted,

"However, this view has been criticized by some as ignoring the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior. Some argue that laws and societal norms play a significant role in determining human actions and that individuals are not always completely free to act as they choose."
(Bolding mine.)

Isn't that also called "living in an ivory tower?"

Terry, 230RN

Also known as, "not heeding Dr. Sowell."

[dogmush]

How long do I have to wait for him to come back before I can declare my writing ontologically superior to his?

[230RN]

Maybe, as has been suggested, his head finally exploded.  But I did not actually expect an answer from him on my Einstein question since he's already described one of my posts as pure nonsense.

I'm just a kind of hard-wired nuts and bolts sort of guy, as in 1/4-20 and 6-32, but I can still understand the pure theory of screwing.

Terry, 230RN

[Nick1911]

Maybe, as has been suggested, his head finally exploded.  But I did not actually expect an answer from him on my Einstein question since he's already described one of my posts as pure nonsense.

I'm just a kind of hard-wired nuts and bolts sort of guy, as in 1/4-20 and 6-32, but I can still understand the pure theory of screwing.

Terry, 230RN

I'll give you the 1/4-20, but 6-32's are the worst.  Too much engagement for the diameter - I break those taps by looking at them wrong!

[230RN]

If you think 6-32 is bad, try 2-56 for delicacy.  For all, drill a larger tap hole, use puh-lenty of lube, use only two fingers on the tap handle, use only a small twist to the tap for each cut, and for G-d's sake back out to clear chips frequently.  Oh, and your tap had better be 100% coaxial  with the tap hole.  If the reduction of pull strength is  too much bbecause of the larger tap hole, try redesigning for a larger screw like 3-48  or 4-40.  Actually, on things that small, pull strength is not usually all that important... the purpose is usually more of a position-keeping deal than a Paul Bunyan brute force fastening.

Is this too down to earth and realistic and practical for this thread?  Or should I "ignore the influence of objective, external factors in shaping human behavior" and let you go on ontologically breaking taps?

Do the other readers of this thread even care about how to avoid breaking taps?
 

Terry, 230RN

[Doggy Daddy]

And how quickly we return to signature via content and context.