boasts of Athiests II

Yes, I understand, but I am not certain that it is accurate and precise. Do you constantly have robust enthusiasm for the wonder of life?

Just sometimes? How often?(no pictures please).

Interesting comment about being inside your head. But I was wondering if you (or anyone who wants to comment) would agree with any of the following statements:1. One of the qualities of the human mind is HABITUATION. We grow used to things. We grow tired of things. We after awhile are unmoved or much less moved by that which moved us before.2. Most of life is spent neither joyfully nor sadly but in an in-between state that might be characterized as moderate satisfaction or moderate dissatisfaction.3. There is a "hunger of imagination" in us that outraces reality. Reality cannot possibly fulfill that which our imagination craves. This quality is more prevalent when one is young, but it never goes away entirely. The result is an occasional feeling of "vacuity."(the phrases in quotation marks come from an 18th century writer).

I can understand that you would be upset, but if you make comments such as "I am a man of exemplary moral character" and "I am the best, most loyal friend you will ever have if you are so lucky as to earn my regard," and apparently mean this seriously, you must expect a little negative feedback. If you don't know why, your sensibilities must be very dull.Boasting is self-praise (true or not), and you certainly seem to be praising yourself here. All overt boasting is offputting, but of course some more than others. But the worst of all is moral boasting--at least in my view.The question is, is what you said about yourself plausible? After all, you were offering it as evidence in an argument, so I suppose we are justified in questioning its plausibility. Obviously, I'm basing my idea on my own private experiences, but I would say, no, your appraisal of yourself is not very plausible. It's possible that you are this morally wonderful person that you think you are, but I tend to doubt it. I think you are exaggerating, not consciously, but still exaggerating. I have known many people in my life, and I have never known a single person who could be characterized the way you proudly and solemnly characterize yourself. They all--including myself, of course--had flaws, some serious. Some they kept hidden.But the thread was not about you; I was merely using your comments as examples of the tendency toward exaggeration I have noticed among non-believers. Of course I think I am right (otherwise I would change my mind and think some way), and that you are wrong, but it does not offend me that you should be wrong.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Not everything is always about you, MikeHager. I understand it's fashionable nowadays to say that we must "love ourselves," but there are, surely, limits? The love affair you appear to be having with yourself is bordering on the scandalous.But I'll make a deal with you. I'll admit to being a liar (I have told some lies in my life) if you will admit to being a moral prig. This is not quite the same sort of argument that I was offering. Mine was the idea that I had never known someone as you describe yourself, now that I HAD known people with such-and-such qualities.Mine, I think, is the stronger argument.

OK, I'll go that far on condition that you admit that your characterization of yourself was exaggerated.

Well, my argument might be invalid but the conclusion true (accidentally).So if you admit to your priggery, and come off your moral highhorse, I will admit to being a lousy logician.

What I meant was the conclusion of a syllogism might be in fact true even though there's a fallacy in the argument. Like this:All fathers are males.
G. W. Bush is a male.
Therefore, G. W. Bush is a father.

Have you ever done something that didn't meet up to your expectations beforehand? You were looking forward to it, but it didn't quite meet up to what you thought it would be?

This is certainly one way to battle boredom. Kierkegaard wrote an entire essay about it called "The Rotation Method." Actually, the point of the essay, I believe, was that it was a satirical account to show the meaninglessness of the purely aesthetic life (life lived for pleasure).Here's a little excerpt: Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

General or specific--doesn't matter.It is impossible to meet the expectations of imagination, because they don't exist.Take some quality like "glamor." It's an illusion caused by distance. The closer you get to something the less glamorous it is. That which seemed to be glamorous turns into the ordinary upon close inspection.

It's a satire.

We ALWAYS expect something--unless we don't care about it.Of course we can play a little mind-game with ourselves: "I don't expect anything, so if anything good happens, it's gravy."

That would be one way to define maturity: "I can't get what I want, so I will settle for something else. It's better than nothing."Many, many lives play out this way: the gradual, almost imperceptible lowering of expectations.

Could we tone down the moralistic flavor a little bit? We are trying to discuss the nature of human experience, not the best or most mature way to live.