It is not easy to explain. I have spent the better part of three score years studying philosophy, and you think I am going to sum it all up in a brief post to someone who does not want to know the truth. One of the reasons most people never the learn the truth is because they think there is some kind of short-cut to it. There isn't.
I do not care what you believe or think. I am not in this world to convince anyone else of the truth. I enjoy discussing it, especially with the sincere (even when we strongly disagree). I doubt your sincerity. If you were intelligent, and I gave a fig what you think, and I had much thinner skin than I have, I would consider, "if you've derived all of this for yourself, ... then it ought to be easy enough to walk me through it" an insult implying what I derived myself would be simple. In your case, it was good for a laugh. My wife thought so too.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Hank
Who said anything about "a brief post"? What makes you think I'm not interested in seeing if you can pull it off? Take as much time as you need. Take as many posts as you need. Don't worry about whether or not I can keep up - just shoot it out there, and let's find out, eh?
I do not care what you believe or think. I am not in this world to convince anyone else of the truth. I enjoy discussing it, especially with the sincere (even when we strongly disagree). I doubt your sincerity.
My sincerity? You make claims, I suggest that you should support them, and you doubt my sincerity? Why? Because I'm doing as Rand says I should, and not simply taking your word for what you say? Because I'm asking for the rational process that led you to your conclusions, as Rand says there must be? I'm sure this would be much easier if I just sat here, gaping in wide-eyed wonder as you pulled a rabbit out of your hat, and not asking any impertinent questions, but I can't do that - Rand says that's wrong, to just accept your assertions on faith or on your authority.
One would think that an objectivist, who is not supposed to accept arguments on authority, would refrain from making arguments from authority - e.g., "I have spent the better part of three score years studying philosophy" - but apparently not. All premises must be checked, except, apparently, the premises that Rand has given us. No arguments are to be accepted on authority, except, apparently, the arguments that Rand has given us. Every postulate is explainable in terms of reason, except, apparently, the postulates of Rand. And you wonder why that only confirms my suspicions of inherent self-contradiction in objectivism?