The Arts have Value, in and of themselves

I wasn't talking about tempation in the way. I was saying temptation as in 'we can become tempted to be lazy.. to not reach our full potential because it's easier' That is a temptation. It's something that is appealling, and we have the capability of succombing to it despite our better judgement. Just using the word temptation shouldn't throw me in with religous zealots. "You say you want me to win you over but you refute rather than consider every argument I make. Yet at the same time, you expect me to buy into your philosophies unquestioningly. So I really do not see how I can possibly convince you. Though I was obviously trying." - You can convince me by understanding me, then explaining to me. If you truly do have more knowledge on the subject, it would be wise to first show that you understand my viewpoint, how you've carefully considered it, then how you've grown and rejected these ideas. That's how you convince someone. Unfortunately, you don't do this... you argue for things things that i've already ruled out as decided (in the construct... if you want to win me over, you'll have to work inside the construct or start an entirely separate debate on that fraction of the construct) or you argue against things that I've never said. Both of these things leave me to beleive that you don't understand my viewpoint at all... how could I hope to be converted by someone who doesn't understand my point of view? In this particular debate, I'm not trying to convince you, you're trying to convince me... that takes certain tact. That is why you should accept my constructs unquestionably... if you are trying to convince me... if we need to have a whole separate debate on "The Will to Power", we can... but it is something you should really just accept about me because I've put considerable thought into it and I don't really see how it's avoidable... unless you can suggest something to me that supercedes it (I know of none). So things like that.. if you're trying to convince me... you'll have to accept... Otherwise, if you cannot... we'll just have to accept our differing opinions. Because I won't be convinced of what you're trying to convince me of, unless you can either (1) Prove my constructs wrong or (2) Prove the resolution inside of the construct It is a shame we twist and turn like this... I fear that oh too many things get scrambled in the quest for truth... indeed. I think it can say what's best from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.. Aphorism 39 "Nobody will very readily regard a doctrine as true merely because it makes people happy or virtuous"excepting, perhaps, the amiable "Idealists," who are enthusiastic about the good, true, and beautiful, and let all kinds of motley, coarse, and good-natured desirabilities swim about promiscuously in their pond. Happiness and virtue are no arguments. It is willingly forgotten, however, even on the part of thoughtful minds, that to make unhappy and to make bad are just as little counter- arguments. A thing could be TRUE, although it were in the highest degree injurious and dangerous; indeed, the fundamental constitution of existence might be such that one succumbed by a full knowledge of it"so that the strength of a mind might be measured by the amount of "truth" it could endure"or to speak more plainly, by the extent to which it REQUIRED truth attenuated, veiled, sweetened, damped, and falsified. But there is no doubt that for the discovery of certain PORTIONS of truth the wicked and unfortunate are more favourably situated and have a greater likelihood of success; not to speak of the wicked who are happy"a species about whom moralists are silent. Perhaps severity and craft are more favourable conditions for the development of strong, independent spirits and philosophers than the gentle, refined, yielding good-nature, and habit of taking things easily, which are prized, and rightly prized in a learned man. Presupposing always, to begin with, that the term "philosopher" be not confined to the philosopher who writes books, or even introduces HIS philosophy into books!"Stendhal furnishes a last feature of the portrait of the free-spirited philosopher, which for the sake of German taste I will not omit to underline"for it is OPPOSED to German taste. 'Pour etre bon philosophe,' says this last great psychologist, 'il faut etre sec, clair, sans illusion. Un banquier, qui a fait fortune, a une partie du caractere requis pour faire des decouvertes en philosophie, c"est-a-dire pour voir clair dans ce qui est.'" "To be a good philosopher," says this last great psychologist, "must be dry, clear, without illusion. A banker, who made his fortune, a part of the character required to make discoveries in philosophy, that is to say, to see clearly what is." . . . I will say one additional thing. You know that I am not Christian... I'm not anything... I'm not Republican/Democract.. I'm not really any label.. but I have gotten much better at arguing inside of Constructs... I do this much better for religion than politics (as religion at least has a central text), but I'm getting better at politics as well... it is something you should maybe consider practicing more often... start trying to argue inside of constructs... because that's how you can learn to convince people... find their construct, and argue from inside of it... if you can't.. then you may resort to arguing the construct itself, or simply disagreeing.... but to argue outside of someone's construct while they're arguing from inside of it.. and just ignoring it exists.... that doesn't help anyone