I have been redoing the entire opinion sharing deal.

It's great to take a stand, face the sceptic battery. But it gets morosely pedantic, the entire deal does. And it is hard to draw the line between where I state myself, spread my legs and take a firm stand and where I begin to defend it like a precocious virgin.

Now, as it turns out, everyone knows Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. They're certainly no breakthrough people. But what of the many many others?
The trouble is in their unwillingness to take a stand, be blunt, thick-headed and defend their interpretations of things that be and should be. Sure it means they get ridiculed as time passes by, and the set of improperly justified beliefs but none the less very popular beliefs aka the Scientific Method overtakes them.

But at least they will be applauded for their efforts when people consider the resources offered to them. People will go clappity-clap and name their characters and sons after them.

Now for example, let us take this recent discussion I had with someone on a forum. She asks, "Does Virgil's 'Aeneid' bear elements of Existentialist philosophy?"

Of course it does if you look closely. All literature is full of it. For Pete's sake, your nearest religious blah-blah text (which in turn is probably great literature) is full of what we could jot down to be existentialist references. And, so this is what I say:

"Now when you say Epicureanism does not forward the case of existentialist philosophy, you are partially correct. But to go on and say the Aeneid, which most certainly came after the multitude of orgies that invested themselves in the roman state, does not rebel against the cause-effect mentality that dominates existentialist thought is well, very silly.

I have nothing against theistic existentialism. But, in oppositions, when you have someone always intervening, looking over you shoulder, and you accepting their presence and obeying them however irrational the commands might be, we're losing the thread completely.

The Aeneid is a vast epic of well, epic proportions. It describes his journey through almost all of the known world. He even goes downstairs to meet his dead dad. Something I find particularly moving. The entire deal can come off as sycophancy especially when you consider the subject matter and how the poem justifies the rights of the then rulers of rome, comparing them to gods and how that is evidence enough to establish a totalitarian theocracy.

But then when you consider his own reflection during his trials, the layers begin to peel off. Revealing his angst for one. I mean he has a good thing going on with Dido, and he is asked to shove off. I mean who wouldn't be pissed. Now that is certainly divine interference of the necessary kind. So, then how are his actions to account for his destiny becomes the question that drives him livid. His role is small, and gets inconsequential after Juno decides its time for fun.

Thusly, the Aeneid is not really an existentialist work because Virgil probably believed in what he wrote. But it can be interpreted against his will as a struggle against the powers that be. It is rather depressing to note his failings."

Now what is wrong with this? Why would I defend this? Because I don't want to give in to the warm tide of wishy-washiness that rises everytime I see arguments.

Again, as a Novelist, I find this taking stands a lot of fun. I can get two or more characters to bash their heads together, put in all my conflicting ideas, disown the unpopular ones, and seek credit and éclat for binging out the intense conflict that lies latent in everyone's psyches. Or something to that effect.

Hehe.