NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

[explosivecombat]

[TEXT; LOCKED TO doitrockapella]

The offer for conversation is always open, should you desire to take me up on it; I can't guarantee that I'll respond immediately, nor will it necessarily be the response you want, but I'll always respond in some way.

In the name of enlightened discourse.

Comments

[doitrockapella]

...

Well...yes, but that doesn't...

[. . .]

So you were only furious as long as the issue was ongoing, but now that it's been...dealt with, you've stopped being so — having reason to be so, maybe — and are back to the status quo. Something like that?

[explosivecombat]

Well, there's not much sense in continuing to be furious if the issue isn't ongoing, is there?

[doitrockapella]

Fury tends to be an emotion that isn't traditionally governed by sense.

It...usually takes a while to come down off of it, in most people's experience. Certainly in mine.

[explosivecombat]

Yes, I've noticed that, actually. It's always struck me as incredibly strange, how that works - it's as I said, really, if there's nothing for me to be furious about, then really, I'm not furious because there's nothing fueling it anymore.

I think the only times that doesn't fully work is when I'm angry at someone and they don't do as I expect them to do; that tends to be oddly unsatisfying and I don't care for it very much. In general, though, if I don't have any argument with someone or something, then I simply don't, and the anger tends to leave quickly.

[doitrockapella]

Before we go any further, then, and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm still shaking and will be for the next several hours, probably, so if I do something irrational or...strange, that way, that's why. And I'll...try to clear up the confusion or confirm your suspicions, if you ask.

[explosivecombat]

Understood, then.

Do you have any further questions of your own? I'm assuming that's the case, but I want it verified; I don't mind them, if you do.

[doitrockapella]

I do, I just...

This isn't...easy.

[explosivecombat]

Take your time, then.

[doitrockapella]

I'm trying to find a balance between having my feelings and not...using them as leverage in some fashion. It's slow going.

If you stop being angry about something once it's resolved — naturally you don't forget about it, because you never forget. So...if it comes up again later, when you're angry again, is it...

I can think of three explanations. Either 1) you've rekindled your old anger for the thing and are now angry about it again, 2) the existence of the old thing has contributed to your current anger about the new thing, but were it not for the new thing already making you angry, you wouldn't be angry about the old, or 3) you're not angry about it at all, but it's useful to throw at someone in the heat of a fight.

Are any of those close, or am I overthinking things again?

[explosivecombat]

...It's usually either the second or the third.

[doitrockapella]

Because it helps you win.

And usually the other person is so busy reacting to it, because it's such a useful tactic, that you don't end up challenged yourself on using it in the first place.

[explosivecombat]

When it comes to the third option, that would be why I use it, yes.

[doitrockapella]

I'm still only trying to understand. That's all, right now, just working through the logic.

...While you're doing it, are you aware that it's unfair, but...in the moment, you're just prioritizing winning over most everything else?

[explosivecombat]

I don't think of it in terms of being fair or unfair, actually.

[doitrockapella]

How do you think of it? Is it just that there aren't any considerations save winning?

[explosivecombat]

That's closer, I think, though it's not exact, either. When I want to end a conflict, I want to end it as quickly and efficiently as possible. As much as you hate weapons, bear with me for the sake of analogy - if you're going to shoot a man and you're aiming to kill, you're going to aim for the head rather than trying to nick their wrist and hope they bleed out.

It's a matter of efficiency; winning is the goal but it's not usually explicitly on my mind. Do you follow, or do I need to clarify?

[doitrockapella]

I think I see. It's about — loath as I am to put it this way — simply doing the job properly. Whatever means get you to the conclusion you want in the most expedient way, that's the means you take.

So it's...if I have it right, then you're not thinking about winning because the fact that you'll win is a given, and synonymous with ending the conflict. Thus, you're focused on ending the conflict efficiently, by whatever means work best to do it.

[explosivecombat]

...I'm not explaining this properly, am I?

I never assume that victory is a given; there's always a chance that I'll lose, and that's what I mean when I say winning is still the goal - it's not a certainty at all. However, I...

...Does it help if I tell you that entire arguments have been had about the fact that I don't often focus on the long-term effects of what I'm doing? For example, if someone locks me in a room to keep me from being killed, which has happened before - I don't focus on the reason why they're doing it, which is obviously to my benefit. I tend to focus on the fact that they're stabbing me in the back by confining me like that, if they know I handle it badly; if I don't know that, then I forego that part and focus on getting out of the situation. Either way, the long-term reason doesn't matter; it's the immediate situation that matters. It's something like that. I'm not focused on winning, I'm focused on ending the conflict.

[doitrockapella]

Didn't you tell me once that you don't like chess?

Is it...something like that? You're no good at chess because you're not thinking that far ahead? It boils down to the same thing as what you always tell me about assuming you have some master plan when you don't — you just...only look at what's in front of you.

And you're awful at chess because you're only looking at the immediate next move, not the bigger game.

[explosivecombat]

...Yes. That's it, I think.

[doitrockapella]

I need you to explain something else to me, then.

It's not that I don't...understand it, exactly. I just don't want to assume, because it's something I want to make sure I've followed.

[explosivecombat]

Of course. Go on.

[doitrockapella]

What was it that resolved the conflict, just now?

There's a further point to this, I promise, but it's one where I have to start at the beginning.

[explosivecombat]

I think it was about the point where you stopped insisting that what you were doing was acceptable because you feel like you should have some sort of right to manipulate people in order to "make them care" and acknowledged that what you did was an actual transgression.

[doitrockapella]

And then that alleviated the immediate situation.