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]

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.

[explosivecombat]

Yes...?

[doitrockapella]

All right. This is the harder part to get through, so I'm going to ask again that you be patient with me. I haven't been wording things well this evening already, and there's a chance it'll happen again. Please just tell me if that happens, and let me try again; I'm not trying to justify anything I did or make excuses after the fact. I just need your help in working through this.

You've told me before that you're not fond of people who compromise their beliefs. That one of the reasons why you like me is because I have my beliefs and I stick to them.

Which is the bigger transgression in your eyes? Conceding a position without a fight rather than sticking to it because I believe in it...or having a position that you find repulsive and trying to defend it?

I know that's not directly on point for this specific situation, and I'm not trying to suggest it is. It just...seems as though there's no way to come out of a situation like that unscathed. If the way to extinguish a fight — once it's begun, mind, because obviously the way to avoid it entirely is to never let it begin in the first place — is to concede quickly...how does that fit in with keeping one's strength of conviction?

Does that...as a problem, does that make sense?

[explosivecombat]

It does, yes, but I don't quite understand what the point of it is and I think I'm missing something - why would you concede your position so quickly?

[doitrockapella]

To stop the fight.

So you'd stop being furious.

[explosivecombat]

It's a greater transgression to concede.

[doitrockapella]

That's what I thought.

Then what do I do, in a situation where I've made you angry like this past one? Again, aside from not getting into it in the first place; we're assuming I'm imperfect, and make mistakes, as I do.

There has to be something I'm missing, or else it comes down to, "If I defend myself, I'm in for it, but if I don't it'll be worse." Where is the distinction that I'm not seeing?

Please. I'm not being sarcastic, I promise.