Iwnkyaami, a beautifully phrased sentence, however when one is setting-forth a theoretical position in philosophy, one is under the necessity of owning theoretical intelligibility in one's position. I am under the necessity of employing the language of existential phenomenological ontology because, said language carries the intension of the theoretical intelligibility contained within said language, the theoretical intelligibility per se of the language of existential ontology constitutes the theoretical instruments of existential ontology as being theoretically indefeasible, and, in turn lends theoretical indefeasibility to my particular position. I am not employing the abstruse language of existential ontology in order to show off how smart I am, I am using it to achieve and preserve theoretical and ontological intelligibility in my own philosophical position as enunciated by the OP.
When I said the OP was constructed intelligibly enough to last for ages, I meant that the OP is predicated upon a theoretical instrumentation that cannot be demonstrated, by other thinkers, to be theoretically unintelligible, and therefore, my theoretical position is not at all subject to being destroyed by other thinkers. The OP is under the necessity of using the language of indefeasible theoretical constructs, in order itself to be indefeasible at the theoretical level. I have no choice in the matter ! I was under the necessity to have and maintain both theoretical and ontological intelligibility in my writing, else I would be eaten alive and trampled under foot by other ideaologists/thinkers. Philosophy is polemic, thus, if I am to be and remain immune from being destroyed by the polemics of others, I of radical necessity, must use indefeasible, bullet proof, established, theoretical instruments to set forth my position, which must, of necessity be enunciated in abstruse language which is indefeasible on the theoretical plane. Thank you Iwnkyaaimi (a name which is pure poetry in itself !) Negatio.
When I said the OP was constructed intelligibly enough to last for ages, I meant that the OP is predicated upon a theoretical instrumentation that cannot be demonstrated, by other thinkers, to be theoretically unintelligible, and therefore, my theoretical position is not at all subject to being destroyed by other thinkers. The OP is under the necessity of using the language of indefeasible theoretical constructs, in order itself to be indefeasible at the theoretical level. I have no choice in the matter ! I was under the necessity to have and maintain both theoretical and ontological intelligibility in my writing, else I would be eaten alive and trampled under foot by other ideaologists/thinkers. Philosophy is polemic, thus, if I am to be and remain immune from being destroyed by the polemics of others, I of radical necessity, must use indefeasible, bullet proof, established, theoretical instruments to set forth my position, which must, of necessity be enunciated in abstruse language which is indefeasible on the theoretical plane. Thank you Iwnkyaaimi (a name which is pure poetry in itself !) Negatio.
