You hate me because I prove your belief that that you’re inferior.
Was that a Freudian slip?
Just for the record, no, I do not think of myself as inferior. Or superior. I generally don’t tend to think it those categories and definitely not as a generality. If there’s a shoemaker, sure, I’ll recognise their authority when it comes to the question of shoes.
And you don’t want me “at your best” because that results in me killing you the next time you attack me.
Why would I attack you? As I said in the beginning: No amount of flailing will make me hate you. Any aggression will have to be started from your side.
These reasonings are unconnected: “I am richer than you, therefore I am better”; “I am more eloquent than you, therefore I am better.” The connection is rather this: “I am richer than you, therefore my property is greater than yours;” “I am more eloquent than you, therefore my style is better than yours.” But you, after all, are neither property nor style.
Was that a Freudian slip?
Just for the record, no, I do not think of myself as inferior. Or superior. I generally don’t tend to think it those categories and definitely not as a generality. If there’s a shoemaker, sure, I’ll recognise their authority when it comes to the question of shoes.
Why would I attack you? As I said in the beginning: No amount of flailing will make me hate you. Any aggression will have to be started from your side.
Removed by mod
If you do not consider that possible, I suggest you suspend disbelief. Try it out for yourself.
As I already linked Epictetus: