Reconstructing a philosophical argument is like building a stack of cards. It sounds simple enough...regurgitating another's theory on paper, remaining faithful as possible, but when one sets out to actually carry through with the task, things get dicey.
One gust can blow the entire stack down. If the wrong word is used, or an incorrect phrase, or just plain sloppy direction is exercised, the entire argument can be dashed to pieces.
Every word has a very precise meaning when used in context of the argument. The finest distinctions could pass unnoticed and break everything apart.
And that is a major aspect of a philosophical system, or theory. The intricate construction of words and those words' relations and the logical dynamics that are created with the relations between the words.
Everyone is trying to explain the same thing with their own constructions. And others are trying to take down those constructions with their own little gusts of wind.
It seems to be that "me" element that drives this whole progression. Hopefully it means something more than simple vanity.
Ah but it must.
