I Think He's Doing Something Quite Different, Is That Knowledge Structure Just Ignores Attitude or Disposition or Gold Orientedness

When you think in terms of categories, if you talking about doing your analogical comparison, that whole flavor is missing. He wants to outline and say, look, we can't gloss this and we can't discount it as being constitutive of what it is that disin is human beings are. It's always degrees of giving a shit, exactly. And then he gets point where he tells me, we do not choose this term because sin is initially economical and practical to a large extent. So why did he warn us away from what i thought was going to be the natural interpretation of this? I think it's just because when you talk about things in an economic way, economics is like