I am not exactly in agreement with James, however, I think I can explain a little to Bonnie about arrogance and {I am right you are wrong....}.. Ohh and Bonnie {I was thinking of heideggers answer when I wrote the question, authentic being isn't a solution to me, just another idea of a solution...}

Anyone who has thought something out has {in order to have reason to have thought it out} to believe it {as though it were given from god or something along those lines..} In this state the philosopher/thinker is not going to budge unless a good{clear/compelling} denial{denial meaning argument to the contrary as in the literature[stupid modern trend to misuse words that have been established for thousands of years]} of his/her thoughts is given during the argument. It is true that the philosopher/thinker does believe they are correct and the person arguing with them is wrong, however, it is the nature of the thinker to always remain completely open minded about things and {they have good memories of every-day discourse {james-myself-... ect}} they will always think on it later. So even though they will obstenatly disagree with the person they are arguing with during the argument, they will learn the other side of the argument {and even consider it} often in this way their thinking is changed and some{or all} of the other sides views make their way into consideration and possibly becomes assimilated into the philosopher/thinkers ideas.

EndRant....
Here is something else to consider... In the scientific perspective of the world {alltruistic ?} we agree that its a darn good bet that particles will move in the way which has the highest probability of occurance {a trivial observation to those who have read and understand statistics..}... now human reactions/actions {are there actions which are not reactions? subject for a later Rant perhaps..} can be measured with probability, so is it a good bet that human reactions are bound to probability distributions and hence are predictible in many ways... does this rule out the possibility of personal freedom{freedom being some kind of idealistic perspective of life not unlike the religious dogmas of the middle ages... perhaps the freedom age will die in light of the modern scientific age and people will assume the role of reactionary devices which are not in any way independant of the state of their environment...}--{freedom as a paradigm ideal bound to decay as all others have ?... think about that {obvious} possibility for a second..}

EndRant HEHEHEHEHEHHE ROFL