Icould, if you’d let me, talk and talk. let’s talk about anything. i believe the influence of kierkegaard on camus is underestimated. i believe dennis gabor may very well have been the antichrist. i believe hobbes is just rousseau in a dark mirror. i believe, with hegel, that transcendence is absorption. i could interface you guys right under the table,’ i say. ‘i’m not just a creâtus, manufactured, conditioned, bred for a function.’

what assumption does the narrator make in this excerpt

The assumption the narrator makes in this excerpt would be that the audience they are directing this conversation to through the speaker (not sure if the speaker is a character or narrator so this is just a guess?) is uneducated or believes everything is one way. The character who is speaking references several philosophers and their various arguments, opinions, research and how he/she feels about those writings/topics. In the end of the paragraph, the speaker says "I could interface you guys right under the table" meaning that he/she could converge with them even if he was drunk (interface in the verb form meaning to interact or connect with another person; under the table meaning to be drunk). The last sentence he/she says "I'm not a creatus..." creatus being Latin for born of, or created, or sprung from. This suggests that they are not a God, or one who can create things, and also that they are NOT manufactured, or created in some factory. This means that they are simply smart and they are as they are literally. The narrator assumes his/her audience (to whom he/she is speaking) is not smart enough to understand that he/she is in fact a genius of birth, yet not a God. Smart simply by the means of being intelligent.

The first one is russia because in russia they were on the rough times and they never had a way to get out of