/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Here is a novel thought experiment which I came across yesterday while on a walk. It is intended to serve as an argument against utilitarian, hedonist, social contract, and egoist ethical schools.

Suppose there is a homeless man who lives in a park. He is an innocent man; that is, he does not break the law. He is also without family or friends. He is a completely neutral man who would not be missed if he were to vanish.

Now, four men are walking through this park late one night when they come across the homeless man. These four men happen to be a little sick in the head in that they enjoy murder. They lure the homeless man back to their apartment and give him a quick, painless death which then gives these four strange men a great high which lifts up their moods, exciting them for weeks. They do not feel one speck of guilt for killing this man, and they only killed him because they feel good when they kill people.

Was it ethical for the four men to kill the hobo? Was it immoral? More people found pleasure than harm in this act, so the Utilitarianists and Randians alike should, in theory, defend the murder. I would appreciate your angles on this. Don't argue based on your feelings alone, but think rationally about why the four men's deed was justified or unjust.

☆ article written under the influence of this substance ☆

So I've recently found a new pill to pop, so to speak: speed. Imagine drinking four cups of coffee without feeling sick, or shakey, or anxious. Imagine feeling better than your morning cup pumps you up on those lame Monday mornings. And imagine your mind perfectly clear of fog and loose ends.

Speed. Amphetamine. Vyvanse. Adderall. Meth.

Speed really frees my inner Apollonian in a beautiful and powerful way. This is the way that I'm supposed to think, I get this feeling that I ought to be this focused all the time. If I had a prescription to this junk, imagine how many blog entries I could push out a day, how many books I could write in a year. What amphetamine does is unlock the gate between the potential and actualization of my will.

Very powerful. Must be treated with respect and fear, as all gods must. God? But what else could you call this transformation?

The opposite of lorazepam, which I've recently written on.

One hobby I've been getting into lately is the traditional art of letter writing. I feel like it's a great shame that it has recently fallen out of fashion. Writing a letter is not difficult, but it's strangely rewarding; receiving a letter brings an immense pleasure that cannot be described easily.

I think that one reason why letter writing is superior to other, more modern forms of communication is because there is less of a demand to reply quickly. You can really spend a few days thinking about your response. One benefit this brings as well is that you can write a long, thoroughly detailed response.

Letter writing is also nice because you can mail your friend small gifts in the mail, such as stickers or candy. You can also draw much more easily than you can digitally (barring the people with digital tablets.)

One last reason why I enjoy receiving letters is because it's nice being able to collect personal notes and look through them on days when I feel a bit down. Holding in your hands something that someone distant put time and effort making for you can be therapeutic.

If you would like to send or receive a letter from me, please email me at 52@4x13.net.

Here is a novel thought experiment which I came across yesterday while on a walk. It is intended to serve as an argument against utilitarian, hedonist, social contract, and egoist ethical schools.

Suppose there is a homeless man who lives in a park. He is an innocent man; that is, he does not break the law. He is also without family or friends. He is a completely neutral man who would not be missed if he were to vanish.

Now, four men are walking through this park late one night when they come across the homeless man. These four men happen to be a little sick in the head in that they enjoy murder. They lure the homeless man back to their apartment and give him a quick, painless death which then gives these four strange men a great high which lifts up their moods, exciting them for weeks. They do not feel one speck of guilt for killing this man, and they only killed him because they feel good when they kill people.

Was it ethical for the four men to kill the hobo? Was it immoral? More people found pleasure than harm in this act, so the Utilitarianists and Randians alike should, in theory, defend the murder. I would appreciate your angles on this. Don't argue based on your feelings alone, but think rationally about why the four men's deed was justified or unjust.

So I'm back in school, and I'm taking two philosophy courses. They're going great so far -- I've been meeting a lot of cool people and the classes provide a lot of great discussion. I think that discussion is what the true aim of a philosophy class is.

The great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that philosophy was an activity or a process rather than a set of rules or a procedure one follows for determining the truth, and if you were to teach others in the way of philosophy, it seems like the best way you could accomplish that is by lecturing for a while to get people comfortable with certain concepts and then letting people loose to discover how things ought to fit together for themselves. That's what a big part of philosophy is, I think, linking distinct but related ideas together.

The homework for the class has been very pleasant. After a lecture, the teacher gives us two or three questions to write a page each on in our journals and then we discuss what we wrote the next week in class. Compared to math or writing, philosophy is incredibly painless as long as you can think clearly, articulate your thoughts, and talk freely.

What kinds of things do I find attractive? What kinds of things do I look for in other people? What do I want from a relationship? When I think about love, I think about these kinds of things as well. In order for me to love a person properly, I feel like I have to love the proper kind of person. Here are some of my thoughts on love, attraction, and all those kinds of things.

I think that when I think about people or things in general, what I really consider are certain aspects or traits of a thing. All that a person represents to me is a collection of attributes, qualities, etc., and it's only logical that because I am attracted to certain people more than others there are reasons for that being so.

The primary trait that brings me to admire someone is passion. When someone feels strongly about certain things or has very strong beliefs, motivation, or very overwhelming personality traits, I can't help but feel myself drawn to him or her. When someone lives life very strongly, I guess that makes me feel really strongly.

Passionate people have different strengths and weaknesses. Some of the upsides are very obvious: they are more likely than people who are passionless to be interesting. They are more likely to have obvious quirks or differences in their ways of living than most people. Passionate people also are more likely than your average person to have produced creations that are very well-done or have other accomplishments. The downsides is that they are probably less stable than most people and are more easily irritated with states of affair.

Does anyone else on /jp/ like to smoke pipes? I consider it to be fundamental to a proper NEET lifestyle.