/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>10633069

Most digusting topic.

>>10633082
Fuck, how did I misspell "disgusting?"

Reprimand this *materializes member*

I don't know what that mean
Should I google it /jp/? Is it some scary shit?

There's something wrong with her eyes.

>That's right, your outlook is a little too narrow. How many times have you left your small suzuran field? Humans are the same. If they shut themselves in a small place too long... they won't be able to see others.If you don't receive support from others, you will not be able to cross Sanzu no Kawa and you'll be dropped into the river partway. A soul that does not understand the pain of others will never receive support from others. Only your heart alone will become aggressive. You are the same as other typical humans, one who holds a small heart.

So according to Enma-sama, all hikki's are destined for Hell.

>>10633392
Makes sense. Someone drowning in selfishness would not make it to any sort of enlightenment.

>>10633392

Sometimes you have to become a shut-in to acquire qualities worth sharing.

>>10633409
Now there's an interesting statement.

I just don't understand why people think that "selfishness" is so horrible. I think we need to better define what this concept is, and examine it. I look it up, and I see things like this:
>concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

That sounds great, but when I stop to think about it, it doesn't make sense. Even if I'm doing something that someone else wants me to do, with no benefit for myself, in the end I'm still just doing it because it might make me feel better. Because I want to be happy. It's a concern for my own self, not for anyone else. And I think that's how everything else is. People have their own personal reasons for everything they do. It's what makes them an individual. If you were truly "unselfish," your body would be moving solely because of a desire someone else had, without any say from you in the matter.

>>10633432
>If you were truly "unselfish," your body would be moving solely because of a desire someone else had, without any say from you in the matter.
I've seen some shit.

>>10633432
When making ethical descisions, it's good to think of what would happen "if everyone did it".
If everyone in the world just stayed in their rooms letting other people take care of them, everyone would starve to death and the human race would cease to exist. Unless maybe you are a window farming otaku.

>>10633432

If you saw yourself in a classical cosmic sense (you are but part of the universe and an expression of it, rather than an individual) then unselfish action as an act of modesty, piety, or thankfulness makes sense.


From an individual standpoint, you're absolutely correct, as tending to the over-ganism and system benefits yourself by being a part of it, or you're getting high off your mirror neurons.

Also, there are always people who are alive because dying would disappoint others and make them grieve.

>>10633445
And if everybody wanted to work, there wouldn't be enough jobs and everybody would start rioting and killing each other. Nobody would create art or entertain us by being different. That's not an argument. A system needs diversity.

>>10633471

This.

This is why Taoism is the only philosophy that I believe actually holds up as it is proven throughout history.

Absolutism is never the answer. Everyone working and everyone not working don't work. A balance is always needed.

Some people LIKE to give, like to work, like to be abused. If there were not people that like to take, don't like to work, and like to abuse, then the aforementioned would NOT be happy because they would not be able to fulfill their desires.

>>10633445
And again, this sounds great, but it doesn't make much sense when I look closer at it. My previous post makes it clear why I believe that the individual takes no action unless, in some way, it benefits themselves. Thus, if you ask the individual about the wellbeing of the world, they will think about it in terms of what it means for themselves. And this is not wrong. It is only natural.

They will look at that world where everyone is starving to death and think about things like this: "What will happen to the people I'm attached to? The things I'm attached to? How hard will it be for me to survive? What about my standard of living? Will I be able to find happiness in such a world?"

Words like "right" and "wrong" won't even enter into the equation. If they do, it will be in terms of "what brings me happiness." Really, when you look at it this way, the line between right and wrong (and I'm talking about the objective line) just disappears, as the self doesn't comprehend it.

>>10633432

Let's say that Heaven and Hell are two identical banquet halls, both filled with the most delicious foods and drinks imaginable. People in both places have their hands bound so that they can't reach their own mouths. The only difference between the two is that in Heaven the people feed each other and enjoy themselves, and the people in Hell suffer and starve because they're too busy trying to feed themselves to care about others.

>>10633513
That's the worst analogy I have ever heard. How is it heaven if your hands are bound? And even if people in hell starve, it doesn't matter because you can't die if you are already dead.

And then the people in hell could just eat without their hands or throw the food in the air.

And what if somebody comes into heaven but he is antisocial? Then heaven is hell for him because he wants to be independent but can't.

Worst analogy ever.

>>10633513
Those in Heaven are better suited for their environment. In the first place, the people in Hell are too stupid to understand that if some kind of "people feed each other" system isn't created, they won't eat. It isn't even a question of selfishness. Rather, those in Heaven satisfy their selfishness by participating in a system where they are fed or in which they receive happiness by satisfying a personal desire to see someone nearby fed.

>>10633527
The funny thing is that neets could easily survive in heaven. And in hell they would be the same as everybody else.

So I don't see the point of that.

>>10633513

What he said: >>10633526

Also, in addition, it doesn't work as an analogy because it would be in hell people's self-interest to work together to feed each other in order that they preserve themselves (that is of course providing it was a good, realistic analogy where the people could actually die which they can't and the analogy isn't good).

Keep being retarded.

>>10633471
>And if everybody wanted to work, there wouldn't be enough jobs
In Finland, before welfare was implemented in the sixties, the unemployed were offered manual labor at road construction sites. Even at that time using machines would have been cheaper but the "collective morality" couldn't withstand anything that could be perceived as sloth. People were relatively uncivilized: many of the "road guys" were the type of people who couldn't have handled idleness without resorting to harmful behavior. Many were seriously scarred by the war.

I study because I hope that it will help me stay sane and sharp and provide me with knowledge to help me make better decisions.

>>10633545

This. Even Hell-bound people should understand enough game theory to get this by now. Whether you're selfish or not, prisoner's dilemma type puzzles work best with cooperation.

wow you guys are autistic

even worse than a NEET thread

>>10633554
This is ``literally'' the best thread on /jp/ in a long time. I'm sorry.

>>10633543
So they stood in the way of progress and automation to fulfill their selfish desire of feeling useful? And they made the construction more expensive?

Great, lets all go to the nearest construction site and tear down all machines. Instead of using machines to build tunnels, we can just dig them with shovels.

This thinking doesn't work in the 21st century. Manual labor and a large number of service jobs will be replaced by machines. We will have more and more people that can't work because they aren't qualified enough.

As a neet, I'm on the forefront of this societal development. Finding ways and methods to be an unproductive member of society. I'm a pioneer.

If you want to feel useful, you can be a neet but volunteer at an animal shelter or something, jobs that can't be automated.

>>10633559
>So they stood in the way of progress and automation to fulfill their selfish desire of feeling useful? And they made the construction more expensive?
This "progress and automation" and less expensive construction and whatnot, is all to satisfy selfishness, anon. Such things exist because it would make people happy. This reads like "So they stood in the way of selfishness to fulfill their selfish desire of being useful?"

>>10633559
>This thinking doesn't work in the 21st century.
Indeed, and that's why I skimmed over your first two paragraphs. This place has changed a lot - those people were piss poor (by modern standards) rural folks who were used to collective misery. Letting 10% of them be idle could have been too much for people's sense of justice since the majority of the population actually did pretty back-breaking work.

Jealousy is bad but what can you do. You've all been there - you know how people turn into monsters when they feel like they've been mistreated.

>>10633563
Sure, but progress should be the selfish goal, not feeling useful.

In the future, when more and more people are purely consumers, people will come to /jp/ and ask us how to live a fulfilling live as a neet. That's why we have to be the pioneers.