/lit/ - Literature

>>7142081

What do you guys think about my ideas on glass?

Everyone I've tried to explain this to either says they don't understand or some stupid shit like "hurr the glass refracts the light".

I've had some decent responses on academic philosophy forums, but basically nothing from anyone else.

what do you guys think? Is glass/water/clear things see-through? Or does the depth of your visual field end at the objects surface like all other objects?

When you look in the mirror, are you actually looking at your own face, or behind you? If not, then wouldn't glass just be like a mirror, except instead of displaying light from in front of it, it displays light coming from behind?

An analogy would be, say you are driving your car, but instead of a windscreen, you have rigged up a lcd screen, and a camera connected to the t.v. on the outside of the screen (i.e. facing the road), which also aligns with your eyes, moving left and right so it takes in data from the outside world aligned with where your head is turned.

Now your friend one day asks to borrow your car. He gets in, but you haven't told him about the untra high def lcd screen displaying light taken in from the world outside the car, and your friend, not knowing it's a screen, says and thinks the 'windscreen' is see-through, and the objects he sees in it are the very same thing as objects befond the tv screen (out in the road in front of the car).

This is how glass (and mirrors) work. They aren't see-through, rather they display and image from light taken from the other side, and you mistake the image you see, for the actual objects existing beyond the glass. You never actually see your own face, in a mirror. Rather you just mmistake the image seen on the surface, for the direction of your visual field being magically portalled/reversed backwards, as if you can look at objects behind you even though your eyes are facing forwards.

I would be VERY interested to hear from people who either agree with me, or someone who disagrees and has an actual debate response why (as in, paragraphs).

I'm very keen to be proven wrong, because I feel claustraphobic now driving a car, or on the bus. Because I feel the depth of my visual field only extends to the inner surface of the windscreen, and esssentially theres a solid object blocking me from seeing the road in front (unlike a car with no windscreen). And I'm reminded everytime I roll my window halfway down, and look at my side mirror. The half of the side mirror that my window does not come in front (because it has been rolled down) never quite perfectly matches the half seen 'through' the mirror. I am reminded that I am only seeing one half of it, and mistaking a 2D image of the surface of my window for the continuing other half of the wing mirror. The join never quite matches, and the half in the mirror looks slightly different (tinted/slightly warped by the glass/

fuck everyone

>>6408667
Mr. Bundy chirps up, "haha sucker, you are only saying that because you are afflicted with empathy! You only care about this girls death because empathy has caused these bad feelings in yourself - of suffering, sadness, grief and depression. Her being hit by the car, is only a moral issue because you have empathy! If you were like me, not afflicted with your awful condition of empathy, then like dandelion seeds being eaten by birds, the girls death is not a moral issue".

The problem is not that children are being born to suffer immensely in this borderline hell, the problem is the existence of your empathy, which opens you up to all manner of suffering due to this fact, turning it into a moral issue. You see the solution as being the end of the birth and the human race, perhaps the annihilation of all women, all to relieve you of your suffering caused by empathy? "I would feel better if no children were born, the world would be a better place and I would be happier if all females were sterile, etc".

No. Instead of finding the solution by trying to control those things out of your control, which your empathy is using to attack you with suffering, you attack the problem at it's source. The problem is not that of other's suffering, it's the presence of your empathy which causes suffering in yourself when others suffer. The source of the problem is empathy, and that is what must be attacked. You must kill your empathy, and by doing so reduce the moral problem of natalism into a non-issue - just like dandelion seeds floating in the wind.

Anti-natalists have a condition called oversenstitive empathy. They advocate the end of children in an attempt to relieve the symptoms of their condition (feeling bad for children, feeling like the world is hell, hopelessness and helplessness in the face of preventable suffering, feeling as if the world is their responsibility to fix, feeling as if other peoples suffering are their problem, et etc etc), but why treat the symptoms when you can attack the cause of your problem? The cause being empathy, kill it.