/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21645279]

my gf is adamant about "brave new world" being a utopia. she says it works for the people living in it, the system is one everybody should be happy to live in. we've been discussing for hours. i seriously consider breaking up over this. thoughts?

[Anonymous No.21645288]

How's the pussy though? Seething about your whorefriend not being smart and/or moral enough says more about you than about her.
You should have male friends to discuss anything above petty social gossip or weekend plans.

[Anonymous No.21645300]

sometimes women enjoy arguing as a form of flirting, a fun activity. my exgf used to love having arguments about asinine concepts such as the nonexistence of history, just as a game. maybe that's what your woman is doing. i recommend trying to subtly find out how well her argument aligns with her behavior. if it matches, then you should be asking yourself some serious questions if you intend on having this woman be the mother of your children. good luck.

[Anonymous No.21645312]

If you read the book you'd know that every problem these characters have could have just been solved by leaving the country bud. Other people in that world may choose to be Sodomites, but you'd only have to realize your own choices and leave. So, it's not a bad world for people living in it, for so long as the choice to leave is there.

I will note though that your girlfriend should be wary about being a citizen of hedonistic nations. Their borders diminish over time as people less fortunate than they are creep upon their borders.

However, it's been a while since I read this book, so clarify me a point... The Savages got Bibles and Shakespeare from God knows where? Did the government hand it to them? From what I got, those works weren't even censored, just unpopular because nobody needed them.

[Anonymous No.21645338]

>>21645312
Nta and it’s been a while for me but if I recall correctly they didn’t need them given the more easily accessible, engaging forms of entertainment available coupled with the psychological conditioning that the “modern” entertainments were superior.

[Anonymous No.21645513]

>>21645279
>breaking with a woman because she's stupid
You're struggling with reality itself at this point, not with her. She probably knows the world through her feelings, not with her reason, so stop trying to be reasonable and give her a "felt" argument.

[Anonymous No.21645528]

>>21645513
what's a good "feels" argument against the order in that novel?

[Anonymous No.21645530]

>>21645288
>>21645528
also im obliged to kick your asses if you insult her again

[Anonymous No.21645531]

>>21645300
this is great advice

[Anonymous No.21645559]

>>21645528
Fuck if I know, it takes effor to think like the average woman/manchildren and I don't do it unless I have to.
Think about it logically though, not even the most unnerving piece of WEF propaganda uses reason to defend their dystopic ideas, it's all centered around feelings to appeal to women and affeminate men. Learn how to think like that for the sake of rethoric and you will have your way around an argument with most people you meet.

[Anonymous No.21645565]

>>21645528
>>21645279
Ask her if she would find an utopia being ganraped if they hooked her up on analgesics and hard drugs

[Anonymous No.21645569]

>>21645279
If she thinks that a book where everyone fucks everyone and marriage was abolished is an utopia, then I have really bad news about the future of your relationship...

[Anonymous No.21645726]

>>21645279
Why wouldn't it be one?

[Anonymous No.21645744]

>>21645279
What are your arguments? Besides "It is.... Le morally bad." Then she's clearly smarter than you and you should fuck off.

[Anonymous No.21647026]

She's right and that's what Huxley meant
You should probably look into him and his family

[Anonymous No.21647064]

>>21645726
See Plato's allegory of the cave. Its not really living. "If not really living means no more suffering, all needs are met and there is no anxiety about not having anything to do because drugs, then I'll take not really living any day." You say? You probably don't have much meaning in your life. Otherwise chemical castration wouldn't be so appealing to you.

[Anonymous No.21647121]

>>21645279
>my gf is adamant about "brave new world" being a utopia.
Yeah The Tempest is a pretty complex play about the limitations of human actions in the world. After consideration and 25 years I am neither with Caliban nor Miranda but Prospero and Sycorax.

OH GOD SHE MEANS THE HUXLEY NOVEL

[Anonymous No.21647147]

>>21647026
Read the preface to the 3rd edition where he recants his views, you pleb.

[Anonymous No.21647517]

>>21645279
dump her. if she has that view of Brave New World, she's probably a cheating slut.

[Anonymous No.21647589]

>>21645744
>Why is le self-evidently bad thing le bad?
I would feminize and rape you like the pathetic little estrogenized pineal gland crystallized GMO mutant hylic you are.

[Anonymous No.21647620]

>>21645279
Females want to be dominated, owned and enslaved. Left to their own devices they behave like children and/or your modern insane SJW. Narcissism and comfort are two of the strongest drives in the female. Nothing could be a more perfect existence to a female than to have an invisible master who keeps them comfortably.

[Anonymous No.21647622]

>>21645279
>i seriously consider breaking up over this
Are you twelve?

[Anonymous No.21647626]

>>21647147
I have read his forewords and yes he literally thinks it’s a utopia, his whole family were utopian eugenicists

[Anonymous No.21647644]

It's been a while but isn't BNW's society defined by the contentment of most people? Obviously the narrator was unhappy but most people seemed chipper so long as they were hopped up on soma
Yeah it's not "real" happiness, but neither is heroin. Yet millions of people have no issue ruining their lives over heroin or other drugs. If heroin had no downsides, I'm sure everyone would be taking it.
Future generations will have to decide if maybe everyone should just be hopped up on drugs all the time. Hell we're already on that path now, and most of those drugs barely even work. Now imagine if more actually good drugs came out.

I'm sure if soma really does get invented, it will rapidly become ubiquitous.

[Anonymous No.21648104]

>>21645279
>i seriously consider breaking up over this. thoughts?
You can't be serious, especially over a book of all things.

[Anonymous No.21648417]

>>21648104
>especially over a book of all things.
A person's ideas about fiction generally stem from their thoughts on reality you smug know-it-all fence sitting Freddy. So yeah I would be concerned if a woman wants to get hooked up on drugs forever like some kind of lobotomized lab rat too.

[Anonymous No.21648429]

jam it up her asshole

if she objects, tell her to medicate more

[Anonymous No.21648441]

>>21645279
>woman expressing she would be happy with a tranquil existence of simple pleasures and no drama
>boyfriend gets irrationally angry and wishes she was a BPD pseudo-Nietzschean bitch with an unquenchable thirst for contradictions and suffering instead
You're a fucking retard man. It's the exact same thing with something like Vonnegut. A man liking it very, very much implies he is a bit too naive and adolescent. A woman liking it very, very much implies she is very warmhearted and is going to make a great wife and mother.

[Anonymous No.21648444]

>>21648441
Ah yes, a woman expressing her approval of an ultra promiscuous society without marriage sure is a big greenflag.
Let her enjoy "simple pleasures and no drama", ie cuckoldry and (pretense of) obliviousness as to why you'd have an issue with it.
Wife her up OP.

[Anonymous No.21648451]

>>21648444
>getting this insecure over an entirely fictional depiction of cuckoldry which crucially works out in favor of all participants
Oh sweetie, you're so transparent

[Anonymous No.21648456]

>>21645338
Holy fuck that’s sounds so on point for todays world.

[Anonymous No.21648462]

>>21645513
>calls others stupid
>still conceptualizes the world through a literally 18th century distinction between feelings and reason
Read Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.21648475]

>>21645279
Prenup prenup draft a prenup before common law
If you do not draft a prenup after reading this and she takes half your life’s work it will be your fault my friend

[Anonymous No.21648488]

>>21645279
You're the asshole OP. While I can understand that you are insecure about female promiscuity and non-monogamy, you should really see a therapist to work through why you might feel inadequate in these ways, because as it stands, your insecurity is hurting your girlfriend.


As for her preferring a world of joyful sex without drama, you really need to understand that this is how female sexuality blossoms: she has put limitations on herself for YOUR SAKE, to accommodate YOUR INSECURITY and feelings of inadequacy. That you would then get angry with her that she expresses just a bit of longing for a world where YOU wouldn't be so emotionally stunted as to be jealous (what is this, kindergarden?) - but still emphasizing she would only allow herself to promiscually sexually blossom if everyone (read: you) was cool with it, means she is still going to great lenghts to respect your, frankly, stupid and invalid feelings.


Y'all need to read this, read it again, and then read it again. Educate yourself, and stop seeking out perspectives from incels that will just confirm your biases. Go check out r/askwomen, but don't speak. Listen. Just listen.

[Anonymous No.21648584]

I could never look at another person with this world view without despising them, a person who willingly removes their humanity, puts it on the table and openly acknowledges that their own identity, their own life, their own ideas are so worthless that they can easily be discarded in exchange for an artificial 'happiness' that they neither understand nor even want to understand. How could one ever love such a person? Who consciously wants to sift out the 'human' in humanity; humanity is beautiful because of its vanity, its pitiful desire and its impregnable will.

[Anonymous No.21648586]

>>21645279
>own woman doesn't agree with him in everything
You might be a midwit, possibly even a cuck.

[Anonymous No.21648590]

>>21648586
>he didn't conjure himself up a gf while reading an old grimoire and trying out an unknown spell in Assyriac
NGMI

[Anonymous No.21648595]

>>21648590
Does it count if she's only in my lucid dreams?
Is it even worth materializing her in normiespace?

[Anonymous No.21648596]

>>21648488
How many times were you molested as a child?

[Anonymous No.21648714]

>>21648584
I can't wait until AI gets rid of you smelly meatbags.

[Anonymous No.21648725]

>>21645279
Besides the nightmare government and the ducts everywhere, I wouldn't mind living in Brazil. I like the art deco design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKPFC8DA9_8

[Anonymous No.21648768]

>>21648584
You're placing an impossible challenge before women if you want them to act like men. For them masculine is beyond the void that represents death itself.
If you ask a woman to strip herself of all individuality and meaning for pleasure and security she will either say "yes" or "no".
If she says "yes", she does not think about the implications of the tomorrow. Her survival instincts are stunted. Because for a man to say "no" is to simply survive as a conscious animal, to preserve its ability to will power into existence. It's a weakness of submission in a woman when she agrees to it, a sign that she does not have a thing to support her in the real world. Basically, fatherless behavior.
Yet when she says "no", it does not mean that she developed that survival instinct. It actually means that she is already bare, without any garments of personal choice and idea. She partially belongs to a man she is with and partially to her father figure. The idea of morality and virtue, without any objective or mystical basis, are the new ideas that she adopts.

[Anonymous No.21648781]

>>21647064
If the release from suffering was unconditional and not reliant on drugs, and the drugs wouldn't obstruct my mental clarity I would take it.

[Anonymous No.21648784]

>>21648768
>Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[Anonymous No.21648863]

>>21645279
women have the iq of a kid

[Anonymous No.21648933]

>>21648451
>if you disagree with me you are le insecure
Woman detected. Post disregarded.

[Anonymous No.21648943]

>>21645279
It's fine. She's a woman; it's expected.

[Anonymous No.21648951]

>>21648488
even the trollposters write well here
wtf i love /lit/ now

[Anonymous No.21648961]

>>21645279
She's right. Wellback made the same point in this second novel Atomized.

[Anonymous No.21648978]

>>21645279
BNW is a utopia, and the people ARE happy living it, but that's exactly the problem. Happiness isn't a worthwhile value, and utopias are historically a construction of an overly rational and ordered society. Your GF is right, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.21648997]

>>21645279
When she asks for an open poly relationship, remember you were warned. lmao

[Anonymous No.21649011]

>>21648488
Underrated

[Anonymous No.21649030]

>The mainstay of the book is that humans are dictated by their conditioning
>BNW people were happy in spite of their castes because of their conditioning
>We balk at BNW world because of our conditioning (we are a bit of John)
There is no right or wrong, it is a utopia to those conditioned to it and a dystopia to people conditioned to something else (us). Also

>your gf wants to sleep around

[Anonymous No.21649037]

>>21645279
>caring what a woman thinks
Just assert that she is wrong and leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.21649042]

>>21645279
you should just learn to accept the true nature of women or embrace inceldom
you are not going to find a better girlfriend

[Anonymous No.21649054]

>>21648781
But what would you need the mental clarity for if all needs and desires are met? It seems to me that if it doesn't infringe on your feeling of fulfillment then all mental clarity is good for is efficient accomplishment of goals, which you wouldn't have because all needs and desires are met. Also its a bit the point of BNW that its chemical castration. Plus there is the regulation aspect of it. ie who is doling out this "complete satisfaction? Is it really complete or did they save some stuff for only them to enjoy (like the thrill of having a whole civilization under heal for example)? Are they doing it with your contentment and flourishing in mind, or are they doing it to control you while they exploit you like in the matrix?

[Anonymous No.21649137]

>>21645279
She's right and she's clearly more intelligent than you.

[Anonymous No.21649280]

>>21648584
how faggy of you anon

[Anonymous No.21649288]

I wish I had a gf I could argue with and then fuck into submission

[Anonymous No.21649563]

>>21648488
kys

[Anonymous No.21649603]

>>21645279
Life is inherently unsatisfactory, anon. Brave New World DOES offer a ramshackle solution to this fact, or at least attempts to. Sure it is ugly and perverse to consider but the fact remains that the society of Brave New World does more for the human condition and base existence than any real, living community.

[Anonymous No.21649660]

>guy has normal discussion with his gf and finds out she holds views he doesn't agree with or like
>socially inept autists immediately tell him his gf is a retard who he should only stay with because she's a fuckhole who can birth a progeny
Great discussion lads

[Anonymous No.21649752]

>>21647589
>It is le bad because it is le bad.
Newfags like you should stick to fortnite, or keep your mouth shut before you've done more philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21650083]

>>21647589
>hylic
read another book faggot

[Anonymous No.21650176]

>>21645279
dont break up, wtf? marry her retard
also accept that dystopia=utopia, there is no salvation in this world, begome catholic

[Anonymous No.21650499]

>>21650083
Why? By your own admission it doesnt le matter so you even arguing is schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.21650543]

>>21645300
>such as the nonexistence of history
>he didn't marry that woman

[Anonymous No.21650556]

Do this >>21645565

[Anonymous No.21650567]

>>21645279
> My gf fantasizes about a fictive world in which her getting plowed by strangers to normalize social interactions is the standard, and women see themselves as objects.
:/

[Anonymous No.21650625]

>>21648488
Hahaha, no!

[Anonymous No.21652443]

>>21645279
Kinda this>>21645288 if she'll produce good children, at least cleans up after herself, and isn't too annoying, nothing else should really matter.

Ps. Of course her opinions are dogshit she's a woman. Being mad about that is like getting mad at a dog for being a bad basketball team mate.

[Anonymous No.21652452]

>>21645528
Give her the thought experiment called the Experience Machine and brace for her to misunderstand it and either get angry at you because she's an animal and can't process her feelings, or try to make you forget about the whole things by seducing you or somehow just changing the subject.

[Anonymous No.21652469]

21648488
Wow. I just want to post the Cato quote again.>>21652443

[Anonymous No.21652475]

>>21648768
I don't buy this. They can be reasonable. They just aren't because it's not as easy as being unreasonable. It demands more. They aren't willing to put in the extra effort and try to reason. This is why they, as Cato told us, are, for the most part at least, animals.

[Anonymous No.21652479]

>>21648978
No. A rational society recognises that happiness isnt a worthwhile value. Utopias are dreamed up by feminised people like Rousseau et al. We don't have rational societies anywhere because most people are animals.

[Anonymous No.21652499]

>>21645279
Ask her if she would prefer to get pregnant, consume copious amounts of alcohol and give birth to a deformed retard that you would hook up on heroin, so that it could live a happy if short life.

If she says that she would personally opt out (including not wanting to get pregnant) while still supporting the system remind her that unless she is rather rich, she would not get to decide shit in BNV - it's only Betas and above who get wild sex orgies and contraceptives in BNV. Gammas and below are literally cattle.

[Anonymous No.21652517]

>>21645513
This. OP will cry and want her back 6 months later, while she will have moved on.

[Anonymous No.21652529]

>>21648456
Lmao Anglos sneeding about a 2000 year old jew book

[Anonymous No.21652533]

>>21645279
Of course a female would think a hedonistic life without any form of agency is a utopia. That is all they want. To be comfortable and feel good and take as little responsibility as possible.

>>21652499
They are cattle that have all their preprogrammed desires and wishes satisfied at least so she might think that isn't too bad.

[Anonymous No.21652536]

>>21645531
Except he didn't marry that contrafactual history girl so the anon clearly isn't that bright.

[Anonymous No.21652537]

>>21648488
solid 5/7 bait

[Anonymous No.21652541]

>>21645279
>>my gf
>not transcending the shackles of carnal desire
ngmi

[Anonymous No.21652964]

>>21645279
People mostly detest these utopias because the only way they can justify their suffering is by viewing it as a necessity and inseparable from a superior happiness. Even if we accept the existence of a superior happiness or feeling, wouldn’t the utopia be able to give it to you without suffering? These arguments seem to assume a very weak and ineffective utopia. The real question is, if you could have the most superior happiness and superior feelings, without the need of effort or suffering, why would you not choose it? Aren’t suffering and effort only really valuable as means to ends rather than valuable in themselves? If one could get all of the work and self development that suffering and effort may give, but without suffering and effort, why would he be lesser?

[Anonymous No.21653338]

>>21645279
She's right though, BNW is a utopia and the only reason you disagree is because you think you'll be at the bottom of the hierarchy.

[Anonymous No.21653379]

>>21652452
Any sane person would accept the machine

[Anonymous No.21653444]

>>21645279
Women love brave new world because it promotes easy sex with no consequence, no aging, taking pills so you never feel sadness, and easy work.
They always think of themselves in the alpha class.
I won't lie the idea of knowing exactly where your place in life sounds very nice, I can see the appeal, but again everyone thinks themselves an alpha.
Women are retarded, it is nothing new.

[Anonymous No.21655100]

>>21648584
based fren

[Anonymous No.21655120]

>>21648488
this was copy pasted from reddit surely

[Anonymous No.21656741]

>>21655100
>what if you had happiness
oh wow great
>what if it was HECKIN ARTIFICIAL!!!!!!
NOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.21657037]

>>21645279
When I first read it around age 12 I also thought it was a utopia.

[Anonymous No.21657379]

>>21652452
was going to post about the experience machine, glad to see someone else did first. IMO the experience machine is the greatest philosophical dilemma of our time, and if you think there is a very easy "answer" you haven't actually grappled with it. the matrix is not a good substitute, because the conditions of the matrix are horrifying - people in pods being milked by machines, and there isn't a good virtual world either, just a shitty fake one, so the matrix is useless for this thought experiment. BNW is probably a better literary equivalent.

[Anonymous No.21657412]

>>21652452
>>21657379
What are your reasons not to plug in?
The first thing that comes to my mind is that the experience is not real. BNW however posits a real experience.

[Anonymous No.21657450]

>>21652964
>Aren’t suffering and effort only really valuable as means to ends
No, many times suffering and misery are completely pointless, but suffering is a fundamental part of the human condition, I mean, if someone has no concept of suffering, because they live in a utopia where everybody is constantly happy, I don't think we can consider them a human being like you and me, for example, you know those facilities we use to get meat right? those with horrible conditions and devices so cruel that it seems impossible that a human being designed them, how about injecting those animals with drugs to make them feel good even in those conditions... they already have food and water, they don't feel pain and stress anymore, therefore, they don't suffer, therefore, it's good.
Imo, the "people" who unironically think that BNW is a utopia are less than animals, because they consciously desire a similar scenario for themselves, or even worse, humanity as a whole.
Another example, have you seen that image of the edgy robots holding human heads and making them suffer endlessly by manipulating their brains? what if those robots instead made those humans feel endless pleasure? what if their endless screams were replaced by endless moans? according to BNW logic, it would be good because everyone is having pleasurable simulations endlessly put into their minds, but in the end, the result is the same.

[Anonymous No.21657452]

>>21657412
>What are your reasons not to plug in?
I have a strong gut feeling that it is "wrong", but when I try to formulate it, it gets a little fuzzy. I'll try to type it out later.

>BNW however posits a real experience.
Not exactly, imo. Soma isn't that different from hooking up to VR. You're inducing a fake brain state through chemicals. Either way it's an artificial state. One could argue that having sex in real life is the same thing, since your body is being flooded with hormones to "trick" you into feeling good, and I wouldn't argue with that. I don't think fulfillment comes from any hedonistic pursuit. It doesn't mean that feeling good is bad, it's just irrelevant for living a good life.

[Anonymous No.21657477]

>>21657450
>if someone has no concept of suffering, because they live in a utopia where everybody is constantly happy, I don't think we can consider them a human being like you and me, for example
This is covered by conditioning in the book. You (and me) are taking this line of thought because of our conditioning.

>how about injecting those animals with drugs to make them feel good even in those conditions... they already have food and water, they don't feel pain and stress anymore, therefore, they don't suffer, therefore, it's good.
>what if those robots instead made those humans feel endless pleasure?
The good feelings are not based in reality. The reality is that these animals are living in a horrible suffering situation or in the second example, the human is still there in reality.
This is not what is represented in the book. Taking your animal example, the animal would have to be conditioned to be happy living in that environment. Soma, or the drug is an aid but the original conditioning makes the creature happy in its environment.
Now the book presents an environment that goes together with the conditioning, that is to say an environment that will never be bad enough to break the conditioning. So the animal would not be in such a horrible environment in the first place.

[Anonymous No.21657486]

>>21657452
My take from BNW is counter to yours in that Soma is merely an aid and the conditioning is the main driver. The conditioning is the 'real' part whereas the aid Soma is the 'unreal' part.

[Anonymous No.21657509]

>>21657477
>The good feelings are not based in reality.
it doesn't matter, you can only perceive what your senses tell you and what your brain can interpret from them, it only seems bad for you because (you) are an external observer that is aware of their situation, if they have been in those simulations their entire life, that IS their "objective" reality, and their utopia.
>This is covered by conditioning in the book. You (and me) are taking this line of thought because of our conditioning.
Yes, that conditioning is what makes us human in the first place, the "people" of BNW might as well be an alien race and it would change nothing.

[Anonymus No.21657510]

>>21656741
>t. p-zombie

[Anonymous No.21657539]

>>21657486
it has been decades since I read BNW, so your characterization is probably right. Either way, whether through conditioning, chemicals, VR, or whatever, my point is that pleasure is mostly unrelated to fulfillment.

Several years ago I asked my wife about the experience machine, and her answer was very revealing I thought. She said she would absolutely hook up to it - as long as she could be in there with me and our kid (the "real" us, not just a simulated version). Which means that even though she would gladly discard the real world, her connections to real people superseded her desire for unlimited pleasure. Which is very similar to my answer in a way.

I would say no - because what I value most of all is my connections to aspects of this layer of reality (even if I have no way of knowing that the "real" world isn't just a simulation too). Meaning, my connections to my family, local environment, plants, animals, etc. I wouldn't want to leave behind to go to the "new country" of VR, even if the old country turned out to be fake too, it's at least MY fake place. Even if you could do a 1:1 recreation, I want MY layer of reality, no substitutes. It's a weird sort of loyalty and I need to think about it more to better express it.

[Anonymous No.21657551]

>>21645279
I mean, it is a utopia for hedonists.

[Anonymous No.21657553]

>>21657539
that's just the status quo paradox you faggot

[Anonymous No.21657566]

>>21657539
>I don't know what reality is.
So you'd be ok with the experience machine if the machine made you forget the experience is artificial?

[Anonymous No.21657570]

>>21657539
>>21657452
>>21657412
I think the pleasure machine is a good filter, everyone who wants to get plugged to it is simply not a human being, everyone who doesn't, for any made-up bullshit (either religion,pride,ideology,or any nonsense "higher purpose") is an actual human being, with a real soul. Because, objectivily, they took the wrong option to suffer pointlessly, and for that, they are human beings.

[Anonymous No.21657571]

>>21657566
no, even if I didn't know I still would prefer to be in my native layer. if it tricked me into thinking my current layer was my native one, nothing I could do about that, but I would not be ok with that going into it.

[Anonymous No.21657572]

Even the soiboi cucks in this thread attempting to argue with the roastie believe chemical "happiness" is desirable, as long as it's "real".
In fact the worst thing for a biological organism is unearned pleasure. What you actually want is manageable adversity. The real problem is that you're all brainwashed retards like in the book.

[Anonymous No.21657594]

>>21657571
But you just said you have no way of knowing if this layer is your native layer. If you're ok with your current existence, it follows you should be ok with the machine too.

[Anonymous No.21657596]

>>21657553
no, that's not what I'm talking about. I don't prefer it just because it is what I'm used to. I prefer it because it is what I AM.

[Anonymous No.21657598]

>>21657510
No, I’m not a qualia denialist. I still think it’s weird to care more about the “authenticity” of happiness than the feeling itself. I would rather be ‘artificially’ happy than ‘authentically’ in excruciating pain. And could you really say the ‘authenticity’ is more significant than the feeling itself? If you experienced a severe burn would your strongest reaction be relief that it is at least ‘authentic’ or suffering because you are in extreme pain?

[Anonymous No.21657601]

Hell is in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous No.21657615]

>>21657594
you're right, I can't know if an evil demon has already put me in a different layer of reality. The thought experiment is asking if I would willingly plug in, abandoning my current layer of reality for unlimited pleasure. I would not be ok with that.

[Anonymous No.21657635]

>>21657598
You identify as an animal seeking pleasure instead of the higher intelligence that distinguishes you from animals. At the same time you torture yourself by challenging your intellect instead of finding ways to get a lifetime supply of opioids. Your model of yourself doesn't match what you do.

[Anonymus No.21657655]

>>21657598
>t. p-zombie

[Anonymous No.21657666]

>>21657572
>In fact the worst thing for a biological organism is unearned pleasure. What you actually want is manageable adversity
I think that these arguments always minimize the utopia rendering the premise worthless. If the hedonist utopia still doesn’t give people the fulfillment people get from overcoming adversity, it it can only provide the most basic bodily pleasures, then it’s not really a hedonist utopia. It’s just a handjob machine with a drug dispenser. Which is far from actual paradise of the mind.

[Anonymous No.21657697]

>>21648488
Checked, good effort and really good

[Anonymous No.21657731]

>>21657666
You change the nature of the organism you put into the pleasure machine. If I hook a gorilla up to a gorilla utopia simulation it's a new machine I built out of gorilla parts, it's not a gorilla.
The materialistic assumptions you all work from about identity and experience are demonstrably false. Most of you already know they're false, physical things can't produce experience without experience already being in some way part of the physical world. "You" are the product of the entire context you're in, changing the context too much deletes anything considered "you" forever. A pleasure machine produces pleasure but it has nothing to do with you, you're not part of that process.

[Anonymous No.21657761]

>>21657731
>A pleasure machine produces pleasure but it has nothing to do with you, you're not part of that process.
Yes, this is what I'm trying to get across when I say I want to stay at my native layer of reality because that's what I am. It's sort of like the teleportation death thing.

[Anonymous No.21657810]

>>21657635
>>21657635
I think that intelligence is valuable to me as a means to an end, just as most tools are. I don’t like the term ‘pleasure’ it has connotations of basic bodily pleasures. I also don’t believe the totality of my body and mind have a single goal. I believe that there are states which I experience that I would prefer to be in and states which I experience which I don’t want to experience. My conscious will seeks to accomplish goals to reach states which I would rather experience. Now whether my bodily instincts, functions and unconscious processes are all working towards that I do not know.
>>21657731
>"You" are the product of the entire context you're in, changing the context too much deletes anything considered "you" forever. A pleasure machine produces pleasure but it has nothing to do with you, you're not part of that process.
I believe that fundamentally, the one thing which I can identify as being “I” is my awareness, my continuous subjective experience. If there was a machine which could subject me to preferable states to experience, then I would use it. I do agree that I’m not a part of the process in the sense that I might not have any material agency once I start the machine, but if the machine that gives me experiences, as long as there is a subject to those experiences and that that subject is me, “I” am there.

[Anonymous No.21657935]

>>21657810
Your preferences are biologically evolved, you want family, adversity, progression, flowers and meat, all the things your environment provides. The pleasure machine already exists, drugs can do all, pleasure with a sense of adventure and fulfillment without really accomplishing anything.
>gives *me* experiences
There's an assumption there about identity that doesn't fit what we know. The pleasure machine process happens to itself, not to "you". If the process contains your memories it will identify as you. Does running multiple copies multiply "your" happiness? How much do you value a drug binge that you don't remember?
Even if the goal is hedonistic any pleasure machine built would limit the range of possibly experienced desirable states reality could provide. Instead of exploring all reality we're exploring a subset as expressed by someone else. Most often the utopia is described as having fewer peaks and valleys, a consistent peace like death.

[Anonymous No.21658024]

>>21657935
I’m assuming that the machine induces experiences which I as a subject will experience, just as I am experiencing life now. If this is not the case, then the machine I’m arguing about is different.
>>21657935
>Even if the goal is hedonistic any pleasure machine built would limit the range of possibly experienced desirable states reality could provide.
The experience of variation could be considered a state that occurs along with other states. If it seeks to provide desirable states perhaps it may get stuck on a few extremely desirable states. But if the experience of the variation of desirable states is a highly desirable state, then variation could occur. Whether fluctuation/variation from desirable to another desirable, or from undesirable to desirable, if there are cases where the experience of variation is very desirable, then variation should occur.

[Anonymous No.21658025]

>>21648951
yes, it is a great board at times, but not always

[Anonymous No.21658120]

Don't listen to the people criticizing you for considering breaking up over this issue. It's perfectly reasonable for you to be concerned and I don't recommend you ignore so-called "red flags" in a relationship because it only leads to disaster. with that said, it's up to you if it's worth ending the relationship over and that's not really our place to judge. I would suggest you seriously consider how important this is to you and if her opinion on this book is reflected in her actions. We can't make the decision for you and this isn't a relationship advice board.

[Anonymous No.21658251]

>>21645279
>my gf is adamant about "brave new world" being a utopia. she says it works for the people living in it, the system is one everybody should be happy to live in
She's geniunely right, though. She instinctively sees that that's the reality we're currently living in, and does her best to maker herself comfortable in it.

[Anonymous No.21658344]

>>21658024
>I’m assuming that the machine induces experiences which I as a subject will experience, just as I am experiencing life now. If this is not the case, then the machine I’m arguing about is different.
Then the imagined machine is already very limited due to the limited worldview of its designer. You'll be stuck in the masturbation chamber while real human souls discover experiences you could never have conceived of, new things reality has to offer. You can't create a richer reality, you can only add constraints. As an illusion builder you can't add any variation that's not already possible so you can only subtract from reality.

[Anonymous No.21658427]

>>21648781
>and the drugs wouldn't obstruct my mental clarity
lol. if the drugs didn't impair your mental clarity there wouldn't be any point to them

[Anonymous No.21658430]

>>21648488
kind of impressive. i like what you've got going here, but i think it can be made more effective by toning it down some. it's best to appear as a redditor that is trying to disguise themselves but failing. so leave all the same sentiments and reduce the tells. one or two tells is more than enough to get the job done

[Anonymous No.21658458]

Brave New World is a work of fiction. No one in it feels anything. None of its problems are real for the characters in Brave New World, because they are not real. There is no way to verify whether the actions taken in Brave New World are correct, because they are not actions, and they never happened.

Why don't you try discussing what is going on in your world?

[Anonymous No.21658516]

>>21658458
>The holocaust is a work of fiction. No one in it feels anything. None of its problems are real for the characters in the holocaust, because they are not real. There is no way to verify whether the actions taken in the holocaust are correct, because they are not actions, and they never happened.

gonna have to disagree with you here, chief. even though it never happened, people can use fictional situations to explore ideas that have real world application to their lives and society. you've maybe never considered this before because you're actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.21658604]

>>21645279
there are few women that I feel I can discuss a book with and believe that they read it, understood it, and are capable of having an opinion on any level about it.

[Anonymous No.21658621]

>>21658344
>Then the imagined machine is already very limited due to the limited worldview of its designer
I am assuming that the machine is able to take into account all possible desirable and undesirable experiences which could exist and ones which couldn’t exist but could be simulated. Like living every life that will ever live, and also every life that could never live. I am assuming a machine which essentially could only be designed by God. I think that with the discussion of a more realistic and limited machine a lot of your points would be right.

[Anonymous No.21658628]

>>21658427
Having mental clarity and no suffering is pointless? These are very common in successful monks who don’t self-flagellate (not exactly no suffering but greatly minimized).

[Anonymous No.21658677]

>>21645300
This kind of shit would cause me to punch her

[Anonymous No.21658685]

>>21658677
Sometimes that’s what they’re looking for. Humans are pretty fucked up creatures.

[Anonymous No.21658686]

If good feeling is taken to be the greatest good, then of course BNW is a utopia. She would not be a monster for wanting to feel happy all the time. But I suspect she mostly just finds it amusing that you would work yourself up over BNW and is teasing you for the sake of watching your reaction

[Anonymous No.21658700]

>>21658686
>But I suspect she mostly just finds it amusing that you would work yourself up over BNW and is teasing you for the sake of watching your reaction
based OP gf, trolling him and by extension trolling half of /lit/

[Anonymous No.21658775]

>>21645300

[Anonymous No.21658860]

>>21658621
The best possible simulation from the perspective of an organism is the environment it evolved to navigate and defined what fulfills that organism.

[Anonymous No.21658948]

>>21658860
I think that alienation and deviation from it’s evolutionary environment can lead to an undesirable life in organisms in many cases. But it would be wrong to say that the evolutionary environment will in sum of experience give an organism the most desirable life conceivable. The environment we evolved in has kidney stones and the possibility of being burned to death by someone. Even if it would deviate from our evolutionary environment, why would removing kidney stones and the possibility of being burned to death by someone from the simulation make it less desirable?

[Anonymous No.21658952]

>>21658948
Nta but kidney stones and the possibility of immolation are fulfilling now? Neat. I’m not saying I agree with him btw, but c’mon

[Anonymous No.21658963]

>>21658952
I thought the argument was that the environment an organism evolved in would be the ideal for the simulation in order to give an organism the most fulfilling life. If that’s the argument then my point is that there is no reason to think the evolutionary environment is perfect and couldn’t be improved. If that is not the argument, then I need some clarification.

[Anonymous No.21658969]

>>21658963
I’m not sure what argument he was trying to make so I’ll shut up. It’s just as possible I’m misinterpreting and/or retarded.

[Anonymous No.21658972]

>>21658969
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.21659001]

>>21658948
You evolved to avoid fire so you love fire because it allows you to avoid it. Intelligibility of the rules means they're rigid which will result in inconvenient side effects to goal orientated behaviors, like kidney stones. Basically all these adversarial elements have relatively easy solutions because if they didn't your ancestors wouldn't have survived, drink plenty of water and kidney stones effectively don't exist to you.
>the evolutionary environment is perfect and couldn’t be improved
It's what shaped your preferences, you like the things you like specifically to navigate the earthly garden environment, not a simulation or cities. Your frustrations derived from being away from your natural environment in the inhuman zoo you call a home are easily solved on earth and avoiding the challenge in whatever escape pod you choose is surrendering to death.

[Anonymous No.21659033]

>>21653379
I have difficulty seeing a reason not to use an Experience Machine.
On a fundamental level, how is it different from playing a video game or reading a book? All are artificial experiences.

[Anonymous No.21659038]

>>21659001
Yes a lot of ailments can be avoided by behaving in our evolutionary environment as our ancestors did. But what if suddenly while living that life, you were captured by a tribe, tortured and then burned to death? Or what if you were born only to die of suffocation due to a sudden accident? Would you not have preferred to live in a world where you don’t get tortured and burnt to death, or a world where you get to live past the age of 1?

[Anonymous No.21659222]

>>21657379
The matrix mentions the first version was pure pleasure.
It failed horribly because people just shut down.

[Anonymous No.21659357]

>>21645528
Slap her across the face and tell her that if she keeps being a retard you break up with her. That'll make her feel bad for thinking stupid shit.
If she complains about this, tell her to do a bunch of Heroin because even you slapping her will feel like bliss when all of her dopamine receptors are firing from the drug.
If she tells you that's stupid, point at the book and gesture in a passive-aggressive way.
It really is that simple.

[Anonymous No.21659385]

>>21653379
>>21659033
>>21656741
>>21657412
Actual liberals in 2023, amazing.

[Anonymous No.21659408]

>>21659038
>Would you not have preferred to live in a world where you don’t get tortured and burnt to death
The fire refines the gold from the dirt, anything I can call "me" is a product of that refining. The loser would have preferred to win but without losers there's no stake in the game. The pleasure world where nothing is accomplished is equivalent to the nothingness we imagine death to be. I would prefer to live and die in pain than for nothing to happen.

[Anonymous No.21659561]

>>21659408
The simulation would be catered subjectively, clearly you find competition to be a desirable state, so your simulation would likely have winners and losers. And as I’ve mentioned, the world does not necessarily have to be an endless stream of a dull good feeling, fluctuations from bad feelings to good feelings may lead to an overall desirable state. I just mean that you could have the benefits of living in your evolutionary environment, competition and consequences, without having to experience the feeling of being burnt to death or without dying as a baby. I can understand wanting competition and the ability to lose, but are you self loathing enough to really gracefully accept being tortured to death? In terms of accomplishment, you’d still be able to accomplish things or obtain the feeling of accomplishment, but it is true that you will not have material accomplishment. But if you were to be born into the simulation (without knowing it is one), would you not have a more desirable life? You envy the one who died young but interacted with the material world over the man who lived a million lives in a world that transcends our own, do you value material interaction more than life? Of what value are our material interactions to our corpses, value only exists for the living.

[Anonymous No.21659601]

>>21659561
The simulation is not reality no matter how hard you try to stretch the word.
Your dreams seem real while you are in them, but they are not real.

[Anonymous No.21659783]

>>21659601
The simulation is not material reality but your life is real. If the simulation simulated your life as it is, the only difference between it and your real life would be that in the simulation you would not interact with anything of the material world and your actions would not have any impact in the material world. Would you rather die at 1 years old and painfully but interact with the material world, or would you rather live a your ideal life but never interact with and leave no impact on the material world?

[Anonymous No.21659791]

>>21659561
>you could have the benefits of living in your evolutionary environment, competition and consequences, without having to experience the feeling of being burnt to death or without dying as a baby
The entire thing is a result of babies burning to death. There's no situation where a thing like "you" arises without babies burning. Intelligible rules on a tiny scale cause complex emergent behavior. It's the best imaginable game and you want to remove everything that makes it interesting like a hysterical mom because feefees. Like already mentioned drugs can provide you a sense of fulfillment as if you're constantly winning, not just pleasure. The machine is already available and it's not even that expensive.
Is a drug binge you don't remember worth anything? Your posts work from assumptions that imply it's the highest imaginable goal.

[Anonymous No.21659882]

>>21659783
Death is preferable to a thousand pointless lives.
You may as well just dream pleasant dreams until you die.

[Anonymous No.21659972]

>>21659791
>The entire thing is a result of babies burning to death. There's no situation where a thing like "you" arises without babies burning. Intelligible rules on a tiny scale cause complex emergent behavior.
I’m aware things that cause suffering are a part of reality and existence, and led to my existence. What if I want to transcend it?
>It's the best imaginable game and you want to remove everything that makes it interesting like a hysterical mom because feefees.
If you want something because you find it interesting, you want it because of feelings too. I also don’t exactly mean that they would be removed entirely, I just meant that in that simulation the dice would roll such that such things wouldn’t happen to you specifically. I think if given the choice in your life, you would rather not die by fire.
>Like already mentioned drugs can provide you a sense of fulfillment as if you're constantly winning, not just pleasure.
Drugs are still very shallow, temporary and varying in effectiveness. They can pump you with certain feelings, but it won’t be constant nor optimized. You couldn’t drug yourself into experiencing a life like the life of a man with a well lived life and strong relationships.
>Is a drug binge you don't remember worth anything? Your posts work from assumptions that imply it's the highest imaginable goal.
If that drug binge gave me the experience of living a great life, it would be worth something.
>>21659882
>Death is preferable to a thousand pointless lives.
Do you see no values that life provides in itself? Is life only valuable to you as a means to interact with materials and make impacts on the material world? You’ve felt a desirable feeling before, such as happiness. Even if you had no impact or interaction with the material world, why would it be better to never exist, than to come to existence and experience happiness?

[Anonymous No.21660000]

>>21659972
Life IS interaction with the material world. All else is just fantasy, it doesn't matter how real it feels, it is not real.

[Anonymous No.21660042]

>>21660000
>Life IS interaction with the material world.
Dreaming is a part of your life just as waking life. Deep sleep is not much different from death in terms of experience. Your are the subject to experiences, when you are in deep sleep or dead “you” ceases. Life for humans is to be a subject or an awareness. If you could remain conscious but receive experiences from a simulation rather than the material world, you’d still be alive.

[Anonymous No.21660064]

>>21659972
>What if I want to transcend it?
As a living thing you want power, creating a fantasy world where you're powerful is not power. It's an escape mechanism.
>If that drug binge gave me the experience of living a great life, it would be worth something.
Is it worth more if I make a million happy clones of you? What if they have your memories and identify as you? What if the same happy life just happens repeatedly to you with memories wiped at the start of each loop? Why do any of these life denying thought experiments sound appealing in any way?

[Anonymous No.21660147]

>>21660064
>As a living thing you want power, creating a fantasy world where you're powerful is not power.
Power is not an end in itself. Power is a means to an end. If I want power in order to obtain an experience, an object, or a feeling, then what I really want is that thing, not power.
>Is it worth more if I make a million happy clones of you?
They won’t be me, so I’m mostly indifferent. Perhaps more happiness will be experienced in the world, but I’m only interested in argument in terms of individual considerations.
>>21660064
>Why do any of these life denying thought experiments sound appealing in any way?
In life our will seeks desirable experiences. If life had no desirable experiences then life would be undesirable. The choice is to experience a desirable life but without interacting / impacting the ‘real world’.

[Anonymous No.21660585]

>>21658251
>She instinctively sees that that's the reality we're currently living in, and does her best to maker herself comfortable in it
In other words, she acts like a woman

[Anonymous No.21660631]

>>21659385
Liberalism was Satanism all along

[Anonymous No.21660645]

>>21660064
>As a living thing you want power, creating a fantasy world where you're powerful is not power. It's an escape mechanism.
I'd say that is absolute power if you have no other means of power which is possible in any sense. After all "reality" and "illusion" are ultimately just social constructs agreed upon by different people. What do opinions matter to us? The only thing that matters is perceptual reality.

[Anonymous No.21661246]

>>21645279
> "brave new world" being a utopia
What is this thing? Do you refer to a novel (Brave New World, novel by Aldous Huxley, published in 1932. The book presents a nightmarish vision of a future society.)?

Never read Plato or Macchiavelli, are too difficult.

[Anonymous No.21662306]

>>21658430
Thanks, and yeah, I agree with your thoughts on it. Halfway through it turned more into an exercise in what a premium redditeur might actually be thinking, rather than a subtle attempt at trolling - the reference to askwomen is waaay over the top.
However I am especially proud about the part about jealousy being a stupid and invalid feeling, because I think it catches a lot of the redditeur-gestalt's total hypocrisy whenver talking or thinking about sex and gender relations.
Despite this not being my finest trolling, it seems a couple of anons took the bait anyway.

[Anonymous No.21662311]

bump