Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Shaziro]

I came from reality, you should visit sometime. We have actual people instead of fictional ideas of them made up in our heads in order to make things fit our made up fantasies.

For those of you that may be reading this at home, let me translate this piece of nonsense to tell you what he really means by this.

"I came from reality, you should visit sometime." <- You should leave your paradise and willingly go to a world that I have already acknowledged as imperfect, because I wish to drag you from your perfection into the disgusting mess of reality.

"We have actual people" <- We have a bunch of hypocrite boring losers.

"instead of fictional ideas of them" <- We have no interest in seeking an ideal that isn't a hypocrite boring loser, and decry such ideals as fictional, without explaining why fiction is bad.

"made up in our heads" <- We have no respect for ideals, or for the human mind, or indeed of anything that isn't a hypocrite boring loser mired in the muddy darkness of reality.

"made up fantasies" <- We are contemptuously mocking the ideals that others have set forth, even though we acknowledge that those ideals are better than us(by virtue of not being hypocritical shitlords), for reasons unknown.

A false perfection is no perfection at all. You are a "hypocrite boring loser" too, if that's what you think people are. Ideals are nice, and they're what you should aim for, but you should accept that you will always be approaching them, never meeting them. Fiction replacing reality is bad because even if every person engaged in mass fiction, the rest of the universe would continue being real and not fictional. I have lots of respect for ideals and I just gushed about the human mind earlier so that second to last statement is pretty bullshit just by what's been said here in this thread. Aaaand lastly, I'm not mocking anything, I'm pointing out that your ideal is not realistically obtainable, and that you have not obtained it like you seem to think you have.

[Shaziro]

I'm no longer interested in talking to someone about my beliefs when they think that I'm a hypocrite who will betray those beliefs. I haven't put you on foe, since you still talk in the political threads, but I'm not going to talk to you here, so unless you want to turn this into a chat thread with another user of this thread - in which case I'll report you for being off-topic in your posting - I'll simply ignore you.

I mean, feel free to ignore me, but I'm going to come here any time you start trying to shove your philosophy elsewhere and point out all the flaws, inconsistencies, and general problems with it. I'll probably talk to other users about it too, but since it'll be on topic of the thread, that won't be a problem. Just because this thread is about your philosophy doesn't mean you control it, and it doesn't mean I have to be talking to you or nobody here. ~Reality~

[Sesq]

What you fail to comprehend is that the definition of a person, when used contextually,

far

reaches beyond that of the dictionary definition. Let's take the following sentence: "In the ancient past, women were not often seen as people." In this case, it does not mean that people in the past literally thought that women were a different species, or were not human. Nor does it mean that they thought women were a kind of hive-mind or some other group mentality rather than individual.

This doesn't conflict my statement.

Here's what it means to be a person. It means to be treated with dignity, respect and be seen as a kind of autonomous beings with rights, to be empathized with and so on and so forth. I have none of these things for NPCs. There's no point in treating an NPC with dignity or respect, NPCs have no rights and I have no empathy for their kind. Therefore, the statement is as follows - I do not view humans as people unless they have ideals.

First of all, you do realize NPCs are not real, nor a real concept, right? You're treating the concept of NPCs as if it's a thing in real life. I don't disagree with "It means to be treated with dignity, respect and be seen as a kind of autonomous beings with rights, to be empathized with and so on and so forth." being a definition for being a person, and it actually falls fairly well with the definition I provided. It looks like you're treating NPCs bad because they don't have rights, which is... interesting, and your closing statement is fuck out of nowhere.

But, Accountant, you ask. What does this have to do with the fact that you are claiming "people" and "ideals" are the same? Here's why. We have seen above that the personhood of a being is derived straight from their ideals. No ideals(or muddled ideals): not a person. That's a simple rule that's applied regardless. If we had a sentient AI, even though they have no flesh body, their personhood would depend no their ideals as well. Or an alien, for instance. Throughout any type of sentient being, we see then that personhood always, in every case, derives straight from ideals.

Actually, no, it was not established that personhood is derived from ideals, you just asserted it out of nowhere. Your diatribe about sentient AI is only true with the presupposition that their personhood would be judged on their ideals, which is supposed to be the conclusion, and not the premise, and yet again you display no knowledge of how logic or critical thought works.

Thus, "personhood" and "ideals" are more or less synonymous.

Actually no, you more or less presented the assertion out of nowhere and used a presupposed example that would not have backed up your statement regardless and then use this to inform your conclusion. You have utterly and completely failed to back up your argument.

It has come to my attention that this is not actually a tautological statement. It's a very obvious statement, but not as obvious as "red is red", and not tautological in the strict sense of the term. I suppose I have to apologize for that and retract my statement. Now that you have seen my updated statement, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

So we do agree it is not tautological. That's one of your overused buzzwords we can throw out, which I can only be happy for. There are statements that are not tautological but still true, such as "apples are fruits", and also "fruits are apples", kind of, eh. And no, I don't agree with you.

*********************************************************

No, you're a hypocrite just like every other human on this planet. It is a part of human nature, we can't break free of it. Doesn't mean we should give in to it and not at least try to fight it to be as un-hypocritical as possible. This is one of the problems with your absolutism, the fact that you can't understand this.

Are you really this disgusting? If you aren't even willing to show me the basic courtesy of acknowledging that I'm not about to betray or turn my back on the ideals I've been fighting for in this entire thread, then you're essentially implying that I'm a troll who doesn't really hold firm convictions in their beliefs and will hypocritically not follow them as soon as they get a chance. In that case, you shouldn't be talking in this thread at all. I recommend you leave immediately and never come back.

#tiggered lollllll rekt 420

It really shows that instead of proving why you aren't being hypocritical, if that is indeed the case, you tell them to GTFO because it offends you. This is not a debunk, it's whining.

"For those of you that may be reading this at home, let me translate this piece of nonsense to tell you what he really means by this."

Oh boy.

""I came from reality, you should visit sometime." <- You should leave your paradise and willingly go to a world that I have already acknowledged as imperfect, because I wish to drag you from your perfection into the disgusting mess of reality."

This sort of implies that there's an alternate to reality. There isn't. I definitely wish there was sometimes, and I'm prone to getting caught in my own fantasies from time to time, but that doesn't validate its position as important at all.

""We have actual people" <- We have a bunch of hypocrite boring losers."

OMGUS: Politics version

""instead of fictional ideas of them" <- We have no interest in seeking an ideal that isn't a hypocrite boring loser, and decry such ideals as fictional, without explaining why fiction is bad."

"hypocrite boring loser" is going to be to Utopians what "cuck" is to the alt-right. I'm loving this new Accountant. Fiction isn't bad, and Shaziro didn't say it was. It's just not real. It's true you can imagine things and they can become real. Social security was a dream one day, as was flight and the internet, and if you have good ideas you should go through with them. However, you need a sense of practicality to apply it to reality, as your non-reality applies to nobody but you and maybe some of your mates.

""made up in our heads" <- We have no respect for ideals, or for the human mind, or indeed of anything that isn't a hypocrite boring loser mired in the muddy darkness of reality."

"hypocrite boring loser" is a punchline every time. I love it. You also unironically call someone a shitlord later, which I love.

[Accountant]

I do not literally mean that these people are NPCs. I mean that they are equivalent to NPCs in conceptual significance. I see people as a set of ideals, and someone with no ideals is just a hollow shell. Nothing more than a zombie or a robot programmed to shallowly pretend to be human.

[Shaziro]

Pretty sure that's sociopathic in nature, and is one of the ways homicidal maniacs get started. Y'know the whole "they're less than human so it doesn't matter if they die" thing has it's start in "they're less than human".

[Sesq]

I do not literally mean that these people are NPCs. I mean that they are equivalent to NPCs in conceptual significance. I see people as a set of ideals, and someone with no ideals is just a hollow shell. Nothing more than a zombie or a robot programmed to shallowly pretend to be human.

What people are you talking about? People who who don't have ideals?

That's nothing more but your own perception. You still have not provided evidence that personhood is defined by the existence of ideals.

[implosion]

I typed up a big post with lots of philosophy-laden words in it and then deleted it but i copied it to a document if i decide to post it later.

I guess the tl;dr of it is that, Accountant, I don't understand why you are seemingly demanding that others not place value on what they naturally find valuable, and instead are only allowed to place value in absolute ideals. Why can't I find a nuanced idea valuable? Is it because there's this objective notion of value out there that, for some reason, has no correlation with the notion of value that I find obvious?

[Accountant]

Is it because there's this objective notion of value out there that, for some reason, has no correlation with the notion of value that I find obvious?

Yes.

[XRZ]

I do not literally mean that these people are NPCs. I mean that they are equivalent to NPCs in conceptual significance. I see people as a set of ideals, and someone with no ideals is just a hollow shell. Nothing more than a zombie or a robot programmed to shallowly pretend to be human.

After carefully analyzing what you have had to say in this topic and other parts of this forum, I am inclined to believe there must be at least some reason you are continuously pushing forward this dialogue, but it is not very clear. To me, there is a lot of evidence here to support the idea that you have been horribly mistreating these people. This is not because of whether or not what you are saying is reality, but because the discussion you are trying to drive forward implies(at least, to a certain degree) that you should be able to bring out that potential through guidance rather than tyranny. Allow me to explain.

If you intend to discuss about reality itself from an objective standpoint, you are acknowledging beforehand that this has become an uncommon opinion/approach in the last 5 years. What are you trying to define as reality doesn't even matter, as you must first build the base upon which these ideas can be built. You skipped the part where you built the base and immediately tried to fortify your castle, thus closing you off and leaving it all to come crashing down with no result. What does it matter if you can determine what is right if you have yet to define what right is in the first place? How can you expect anyone to understand a picture that was taken from the third person if they have only seen things from the first person up until now? It is completely foolish to try to fit a giant key into a small keyhole, the key will end up being destroyed before passing through every time... and what will pass through will end up jamming the keyhole entirely and causing more harm than good.

You like to word things in a funny way. Objectively speaking, anybody has the choice to do whatever they so please if they choose to do so. There is nothing you can do to stop that, and you know damn well that you can't. That is the first thing that will come to mind to a person when you say "Blindly follow", and in their eyes it is self-evident that it is not the case in reality. The insanity here is that you left out the part where you acknowledge that it isn't the ability to make a choice being put into question, but that if we do live in a world which is tangible and contains truth

at all

, there will be no sentient being which will be able to make sense out of purposely going against it, as it can only ever possibly be detrimental to their own goals and being(whatever they might be). This is an application of something I believe to be common sense, which is that no person will ever be able bring themselves to do something that they know 100% for sure is wrong. It's not because they

can't

, it's because they

won't

.

Your replies to other people and the way you explain things is very generic, and is very telling that you are unconfident about your own ability to explain it to yourself and others in a way that can clear. Usually this is a flag which means that the person has not fully decoded the answer themselves, but is rather using some shortcuts to reach an answer that they shouldn't be having yet. The beauty of consciousness itself is that it allows us to tap into our own potential without realizing it and reach levels that we don't fully grasp ourselves, but the true power of these levels can never come out until we have a full understanding of why we feel that way. This lack in ability is evident as you are having a hard time breaking the ice with the people you are talking to, so what is the point of continuing if you have been shown that this method is not going to work? Then you resort to generic and hostile behavior to anyone who doesn't immediately understand, as if they are supposed to instantly reach your level of understanding just because they are currently existing within your remote vicinity. That is not very human-like and yes, that is a bad thing.

It is pointless to have knowledge if you do not know how to use it properly. You should take this time to learn how to empathize with others without antagonizing the concept of things not making sense. Inside each idea which doesn't make sense there is a path which leads to something that does, and the nature of the world which you yourself explained is such that everything will "inevitably" point in the same direction. Why are you trying to swim against your own knowledge?

If you wish to discuss further it is possible, but you will have to grant me and everyone else here the respect that your own ideas imply you should be giving. People may

pretend

not to be human, but that doesn't change the fact that they are, even if it's deep down under the core of all the planks of wood they have thrown on top of themselves to cover it up.

[Accountant]

*sighs*

XRZ, I'll write a more comprehensive rebuttal of your post after I've dealt with Sesq's. To summarize, you are making a great many assumptions about me and my point of view that are simply not true.

[Annadog40]

If there was some kid in Nigeria that had my exact ideals, a complete copy of them in every detail, and you spattered my physical body's brains out on the wall, I would still be alive - in Nigeria. Do you understand how worthless a body is now?

Is a complete copy of your ideal or philosophy avalible on the forum? If not, can you make one?

[Accountant]

Actually, no, it was not established that personhood is derived from ideals, you just asserted it out of nowhere. Your diatribe about sentient AI is only true with the presupposition that their personhood would be judged on their ideals, which is supposed to be the conclusion, and not the premise, and yet again you display no knowledge of how logic or critical thought works.

Sesq... this is a thread about my beliefs. Are you seriously asking me for evidence that I really believe X beyond me asserting that I believe X?

[Accountant]

Is a complete copy of your ideal or philosophy avalible on the forum? If not, can you make one?

I can't replicate neurons. Yet.

[Annadog40]

Could write down what you can of your philosophy as a just in case. If you died tomorrow I don't want what you stood for to die as well.

[Accountant]

You have utterly and completely failed to back up your argument.

This isn't an argument. This is me teaching you the truth.

[Accountant]

Could write down what you can of your philosophy as a just in case. If you died tomorrow I don't want what you stood for to die as well.

That's what this thread is for.

[Annadog40]

But in a single post summary? It would be easier to understand if it is in a single post.

[Accountant]

#tiggered lollllll rekt 420

This is not an argument.

[Accountant]

It really shows that instead of proving why you aren't being hypocritical, if that is indeed the case, you tell them to GTFO because it offends you. This is not a debunk, it's whining.

I can't debunk what doesn't exist. Shaziro offered no proof of my hypocrisy, or evidence towards the same.

[Accountant]

This sort of implies that there's an alternate to reality. There isn't. I definitely wish there was sometimes, and I'm prone to getting caught in my own fantasies from time to time, but that doesn't validate its position as important at all.

That's the kind of dangerous rhetoric used by reality sympathisers. I'm honestly unsure why on earth you'd want to discriminate against fantasy worlds. Is this jealousy because they're better places to live in than reality?

[Accountant]

It's just not real. It's true you can imagine things and they can become real. Social security was a dream one day, as was flight and the internet, and if you have good ideas you should go through with them. However, you need a sense of practicality to apply it to reality, as your non-reality applies to nobody but you and maybe some of your mates.

You know perfectly well that I hold no truck with reality. It's meaningless to me unless it advances utopia. To tell me that what I believe is not real is about as meaningful as telling me that my favorite book begins with the letter T or that my best friend has red hair. It's just a completely pointless statement.

As for my friends, I invite you to cease speaking about subjects of which you are ignorant.

[Accountant]

That's nothing more but your own perception.

Nothing but? My own perception is the only thing that matters.

[Accountant]

But in a single post summary? It would be easier to understand if it is in a single post.

"What would Accountant do?"

[Davsto]

reality sympathizers

This is wrong. So wrong. Wrong on so many levels.

It's "reality sympathisers".

[Annadog40]

But in a single post summary? It would be easier to understand if it is in a single post.

"What would Accountant do?"

If I gave this to a stranger, they would have no idea what it means.