Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[eagerSnake]

That was easy

How do I become the leader?

[Firebringer]

59 pages, I am impressed.
Maybe we could write a book all about Accountants Philisophy

[Shaziro]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three ... _Ypsilanti

Already been done, Firebringer.

[eagerSnake]

I should be the leader because I've mastered The Philosophy greater than Accountant.

[Not_Mafia]

[Firebringer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three ... _Ypsilanti

Already been done, Firebringer.

naah, Accountants book would be better than w/e this link you gave me

[eagerSnake]

I am The Philosopher you have been waiting for.

[eagerSnake]

Well, I'm not perfect either, so don't worry about it.

It's okay child.

This is what re-edcuation is for

Class starts in (expired on 2017-01-30 09:02:59).

[Shaziro]

It's an important distinction. I, as a human, may be imperfect. My ideals are not.

Accountant, admitting that they are not their ideals. Funny how their story changes isn't it?

[Shaziro]

That is, by the way, blatant hypocrisy. Meaning Accountant is a hypocrite. Meaning Accountant is a "boring loser" by their own logic.

[Not_Mafia]

That is, by the way, blatant hypocrisy. Meaning Accountant is a hypocrite. Meaning Accountant is a "boring loser" by their own logic.

[implosion]

i love it when a new person joins the thread because they decide to argue the exact same points everyone else already has as if it's going to make much difference when they ask it

As much as I disagree with Accountant's philosophies, I still find the mindset interesting when new points are expanded upon, but when the points being asked are the same ones as always and the answer is the same one as always it's just dull and frustrating for every party involved

This is the second-best part of this thread.
The best part is when people discuss how the patterns of the thread repeat themselves, thus creating another pattern that repeats itself.
I've read a decent amount of it but may have missed the specific answer I'm looking for. I'm trying to approach this with a specific philosophy in mind to some degree (J. L. Mackie's). Which I'm sure Accountant would vehemently disagree with.

[Accountant]

Yes. If you have beliefs, they should be backed up by some form of evidence. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing if they're correct.

What garbage is this?

Evidence is for arguments, not the correct path. There's no need to provide evidence that the correct path is correct because that's the starting assumption.

[Accountant]

"Reality sympathizer" is a thing now. Brilliant. How am I discriminating against something that doesn't exist? I'm not saying we should ignore their ideals, necessarily, but to bring them to the real world you must then apply practicality and critical thought to the idea.

No I don't.

[Accountant]

So you're solipsistic?

Other perspectives exist. They just aren't important.

[Accountant]

They're only self-evident TO YOU, at least the self-evident truths you are referring to. And if they are only self-evident to you, they are not self-evident to or of the world.

See: my perspective is the only relevant one.

[Accountant]

How many ideals should one have to follow to the best of their ability?
Do you recognize that people make mistakes?
Cannot nuance be part of an ideal?
Let me explain, an ideal is something one sees as perfect or desirable. So if someone sees adding nuance to their ideals, are they not still ideals that one wants to follow? I think of nuance in a programmatic sense, if statements that contain branches for what to do. It seems in your world these ifs do not exist in ideals, whereas in mine they would. You run an ideal, but if X happens do Y, else do Z. Is this nuance and if so, isn't it still an ideal?

Your choice. At least one.

Yes.

It would be a self-contradictory ideal, and you'd be forced to break yourself one way or the other. Because you'd have to follow the ideal of nuance in a way that is absolute.

[Accountant]

That was easy

How do I become the leader?

You must become the most righteous person in the universe.

[Firebringer]

Evidence is for arguments, not the correct path. There's no need to provide evidence that the correct path is correct because that's the starting assumption.

How can you ever know the correct path is wrong if you don't observe any evidence that would tell you its wrong?

[Accountant]

I should be the leader because I've mastered The Philosophy greater than Accountant.

In another thread, you espoused Christian beliefs. Have you given those beliefs up?

[Accountant]

Evidence is for arguments, not the correct path. There's no need to provide evidence that the correct path is correct because that's the starting assumption.

How can you ever know the correct path is wrong if you don't observe any evidence that would tell you its wrong?

I don't, because it's never wrong.

[Accountant]

That is, by the way, blatant hypocrisy. Meaning Accountant is a hypocrite. Meaning Accountant is a "boring loser" by their own logic.

That GIF is misapplied here. There's a difference between not being perfect and turning my back on my ideals through the use of nuance. For example, scoring a 99% on a test is imperfect. But saying "I don't care about tests anyway" is hypocrisy.

[Accountant]

i love it when a new person joins the thread because they decide to argue the exact same points everyone else already has as if it's going to make much difference when they ask it

As much as I disagree with Accountant's philosophies, I still find the mindset interesting when new points are expanded upon, but when the points being asked are the same ones as always and the answer is the same one as always it's just dull and frustrating for every party involved

This is the second-best part of this thread.
The best part is when people discuss how the patterns of the thread repeat themselves, thus creating another pattern that repeats itself.
I've read a decent amount of it but may have missed the specific answer I'm looking for. I'm trying to approach this with a specific philosophy in mind to some degree (J. L. Mackie's). Which I'm sure Accountant would vehemently disagree with.

You can approach this with any philosophy you want, but it's likely incorrect.

[Accountant]

So then why should I accept your philosophy, if it rests very directly on the tenet of "these things are self-evident" and I do not find them to be self-evident?

Or is there some reason to believe the tenets of your philosophy other than their being self-evident?

Suggestion: re-educate yourself and see the self-evident truths, then you'll be able to accept my philosophy.

[Sesq]

Yes. If you have beliefs, they should be backed up by some form of evidence. Otherwise, you have no way of knowing if they're correct.

What garbage is this?

Evidence is for arguments, not the correct path. There's no need to provide evidence that the correct path is correct because that's the starting assumption.

They are not mutually exclusive. Why would your correct path be a starting assumption?

"Reality sympathizer" is a thing now. Brilliant. How am I discriminating against something that doesn't exist? I'm not saying we should ignore their ideals, necessarily, but to bring them to the real world you must then apply practicality and critical thought to the idea.

No I don't.

Grammar: DO YOU SPEAK IT?

They're only self-evident TO YOU, at least the self-evident truths you are referring to. And if they are only self-evident to you, they are not self-evident to or of the world.

See: my perspective is the only relevant one.

When determing your beliefs, maybe. But if we actually care about objectivity here, it wouldn't give a single fuck about what you think or what I think or what anyone else thinks.