Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

you have to like

back that up

>tfw I don't

[Sesq]

except you do

your entire premise depends on that being backed up

[Davsto]

how to remove threads from my egosearch

[Davsto]

Oh sorry I thought this was Google

[Shaziro]

Accountant, I know that you are wrong. I know it for a fact, 100%. I am convicted in this knowledge.

[Accountant]

Accountant, I know that you are wrong. I know it for a fact, 100%. I am convicted in this knowledge.

Too bad you're wrong.

[Accountant]

except you do

your entire premise depends on that being backed up

I don't have to back up statements for them to be true...

[Shaziro]

Accountant, I know that you are wrong. I know it for a fact, 100%. I am convicted in this knowledge.

Too bad you're wrong.

I believe I am right, therefore I cannot be wrong.

[XRZ]

Not gonna lie, this "correct path" is pretty bogus. Suppose it does exist: there are only two options, one being that it is conscious and one that it is unconscious. Since it is common knowledge that a conscious entity has more potential than an unconscious one, in the case that it is unconscious it could not make sense if you claim it to be higher than the universe, since the universe contains consciousness inside of it. In the case that it is conscious, you would in turn be accepting that said consciousness must be linked to the universe is some way in order for it to interact with it, even if it was completely unrestricted and limitless within said universe. A path is a motion forward, so we can agree that there is motion from this thing in a direction. You claim that you can do nothing to change it and are a mere advocate, but at the same time claim that it cannot happen until you do it. Don't get me wrong: a world like that can exist, but not in a world where it is conscious. That means both of your options are cut off from the start.

What's more interesting about this theory is that you have used a wall of defense I like to call the "Knowledge Wall" to deflect many, MANY times. This is a grievous misuse of truth. Just because you don't need to defend something which is true(presumably because it will speak for itself in our reality) doesn't mean that you can ignore reasoning and understanding why that thing is true. Knowing the answer to a mathematics problem means nothing if you do not know how you got there, in fact the answer is irrelevant because if you know the procedure you can acquire the answer at any point in time. You continuously use that as a scapegoat, which leads me to believe that you don't even understand what you are saying and are blindly following it. A most notable rule about thinking is that when you say something but don't understand it, what you are saying is wrong. Even if it was right said by another person.

Shaziro, this is a tier 3 circular logic that you are failing to defeat. Had you embraced his idea instead of constantly treating it as an obstacle to overcome, you would have been able to tear it to shreds immediately. You need to learn what the value in talking to other people is.

[Accountant]

Accountant, I know that you are wrong. I know it for a fact, 100%. I am convicted in this knowledge.

Too bad you're wrong.

I believe I am right, therefore I cannot be wrong.

I agree that you believe that you are right, but the correct path disagrees, and I care about it more than I care about your feelings.

[Shaziro]

"If you walk down the path that you believe is right, you cannot be wrong". Your path ain't right, and I can't be wrong about that.

[Davsto]

shaziro accountant has literally said before that the quote is not one that they fully agree with, even if they appreciate the idea

this is just getting asinine tbh, do you have nothing better to do than to argue with them? It's all I ever see you do and frankly it's exhausting.

[Shaziro]

I've been working at being better about keeping arguments with Accountant about the stuff this thread is for in this thread, but it's interesting to me to argue about. As for the quote, I'd not heard Accountant say that, and assumed if it was something they felt like putting in their sig it was something they felt was true, my mistake. I do plenty other than argue with Accountant, though.

[Ankamius]

um

ie. I'm incorruptible, and the dictator is way more righteous than me, so the dictator is incorruptible. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

The entire point is that the level of possible corruption correlates to the level of power held by an individual, so your comparison is useless.

The only way that would have any chance of working is if the one in power at any one time has the exact set of opinions that benefits everybody at any one time (since the only way one can become corrupt is by being able to change how they think) and changing that out when the optimal thoughts do.

But in that case, it would require free will, which would contradict your philosophy since free will means corruption as the level of power one has creates a correlated level of corruption.

And if they don't actually have that much power, then they cannot become corrupt, but they also have no reason to exist either.

[Accountant]

Davsto has "dammit davsto" in his sig, but I'm sure he doesn't literally want to damn himself. That said! Let me clarify my stance.

The quote is from an anime known as Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works. In it, the main character, Emiya Shirou, says those lines. Here is the thing. F/sn is one of the best anime of all time. It has many insightful quotes and stuff that makes me really nod my head in agreement - I liked it so much because a lot of key points within the anime reflect my philosophy exactly, or at an angle that's really interesting. I felt that those lines reflected Shirou's personality more than other lines that I agreed with more, which is why I put it in my sig.

[Shaziro]

Assumedly, dav has "damnit davsto" in his sig because he thinks it's a funny reaction to his attitude or the way he acts, or prides himself on that. Either way, fair 'nuff!

[Accountant]

The entire point is that the level of possible corruption correlates to the level of power held by an individual, so your comparison is useless.

I mean that if you gave me absolute power, I wouldn't be corrupt, because I'm so righteous - someone who's even more righteous than me would

definitely

not be corrupted by that level of power.

[Accountant]

The only way that would have any chance of working is if the one in power at any one time has the exact set of opinions that benefits everybody at any one time (since the only way one can become corrupt is by being able to change how they think) and changing that out when the optimal thoughts do.

Here's the thing - the optimal thoughts don't change. The optimal thoughts are what is known as the correct path, and it doesn't change, just like "is it wrong to murder people" doesn't change. It's the same path that will guide humanity to utopia forever. There's no need for free will for that - the dictator merely has to follow the path forever. This is known as "righteousness".

[Shaziro]

The entire point is that the level of possible corruption correlates to the level of power held by an individual, so your comparison is useless.

I mean that if you gave me absolute power, I wouldn't be corrupt, because I'm so righteous - someone who's even more righteous than me would

definitely

not be corrupted by that level of power.

Have you considered that having absolute power itself is potentially unrighteous?

[Accountant]

The entire point is that the level of possible corruption correlates to the level of power held by an individual, so your comparison is useless.

I mean that if you gave me absolute power, I wouldn't be corrupt, because I'm so righteous - someone who's even more righteous than me would

definitely

not be corrupted by that level of power.

Have you considered that having absolute power itself is potentially unrighteous?

It can't be - the correct path demands it, and the correct path defines what is righteous.

[Annadog40]

Why does it have to be one person? Why not a council of righteous people?

[Accountant]

Why does it have to be one person? Why not a council of righteous people?

It's the same thing - if there was a council, they'd slowly merge to form a hivemind, and then we once again end up with the "Council Hivemind" known as the absolute dictator. The end goal is for all humanity to join the hive, of course.

[Shaziro]

Well consider the Christian idea that the big ultimate righteous guy has to take on the penalty for all the evil of the world. Of course this is some semi magical idea of taking on sin and then somehow purging it that isn't explained. Is it possible that the super righteous one would have to actually act incredibly inrighteously in order to cause everyone else to act righteous and unify?

[Accountant]

Well consider the Christian idea that the big ultimate righteous guy has to take on the penalty for all the evil of the world. Of course this is some semi magical idea of taking on sin and then somehow purging it that isn't explained. Is it possible that the super righteous one would have to actually act incredibly inrighteously in order to cause everyone else to act righteous and unify?

You've been watching too much Code Geass. No. You can't be super righteous while acting unrighteous.

[Accountant]

Actually I should create like a reading list of all the times in books, TV shows, anime etc. where a character did or said something that made me go "woah! This person said something that's super in line with the correct path! I like the way they think!"