quickquestion Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) Without Love in my life, I go outside and say "What's the point." All is just colors of shapes and matter. The point I am trying to make is very similar to MattVSM's thread about how without positive emotions, life is without value. Let's say 1000's in the future we live in a sterile future that is worse than Star Trek. And in this future no violent instinct is allowed, and sex is not allowed, babies are bred in test tubes, and no competition of any kind is allowed, and everything looks white and sterile and everyone wears teletubbies/Star Trek unicolor uniforms without personality. If I was unlucky enough to be born in such a future, I would be a supreme villian. But if villiany was not allowed, I would continually disobey and not cooperate with society. Everyone in society would be raised and encouraged to do school, science, and mathematics, but I would have no interest in science or mathematics, or any type of school. My only interest would be to hate society. My philosophy would be, "For what reason do we seek to explore the stars, if it is of the same miserable stuff to which we are chained and aquainted?" In such a future, there would only be one reason to explore the stars - to find an escape from our current torments. Or to seek history and the past, to discern whether or not life can be anything more than what we were raised to believe. Edited April 17, 2017 by quickquestion
Sriman Dutta Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 If I do understand you correctly, you want to convey the simple message that human life can't exist without love. If that's so, I agree with you. People can't lead a normal life without love. It happens in everyone's life and it happens quite naturally.
zapatos Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 Perhaps if you weren't so self-centered you would enjoy life more. 3
Prometheus Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 People should be free to find their own meaning in life. Imposing love as the only valid meaning to existence is as bad as imposing a Star Trek society. I would love to live in a Star Trek society. I don't understand the reference though - in Star Trek they often come such 'sterile' societies, which makes them further cherish their emotional society.
Phi for All Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 Perhaps if you weren't so self-centered you would enjoy life more. It seems more self-defeating than self-centered. Self-centeredness at least strives for personal success, while a self-defeating approach never has a viable exit strategy, no way for a win-win scenario to happen, no way to ever achieve happiness. Most people think of Star Trek as an economic utopia where money as the evil root has been eliminated. I've never heard it conflated with a loveless, sterile, vanilla environment.
Bender Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) Quite an unrealistic premise. Except for the test-tube babies, it sounds like how Heaven is sometimes depicted... Anyway, you could still play cooperative games, so roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons would be allowed. I could certainly fill my time there. I disagree with the conclusion that everyone would need to study science and mathematics. That does not follow from the premise. Edited April 17, 2017 by Bender
jimmydasaint Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 I like the quote by the Italian diplomat of the 19th century called Benso di Cavour who wrote something along the lines of: "Life is the shadow of a passing dream; the story is short and finite; the only immortal truth is love." I cannot conceive of a world where love does not exist and where all life is based upon scientific rationalism, which is IMO, what the OP is saying. But, is love outside the aegis of scientific investigation?
StringJunky Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) People should be free to find their own meaning in life. Imposing love as the only valid meaning to existence is as bad as imposing a Star Trek society. Yes, not everyone wants to be part of another's life. Some people like solitude and don't equate it with loneliness. Edited April 17, 2017 by StringJunky 1
Bender Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 But, is love outside the aegis of scientific investigation? As far as we know, it isn't. 1
iNow Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 But, is love outside the aegis of scientific investigation?I studied love quite a bit while at university, and as often as possible even spent time making it. 1
zapatos Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 It seems more self-defeating than self-centered. Self-centeredness at least strives for personal success, while a self-defeating approach never has a viable exit strategy, no way for a win-win scenario to happen, no way to ever achieve happiness. Self-defeating too. But certainly self-centered. There is no discussion, no question, no request for input. The entire OP was "let me tell you about me and what I think and what I feel and how I would act". And that's just this post. Most of her posts seem self-centered. Reminds me of a self-centered friend I once had who, after giving you the latest update on all things her, would say "but enough about me, what do you think about me?"
jimmydasaint Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 I studied love quite a bit while at university, and as often as possible even spent time making it. No comment!
Strange Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 If I was unlucky enough to be born in such a future, I would be a supreme villian. But if villiany was not allowed, I would continually disobey and not cooperate with society. Everyone in society would be raised and encouraged to do school, science, and mathematics, but I would have no interest in science or mathematics, or any type of school. My only interest would be to hate society. My philosophy would be, "For what reason do we seek to explore the stars, if it is of the same miserable stuff to which we are chained and aquainted?" In such a future, there would only be one reason to explore the stars - to find an escape from our current torments. Or to seek history and the past, to discern whether or not life can be anything more than what we were raised to believe. So, from this we can deduce you are, what, 14? And an immature 14 at that.
Raider5678 Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 (edited) So, from this we can deduce you are, what, 14? And an immature 14 at that. I take offense to this(Not really), I'm fourteen. Without Love in my life, I go outside and say "What's the point." All is just colors of shapes and matter. The point I am trying to make is very similar to MattVSM's thread about how without positive emotions, life is without value. Let's say 1000's in the future we live in a sterile future that is worse than Star Trek. And in this future no violent instinct is allowed, and sex is not allowed, babies are bred in test tubes, and no competition of any kind is allowed, and everything looks white and sterile and everyone wears teletubbies/Star Trek unicolor uniforms without personality. If I was unlucky enough to be born in such a future, I would be a supreme villian. But if villiany was not allowed, I would continually disobey and not cooperate with society. Everyone in society would be raised and encouraged to do school, science, and mathematics, but I would have no interest in science or mathematics, or any type of school. My only interest would be to hate society. My philosophy would be, "For what reason do we seek to explore the stars, if it is of the same miserable stuff to which we are chained and aquainted?" In such a future, there would only be one reason to explore the stars - to find an escape from our current torments. Or to seek history and the past, to discern whether or not life can be anything more than what we were raised to believe. This, is seriously messed up. No society would raise up like that. I mean, soon as you set the rule "No sex" that governments out of there. Try containing 150 million testosterone fueled boys. Good luck. Edited April 17, 2017 by Raider5678
Strange Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 I take offense to this(Not really), I'm fourteen. You are a very sensible 14! I was quite surprised when I saw some of your posts about school. No, that's not true. I was very surprised!
quickquestion Posted April 18, 2017 Author Posted April 18, 2017 Perhaps if you weren't so self-centered you would enjoy life more. A meaningless statement. If my girlfriend cheats on me, and gets pregnant with someone else, I am not going to be a selfless cuck and raise that other person's child. I will be continue be self-centered, because if I'm not happy, why should anyone else be. So, from this we can deduce you are, what, 14? And an immature 14 at that. Then, my dear watson, your powers of deduction need refining. If I do understand you correctly, you want to convey the simple message that human life can't exist without love. If that's so, I agree with you. People can't lead a normal life without love. It happens in everyone's life and it happens quite naturally. No, it doesn't happens in everyone's life. Millions of people commit suicide because they don't have any love. Most of you demonstrate why I hate the human race. I come here complaining about there not being enough love in this world, and half of you belittle and insult me for doing so, and then you say how selfish I am. You are truly a detestable species.
zapatos Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 A meaningless statement.By all means you should simply dismiss out of hand any observation about you that you don't like. Good job!
quickquestion Posted April 18, 2017 Author Posted April 18, 2017 By all means you should simply dismiss out of hand any observation about you that you don't like. Good job! I didn't dismiss it, I actually responded to you.
Prometheus Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 I will be continue be self-centered, because if I'm not happy, why should anyone else be. Most of you demonstrate why I hate the human race. I come here complaining about there not being enough love in this world, and half of you belittle and insult me for doing so, and then you say how selfish I am. You are truly a detestable species. What does love mean to you? You imply you want more love in the world but react with hate instead. Your words belie your actions.
zapatos Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 If my girlfriend cheats on me, and gets pregnant with someone else, I am not going to be a selfless cuck and raise that other person's child. I will be continue be self-centered, because if I'm not happy, why should anyone else be. Where did I suggest in any way that you should raise someone's child? That my friend is what we call a "straw man". I didn't dismiss it, I actually responded to you.Yes, your response was to dismiss what I said.
quickquestion Posted April 18, 2017 Author Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) Where did I suggest in any way that you should raise someone's child? That my friend is what we call a "straw man". You said I am too self-centered. So I gave an example of how I ought to be self-centered. Why should I try to make others to be happy when noone cares if I am happy. Its like the cuck analogy I gave earlier, a cuck who tries to please his girlfriend when she continually cheats on him and doesn't give him any love. You imply you want more love in the world but react with hate instead. Your words belie your actions. hate is a manifestation of love. If you don't love someone, you can't hate them. Apathy is when you neither hate or love someone. My argument was that in a world where Love was denied, I would bring hate to them and make them suffer. Edited April 18, 2017 by quickquestion
zapatos Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 You said I am too self-centered. So I gave an example of how I ought to be self-centered. Why should I try to make others to be happy when noone cares if I am happy. Its like the cuck analogy I gave earlier, a cuck who tries to please his girlfriend when she continually cheats on him and doesn't give him any love. You remind me of a child stamping her feet and holding her breath.
quickquestion Posted April 18, 2017 Author Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) You remind me of a child stamping her feet and holding her breath. Better to be an angry child than a complacent adult. Im an atheist, but I'm rather fond of the verse "One must make thine heart as a child to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Edited April 18, 2017 by quickquestion
zapatos Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 Better to be an angry child than a complacent adult.I'm glad you recognize your behavior. It's a good first step. 1
quickquestion Posted April 18, 2017 Author Posted April 18, 2017 I'm glad you recognize your behavior. It's a good first step. And do you recognize that you are nothing more that a senile old man, who has lost his virtue? I know lots of them, they all preach forgiveness and passivity. And why would I want to be passive towards a broken, garbage, and degenerate world? It needs fixing!
Recommended Posts