Omegle conversation log

2010-03-09
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: hi
You: hi
Stranger: you know what im sick of?
You: people touching themselves on this?
Stranger: haha
Stranger: no
Stranger: i have an idealistic vision
Stranger: will you hear it?
You: sure
Stranger: ok
Stranger: i am sick of the present modernist state of our society
Stranger: you can barely call it civilization, since it lacks the culture neccesary
Stranger: i am sick of politicians, for example,
You: The culture neccesary for what?
Stranger: i am sick of this "democracy" which is only a nationalist system, a tyranny by the idiotic
majority
Stranger: to be called civilization
Stranger: the reason i say this
Stranger: (it is not unsubstantiated)
Stranger: is because our culture, not our science, produces almost nothing new in art, music, and
literature
Stranger: most movies are rehashes, so are most books (harry potter, star wars, etc), so is most
contemporary academia
Stranger: which mainly discusses the old ideas without generating new ones
Stranger: i am sick of democracy, the almost fanatical political structure today
Stranger: that is mindlessly accepted without question and reflection
Stranger: i am sick of the freudian system that permeates every facet of society
You: absoulute democracy is near impossible
Stranger: i do not ask for absolute democracy
You: especially how "informed"everyone is
You: I understand what you mean about the polititians and lobbyist though
Stranger: yes
Stranger: what i ask for in government
Stranger: maybe i should get to this soon
Stranger: but suffice it to say for now that it is very close to what the founding fathers and voltaire
would have admired in governmnet
Stranger: *government
Stranger: i am sick of the freudian system, which is not based on science, which is not logical or
empirical, and which, under any other auspices, would be disregarded as absurd mysticism
You: what the founding fathers what can't be completely applied to our society
You: that was centuries ago
Stranger: true, in economic situations
You: hell, right to bear arms is hardly as needed as it was
Stranger: but man is man
Stranger: why is right to bear arms a bad thing?
You: man is man, but morals are always changing
Stranger: have you ever heard of the nash equilibrium?
You: I didn't say it was
Stranger: hmm, morals are changing
Stranger: thats a good point
Stranger: but there is a philosopher called leo strauss i believe
Stranger: who said that the deterioration of morals was due to the purposelessness of democracy
Stranger: *of in the individual in democracy i should say
Stranger: but why even assume morals are needed?
Stranger: they dont even factor into the argument for the right to bear arms
Stranger: it is a matter of simple self interest
Stranger: that is what is at the heart of the nash equilibrium
Stranger: anyway
Stranger: what was i saying....
Stranger: yes
Stranger: i am sick of the freudian system and all the drivel of streamofconsciousness modernist and
postmodern literature that pours out from it
Stranger: i am sick of modern art
Stranger: i am sick of the fact that the mass media plays such a heavy role in our society
You: so you are agaainst modern art in all forms?
Stranger: yes, while i do recognize its genius in some respects
Stranger: so not totally
You: Back to what you said about morals
Stranger: i believe in freedom of expression, and i enjoy particular works, but i am against the trend
You: there's always the question whether morals are instilled or bron form within
You: nature or nurture
Stranger: i never speak of morals though
Stranger: i do not believe they are neccesary
Stranger: all that we need to self-regulate is our own self-interest
Stranger: morals dont factor into the equation, even though they exist
Stranger: but yes, in most respects, morals are relative
You: isn't a psychopath someone who knows what emotion is, but doesn't feel them?
Stranger: i believe so
You: wouldn't you say morals and emotions tie together?
Stranger: yes, but what is your point?
You: not completely
You: but definitly alot of aspects
Stranger: yes yes
Stranger: what are you getting at though?
You: That morals ARE beccisary
You: neccisary
Stranger: why?
You: without them we would all be psychopaths
You: to some degree
Stranger: yes, emotions exist, and they are important as externalities, but they do not have any real
effect
You: If everything was regulated by self interest we would be psychopaths
You: emotions coincide with self interest
Stranger: i see what you mean
You: to be happy is in your best slef interest
You: would you agree?
Stranger: but think about a scenario where you are in a fit of rage
Stranger: and you have a gun
Stranger: but the person you are mad at also has a gun
Stranger: are you going to shoot them? no, that would just be too stupid to do even in a fit of rage
Stranger: i agree with you though
Stranger: emotions do complicate things too much
You: wthat's a pretty extreme scenario though
Stranger: but i believe man simply denies himself the capability for rational action only because of the
society's state of mind
Stranger: it is a product of rousseau and the romantic thinkers
Stranger: "man is born free and is everywhere in chains"
You: rationality is subjective
Stranger: no it isnt
Stranger: why?
You: societire's state of mind molds it
You: OK
You: is it rational to burn all of your money?
Stranger: no
You: What if money was meaningless
You: just a green piece of apper (which it is)
You: and you were cold
Stranger: because it isnt that
You: so it's subjective
Stranger: if you were to modify the assumptions you would not be changing the logical connections
Stranger: the logic connections themselves still hold regardless
You: like what you said about the gun
Stranger: see?
Stranger: its because they are definitional in nature, i have worked this out
Stranger: how should i explain this....
Stranger: they are our inventions, and we decide when they are true or not, given a set of conditions
Stranger: but not inventions, quite
Stranger: more like something we create to order the data
Stranger: see?
You: you're saying that that is logic?
You: Have you ever read "Brave New World"
Stranger: yes
You: Do you agree with what the general message for that is if all logic were used that society would
emerge simmilar to that one
Stranger: hmmm
You: or do you think Huxley was writing out of his ass
Stranger: haha
You: you seem to lead toward the latter
Stranger: no no i need to consider this
Stranger: you may have a point
You: semm more like a Kurt Vonnegut guy (whom I like as well)
Stranger: i read it such a long time ago i need to remember it
Stranger: never read vonnegut actually
You: I think that you would love harrison bergeron
You: it's only a short story, you can probably find it online
Stranger: ill look into him
Stranger: its a story?
Stranger: or an author
Stranger: oh i see
You: Care to tell me your age?
Stranger: 18
You: I;m 19
Stranger: cool
You: what college are you going to?
Stranger: the ivies
Stranger: reject from yale lol
Stranger: *rejected
You: I'm in Community (slacker in High School)
Stranger: lol
You: another semester then I'll try UCLA for television writing
Stranger: nice
Stranger: good luck
You: I "modern art"
Stranger: lol
You: *A
You: but I think you'd really like Vonnegeut
Stranger: thanks
Stranger: you should look into the philosophy of kant
You: You a philosophy major?
Stranger: not sure yet
Stranger: kant argued much of what you argued in regard to reason
Stranger: he said its synthetic
Stranger: im not really sure if hes right...ive been trying to figure it out on my own
You: See I'm in a mentality that anything can be looked at subjectively
Stranger: kant is really the basis for modernism
Stranger: yeah i can see that
You: lol
Stranger: i am trying to root out the objective and base my world around that to be safe
Stranger: lol
Stranger: i feel objectivity will tend towards the most virtuous, compassionate lifestyle
You: Hope you don't become aimless though
Stranger: that will most lead to my happiness and the happiness of those around me
Stranger: thanks lol
Stranger: but the modern age has forgotten
Stranger: this is actually where i think we differ on brave new world
Stranger: logic is not neccesarily just computation
Stranger: it is creativity, it is independent though
Stranger: thought
Stranger: there is logic to bachs work
Stranger: and therefore a beauty to it
Stranger: it need not be unoriginal
Stranger: brave new world turns humans into machines, computers
Stranger: that is not my vision
Stranger: mine is close to the pursuit of happiness
You: You want a balance?
Stranger: which im pretty sure would involve alot of shakespeare
Stranger: sort of
You: Also, as a writer I feel that nothing is original anymore
Stranger: but i believe reason will provide that balance
You: or ever
Stranger: yeah
You: that goes down to meing subjective I guess
Stranger: i feel the reason is not enough independent reasoning
Stranger: it is a culture of authority and conformity
Stranger: basically a culuture of the masses
Stranger: authority is counter to reason
Stranger: its harmful to reason
You: Harmful is going a little far for my taste
Stranger: what do you mean
You: authority is harmful to reason?
Stranger: yes
You: by authority you mean conforming to the mass culture?
Stranger: any authority
Stranger: any authority is the enemy to reason
Stranger: as voltaire said, ecrasez l'infame
Stranger: authority can be religion, the kind, politicians, the mass media, the people
Stranger: as long as it is accepted without question, it is the enemy of reason
You: so if the news (authority) said that it's cold outside, you should wear a jacket, is it against reason
Stranger: no
You: see? There's always an exception to the rule
Stranger: upon first hearing it i would question it
Stranger: but then after the empiricism of experience
Stranger: i would agree
Stranger: based on my own reasoning
You: fact can be vied as opnion
You: *viewed
Stranger: i know that it is highly likely for the reports to be true
Stranger: so i would follow them out of reason
You: why?
Stranger: what do you mean
You: because you trust them?
Stranger: no
Stranger: because i have learned from my own experience that they are usually right, so the best course
of action would be to follow
Stranger: that is independent reasoning
You: ok, good point
You: but back to my reasoning
Stranger: ok
You: What if there was a new color
You: can you picture it?
You: you can't
Stranger: yes i cant
You: because all logic and everything you know has shown no perception of it
Stranger: well
Stranger: maybe i could measure the wavelength but we will disregard that for the sake of ur argument
You: I believe everything is perspective
You: including wavelength
You: and math
You: and money
You: everything
You: and there will always be a perspective that you can't see or comprehend
You: a new color
Stranger: hmmm
Stranger: you're not talking about authority now right?
You: no
You: but I could probably apply it to that somehow
You: I'm just talking about thinking ingeneral
Stranger: ok
Stranger: i agree with you on this point
Stranger: i agree that many things are subjective
Stranger: but my point is that reason is not subjective
You: and THAT'S why we are bumping heads, lol
Stranger: and we can use reason's highly objective, fair, revealing, universal quality for the
advancement of mankind
You: wouldn't it be reasonable to conform?
Stranger: no, why would it be?
You: to fit in like everyone else and be accepted by your peers
You: I'm not saying it's right
You: but It's reasonable
You: Many Psychopaths do, actually
You: a person without any "burden" of emotional thought, all logic sees the benefit to conform
Stranger: hmmm
Stranger: if conformity provides the greatest level of happiness, it is reasonable
You: because that's better for you in a self interest way
Stranger: but if the action contradicts reason, it is not, because that would provide unhappiness
You: the greatest level of happiness isn't always logical
You: the greatest level of happiness reasonable
Stranger: for example, in nazi germany, assisting in the murder of jews would cause personal
unhappiness, assuming normal human qualities
Stranger: the pursuit of long-term happiness is usually reasonable
You: so it was reasonable to do this to preserve one's self
Stranger: self-preservation is not always in the interest of the pursuit of happiness
Stranger: sometimes self-sacrifice is preferable to a life of shame
You: But that means you're agreeing with me wouldn't it?
You: logically self sacrifice is stupid
Stranger: no
Stranger: it isnt
You: why die for someone else
Stranger: not if a state of non existence is preferable to a state of misery
Stranger: there is shame in not dying for someone else sometimes
You: on an completely unemotional level, self sacrifice isn't logical?
Stranger: in not living by a heroic code of honor
You: honor isn't logical either
Stranger: yes it is
Stranger: it leads to long-term happiness
You: I REALLY disagree with that
Stranger: why?
Stranger: the ancient philosophers knew this well...the reason that we have honor is to provide us with
the happiness that comes from virtue
Stranger: that comes from our conscience
Stranger: its like the good feeling u get when u do something kind
You: self preservation trumps trumps happiness logistically
Stranger: why?
You: becuase of fear of the unknown
You: logically you don't know what happens when you die
You: so why would you make that risk
Stranger: so a 50-50 shot is better than a 100 percent chance of misery
You: can we stay away from that subject though?
Stranger: that is still logical
Stranger: ok
You: There's always the chance that the misery wouldn't last
You: so you'd be at a standstill
You: best bet is to go with the most known unknown
You: logically
You: and this all brings back to my point
Stranger: but say the chance were 75-25 even
Stranger: 50-50 is still better
You: what you see logically and what I see logically are pretty different wouldn't you say?
Stranger: but in those situations it is only a matter of whoever's logic is inferior
You: Almost...subjective?
Stranger: not saying which one of ours is
Stranger: but somebody's logic has to be inferior here
You: Isn't logic absolute?
Stranger: based on the rules of logic
Stranger: or we have taken up nonlogical assumptions
Stranger: see?
Stranger: happiness is the subjective variable here i think
Stranger: the nonlogical assumption
Stranger: but regardless, it can be pursued, that is logical
You: based on rules of logic, logic is absolute? I'm just making sure I'm not interperting you wrond
Stranger: yes it is absolute
You: so how does happiness apply to logic?
You: based on what you say happiness is variable
Stranger: yes
Stranger: hmm
Stranger: well at the heart its subjective
Stranger: but i believe happiness is the only thing we can conclude is a purpose in life
You: but there is no heart in logiv
Stranger: given that we cant prove anything else
Stranger: no it is only logical to conclude that we should live our lives in the pursuit of happiness
You: Ok, let's say I agree that logic is absolute
Stranger: the happiness itself varies from person to person
You: it wouldn't matter because that's not the only variable to consider about the human concoius
(except to psychopaths). And if Logic ways completely run by society we would all be psychopaths
You: becuase we would be aware of what emotion is, but logically it wouldn't come into our choices
Your conversational partner has disconnected.