Omegle conversation log

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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful