explosivecombat | 035. [ANON TEXT]

[Well, good evening, network - it seems Seth's device is active again, though at the very least he's not inviting everyone to war like he's throwing the world's most unasked-for party this time around.]

You know, one of the things I've always found most fascinating about human morality is the idea that we're higher beings due to our natural inclination to put others before ourselves. It's generally accepted in society that we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves before harming another; I've always found adhering to that sort of notion to both vaguely admirable and sickeningly saccharine. If you must kill one to save another, that's still a life that's lost; why shouldn't the reward go to the one who's willing to fight for it, rather than the one who did nothing to earn it but sit there in pious devotion to doing nothing wrong?

We claim superiority for suppressing our instincts to survive; if anything, I think that would put us lower than dogs, not above them. All this intelligence and no will to live; it's pitiful.

But then, I suppose my lack of understanding of these things is why I can't be considered one of you.

For the time being, however, say I were to humor you in discussion for a while. Do you think your will to fight to ensure your survival actually needs to be tested? Since I suspect the answer will overwhelmingly be "No," I have another pre-emptive question for the heroic types.

Is there anything outside of arrogance and so-called moral superiority that makes you say so?

[...O...kay that's really not any better but apparently, it's just that kind of night.

You know, full of misanthropy.

Because some nights are like that.]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

God certainly doesn't care enough. So yes, of course.

[...Well, God does care, just in all the wrong directions. And gods present a challenge. And - well, as was so aptly put, he has "religious issues". Apologies in advance.]

I'd rather fight someone who works in their own interests than one who's appointed himself some kind of gatekeeper. That's not much less arrogant than the gods he's replacing.

[...okay, well, that term is kind of amusing for all the wrong reasons but somehow he suspects that's not quite what Walter meant so uh]

What sort of "gatekeeper" do you mean?

Someone who's decided they should choose who's strong enough to exist instead of concerning themselves with their own existence. That's just giving up your humanity along another road.

So as far as you're concerned, humanity is explicitly linked with free will.

[LIKE TEN EXCHANGES LATER. WAS THAT SO HARD.]

[YES IT WAS THAT HARD]

Of course. The other side comes down to believing that there's a right thing to do, and it's been decreed so, and people should discard their desires do to the right thing. It's people who believe peace is the most important thing in life who say that.

Is that so? Those are the only two options you have?

[are we doing this

we're doing this]

What kind of well-being can you choose that doesn't favor one or the other?

[WE'RE DOING THIIIIS]

[You are damn lucky Kimblee is used to arguing whatever side of the argument someone else is currently arguing against just to be a little shit, because otherwise the cognitive dissonance of "Kimblee argues for why peace might actually not be completely fucking stupid" might shatter everyone's brains.]

You can conceive of no reason why someone might want peace that doesn't have to do with lacking will and effectively being brainwashed?

Of course I can, that's what this world has. But it couldn't be so if people didn't challenge themselves first. Real well-being doesn't come from giving in to what's easy and just seeking peace.

So you're acknowledging that this place exists outside of those two options you just set down as absolutes.

I just said it doesn't come from seeking peace.

[this is like the part in ace attorney where the witness is freaking out but keeps sitting on the point anyways]

All right, then. My mistake. Clarify for me.

Where does this place fall within your two absolutes?

[......

............

???????]

Paradise.

[HE'S NOT EQUIPPED FOR THIS]

I see. And what does that entail?

[THE PLAN NEVER ACTUALLY EXTENDED THIS FAR someone help]

Freedom and power. And true strength earning its glory. Humans ruling themselves and nobody being restrained.

[...look if there was a plan at all you're still doing better than kimblee on most days]

And Paradise is the logical conclusion of neither of your two options, is that correct?

It's what happens when humans start fighting for themselves instead of praying for peace to come to them.

You're not answering the question.

Is it the logical conclusion of either of your two absolutes or not?

Yes, it's the end of the side that favors adversity. I thought that's what I'd said.

It favors adversity so strongly that peace happens, then?

[....And something just got brute-forced into clicking in his head. It's not something that he's particularly comfortable with, but it's...it's a thing all right. He takes a moment to process it before answering.]

I guess so, in this world.

Only in this world?

How should I know?

Fair enough.

But the potential exists in others, at least. Or at least I'd assume it would.

(no subject)

beholdmydemons - 2014-07-10 05:46 (UTC) - Expand

explosivecombat - 2014-07-10 20:18 (UTC) - Expand

beholdmydemons - 2014-07-10 21:55 (UTC) - Expand

explosivecombat - 2014-07-10 22:03 (UTC) - Expand

beholdmydemons - 2014-07-10 22:12 (UTC) - Expand

explosivecombat - 2014-07-10 22:14 (UTC) - Expand

beholdmydemons - 2014-07-10 22:33 (UTC) - Expand