8 Bit Philosophy: What If You Could Get Away With Anything?
- Thread starter 8-Bit Philosophy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If I had a ring that could turn me invisible I'd tried to find a way to do something political.... I think.... I doubt being invisible alone would give me what I truly desired in life.
If I could get away with anything I'd have to be indestructible first. Then I'd go on some bizarre adventure only Deadpool or Lobo could go on. Maybe even fight evil only to ultimately become evil.
If I could get away with anything I'd have to be indestructible first. Then I'd go on some bizarre adventure only Deadpool or Lobo could go on. Maybe even fight evil only to ultimately become evil.
I really liked this one. Excellent job. I'm that guy that picks up litter and returns other people's shopping carts. Clearly I am doing it out of my own selfishness to keep my soul rich.
What would I do with that ring? Invisible fight with Frodo! Wait. Does my ring come with ring wraiths too?
What would I do with that ring? Invisible fight with Frodo! Wait. Does my ring come with ring wraiths too?
We're talking Pre New 52 Lobo because fuck that new ponce pretty-boy they have with the name.RatGouf said:
Invisibility actually would be enough. Indestructibility only comes in handy if you get caught. I'd say invisibility and intangibility would be the best combo on account being invisible can leave you stuck in places you'd rather not be. Like in a bank vault. That way you can chill it in the bank vault When it gets locked up you grab the loot and phase with it through the walls. Bzam. WOuld it bring happiness... yes. Plato said material things does not buy happiness... but plato seldo described himself as happy and he didn't have any material things..
I posit. That having material possessions does not bring happiness but enjoying the possessions one has is where happiness comes from. Thusly the more possessions one has the happier one becomes since one has more things to enjoy. You can enjoy a good book but you'd have even more enjoyment if you had two or three good books no. That way wheren you were done with one you could enjoy another different book.
People who have nothing are the quickest to say that possessions don't bring happiness and they are half right in truth it is what one does with those possessions. I mean owning the MOna Lisa means nothing if you cant incinerate it and snort the ashes off a hooker's tits.
In fact we derive so much happiness from our possessions that it creates a paradox, the more one has the more one is afraid of losing any of it. This of course means you spend less time enjoying your cool ferrari and more time worrying some one will steal it or scratch the sweet paint job.
The man who has no money has no fear of losing all his money. Since he has none to lose. The man who has a million dollars worries night and day of losing that million dollars and is so miserable.
I rather not acknowledge New 52 Lobo, ever. The only Lobo worth acknowledging is the 1990's retcon Lobo. Who fought both heaven & hell to be brought back to life. Most awesome & hilarious resurrection I've seen.MonsterCrit said:
The only problem with stealing money with such power would probably be all the marked bills you'd have to launder to make sure you're not caught.
I don't know if digital possessions count a material possessions. Actual material possessions are things I need more than I want. I'm afraid to lose what very little I have. And would probably be afraid to lose even more if I had it.
But because most of the things I own are digital possessions I only have to worry about losing it if something happens to my accounts or if everyone loses the same things I lost. And I would probably easily lose in my current digital possessions once I have to go from HD to UHD.
I think the only reason for me to want money is only because I need money. So if money weren't a factor I'd probably still want all the things I have, want, or need.
Good ep as always!
But that ring sucks mostly...
The power(s) I need are those of DBZ (or Superman classic).
To move ultra fast, fly hyperfast, be impervious to all damage and be strong enough to lift continents and blow up solar systems.
Then I'd steal from the rich (institutions) and not be dirt poor anymore, the end.
But that ring sucks mostly...
The power(s) I need are those of DBZ (or Superman classic).
To move ultra fast, fly hyperfast, be impervious to all damage and be strong enough to lift continents and blow up solar systems.
Then I'd steal from the rich (institutions) and not be dirt poor anymore, the end.
There are so many holes in this logic I don't know where to start.
First of all, the assumption that justice makes one content; what is the basis for this belief? Is it not equally possible that a man who acts in the name of justice will become bitter and resentful over never being appreciated for his good deeds, while his counterpart prospers on the suffering of others? How happy any given individual is with any given situation depends entirely on them and who they are; psychopaths, for instance, are defined by a lack of remorse or empathy.
Someone who cares about nobody except themselves (And make no mistake, such people certainly exist) may be completely satisfied with a life of riches gained at the expense of others. Plato is simply projecting his moral instincts onto others.
And I haven't even began to talk about the concept of objective morality.
Consider the atomic bomb dropped on Japan by the United States during World War II, an event that took the lives of countless innocents, but who some would also argue was for the greater good. Some say that Japan would never have surrendered otherwise, and that an equal number of people would have died in the coming long and bloody war.
Whether or not this argument has merit, the situation is almost certainly not unique. If injustice is itself a sort of "ingredient" of justice, then can we still call the result justice? Would a just man then feel no guilt at the mounds of corpses left in his wake, so long as it was in service of a "Just" result? If he doesn't feel guilt, and argues that his actions, while harsh, were in the service of justice, then what objective standard would we measure him against?
On the other side of the coin, perhaps being unwilling to compromise ones morals for the sake of humanity as a whole is equally reprehensible. What of the man who refuses to ever take the life of another, even when doing so would save the life of an innocent? If his choice knowingly results in the spill of innocent blood, does the simple fact that he did not commit the murder with his own hands excuse him from allowing it to happen?
Ask yourself this; if humans were without empathy by instinct, how different would our standards of morality be? Something is "Objective" when it is without bias, not influenced personal feelings. Thus, a logical and objective system of morality would be an inarguable standard of value, that was self evident and complete, and anyone who said otherwise would do so only due to a lack of insight on their own part.
But "Value" isn't on the fucking elemental chart; it's an entirely mental activity. One could not judge something to be valuable or not valuable unless one was able to distinguish between objects, otherwise everything would be "good" or everything would be "bad", and by virtue of being separate from the object you are judging, your perspective is a subjective one; it is unique to you.
The fact that one person may see value in something and another might not proves that value is something that can be projected and manifested by the mind. Even if we were to imagine that some magical objective version of value existed inherent in objects, that we were simply incapable of seeing, the question then becomes what purpose such a thing would serve.
If the existence of this "Magical Value" had impacted us thus far, then our reason for taking note of it would be one of necessity; it would have a practical benefit divorced from any conception of right and wrong. If it had not affected us, then it's existence would be almost irrelevant; the lives and actions of those who took note of it would be no different than those who did not.
Any given individual's conception of justice can take almost any form, and if that is the only standard you hold them to, then you are permitting them to do ANYTHING THEY WANT.
For the record: If I had an invisible ring, I would do fuck all; it wouldn't be that useful. If I could truly act without consequence, however, then I would rob Donald Trump blind and use all of his money to take over a big game publishing firm like EA, then fire all the board members (I'd keep them around as middle management, to help me run the business) and start my own design studio to make my games. Then I'd spend all the rest of the money on funding green energy, science projects, and space programs.
First of all, the assumption that justice makes one content; what is the basis for this belief? Is it not equally possible that a man who acts in the name of justice will become bitter and resentful over never being appreciated for his good deeds, while his counterpart prospers on the suffering of others? How happy any given individual is with any given situation depends entirely on them and who they are; psychopaths, for instance, are defined by a lack of remorse or empathy.
Someone who cares about nobody except themselves (And make no mistake, such people certainly exist) may be completely satisfied with a life of riches gained at the expense of others. Plato is simply projecting his moral instincts onto others.
And I haven't even began to talk about the concept of objective morality.
Consider the atomic bomb dropped on Japan by the United States during World War II, an event that took the lives of countless innocents, but who some would also argue was for the greater good. Some say that Japan would never have surrendered otherwise, and that an equal number of people would have died in the coming long and bloody war.
Whether or not this argument has merit, the situation is almost certainly not unique. If injustice is itself a sort of "ingredient" of justice, then can we still call the result justice? Would a just man then feel no guilt at the mounds of corpses left in his wake, so long as it was in service of a "Just" result? If he doesn't feel guilt, and argues that his actions, while harsh, were in the service of justice, then what objective standard would we measure him against?
On the other side of the coin, perhaps being unwilling to compromise ones morals for the sake of humanity as a whole is equally reprehensible. What of the man who refuses to ever take the life of another, even when doing so would save the life of an innocent? If his choice knowingly results in the spill of innocent blood, does the simple fact that he did not commit the murder with his own hands excuse him from allowing it to happen?
Ask yourself this; if humans were without empathy by instinct, how different would our standards of morality be? Something is "Objective" when it is without bias, not influenced personal feelings. Thus, a logical and objective system of morality would be an inarguable standard of value, that was self evident and complete, and anyone who said otherwise would do so only due to a lack of insight on their own part.
But "Value" isn't on the fucking elemental chart; it's an entirely mental activity. One could not judge something to be valuable or not valuable unless one was able to distinguish between objects, otherwise everything would be "good" or everything would be "bad", and by virtue of being separate from the object you are judging, your perspective is a subjective one; it is unique to you.
The fact that one person may see value in something and another might not proves that value is something that can be projected and manifested by the mind. Even if we were to imagine that some magical objective version of value existed inherent in objects, that we were simply incapable of seeing, the question then becomes what purpose such a thing would serve.
If the existence of this "Magical Value" had impacted us thus far, then our reason for taking note of it would be one of necessity; it would have a practical benefit divorced from any conception of right and wrong. If it had not affected us, then it's existence would be almost irrelevant; the lives and actions of those who took note of it would be no different than those who did not.
Any given individual's conception of justice can take almost any form, and if that is the only standard you hold them to, then you are permitting them to do ANYTHING THEY WANT.
For the record: If I had an invisible ring, I would do fuck all; it wouldn't be that useful. If I could truly act without consequence, however, then I would rob Donald Trump blind and use all of his money to take over a big game publishing firm like EA, then fire all the board members (I'd keep them around as middle management, to help me run the business) and start my own design studio to make my games. Then I'd spend all the rest of the money on funding green energy, science projects, and space programs.
I think various interpretations of "the Invisible Man" shows that just because you're invisible, doesn't mean you can do what ever you want. 
On the unlimited power side of things, I'd have a laundry list of things, from helping the needy to seeing to it that the gaming industry sucks less, and prolly put it towards a brighter, star trek-ian future. TNG version, mind you. I'd do things because I can, and want to, and push towards a world where others can as well, provided they aren't hurting anyone. I figure left to one's own devices, and allowed enough freedom, people will look to better themselves. Some more than others, but in general, they'd look to better themselves.
On the unlimited power side of things, I'd have a laundry list of things, from helping the needy to seeing to it that the gaming industry sucks less, and prolly put it towards a brighter, star trek-ian future. TNG version, mind you. I'd do things because I can, and want to, and push towards a world where others can as well, provided they aren't hurting anyone. I figure left to one's own devices, and allowed enough freedom, people will look to better themselves. Some more than others, but in general, they'd look to better themselves.
In a realist modern day setting invisibility isn't actually that handy... well, it depends on how well it works. Does it hide you from IR cameras? Does it hide any noise you make? What about your clothes and any tools/weapons/loot on you?
too many limitations depending on how it works
As for 'unlimited power' and the ability to get away with anything? I'd compare that more to having Gmod levels of power over reality.
though, to be honest I think that would get rather boring after making some stuff blow up and giving yourself super invulnerability and whatnot
too many limitations depending on how it works
As for 'unlimited power' and the ability to get away with anything? I'd compare that more to having Gmod levels of power over reality.
though, to be honest I think that would get rather boring after making some stuff blow up and giving yourself super invulnerability and whatnot
This one doesn't seem as relevant, given all the scandals, embezzlement, and crimes willfully committed by various figures of prominence in our day and age. As someone else mentioned, Plato's reasoning seems predicated on an equivalence of morals and values, that does not apply to certain people.
In general, video games, the internet, and fame have already shown what happens when people "think" they can get away with anything. But more specifically, the relatively recent financial crash and bailouts have shown that people who know that they can get away with anything, will do so with impunity.
The idea that "they will somehow suffer spiritually or conceptually" is a platitude akin to the idea of "they'll be punished in the afterlife".
In general, video games, the internet, and fame have already shown what happens when people "think" they can get away with anything. But more specifically, the relatively recent financial crash and bailouts have shown that people who know that they can get away with anything, will do so with impunity.
The idea that "they will somehow suffer spiritually or conceptually" is a platitude akin to the idea of "they'll be punished in the afterlife".
Plato has forgotten the existence of sociopaths that derive no psychological gain from justice. They are more common than you think. In fact majority of people with power are sociopaths because our system of power supports this behavior.