Previous Generations
Article Nirvana in Nihilism – Why Cyrus is Right
Started by bobandbill 2 Weeks Ago 12:01 PM- 493 views
- 8 replies
Rabi says Cyrus did nothing wrong. See the article to find out why he says such a thing!
Staff Anime Villain Collab - Earl de Darkwood - Interstella 5555
Daily | Drabble Dex | A Change of the Season
The Retelling of Pokémon Colosseum
Paired to Sheep :>
Well no... the type of idealism that Cyrus spouts is probably most close to anti-natalists - or the position that birthing someone is a moral wrong because of the suffering the babe will eventually encounter. The obvious answer to this is that the baby will suffer and gain pleasure; however, the antinatalists would argue that suffering is worth more negative than pleasure is positive. This is mostly do to the psychology behind pain; how one good thing is barely noticeable and one bad thing can ruin a day.
The logic employed by Cyrus is similar - that despite the pleasure in the world, suffering makes the getting rid of all pleasure worth it. However, there is a fatal flaw in Cyrus's plan. There is no practical way to ensure that people will both have no emotions and will be able to think at all. You see, neurologically speaking, the ability to be motivated to have "emotion" or "logic" is chemically induced, so if Cyrus would get rid of all emotion, he would be getting rid of your ability to think or act at all - as they are all dependent on the same chemicals.
Furthermore, as the actual ACT of ridding all emotions is a harm, his plan is a net harm, comparable to genocide.
The logic employed by Cyrus is similar - that despite the pleasure in the world, suffering makes the getting rid of all pleasure worth it. However, there is a fatal flaw in Cyrus's plan. There is no practical way to ensure that people will both have no emotions and will be able to think at all. You see, neurologically speaking, the ability to be motivated to have "emotion" or "logic" is chemically induced, so if Cyrus would get rid of all emotion, he would be getting rid of your ability to think or act at all - as they are all dependent on the same chemicals.
Furthermore, as the actual ACT of ridding all emotions is a harm, his plan is a net harm, comparable to genocide.
I've always personally agreed with Cyrus' intentions. Ignoring the ins and outs of chemical imbalance and whatnot (we're talking a world with dragons that bend space and time. I'd say physics and biology are a bit out the window already at this point).
Point being, I believe the world would be better without petty emotion. Not because I dislike emotion, but because I think majority of people are a net negative to the world at the end of the day. It's either get rid of emotion or get rid of the people. Lesser of two evils in this regards.
This of course reads as very arrogant, but I'm not exempt from that majority of people either from my point of view. Of course, I wouldn't follow through with Cyrus' plans personally since that's taking away people's free will, and that's just not good imo. I just agree that the world would be better off in the end until a societal structure develops that's a bit more sophisticated and less juvenile than the current one.
TL;DR, society is too immature for emotions to be a net positive imo.
Point being, I believe the world would be better without petty emotion. Not because I dislike emotion, but because I think majority of people are a net negative to the world at the end of the day. It's either get rid of emotion or get rid of the people. Lesser of two evils in this regards.
This of course reads as very arrogant, but I'm not exempt from that majority of people either from my point of view. Of course, I wouldn't follow through with Cyrus' plans personally since that's taking away people's free will, and that's just not good imo. I just agree that the world would be better off in the end until a societal structure develops that's a bit more sophisticated and less juvenile than the current one.
TL;DR, society is too immature for emotions to be a net positive imo.
I actually have the opinion that if your beliefs lead you to agree with a man who thinks the world is so irredeemable that he wants to destroy it, you are tremendously wrong, and need to re-evaluate your entire belief system.
I don't know how serious the article is given the date it was posted on, but...
I actually have the opinion that if your beliefs lead you to agree with a man who thinks the world is so irredeemable that he wants to destroy it, you are tremendously wrong, and need to re-evaluate your entire belief system.
If you have a broken system that cannot be fixed, what real choice do you have other than to tear it down and replace it with something better?
Nah ンン
“No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
I actually have the opinion that if your beliefs lead you to agree with a man who thinks the world is so irredeemable that he wants to destroy it, you are tremendously wrong, and need to re-evaluate your entire belief system.
that sounds a little too extreme, but, uhh, ok
VPP:
flabébé
flabébé
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Cyrus was shunned by his parents, so he develops the belief emotions simply get in the way of people. That sounds like a massive emotional reaction on it's own.
Also I actually agree that Cyrus may have had his own good intentions, but that doesn't make the intentions correct. Most evil historical figures believe they are in the right.
(Though I get it's an april fools article).
Also I actually agree that Cyrus may have had his own good intentions, but that doesn't make the intentions correct. Most evil historical figures believe they are in the right.
(Though I get it's an april fools article).
If you have a broken system that cannot be fixed, what real choice do you have other than to tear it down and replace it with something better?
We aren't talking about a broken system, I would agree we can change a system (ie capitalism) and not fall into capitalist realism. However, we are talking about a fundamentally broken world here. Even in some idealized Star Trek society, these 'criticisms' of the world here would still hold. Strife is inherent to the world. I have no choice but to say then that the foundational premises of this kind of thought are just flawed to the core.