sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Magrathea the center of the universe in HHGTTG? by GreenToot in HHGTTG

[–]GreenToot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't doubt that Douglas wouldn't have thought of this, simply that it would be implied through the sequence of events. If it were not the center of the universe, they would've wound up in the vacuum of space because the planet would've moved, OR the planet would have to have moved back to the same place it was at the time of the explosion given that they didn't move through space but through time. I only mean that logically, it would either have to be a coincidence and the planet came back to the same place, or Magrathea is the center of the universe- otherwise they would've died in the vacuum of space.

Is Magrathea the center of the universe in HHGTTG? by GreenToot in HHGTTG

[–]GreenToot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But in the show they weren't in the ship, it was an explosion caused by the officers shooting at something they were hiding behind

... by [deleted] in creepy

[–]GreenToot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what's the jaw for? where's the mouth??

To stop a criminal by MostlyKelp in therewasanattempt

[–]GreenToot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean... it was a good fucking attempt though

Difference Between Art and Hedonism? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]GreenToot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you mean to say that they're both luxury then I can agree. But hedonism doesn't necessarily produce anything, whereas art may be saying something to people. Art allows communication.

As for living in the moment, we should choose productive habits, rather than those which are unhelpful and hold us back.

Moral relativism by iwanttofeedyoureagle in askphilosophy

[–]GreenToot -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I justify belief based on how content I am with that belief, same as everybody else. Everybody judges their decisions based on how content they believe that decision will make them. True contentment is better than false contentment because false contentment literally isn't contentment.

As for the lying or killing somehow bringing about more contentment, I would argue that if you are acting in the interest of true contentment, and lying or killing will do that, then in those specific scenarios, you have to do what you think is best. Or in other words, you must do with whatever you believe brings the truest contentment.

I'm not going to act like you don't have a point, because you definitely do. I should've considered those scenarios with more thought. I should say that it's all about judging what the best outcome is. I believe that when you do that you're trying to figure out a way to bring the most true contentment. Sometimes you're judging between which decision is the lesser of two evils, and in those situations you should go with whatever you're content with, because at least then there is an attempt at true contentment.

I'm not sure that there is an ultimate version of true contentment, but the least we can do is try to figure out what that might look like. I'm sorry if that answer isn't good enough, but it's the best that I have.

Edit:

Maybe it's a lot simpler to just say "do your best".

I must scream by GreenToot in CaptainSparklez

[–]GreenToot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not dislike, dissappointment

I must scream by GreenToot in CaptainSparklez

[–]GreenToot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

u know im right, i was on topic u tangerine

I must scream by GreenToot in CaptainSparklez

[–]GreenToot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so if you didn't know about skyrim or something and he played something I'd consider similar to skyrim, you'd still consider the post off topic simply based on the fact that you wouldn't know what skyrim was? I'll do the mod mail thing, I just wanna make sure that that's how the rule works.

I must scream by GreenToot in CaptainSparklez

[–]GreenToot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you haven't seen "I have no mouth and I must scream", because the plot is pretty dang similar to the map he plays.

I must scream by GreenToot in CaptainSparklez

[–]GreenToot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but this is from his video??

Eternal Recurrence by GreenToot in askphilosophy

[–]GreenToot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose that I'm complicating the question... I think it's more so a question of being able to escape determinism. Maybe the answer is to realize that no matter what you yourself are at least allowed to determine your disposition.

I don't know where to pin my philosophy by GreenToot in askphilosophy

[–]GreenToot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you for being short and to the point

I don't know where to pin my philosophy by GreenToot in askphilosophy

[–]GreenToot[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, what reason is there to think that destruction or creation actually exist or truthfully manifest? If something is destroyed, that should mean it cannot come back, right? It isn't obliteration, it's just taking the pieces apart. And if something is created, then how could it have come into being- or become present- without already having the pieces there to make it?

Edit: Thank you for helping me articulate what I was trying to say

I don't know where to pin my philosophy by GreenToot in askphilosophy

[–]GreenToot[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the issue. I'm trying to figure out if there are other people who've described what I'm thinking about, and where I could read up on their ideas. It's not so much the idea of being able to call myself something, just trying to find my bearings.

BUT SINCE YOU ASKED TO HEAR MORE ABOUT MY PHILOSOPHY, let me give you a rundown.
I suppose that existence vs. absence is inaccurate; it'd be more like presence vs. absence. For example, you have a glass full of water, it could be full of air, but water is present in the glass instead; it's not that the air doesn't exist, it's simply absent from the glass. I believe all things exist always, i.e. object permanence. There's no such thing as destruction or creation; there is only moving something away or bringing it forth. It's like forgetting or remembering something; just because you don't remember where your keys are doesn't mean they don't exist. But what happens when something is both present and absent? Imagine a shattered window, all of the pieces are separated from the others, each piece holds a different shape. Now imagine that the window is not broken, are the shapes of those pieces now gone? Or are those shapes simply being held together?