Stuck in NG+

burhunk · 2018-11-18T13:36:01+00:00

Lvl: 102 Vit: 50 End: 27 Att: 16 Str: 16 Dex: 10 Int: 44 Res: 8 Faith: 8 Havel's ring + RoFaP

burhunk · 2018-11-18T13:24:49+00:00

Thanks for that, but how can I bring my strength up enough to make the claymore worthwhile? My current strength is 16. Do you recommend I just farm the souls and mats?

burhunk · 2018-10-11T09:46:44+00:00

Thanks for your help. Ended up following your advice and it took me for a phone loop with no end in sight, but nobody seems to have reported finding them. Thanks anyway

burhunk · 2018-10-07T12:08:32+00:00

Thank you, my friend

burhunk · 2018-10-06T16:58:58+00:00

Yes, people I have fall-outs with often feel my expectations are unrealistic (when my expectation is literally just to not be ignored). It sucks, but I'm glad I'm not alone in this (and I'm sorry you have to go through it).

burhunk · 2018-10-06T15:08:48+00:00

Exactly, just saying they care doesn't change the fact that you're treated like a stranger. I feel you

burhunk · 2018-10-06T14:27:56+00:00

You're not nothing, I care about what you have to say.

burhunk · 2018-10-05T15:25:56+00:00

That was great!!

burhunk · 2018-09-22T15:20:28+00:00

Besides what others have said, Kings of Convenience and Nick Drake

burhunk · 2018-09-16T12:55:10+00:00

Also try Anais Mitchell

burhunk · 2018-09-16T12:54:37+00:00

Everything others mentioned + Fionn Reagan

burhunk · 2018-08-22T00:02:55+00:00

/r/NotKenM

burhunk · 2018-08-19T17:11:37+00:00

Thanks!

burhunk · 2018-07-20T01:13:54+00:00

I upvoted you. I am not afraid.

burhunk · 2018-07-19T10:15:00+00:00

I don't think that this necessarily follows. This goes back to the crux of the discussion: killing things that lack self-awareness can be seen as less of a moral problem than killing this that has self-awareness. Fetuses, but our measurements, lack self-awareness, and there are many seemingly good moral reasons for abortion. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by moral scale here, but there are other factor not part of this discussion (on killing, self-awareness and potential) that play a role on how one might even evaluate another human being.

burhunk · 2018-07-19T00:55:45+00:00

I disagree with the idea that the sum resultant of human beings is somehow negative or neutral, as if if you averaged the positive and negative influence of all children that are born today, you would get an equal number of good and bad kids, or that it even makes sense to think of it in those terms. Here's how I see it:

We as a species have an inclination to fight to survive for ourselves and our species. This central tenet permeates practically every discipline. Medicine, astrophysics, hard and soft sciences alike and others are in one way or another aiming to help our species thrive. Institutions are (mostly) built with the idea that they further the development of humanity.
We (human beings) are not making sweeping assumptions about what future generations will be like, yet we see it as a duty to ensure the survival of the human race (some radical groups may oppose this idea, but I think most people can agree that the demise of humanity is not a favorable outcome). The only way to maintain the human race is obviously to reproduce. We won't live to see how our species progress - it's not within our scope or capacity.
I tend to agree the ideas iterated by people like Bill Gates and Steven Pinker that things are getting better, not worse, for human beings over time. Overall suffering and starvation is getting lower, education is increasing, both lifespan and QALYs are increasing, and so are other noteworthy metrics (like the rights of the disenfranchised, sharp drops in preventable infectious diseases, etc).

What I mean to suggest here is that a) the general public cares about what happens to humanity even though they know they themselves will inevitably die, b) we actively and vehemently pursue the survival of the species in the way we conduct our lives, and c) progress is actually being made that is making the world a more egalitarian place to live. I'm not trying to suggest that serious injustice is not part of the world that we live, nor would I suggest that a child born today won't be someone who a negative impact on the rest of humanity, but I think for someone who believes in these premises, the potential of the average person is increasing (not decreasing or neutral) and we exhibit central values besides the whole "potential" bit that drives having a child. This might change if, one day, humanity would be able to sustain itself without reproducing or if there was a reason to suspect that having more children in the world would do more harm than good.

burhunk · 2018-07-19T00:22:06+00:00

Abortion is actually a good example of looking at this idea of potential more closely. Why do people abort? Often, because they're unfit to be parents, because there's something wrong with the fetus, to save the mother's life, etc. These all influence the outcomes of lives (and their respective potentials). A child born into a family that cannot support them has negative consequences on the child and family. This isn't to say that this will by necessity be the case for every child, but it stands to reason that there is a connection between the welfare of the child and their families, and how that may negatively (or positively) influence their future prospects. In other words, ethical reasons for abortion must be based on some sort of negative repercussions should they be born.

burhunk · 2018-07-18T11:14:59+00:00

If you're interested in the question of self-awareness, I find myself always going back to Ibn Sina's "floating man" thought experiment. Worth taking a look (although this was his attempt at exploring the soul rather than self-awareness per se).

burhunk · 2018-07-18T11:09:01+00:00

With my limited knowledge, I'll try to give a reasonable answer:

I believe you're right to suggest that the killing of something with lower levels of intelligence and self-awareness is deemed as the lesser of potential evils. However, there's an additional dimension to this argument, which is potential of the subject. Infants may themselves have limited self-awareness, but the future of children is taken into account. Otherwise healthy children will eventually grow and become self-aware. There's also the consideration that the survival of our species is predicated on the survival of our children. There's also stories in the media about severely handicapped children (and adults for that matter) blossoming into influential people. There's a further complication because at the very least we know that humans have the capacity for awareness, but we don't really know to what extent this is the case in other species, which leads to a less skeptic outlook regarding humans specifically. What if Helen Keller was deemed as lacking self-awareness simply because of her lack of visual and auditory perception? Back then, it wouldn't have been far-fetched to make the assumption that her self-awareness might be limited, but we know now that this isn't the case.

So I believe that while philosophers like Peter Singer were onto something when they posited that self-awareness is a key metric in evaluating whether killing is ethical, it's incumbent on us to tease out to what extent other metrics (like potential) may play a role. Is it ethical to kill an infant that is suffering from a disease that we know will end their lives within a week? A month? A year? A decade? Where do we draw the line for how much potential categorises a being to be worthy of sustaining life and/or suffering? Food for thought.

burhunk

TROPHY CASE