Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

While I disagree with your views, I find them kind of interesting, in that the fact that I don't see too many holes in your thinking leads me to believe that I must disagree with you on a more fundamental level (in hindsight that sounds like a bunch of gibberish and doesn't really say much of anything, but explaining more would require a more elaborate explanation of my views on life, which are only partially formed and have too high of a chance of being young and naive to go into detail here). tl;dr: your views make me think

anyway, I have two questions for you:

1. Do you accept that your choice of valuing the advancement of the human race is arbitrary, and if not, how would you defend it as somehow objectively important?

2. In 2a you talk about how it might be possible to have many "you"s all doing different things you wouldn't have time to do as a normal human being. Philosophically speaking, I have some kind of an understanding of what "you" (er, "me") is, though it is not particularly rigorous, and completely falls apart if we can have multiple copies of people and call them all "you". So, what does "you" mean to you, and how does your notion of "you" prevail when you can have many different people that are all "you"? How are they different from things that are not "you"?

edit: Is the "Quay" in your name a pronunciation of "que" in Latin? Like is your name "Thaddeusque", as in "Thaddeus, also"?



Thank you for taking the time to go through those links, and thank you for your questions, but I'm too tired to answer them now. I'll get to them tomorrow. In the meantime, you might want to read http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3232368 before it gets dragged deeper into Negative Points Land by the Karma Kommandos. Feel free to ask more questions based on that comment, and I'll answer them together with the others. Goodnight.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: