Poll: The Experience Machine.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Vegosiux:
*scratches head*

I see a different angle from which this hypothetical falls flat...

...basically, if you wouldn't know the difference, then it doesn't even matter what I'd choose now, so the choice itself carries no meaning at all. I'm not a fan of solipsism, but if we accept the assumption that "your mind makes it real" and that there's no way to be sure there's really the reality we perceive outside our minds, we have to treat any potential simulated reality that's rendered completely acceptable and "real" by our minds as equal to the one our minds are rendering and experiencing as we speak.

And at this point it becomes a meaningless question, since the "current" reality suddenly stopped holding a unique position in opposition to all other potential ones.

I partially agree.

The hypothetical doesn't really fall flat, as that is just one way to use logic to accept that you may as well go for it and plug in. The choice carries meaning insofar as you get the maximum possible happiness, and isn't that what you want? That's the question.

I do agree though that this reality doesn't hold any special meaning over the hypothetical one, I don't nessecarily come about it via solipsism though.

Arakasi:

I partially agree.

The hypothetical doesn't really fall flat, as that is just one way to use logic to accept that you may as well go for it and plug in. The choice carries meaning insofar as you get the maximum possible happiness, and isn't that what you want? That's the question.

I do agree though that this reality doesn't hold any special meaning over the hypothetical one, I don't nessecarily come about it via solipsism though.

Well, for example, this weekend we had a shift at work that was chaotic and hectic like it's DEFCON 1. And after we sailed through it without much problems, we were all like "Damn, we're good", and slapping each other on the shoulders. Exhausted and drained, but feeling good about a job well done. It was a nice feeling.

I think "happiness" is something more complex than merely "absence of stress, pain and discomfort". I can't explain it completely, I mean there are some specific things that would make me happier, yes, but once those needs are taken care of, something new will pop up to bug me. I don't necessarily believe life only has any meaning if it's a constant uphill battle, but leisurely strolling around all the time does get kind of boring after a while.

Or, I'll let Sebastian Cabot say his piece as well...

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

I partially agree.

The hypothetical doesn't really fall flat, as that is just one way to use logic to accept that you may as well go for it and plug in. The choice carries meaning insofar as you get the maximum possible happiness, and isn't that what you want? That's the question.

I do agree though that this reality doesn't hold any special meaning over the hypothetical one, I don't nessecarily come about it via solipsism though.

Well, for example, this weekend we had a shift at work that was chaotic and hectic like it's DEFCON 1. And after we sailed through it without much problems, we were all like "Damn, we're good", and slapping each other on the shoulders. Exhausted and drained, but feeling good about a job well done.

I think "happiness" is something more complex than merely "absence of stress, pain and discomfort". I can't explain it completely, I mean there are some specific things that would make me happier, yes, but once those needs are taken care of, something new will pop up to bug me. I don't necessarily believe life only has any meaning if it's a constant uphill battle, but leisurely strolling around all the time does get kind of boring after a while.

Or, I'll let Sebastian Cabot say his piece as well...

The Twilight Zone is awesome.

Anyhow, the beauty of a hypothetical machine is that it could account for that, to allow for the maximum happiness, if some pain (effort, what-have-you) were nessecary it could do that. There certainly is something rewarding about working towards a goal and achieving it, even if it is hard, but the machine would take that into account if it were the best way to give you the most happiness.

Machine life all the way.

Living the life of Mad-King Milk, the rockstar, astronaut, genius, millionaire is much preferable to living the life of Milk the poor university student.

EDIT: Arakasi you should probably expand on the OP. Most of the posters don't seem to be getting it.

Milk:
Machine life all the way.

Living the life of Mad-King Milk, the rockstar, astronaut, genius, millionaire is much preferable to living the life of Milk the poor university student.

EDIT: Arakasi you should probably expand on the OP. Most of the posters don't seem to be getting it.

I'd like to, but alas I didn't want to poision the well that quickly.

Also if about 2000 restatements doesn't work I highly doubt an OP clarification will.

Nope. No machines for me.
But if I really want to live in a fantasy world now and again, I think I'd just try to get into lucid dreaming.

Ahri:
Mind you, it'd make an excellent morale boost for people who are in palliative care.

An excellent use of the machine if ever there was one.

For myself, no. I like my reality, warts and all, and the notion of maximum happiness puts me in the mind of Ren & Stimpy (remember the origins of "Happy Happy Joy Joy"?) An invention akin to the Happiness Helmet gives me the creeps. I'll stick to occasional indulgence in escapism and food, thanks.

No, as tempting as it would be, I would never let myself live a lie no matter how 'real' it tries to make me think it is. Even if it can offer me what the programmer believes to be complete, and total happiness with no worries or troubles, I couldn't live that life.

EDIT for further insight: There's happiness to be had in enduring hard labor, pain, and fighting through struggles or oppression in your life, not because of those things themselves, but because if I press through those things I will have achieved something greater than I would have had before, something which I would never be able to do if I was just given 'happiness'.

You don't get to be in a position of CEO for a big company by being a broken man who wastes his money away at any point or time because of his life situation, you get it by being someone who works hard for that position despite however hard it was to make it; I don't want happiness if I'm just given it, it's meaningless, I can't appreciate it unless I myself endure what it took to get there -- it's worthless without a full appreciation for it.

No.

I will not have it. For me, happiness must exist alongside pain to show how much lucky we all are. A win at a tournament wouldn't mean a damn thing unless you worked your ass off and put yourself under some pain (not in the way that most people are thinking).

It's also a matter of context. If I'm happy all of the time, what's to say that I'll enjoy it? I've been tired of being happy as I know that I did nothing to deserve my happiness.

So there's my answer.

There can only be happiness if there's pain, much like there can only be light if there's darkness. That's all I'm going to say.

I think my greatest problem with the "Happiness Machine" is that it relies on hedonistic desires. In order for the machine to be worth anything to you, you have to accept that what is most important is your own individual happiness and pleasure, and that no other experience or situation is worth not entering the machine. Personally, I think that the idea that personal pleasure is the most important thing is utterly false, and immoral besides. By entering this machine, I'm essentially cutting myself off from the world as a whole - nothing that I say or do will affect anyone else in any meaningful way for the rest of my existence. I would be living solely for my own benefit, disregarding how I may affect the world or help other people, and that strikes me as the purest form of selfishness.

I don't think that people are meant to live their lives in isolation from one another, and furthermore, the most worthwhile pursuit is to help others. By entering this machine, I'm rendering my own existence meaningless.

No, because my thirst for vengeance would never be sated existence is torment and who am I to disagree.

I definitely would plug in. A lifetime of happiness tailored to my own definition of happiness? yes. definitely.

That's a no from me. But then, happiness isn't my end goal. Mine is just to be useful and repay my debts to society before I bite it.

topic reminds me of the end of Enslaved: Odyssey to the west.

I cannot imagine life without the possibility of it ever ceasing. The cessation of life is supremely important to me. Happy or not, life must end at some point. Existing forever, happy or not, sounds like the worst kind of hell imaginable.

boradam:

EDIT for further insight: There's happiness to be had in enduring hard labor, pain, and fighting through struggles or oppression in your life, not because of those things themselves, but because if I press through those things I will have achieved something greater than I would have had before, something which I would never be able to do if I was just given 'happiness'.

In that case you woudn't be happy, and the machine wouldn't be 'The Experience Machine' it would be a failed experience machine. If you thought that hard work was the only way to achieve happiness, and you were right, the machine would account for that, and make you work for your happiness. Only unlike real life, it would be for maximum possible happiness, and you wouldn't risk premature death.

thesilentman:
No.

I will not have it. For me, happiness must exist alongside pain to show how much lucky we all are. A win at a tournament wouldn't mean a damn thing unless you worked your ass off and put yourself under some pain (not in the way that most people are thinking).

It's also a matter of context. If I'm happy all of the time, what's to say that I'll enjoy it? I've been tired of being happy as I know that I did nothing to deserve my happiness.

So there's my answer.

You will enjoy it otherwise you wouldn't have been happy and the machine would have failed, breaking the hypothetical. If it were true that you needed pain too in order to be truely happy, the machine would account for that and include it. Only it would be the minimal amount of pain possible to get the maximum amount of happiness.

freaper:
There can only be happiness if there's pain, much like there can only be light if there's darkness. That's all I'm going to say.

Except that's provably wrong via neruoscience. Also light and dark are not an exact analogy. Pain is a distinct feeling from happiness, rather than the absense of happiness. Darkness is merely the absense of light, not another energy form.

Darken12:
I cannot imagine life without the possibility of it ever ceasing. The cessation of life is supremely important to me. Happy or not, life must end at some point. Existing forever, happy or not, sounds like the worst kind of hell imaginable.

Wrong. The stipulation of the machine is that you would be happy, if you lived forever, you'd be happy forever. Also, your brain would eventually deteriorate naturally (I'd imagine) and your life would end.

Arakasi:
Wrong. The stipulation of the machine is that you would be happy, if you lived forever, you'd be happy forever. Also, your brain would eventually deteriorate naturally (I'd imagine) and your life would end.

Then I still wouldn't go for it. I'm not an hedonist. I don't see the point in living if all you are doing with your life is wasting it on sensory gratification. I don't consider living a happy life to be something to be proud of.

Altorin:
I definitely would plug in. A lifetime of happiness tailored to my own definition of happiness? yes. definitely.

Thing is that it would not nessecarily be talored to your own definition of happiness. It would be tailored to the scientific definition of happiness, based upon what your brain would enjoy most. Close, but not quite the same. One can have delusions about what they would/wouldn't enjoy.

Excelsior789:
That's a no from me. But then, happiness isn't my end goal. Mine is just to be useful and repay my debts to society before I bite it.

topic reminds me of the end of Enslaved: Odyssey to the west.

So basically you think your life is nothing but indentured servitude? That's rather a depressing outlook.

Darken12:

Arakasi:
Wrong. The stipulation of the machine is that you would be happy, if you lived forever, you'd be happy forever. Also, your brain would eventually deteriorate naturally (I'd imagine) and your life would end.

Then I still wouldn't go for it. I'm not an hedonist. I don't see the point in living if all you are doing with your life is wasting it on sensory gratification. I don't consider living a happy life to be something to be proud of.

Fair enough then, that's more in line with the question.

May I ask you though, what is the point in living other than happiness?

Arakasi:
Fair enough then, that's more in line with the question.

May I ask you though, what is the point in living other than happiness?

I think every person defines what the point of living is (for themselves) and I have no problems with people who decide to live a life of happiness and are okay with that. My reasoning was solely applied at my own life.

Personally, I think the meaning of existence is to do good. To leave the world in a better states than you left it. I wouldn't consider my life to be something to be proud of unless I was sure I had done some amount of good in the world. Good, of course, according to my own definitions of it. The rationale I'm using might be Kantian (deontological, to be more precise), but my values differ from Kant's ethics.

Either way, I consider my life to be worthwhile only if it has adequately fulfilled my self-imposed duty to do good. The meaning of my life is altruism. I exist only to better the lives of people and nature in general. Anything else is frivolity.

I would plug in, but only if a very small, but VERY important list of circumstances are met.

1. I do not age.
I love my fantasies. I love dreaming. I love thinking. I would love to have more time to think. This could be an acceptable solution.

2. I can leave. What good would the machine do if I couldn't leave it with the knowledge I'd gained from thinking inside of it?

3. There is a cost. Whether it is money, a time limit, or some other restriction/payment, it would be necessary to mitigate my abuse of the machine.

If those are not met, I would not plug in. Just having your way with anything is not satisfying in any way. Yahtzee put it best in his review of minecraft. If you can just will a giant golden cock and balls into existence it isn't satisfying when you blow them up. When you have to work for said cock and balls it will make you appreciate it all the more when you have it.

The premise here is flawed. Eternal bliss is beyond our understanding and asking someone a question they cannot possibly understand does not produce real answers. A better question would be something like would you take a drug [or plug into a machine] that made you fell as happy as you've ever felt with no repercussions and you have an unlimited supply of it. Or something similar to the situation of Brave New World.

Also ive read through all the posts and i see you asking a tough question and then making all possible arguments against the socially honorable choice. What response are you looking for here?

I'd have to say no. There's an old saying that goes as follows:
Pleasure unearned destroys.

Think of it this way, by giving up everything around you to go on the electric version of a drug binge, you essentially would become nothing but a sensation sponge. There would no longer be any real thought, no risk, just hollow (from a third person perspective) sensation of pleasure that would slowly corrupt yourself as an individual.

Spuds:
The premise here is flawed. Eternal bliss is beyond our understanding and asking someone a question they cannot possibly understand does not produce real answers. A better question would be something like would you take a drug [or plug into a machine] that made you fell as happy as you've ever felt with no repercussions and you have an unlimited supply of it. Or something similar to the situation of Brave New World.

Also ive read through all the posts and i see you asking a tough question and then making all possible arguments against the socially honorable choice. What response are you looking for here?

I'm not looking for a specific response, I'm attempting to poke people's arguments until they fall apart. The reason I am on one side of the debate is that I can't think of a reasonable refutation of it, and therefore I can't really quote anyone who agrees with me and add anything to what they have, except that one time where the person agreed (possibly) because they missed the point.

The pleasure machine is actually a refutation of hedonism, meant to show that no one would actually choose to hook into the machine, so I really don't understand the problem you have with it, I don't think it's particularly biased, unless it is in the direction of the refutation.

Gormech:
I'd have to say no. There's an old saying that goes as follows:
Pleasure unearned destroys.

Think of it this way, by giving up everything around you to go on the electric version of a drug binge, you essentially would become nothing but a sensation sponge. There would no longer be any real thought, no risk, just hollow (from a third person perspective) sensation of pleasure that would slowly corrupt yourself as an individual.

So you live in fear of the judgement of others instead of doing what you want?
And if you enjoyed thought and risk, the machine would create an environment in which those things flourished. I suppose the key word there is 'real'. What is the difference between real thought and unreal thought? Is there unreal thought?

Darken12:

Arakasi:
Fair enough then, that's more in line with the question.

May I ask you though, what is the point in living other than happiness?

I think every person defines what the point of living is (for themselves) and I have no problems with people who decide to live a life of happiness and are okay with that. My reasoning was solely applied at my own life.

Personally, I think the meaning of existence is to do good.

Would you consider yourself a utilitarian hedonist? I.e. You think that what is morally good is producing the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people (and the same but opposite for pain)?

Darken12:

To leave the world in a better states than you left it.

What's the point of it being better if no one uses it for their happiness?

Darken12:

Either way, I consider my life to be worthwhile only if it has adequately fulfilled my self-imposed duty to do good. The meaning of my life is altruism. I exist only to better the lives of people and nature in general. Anything else is frivolity.

I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this, you seem to have thought this out fairly well. The more I analyse if the more I come to altruism being pointless and even bad.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to pass on the grounds of not wanting to vegetate. I will explain why.

Better Than Life - because this is TOTALLY like Red Dwarf - would be addictively fun and I've never want to give it up because I'm not the sort of guy who can't imagine happiness in some form or another. I would create whole new worlds and realities and play with them to my heart's content. It would be ecstacy...

But...on the outside...there would be a certain girl who's cries for me to snap out of it would fall on deaf ears. The tragedy of it would be that I would be blissfully unaware that she could easily succumb to a bad deppression and...I don't want to think about it.

The reality is that I love her more than enough to take the responsible answer and say no. Besides, my life ain't so bad.

I wouldn't want to be happy all the time, but I'd absolutely be up for a duplicate virtual reality where you just do or create anything. As in, the entire world is exactly the same except you're Neo and in Inception. Maybe everyone else is too, or maybe you're on your own server. The only issues I have are that we can't simulate what we don't understand, so no research could take place, being able to do anything would devalue the ability to do things, and you'd need people to maintain you while you weren't in the real world. But for people like me who aren't going to mean anything to the human race?

Actually no, I reconsider. As cool as being Neo would be, there's a sort of inherent value to knowing the truth and being able to influence things due to understanding, not to mention the few skills I do have would mean nothing. Nope, real world for me.

I'd prefer a real life. That and life has ups and downs. Life comes with pain and struggle, it is what makes life worth living and makes the happy moments all the better.

Arakasi:
Would you consider yourself a utilitarian hedonist? I.e. You think that what is morally good is producing the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people (and the same but opposite for pain)?

I wouldn't call that philosophy hedonism (utilitarian or not). Hedonism implies that the person themselves will enjoy the happiness they are providing, and that's not my concern.

My views definitely have strong undercurrents of utilitarianism, yes, but I would consider them deontological more than anything else. After all, I consider that not only is the utilitarian part important, but it's also important to lead by example and inspire others into perpetuating altruism (and explaining to enquiring minds why altruism is important).

I consider Ayn Rand's core philosophy (enlightened self-interest) to be fundamentally flawed, at least in the large scale of things: self-interest, enlightened or not, only encourages one to do up to a certain point. Doing good is not one's goal, but an incidental byproduct of self-interest, and that limits the amount of good one can do. The way I see it, the only way profound, long-lasting, large-scale progress can be achieved is by prioritising doing good above all else (altruism).

Darken12:

Arakasi:
Would you consider yourself a utilitarian hedonist? I.e. You think that what is morally good is producing the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people (and the same but opposite for pain)?

I wouldn't call that philosophy hedonism (utilitarian or not). Hedonism implies that the person themselves will enjoy the happiness they are providing, and that's not my concern.

My views definitely have strong undercurrents of utilitarianism, yes, but I would consider them deontological more than anything else. After all, I consider that not only is the utilitarian part important, but it's also important to lead by example and inspire others into perpetuating altruism (and explaining to enquiring minds why altruism is important).

I consider Ayn Rand's core philosophy (enlightened self-interest) to be fundamentally flawed, at least in the large scale of things: self-interest, enlightened or not, only encourages one to do up to a certain point. Doing good is not one's goal, but an incidental byproduct of self-interest, and that limits the amount of good one can do. The way I see it, the only way profound, long-lasting, large-scale progress can be achieved is by prioritising doing good above all else (altruism).

I would have thought so too, until I delved further into Ayn Rand's philosophy. I find it a shame that people write her off as evil these days without giving her ideas a rational and fair trial.

There is one particular notion I like and it is the following:
You trade goods by one of the following codes:
-By the gun (law)
-By the virtue (guilt, charity, whatever)
-By trade between two conscenting parties

The problem I have is that I see it as immoral to use the gun, or the guilt.

Arakasi:
I would have thought so too, until I delved further into Ayn Rand's philosophy. I find it a shame that people write her off as evil these days without giving her ideas a rational and fair trial.

There is one particular notion I like and it is the following:
You trade goods by one of the following codes:
-By the gun (law)
-By the virtue (guilt, charity, whatever)
-By trade between two conscenting parties

The problem I have is that I see it as immoral to use the gun, or the guilt.

Well, I want to believe that I gave Ayn Rand a fair chance. I wouldn't write her off as evil, just flawed. She is building a philosophy around the core of human nature (self-interest) and instead of saying "we can do more, we can rise above it" she says "so long as you do it right, that's all you need" which does not really satisfy my personal ethics.

While I do understand your point, I think that all three have their places (according to my personal views, of course). The gun exists to stop those who are born with advantages (those who inherit companies or are born into the upper class) from exploiting those who are born disadvantaged (the lower class, minorities) in order to perpetuate the status quo. We saw many examples in history, with the aristocracy exploiting the peasantry because of the innate inequality in their advantages. The virtue exists as an extension of your right to do with your goods as you see fit. After all, if I would condone an unscrupulous wealthy businessman exploiting the needs of a poor family because they're both consenting parties, I have to condone an organisation that uses guilt to obtain free goods from equally consenting parties. They are both forms of exploitation, and if I accept one, I must accept the other.

I personally found Bioshock's exploration of Ayn Rand to be surprisingly deep for a video game, especially since it does its best to portray the philosophy as fairly as possible.

Arakasi:

boradam:

EDIT for further insight: There's happiness to be had in enduring hard labor, pain, and fighting through struggles or oppression in your life, not because of those things themselves, but because if I press through those things I will have achieved something greater than I would have had before, something which I would never be able to do if I was just given 'happiness'.

In that case you woudn't be happy, and the machine wouldn't be 'The Experience Machine' it would be a failed experience machine. If you thought that hard work was the only way to achieve happiness, and you were right, the machine would account for that, and make you work for your happiness. Only unlike real life, it would be for maximum possible happiness, and you wouldn't risk premature death.

I wouldn't choose to be put into a machine like that whatever the case, I enjoy my life no matter how hard it is and I would never allow myself to be put into something like that is a supposed happiness dispensing machine. I'm fine with my life as is, and my belief in what I put my faith in is all I need -- I wouldn't need a machine to substitute for what life is. Human interaction is something a machine will never replace, no matter how much better it seems or how realistic it is, a machine will always be a machine -- soulless -- while humans are not.

Arakasi:

Gormech:
I'd have to say no. There's an old saying that goes as follows:
Pleasure unearned destroys.

Think of it this way, by giving up everything around you to go on the electric version of a drug binge, you essentially would become nothing but a sensation sponge. There would no longer be any real thought, no risk, just hollow (from a third person perspective) sensation of pleasure that would slowly corrupt yourself as an individual.

So you live in fear of the judgement of others instead of doing what you want?
And if you enjoyed thought and risk, the machine would create an environment in which those things flourished. I suppose the key word there is 'real'. What is the difference between real thought and unreal thought? Is there unreal thought?

Darken12:

Arakasi:
Fair enough then, that's more in line with the question.

May I ask you though, what is the point in living other than happiness?

I think every person defines what the point of living is (for themselves) and I have no problems with people who decide to live a life of happiness and are okay with that. My reasoning was solely applied at my own life.

Personally, I think the meaning of existence is to do good.

Would you consider yourself a utilitarian hedonist? I.e. You think that what is morally good is producing the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people (and the same but opposite for pain)?

Darken12:

To leave the world in a better states than you left it.

What's the point of it being better if no one uses it for their happiness?

Darken12:

Either way, I consider my life to be worthwhile only if it has adequately fulfilled my self-imposed duty to do good. The meaning of my life is altruism. I exist only to better the lives of people and nature in general. Anything else is frivolity.

I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this, you seem to have thought this out fairly well. The more I analyse if the more I come to altruism being pointless and even bad.

The thing isn't that I worry about other's thoughts on my decision. It's that in order for me to take an accepting stance, I would have to have already been put inside the machine prior to making my decision. Seeing as that I would be making it before having experienced it for myself, I would still have my current mindset and refuse for better or worse.

If I become a millionaire and am perfectly happy with real life then yes but thus far my real life has found a way of being pretty shit so yeah, I'd probably hook up to the machine. Well, so long as it was lucid, I could make decisions within the dream... Like should I fuck Anne Hathaway while she's dressed as a maid or dressed as Catwoman? Also considering my ideal life, at least the way I vision, involves going through pain to get a feeling of accomplish that'd be all good...

Wait... Would it be like Source Code? Where since you consciously inhabit the virtual world and people can react to your choices it essentially just becomes a parallel universe?

Oops, only when I read Gormech's post I realised you had quoted me more than once! Sorry, I thought those quote blocks were aimed at different people.

Arakasi:
What's the point of it being better if no one uses it for their happiness?

Well, since I am living proof that happiness is not the end-goal of all humans, I have to accept that there might be others who might think the same too, so "better" in this case means "giving as many tool as possible for others to achieve their self-imposed goals". Also I'm an environmentalist, so better also means "minimising and, if possible, reverting the harm we inflict on the universe" which has nothing to do with human happiness (in my opinion that is. We should care for the environment not because it better serves our happiness, but because we have the sufficient intelligence and technology to perpetuate our existence without harming our surroundings. If we can avoid harm, we should).

Darken12:
I'd like to hear your reasoning behind this, you seem to have thought this out fairly well. The more I analyse if the more I come to altruism being pointless and even bad.

I uh... I cannot even fathom how altruism could be bad. I get "pointless", sure, but I fail to see how it would be bad. Surely if you are not satisfied being altruistic, altruism is not your thing and you should not do it. If hedonism suits you better, go ahead, I won't mind.

The way I see it, a life of pleasure/happiness is empty and meaningless. What's the point of being alive if all I can say about it when I die is "I had fun"? What did I do? What did I achieve? What did I do with the time, energy and resources I was given throughout my life? Oh, I spent them all chasing a fleeting, ephemeral sensation? Well, wow, what a complete waste of a life I was. I squandered every advantage and resource I had, which I could have used to better the world and people around me, and instead spent them all on myself. Wow, just wow. I would be horrendously ashamed if I was close to death and that was the entire sum of my life. I would have displayed no empathy, no compassion for the suffering of others. I would have closed my eyes to the world and allowed it to decay, I would have closed my ears to the suffering others, and for what? For base animalistic gratification?

I would not be satisfied with a life like that. I choose to believe that my life exists only for the betterment of others and the world at large. Happiness is a trap.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked