struck me as amusingly Quirrellish — as opposed to Malfoyish
Having read that blog… frankly, given equal general intelligence and competence, I’d pick Quirrell over James_G any day. The former isn’t hung up on any particular grand theory, seems to have charisma, a sense of humour and a dry aesthetic of his own. He’s just plain cool. The latter clearly has an IQ through the roof and excels at formal reasoning, but is monomaniacal about his “rational” hedonic utilitarianism in the face of numerous dismal conclusions, seemingly can’t appreciate the value and importance of “mere emotions” for most people… and the pictures of his “strong aesthetic sense” make me question whether I’d want to exist in his world at all, no matter how many hedons he might provide to how many people.
Seriously, ew. Give me neo-feudalism as originally proposed, or give me chaos and ruin, just not this squeaky clean brave new world! Absolute monarchy and unrestricted capitalism both seem like such trifling worries to me compared to the prospect of this covering a living, breathing, diverse nation-state!
is monomaniacal about his “rational” hedonic utilitarianism
Even I find it mildly disturbing especially since it strikes as more or less the same “rational” hedonic utilitarianism that is the de facto norm on LessWrong.
[Warning: more of my neurotic bullshit!]
Having read that blog… frankly, given equal general intelligence and competence, I’d pick Quirrell over James_G any day.
The former isn’t hung up on any particular grand theory, seems to have charisma, a sense of humour and a dry aesthetic of his own. He’s just plain cool.
The latter clearly has an IQ through the roof and excels at formal reasoning, but is monomaniacal about his “rational” hedonic utilitarianism in the face of numerous dismal conclusions, seemingly can’t appreciate the value and importance of “mere emotions” for most people… and the pictures of his “strong aesthetic sense” make me question whether I’d want to exist in his world at all, no matter how many hedons he might provide to how many people.
Seriously, ew. Give me neo-feudalism as originally proposed, or give me chaos and ruin, just not this squeaky clean brave new world! Absolute monarchy and unrestricted capitalism both seem like such trifling worries to me compared to the prospect of this covering a living, breathing, diverse nation-state!
Even I find it mildly disturbing especially since it strikes as more or less the same “rational” hedonic utilitarianism that is the de facto norm on LessWrong.
His hedonic utilitarianism or my rant? If the former… then thank you yet again for seeing a method to my madness :)
His hedonic utilitarianism.
Of course there is, we actually share many of the same misgivings about the smiley faced worlds that utilitarianism might build.