Jake Regier

Portland, ME, United States

Someone is shy

Jake hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jake Regier
Posted over 4 years ago
How could we relate to the world around us without the concept of time?
To begin with, every component of life is man-made. So I do not think you can single out 'time'. Everything, it's arbitrary, so time is not the glue holding everything together. Because this is a hypothetical question, and there can be no answer (because we DO have time), I wonder what the point of asking a question like this is. Everything, if picked apart to the extent of asking, "What is life if ____ does not exist?" is going to end without an answer. Thus it will not end. Without time we do not have the concept of ephemeral life. We do not have the concept of Heaven, because at what point do we die and enter Heaven? We do not have Hell, for the same reason. There are no deadlines, nothing. Red is still red in association with blue, winning is still winning when contrasted with losing. So there is still 'meaning', if that's what you define it as. Time related issues are out of the picture, and thus the theoretical is destroyed. But the present is not. If this does not make sense, and it might not, considering my present state of mind (and what is a state, without the concept of time?), then it is because I've drunk too much. Questions like these, the 'hypothetical' notions of what could be, but are not, are irrelevant. We have these things, and thus they incite questions. If we did not have them, there would be no question; we would not know what they were at that point, and therefore would not know what to ask. There is no solution. What's the point of a question? You know there's no answer. You just live it and hope for happiness.
Noface
Jake Regier
Posted over 4 years ago
Dan Gilbert: Why we make bad decisions
I disagree with this in all respects because the $20 ticket is, in fact, equal to $20. In paying $20 for a ticket, the ticket becomes significant of the $20 expenditure. Yes? You find his example 'problematic', yet you don't refute his example. You only append it with something problematic. I side with Cristina on this one, but the other dude wrote way too much for me to consider reading it. You, Kaustubh, are not considering the two situations Gilbert proposed. You are considering the first situation and your own interpretation of the second, which is a bit left of what he is saying. Here you go: 1. You have $40. You spend $20 on a ticket, and then lose the ticket. Thus you are left with $20. 2. You have $40. You lose $20. Thus you are left with $20. Now, you want to see the show, and you arrive at the ticket booth with $20. Either way, you don't have a ticket. In either situation, you can choose to be out $40 or go home with $20. There is no difference. Does this make sense yet?