Jump to content

Is it wrong to kill a tulpa?


Jake0

Is it wrong to kill a tulpa?  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it wrong to kill a tulpa?

    • Yes, whether it's malevolent or benevolent.
    • Yes, but only if it's benevolent.
    • No.
    • Other (please specify in reply)


Recommended Posts

Do you believe it should be considered morally wrong to kill a tulpa? Maybe I don't want to bring up abortion but the two seem to be similar issues. I generally hold that if something depends on living in your body, and you don't want it to live in your body, you have the right to kill it. And of course I'm talking about benevolent tulpa who haven't tried to cause you harm. Probably most people would agree that malevolent tulpa can be killed.

 

EDIT: I don't mean to inflict physical harm upon it, I mean to ignore it until it goes away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Unsure if you mean like, just stop talking to it, thus getting rid of it, or actually killing it in your head.

 

I suppose you've the right to do what you want in regards to whether or not you keep it. Simply stopping your conversations with it is nothing more than to get rid of an idea. But to inflict physical pain on it in your mind in hopes to make it die seems cruel. Really cruel.

[align=center]“From my rotting body,

flowers shall grow

and I am in them

and that is eternity.”[/align]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put in other, since it's circumstantial in my opinion.

 

Honestly, when it comes to your own existence, and who you decide to create to share that existence with, contemplating on militant morality and ethics on things like this seems like an individual making self-referential constraints on themselves, i.e., they basically set up circumstances where their conscience gets the better of them, and then don't know how to bend said morals before they as hosts snap completely from guilt, and other negative dispositions. Morals and ethics are really just subjective, and people finding patterns through association and repetition of what's right and wrong is based on things like social conditioning, upbringing, and conceptual frameworks.

 

Since your question seems directed on the host having intentions of killing a tulpa that may be benevolent, this would raise questions on why a host would want to destroy said tulpa in the first place (e.g. cutting away a chance to get vicarious insight from another sentient being within your perception of reality seems kind of self-defeating).

 

This is why, no matter how you set up your original post, the underlying concern is that the individual would be afraid of their tulpa self-actualizing in a negative manner. Of course, things like anti-natalism and tulpas, i.e., having a negative value of birth in relation to tulpas, and how to assess things like this is based on the circumstances. If the host feels the need to kill someone that’s part of them, even though they’re clearly not having any kind of harm in mind would seem to create some intense symbolic experience that they’re probably insecure about potential internal conflict.

 

It seems that when it comes to killing a tulpa, the circumstances would generally be ones where the host’s mental faculties at risk, or experiences in life and circumstances that must take priority over (transient or long-term) continuing the development, or the existence of a tulpa. Though, a death of a tulpa is obviously not really the same with real life death. Their death would be subjective, symbolic, and only as “permanent” as much the host doesn’t subscribe much attention, or devotion to their existence.

 

But for your concern on a benevolent tulpa being killed, I wouldn’t really say it’s morally wrong to kill them. It’s more on matters on whether or not there’s some kind of fear the host is not being aware of that would make them contemplate on killing them. Asking if something is morally wrong depends on which standpoints people have; some may not really think there’s inherent value or meaning, and moral and ethical standards are merely mental constructs from humans that are subjective, impermanent, and bound to change based on many circumstances.

 

No one could really tell you what's wrong or right, but things like this focus more on existential implications of tulpas, and whether or not their existence precedes over who they'll gradually define themselves to be. If it's something where flourishing, and having functionality is at risk, it's not a matter of morals, but more of your own existence to even be able to still conceptualize your personal take on right and wrong.

 

As for "physical" pain, that would imply that there's an absolute correlation of feeling physical pain if one may kill their tulpa. Even if that were somehow magically true, it would raise questions on whether or not inducing said pain would have any long and compensating good in the future because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I laugh at this site's hopeless plight at being a "scientific" community.

Indeed, one's own perceptions of a tulpa is a living, conscious thing. But in reality it's just a concept. It has the personality, thoughts and memories you think it has, and the actions it performs are the acts you would think it should perform. The only difference is you abstract the conscious effort it takes to animate this concept and effectively make it seem real. It is of course understandable to willingly succumb to the idea of it being a living thing with rights, but to completely be consumed by it and not realize a tulpa is nothing more than an abstraction of your own thoughts is silly. You can't even debate if it could be some form of consciousness like your own, because if you do "kill" it, it can come back any time you want. It's a concept, memories. It can't die, and it's arguable that it's alive in the first place. The moral implications of killing a tulpa are the same as simply forgetting something. If you meet someone, and never meet them again or become affected by them, and forget about them, you have sufficiently killed that person. They no longer exist to you, because you willingly forgot them. Of course, that person isn't dead, they can go on to affect other people, to implant an image of themselves into other people. But a tulpa doesn't have an easy facility to do this, it's purely for the host. It doesn't have a family, or people it has to please. Sure, you can provide these things, but it's not being forced or inherited, unlike what happens to tangible things. It has no responsibilities, no past, no life, nothing. Maybe if you did actually provide all these things, then it could be considered "alive", and the flimsy, confusing human definition of "morality" might meet up with it, but that's circumstantial. The point is a plain 'ol vanilla tulpa is just a concept, an idea, and forgetting it is the same as forgetting anything else. In fact you sufficiently kill thousands, maybe millions of concepts every day, the process of REM sleep is a nuke on concepts. They may be insects compared to a tulpa, but it's still hypocrisy.

Scarlet - anime, 8/15/2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's kind of a silly question and you're just applying reason, Bin, but come on, man. There's newbies around. The whole "they're not real living entities, they don't really matter" train of thought isn't going to do new hosts any favors with suspending disbelief.

 

Shit, I've been at this for over a year, and even I got kind of disillusioned by that. It's like saying "you're wasting your time with this, all that stuff that the tulpa guides say about creating another independent consciousness is bullshit because I say it is". From your past writings I'm presuming you have a "complete" tulpa already, so to you it may be all fine and dandy to try sounding knowledgeable and realistic about it, but that kind of thinking can be total poison to people who aren't yet fortunate enough to be on the same level as you.

 

I mention this not only because new tulpamancers could read it, but because this is an answer provided directly to someone who has just joined the site.

 


 

To be clear, I mostly agree, in fact seeing a tulpa as you described is one of the ways that I kickstarted my temporarily stalled progress a little while ago. I just think there's potential for sabotaging newer hosts with that kind of thinking. Myself included, since I've always held to the (evidently delusional) belief that they form into separate consciousnesses after starting out as a latticework of thoughts and simulated interactions.

"You've got to believe to achieve." -Hank Hill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bin pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter.

 

While tulpas have an existence, it is only to the individual who created them. They are exclusive; sure, others can acknowledge they exist, but only by believing what they are being told by the tulpamancer. That being said, the host is where the concern should lie.

 

These thought forms occupy space in our heads, and while it seems counter productive to spend so much time and place so much energy into creating such an elaborate construct, ultimately, it is the individual's decision on what to do with it. If it ends up being a hindrance in one's day to day life or becomes violent, or more than the host can handle, I don't see the issue with dismissing it. Its baser parts will go back to whence they came, across the scope of your memories, thoughts and so on. They're not really "dying", but more along the lines of dissipating. As was mentioned prior, you can bring it back at any time if you choose to remember.

 

The well-being of the human host is the primary concern in this situation. The "death" of a thought construct really isn't that important if it begins to negatively impact the one who created it. We create these constructs based upon our knowledge, memories and imagination; we take pieces that are already present, and assemble them into something new and interesting. We create them for companionship, entertainment and happiness. If they end up not serving that purpose, there is little to no point in continuing to feed it time and energy. One should not fret and prolong their suffering in fear of "killing" something that at the end of the day, is just a reassembly of elements that were already present in our minds, but gussied up and given a new name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Bin, does your tulpa only perform actions you expect it to? Does it not have its own free will? Also, are you saying tulpas aren't alive, or that they aren't even self-aware? Because they are definitely not alive under any biological definition, but do you think they are not self-aware (conscious)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Neon, I didn't mean it to sound that cold.

Of course a tulpa is an abstraction of your own thoughts, as well as a computer terminal is an abstraction for a dizzying array of switches. Abstractions are powerful, they can completely change how something looks and acts. I'm not saying a tulpa is just your own thoughts and taking the magic away, I'm saying you have an ability to abstract your thoughts in the first place, and make what was once only you into several new entities. It may still just be your own thoughts, and a polygon on a screen may just be a couple numbers in memory. But in the end, to you, a tulpa is a real thing, and what you perceive is all that matters. I guess science just makes everything sound lame, haha.

Scarlet - anime, 8/15/2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, it's cool, I gotcha. Yeah, I can definitely agree that one's own perception of their tulpa is what's important. I like the comparison to computer abstractions, it does a good job of illustrating just how powerful the brain really is, as opposed to the idea that tulpas are just some work of magic. Didn't mean to come across all pissy about it earlier, sorry if I did.

 

Anyways, I'll stop derailing things and contribute to what OP was asking about:

In my eyes, dissipating a tulpa is one of those things that I don't really feel morals should be generally applied to. I'd never kill my own tulpa because of the emotional bond, but if someone else dissipates theirs, I won't see them as a murderer or anything.

That said, I do hate the guts of people who destroy their tulpas because of vague, lame reasons that don't involve their tulpa harming them. Not because I feel like it's an immoral decision, but because I'm a part-time misanthrope who holds contempt for those who feel the need to totally dismantle their tulpa to deal with any other issues in their life (and I've been through a number of them myself, brother).

 

Also:

Because they are definitely not alive under any biological definition,

 

It's hardly a definite conclusion. I could be wrong here, but since they're an abstraction of the host's thoughts, they share a living body and a living brain with him, so unless he's dead or a zombie they could be considered to be alive. This is especially the case for people who regard their tulpa as a direct split of their own consciousness. It's a complex topic.

"You've got to believe to achieve." -Hank Hill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, I think killing a tulpa is wrong, because even though it doesn't have it's own body, it's sapiant (or is that sentient? I get the two mixed up), and has it's own thought, feelings, likes and dislikes, and opinions. Which is why I'm against the philosophy that it's just a bunch of thoughts you threw together. Tulpas are capable of doing so much, even interacting with the host in their wonderland, and they can create more tulpas by themselves (although I assume they get the host's permission first) and even their own servitors. That just screams intelligent design. My philosophy is if a being has intelligence, emotions, and the ability to discern right from wrong, then it should be treated as a being with a soul. From all the stories I've read, I can only say that tulpas are very awesome, and they can do so much for their hosts.

 

Now, if a tulpa is better off being destroyed, as sad as it sounds, I think I would agree with the host's choice. Even if it's so much that the host doesn't want the tulpa, although I would think that that's irresponsible for someone to create a tulpa, then abandon it, in the end, if the tulpa was kept alive, they would have to live in the body of someone who doesn't want them around, so they would grow incredibly bored, lonely, and depressed. If I was in that situation, I would try to work out an understanding with the tulpa first, because tulpas will do their best to try to please their host, as long as mostly negative thoughts weren't put into their creation and they didn't willfully abuse them repeatedly.

 

Edit: Fixed typos. That's what I get for typing when I'm tired @.@

Will list tulpas when I get things sorted out in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...