I used to be a Walrus subscriber, but that's basically their whole shtick - well-written half articles.

Haha so we’ll drscribed. I read a few more articles after OP and this summarized it perfectly

'I feel cheated, but I would read more if there was any.'

I agree, it was like a pay-walled article where you have to sign up to get to the interesting bits, but wasn't..

'There is no backing, explanation or argumentation of anything except that libraries are cleaner than pron movie theaters.'

Philosophers also, as far as I am aware, don't sporadically acquire large sacks full of illicit cash.

Yeah, equating these things, as though some form if radical epistemology might advocate for violent acquisition of cash... it feels like something from a Robert Anton Wilson trilogy.

Philosophers are no more outsiders to society than any other high level academic. Which is to say their daily concerns in their career may be vastly different from most, but their societal place is towards the pinacle of society, a society advanced enough to allow for large segments of its population to focus on concerns further up in Maslow's hierarchy. Criminals, on the other hand, represent the society's failures and blindspots.

Equating the two really just says, "look at us, are we not identical? Do we not, both of us, exist on the extremities of societal progression?"

Kudos to the author for transitioning out of one extreme and towards another. But he doesn't need to worry that Daniel Dennett is going to shoot him for his stash.

I wouldn't go as far as to say I feel cheated but the article absolutely ended prematurely.

I actually really appreciated this article. I didn't want a 5000 word autobiography.

Sure, another paragraph explaining what exactly about Kant stopped him from robbing banks would be nice. But I'm willing to accept it at face value and move on with my day.

The content seems to be “By challenging me, the Critique forced me to develop intellectual tools I never knew I had.”. That is, after discovering his new abilities, realized he could be more than a bank robber.

But we're left to infer that from the title, and with no details.

How did reading Kant lead to a moral shift for the author? Gradually or one big moment? Did certain passages resonate with him especially?

He told us how he came to read Kant and what was going on in his life at the time. And did a pretty good job. But told us little about reading it actually affected him

You were initially intrigued and hopeful, but ultimately there was no explanation nor the content you were hoping for. Well, that's life for you!

>My idea for a VR killer app was to have the camera attached to the front of a Red Bull airplane or snowboard. My friend, understanding more intimately human nature, realized it should be getting drunk, breaking into a bank and possibly getting involved in homicide.

Isn't that the premise of the film Strange Days?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/

I was just talking about that movie last night. It was a splendid look at one of our possible futures.

I think I'm missing something in your comment. Why did your friend think a VR killer app would be breaking into a bank? You mean as a VR game? How was he right? Why can you not morally make that? I am confused.

The author could certainly go further into detail and while sparse writing can be great writing here it feels like too much is left unsaid.

> I feel cheated, but I would read more if there was any.

I got a surprising amount of entertainment out of this comment. My mind is tickled.