12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Which is why I added that reason is a means to an end, that end being passion. Passion =/= emotion, emotion is a part of it.

But in terms of which I believe is supposed to temper the other, reason tempers emotions and not vice versa. Imo of course.

I don't think they're separable, but reason is just as fallible as emotion and intuition, and can be more so.  Regardless, as I said, in Loghain and Maric's case the dichotomy is not that simple anyway.  Loghain can be too narrow-minded at times.  He wins battles but doesn't win campaigns, for instance.  So I would argue that Maric was more clear-thinking at such points as going into the Deep Roads.  What good would it have been for him to sit on his throne while the world goes down in flames due to a Superblight?  When he could have done something to prevent it?

Besides, if the initial question is why Loghain followed Maric and revered him so much, I think he simply loved him. That much is obvious.  It goes without saying I don't mean in the sense of cheap slashfic.  <_<

[KnightofPhoenix]

Reason is fallible of course, but not according to emotion, but to the reasoning of others. And yes of course they are not separable, that's what I argued. Just that emotion, for me, doesn't temper or moderate reason.

We don't really know what Flemeth told Maric and that might have convinced him to do what he did. Loghain didn't have that same privilege. And yes sometimes he can be narrow minded, I would criticize that on the basis of reason, not emotion.

And yes, I do think he loved him bromantically.

[phaonica]

Maybe that's just me, but I never think anyone can lead "too much from the head". You can never be too rational....But any decision that is irrational, for me, is undesirable

I agree that thinking from the heart can lead to being irrational, but I wasn't thinking about that so much as thinking from the heart making someone not think a situation through. I was thinking more along the lines of "give a person a fish/teach a person to fish" lines. It's nice and admirable to want to help people, but it's not always good for people to be helped. It's nice to not burn down a village. It's not good that the darkspawn taint in said village spreads to other villages. It's not completely irrational, but it still might be considered by some to be too much heart and not enough head. (And the same way that you argue that there can't be "too much from the head" others will argue that there can't be "too much from the heart.")

As for thinking too much with one's head. I suppose it could lead you to taking 'safe' courses rather than taking some risks for the sake of respect for individual lives. Too much of that and one is perceived as being cruel and villainous.

By then all of them had their suspicions, but Maric was in love with her and not able to face his.  He's human.

I just don't believe that being problematically 'human' is any more or less forgivable than being problematicaly 'a robot.'

And yeah, you know where I stand on him going into the Deep Roads.  That was a completely objective rational decision, highly self-sacrificial, that happened to coincide with his emotional state. 

And I disagree. I think his emotional state was his primary driving factor, and that he wanted to run away from Denerim more than he believed he needed to personally accompany the wardens on their entire mission.

Sure, I didn't say one was better.

I suppose I was responding to a general sentiment that mistakes made from the heart are acceptable (they're only human), while mistakes made (heartlessly) from the head are not.

If you only do the pragmatic thing, you lose your humanity. You're just a robot.

At the extreme, perhaps. But if you only do the emotional thing, that's just as bad.

And we're only talking tendencies here.  Loghan acts in passion, instinct and emotion, too, and Maric is not a complete gadfly.  But people have their strengths and weaknesses.  They worked so well as a team because they balanced each other.

I don't disagree with that. I just sometimes question what Loghain saw in him. Though obviously, people question what Maric saw in Loghain, too.

Modifié par phaonica, 20 octobre 2010 - 03:41 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...
As for thinking too much with one's head. I suppose it could lead you to taking 'safe' courses rather than taking some risks for the sake of respect for individual lives. Too much of that and one is perceived as being cruel and villainous.

That's why I talked about prudence and moderation (which are not emotions). Disrespecting the lives of others can be detrimental to your cause if not in the short run, than in the long run. I don't need to use emotion here as the basis of my critique of someone being oblivious to others all the time. Via reason, I can analyse the situation and see the pros and cons of each choice. One can take a calculated risk on the basis of reason, it doesn't have to be via emotion. Emotion can be a motivator, sure. But if someone doesn't think it through and risks everything, then that would be undesirable even if understandable.   

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
As for thinking too much with one's head. I suppose it could lead you to taking 'safe' courses rather than taking some risks for the sake of respect for individual lives. Too much of that and one is perceived as being cruel and villainous.

That's why I talked about prudence and moderation (which are not emotions). Disrespecting the lives of others can be detrimental to your cause if not in the short run, than in the long run. I don't need to use emotion here as the basis of my critique of someone being oblivious to others all the time. Via reason, I can analyse the situation and see the pros and cons of each choice. One can take a calculated risk on the basis of reason, it doesn't have to be via emotion. Emotion can be a motivator, sure. But if someone doesn't think it through and risks everything, then that would be undesirable even if understandable.   

I am not intelligent nor eloquent enough to have this conversation with you, KoP.
It sounds like you're saying that if you get into the 'thinking too much with your head' area, that you should logically determine that prudence and moderation are needed, and therefore never actually cross that line into 'too much'. That seems fine, if you make it into that loop, but humans are not failsafe, and if they miss the 'prudence and moderation' part, then they are indeed going to cross the line into 'too much'.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yes, humans can and do cross the line. And I would critique them on the basis of reason. I wouldn't tell them "do what you heart says". I would tell them "think about it more thoroughly, consider possible consequences. Look at alternatives". That's what I meant. If someone came to me and told me "listen to your heart", I'd probably dismiss it with a smile, then raise an eyebrow if that person was serious and insistent. But if someone told me "your line of thinking is faulty and here is why" and appealed to my reason and not sentimentality, I'd listen.

And that's why I believe that we can't be too rational. That many times, we don't think about it enough, and that leads to crossing the line.

No human I think can say that they hold absolute reason and as such no one can critique them based on it. The world is imperfect and all actions are by definition imperfect and they have pros and cons. I don't see how emotion, on its own, can help me decide if an action is worth it or not. Usually, it's emotion pushing me to make an act, and reason coming in and determining if it's worth it. That's all I meant.

And naaa, I enjoy talking about it. Of course I can't describe what I think about this whole thing in a few paragraphs, when others have written books about it lol

[CalJones]

Thanks for the update, Persephone. Saucy stuff. Couple of typos I spotted - (there instead of the, for instance). Sorry, that's the ex-magazine editor coming out.

[Costin_Razvan]

Whoa....now how did I miss this conversation.



On the topic at hand, I feel the same way as KoP does. One of the key points in the game the argument of emotion versus reason can be made very strongly is in the City Elf Origin with the choice at the end.



Emotion would dictate that you do everything to free Shianni, while reason would strongly dictate that you accept Vaughn's deal so that the Alienage doesn't get burned out. Even if he was lying about it and was going to do it anyway, it is LOGICAL to at least assume he is being true to his word instead of just making the burning of the Alienage something certain by killing him, but that's where emotions come in.



It churns my gut to do so, but I cannot fathom not accepting his deal. When making decisions that affect the lives of many I strongly feel that one should damn everything he or she personally feels and take the cold logical and reasonable choice in the situation. Obviously some feel the desire for revenge, but I think that revenge is a very stupid emotion to give in to. 'Tis not my place to judge how others should be punished for their crimes, and if given the options I would have gladly left Vaughn live and taken Shianni away and the rest of women. Sadly Bioware writers cannot fathom why anyone would NOT want to take revenge...so yeah.



Obviously I could be called immoral, but I would dare ask: How the **** can you call your actions moral if they lead to a strong possibility for many others to suffer greatly?

[Addai]

phaonica wrote...

By then all of them had their suspicions, but Maric was in love with her and not able to face his.  He's human.

I just don't believe that being problematically 'human' is any more or less forgivable than being problematicaly 'a robot.'

You seem to think I'm looking to make excuses.  I'm not.  I don't find much value in that exercise.  But humans are what they are and do things for complex reasons.  Loghain was going to abandon the rebellion completely, on the cusp of an important campaign, because Rowan rejected him.  So maybe I should be arguing he thinks too much with his heart.  Or with his hurt pride, since he also left his father rather harshly due to pride.

And yeah, you know where I stand on him going into the Deep Roads.  That was a completely objective rational decision, highly self-sacrificial, that happened to coincide with his emotional state. 

And I disagree. I think his emotional state was his primary driving factor, and that he wanted to run away from Denerim more than he believed he needed to personally accompany the wardens on their entire mission.

The fact is that both played a part.  There's no way to determine which played the larger role.  Objectively, however, there was an existential threat to the kingdom.  It was more complicated than anyone knew, but no matter how you rate Maric's motivations, there actually was reason for him to act.

Sure, I didn't say one was better.

I suppose I was responding to a general sentiment that mistakes made from the heart are acceptable (they're only human), while mistakes made (heartlessly) from the head are not.

No, both can be disastrous IMO.

I don't disagree with that. I just sometimes question what Loghain saw in him. Though obviously, people question what Maric saw in Loghain, too.

Circumstances threw them together and they were comrades in arms, something that builds a very deep bond sometimes, or so you hear.  I've never been a soldier so I'm going on what soldiers say.

Modifié par Addai67, 20 octobre 2010 - 06:33 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Reason is fallible of course, but not according to emotion, but to the reasoning of others. And yes of course they are not separable, that's what I argued. Just that emotion, for me, doesn't temper or moderate reason.

And of course you can never prove that, because you have to use reason to prove it, it becomes a tautology, and then we all say what the hell and go have a beer.  Emotion wins. 

[Costin_Razvan]

I've never been a soldier so I'm going on what soldiers say.

What they say cannot really account to what really happens.

What did Loghain see in Maric? A man, a king without a throne leading a rebel army and readily willing to give up his life for each and every single one of his soldiers in battle, someone who suffered in campaigns just as much as the others did.

That may not sound much...but it does for a soldier, and more specifically a commoner like Loghain. While Maric was shown as emotionally unstable a great deal of times, and as naive...I believe he was a great man.

Which makes me want to strangle his son even more.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 octobre 2010 - 06:38 .

[phaonica]

So if you can never be too rational, the prudence of moderation stems not from one's own sentimentality, but from the sentimentality of others' and their long-term perceptions of you (assuming that should their perception becomes too negative, they will attempt to limit your actions)?

That many times, we don't think about it enough, and that leads to crossing the line. 

I suppose that depends on where that line is drawn. The concept of 'crossing the line' is itself a sentimental one. A single act that is most practical and beneficial for the majority could still be perceived and rejected as 'cruel' by that same majority. Does that mean the situation hasn't been completely thought out? Or that generally the choice that includes not crossing the line is actually the most practical and beneficial (in the long term)? If there is no long-term (if the situation is life-or-death), is crossing the line acceptable? And if so, does that not mean that one crosses the line, even though they did think about it enough?

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Obviously I could be called immoral, but I would dare ask: How the **** can you call your actions moral if they lead to a strong possibility for many others to suffer greatly?

And if you say that you would actually do that in a real life situation, I'd tell you you're full of ****.  I don't believe it.  Not if it was your loved one on the floor in the middle of the rapists.  And I'm glad for that, since those bonds mean our survival in a very basic sense.  More than just our survival, our intactness as human beings.

As to your specific example, you know the slaughter is going to happen anyway.  You just killed a whole estate full of guards.  Taking Vaughn's deal yields you nothing.  But that is veering off into deeper hijack.

[Costin_Razvan]

And if you say that you would actually do that in a real life situation, I'd tell you you're full of ****. I don't believe it. Not if it was your loved one on the floor in the middle of the rapists. And I'm glad for that, since those bonds mean our survival in a very basic sense. More than just our survival, our intactness as human beings.

As to your specific example, you know the slaughter is going to happen anyway. You just killed a whole estate full of guards. Taking Vaughn's deal yields you nothing. But that is veering off into deeper hijack.

In that specific situation where a whole lot of my people would get killed? Then yes I would. As for another situation, to be fair I am not sure what I would do but I would sure as hell not act out of a idiotic desire for revenge and instead focus on getting those I care about the hell away with myself included. ( I am sure revenge would probably be the last thing on most people's minds then anyway ) but I digress. My point was the between saving a loved one and saving many others, I would sacrifice the one I love, despite the emotional factor.

Just because you cannot fathom doing it, doesn't mean that I wouldn't. It's VERY easy to declare that the slaughter would have happened regardless and be perfectly fine with it, it's harder to accept that the slaughter may not/would not happen if you accept Vaughn's deal.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 octobre 2010 - 08:00 .

[Persephone]

CalJones wrote...

Thanks for the update, Persephone. Saucy stuff. Couple of typos I spotted - (there instead of the, for instance). Sorry, that's the ex-magazine editor coming out.

Argh, EVIL typos!  Must edit them out!!!  And thanks!

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

By then all of them had their suspicions, but Maric was in love with her and not able to face his.  He's human.

I just don't believe that being problematically 'human' is any more or less forgivable than being problematicaly 'a robot.'

You seem to think I'm looking to make excuses.  I'm not.  I don't find much value in that exercise.  But humans are what they are and do things for complex reasons.

That's fair enough, so long as the sentiment extends to both Maric and Loghain.

  Loghain was going to abandon the rebellion completely, on the cusp of an important campaign, because Rowan rejected him.  So maybe I should be arguing he thinks too much with his heart.  Or with his hurt pride, since he also left his father rather harshly due to pride.

I agree that Loghain was a hothead near the beginning of ST. But I also think that the Loghain at the beginning of the Calling has changed. However, the Maric I see at the beginning of the Calling is the same one that he was throughout ST.

The fact is that both played a part.  There's no way to determine which played the larger role.  Objectively, however, there was an existential threat to the kingdom.  It was more complicated than anyone knew, but no matter how you rate Maric's motivations, there actually was reason for him to act.

Whether or not there actually was a threat in hindsight doesn't affect how I rate his motivations in the first place. If there had turned out to be no threat at all, I would rate his motivations just the same.

Circumstances threw them together and they were comrades in arms, something that builds a very deep bond sometimes, or so you hear.  I've never been a soldier so I'm going on what soldiers say.

Perhaps so. And that is certainly a bond I respect.

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...
I suppose that depends on where that line is drawn. The concept of 'crossing the line' is itself a sentimental one. A single act that is most practical and beneficial for the majority could still be perceived and rejected as 'cruel' by that same majority. Does that mean the situation hasn't been completely thought out? Or that generally the choice that includes not crossing the line is actually the most practical and beneficial (in the long term)? If there is no long-term (if the situation is life-or-death), is crossing the line acceptable? And if so, does that not mean that one crosses the line, even though they did think about it enough?

No, it's not necessarily. By "crossing the line" I mean doing something unnecessary or easily avoidable if you think about it enough, that doesn't provide the best possible results.

If an action is clearly beneficial for the majority and is necessary, then it's not crossing the line for me. It might be for the majority, but they lack the perspective of those in power. Either the ruler imposes it and the people will thank him for it later, or the ruler gives it a better image so it can be accepted. but the problem here is not the act itself but how it is perceived by the majority that often doesn't think enough and doesn't have the perspective necessary to think enough. They don't think about the long term.

And in life or death, there is no line to cross.

That's the impass here. For me "crossing the line" is not a sentimental concern as in me being sad about something (sentiments I can share). It's doing something that is unnecessary and excessive. And I can't object to that with emotion and be taken seriously. But I can object to that rationally and explain why it's excessive.

My initial argument is I don't see how emotion can temper reason. Emotion is a reaction almost always if not always outside of our control. We don't choose our emotions and they are intrinsic. Reason is fully under our control on the otherhand and it's instrumental.
Excess is not usually the product of reason, it's a product of emotion, like anger, fear. Something that reason can temper.  Emotion can certainly cause hesitation in reasoning, but that's not tempering it, since emotions are outside of your control.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 octobre 2010 - 02:24 .

[Addai]

phaonica wrote...

I agree that Loghain was a hothead near the beginning of ST. But I also think that the Loghain at the beginning of the Calling has changed. However, the Maric I see at the beginning of the Calling is the same one that he was throughout ST.

See, I think Loghain is at least equally hampered in TC.  All he sees is "Orlesian" and not the real threat that the Wardens are bringing before them.

Whether or not there actually was a threat in hindsight doesn't affect how I rate his motivations in the first place. If there had turned out to be no threat at all, I would rate his motivations just the same.

Uh... ok.  I guess it is a question of whether he did the right thing for the right reasons or not.  I would say some of his reasons were better than others, for sure.  I suppose I find it harsh to think that because he had a sense of malaise, and did the right thing anyway, that somehow his funk invalidates what he actually accomplished.

[Costin_Razvan]

See, I think Loghain is at least equally hampered in TC. All he sees is "Orlesian" and not the real threat that the Wardens are bringing before them.

And yet it is shown to us that a major reason why Genevieve is doing that, is so that she can save her brother.

I don't blame Loghain for acting as he did in TC. The Wardens fail to provide a solid reason for why they want him to come with them, except that a Blight might come without any solid proof to back up their claims. What kind of sane person would risk their lives based on just that?  Even Maric did it in a large part due to what Flemeth told him.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 octobre 2010 - 03:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's said that after the fourth blight, most people don't think there is ever going to be a blight anymore. Loghain is hardly the only person who is skeptical of the Wardens. And for good reason, as Costin said.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And yet it is shown to us that a major reason why Genevieve is doing that, is so that she can save her brother.

I don't blame Loghain for acting as he did in TC. The Wardens fail to provide a solid reason for why they want him to come with them, except that a Blight might come without any solid proof to back up their claims. What kind of sane person would risk their lives based on just that?

Because the risk of inaction is too great not to gamble.  I do agree and I've said here before that Loghain was not entirely wrong in not trusting the Wardens.  TC makes that very clear.  OTOH, simply to do nothing because their motives were mixed could have resulted in a major catastrophe.  You've been saying yourself, if a lot of people are going to die, one should be willing to sacrifice...

[Costin_Razvan]

Yes, I said that but I should also stress out that I had a very good solid reason to do so in that situation above.



What solid reason do I have to agree with the Wardens?

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's said that after the fourth blight, most people don't think there is ever going to be a blight anymore. Loghain is hardly the only person who is skeptical of the Wardens. And for good reason, as Costin said.

Heh, well they're all wrong about that.  So thank the Maker for the believers.  My point is not that Maric was perfect and Loghain was all wrong, but that both of them were working from their own handicaps.  Maric was too trusting, as he himself comes to realize, and had Flemeth's shadows chasing after him.  Loghain is hampered by his own demons that won't allow him to even consider that there is something to it all.  Which we know there is.

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's said that after the fourth blight, most people don't think there is ever going to be a blight anymore. Loghain is hardly the only person who is skeptical of the Wardens. And for good reason, as Costin said.

And it's actually stated somewhere that the Wardens were the ones who told people there was never going to be another Blight. Probably to alleviate fears because the fourth Blight was so devastating. So you have a group of Wardens 400 years ago who said there was never going to be another, and a small, recently arrived, group of Ferelden Wardens who see some darkspawn and claim it's a Blight. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of the Wardens.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Yes, I said that but I should also stress out that I had a very good solid reason to do so in that situation above.

What solid reason do I have to agree with the Wardens?

How about a history of four Blights that have ravaged whole vast tracts of land?  It's fine for the smallfolk to bury their heads in the sand and say it's never going to happen again.  Leaders have to prepare as if it can and will.  If Ferelden had been led by Loghain's caution, it would have been utterly destroyed.  So hurrah for intuition and daring.  In Maric's case, it paid off.  Remille's plot was uncovered and there were Wardens in Ferelden when the Blight hit.