82 réponses à ce sujet

[Mox Ruuga]

Uber conformist and collectivist dystopia, that's the Qun. Everyone has their place assigned to them, you are not allowed to complain or have ambitions beyond what someone in authority has decided for you. Everyone is supposed to be just a cog in the whole soulless machine that is the Qun society.

It goes beyond what real world commies have achieved, because it somehow seems to work and doesn't cause holodomors and mass repression of revolting and hungry peasants like the real thing did.

[hawat333]

They could also be militant capitalists.
Coming to a different country, finding claims to justify their invasion then trying to melt the invaded culture into theirs, acting like it's the most natural thing.

No, I don't want to bring politics in there, what I'm saying, the qunari resembles the aspect of political idelogies, therefore none of them.
It's more of a unique philosophy that indeed took every pieces from existing moral, political, philosophical ideologies, but no, it cannot be described as "Hey, they are the Mother Russia of Dragon Age".

[Freestorm Skinn]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Fascistic? How so? Again, I strenuously object to the application of 19th and 20th century ideologies to a philosophical stance.

For a story written by writers in the 21st Century with intended contemporary political analogies?  The Qunari's stance goes way beyond philosophical and into the political, and the Arishok's inflexibility makes him and his followers fanatics.  

Your argument would make more sense if this was actually written before the 19th or 20th Century, before those ideologies existed.  

[Freestorm Skinn]

hawat333 wrote...

They could also be militant capitalists.
Coming to a different country, finding claims to justify their invasion then trying to melt the invaded culture into theirs, acting like it's the most natural thing.

No, I don't want to bring politics in there, what I'm saying, the qunari resembles the aspect of political idelogies, therefore none of them.
It's more of a unique philosophy that indeed took every pieces from existing moral, political, philosophical ideologies, but no, it cannot be described as "Hey, they are the Mother Russia of Dragon Age".

They don't come across as capitalists.  The Arishok expressed contempt for greed and the decadence that came of it in his dialogue, which makes them ardent anti-materialists as well.  

[Nimander]

Honestly to me, they come across as a weird combo of some of the really ancient Hindu sects (some of the older ones were really nasty with Caste systems) combined with Buddhism and a touch of Communism, just in how the society behaves.

They have a bit more fluidity than the old Hindu sects in that your place isn't chosen by birth (usually), but by elders at some point, but it's still a heavily caste-based system with no real fluidity. You're either what you are or Tal'shavok, no middle ground. A lot of the throwaway references feel vaguely Buddhist, and the Qun sounds like Buddha.

My 2c.

[cteve]

Nanashihito wrote...

P.S,: What were Plato's views on moral relativism? I'm definitely not a Philosophy major, so I wouldn't know. That aspect relative to the Qunari doesn't seem to fit.

He was against any form of moral relativism. According to Plato such things as good and virtue are absolute eternal ideas (or forms). And there is no such thing as opinion on it, cause opinion works only for imperfect temporal things (i.e. only for material world).

Modifié par cteve, 16 mars 2011 - 12:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Uber conformist and collectivist dystopia, that's the Qun. Everyone has their place assigned to them, you are not allowed to complain or have ambitions beyond what someone in authority has decided for you. Everyone is supposed to be just a cog in the whole soulless machine that is the Qun society.

It goes beyond what real world commies have achieved, because it somehow seems to work and doesn't cause holodomors and mass repression of revolting and hungry peasants like the real thing did.

No one's happy in a dystopia.

In the Qun, pretty much everyone values it. Even it's rebels adhere to it.

It's more like a functioning non-liberal utopia that it's participants understand.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Neither.

Nanashihito wrote...
The case for Militant Islam:[/b][/u]
-Focus on conversion and subjugation of alien cultures.
-Promotes moral absolutism, has an intense focus on grabbing the moral high ground (Although communism tends to do this too, it tends to be more secular.)
-Existence of Dogma and clerical "interpretors".
-Promotes and calls for the killing of apostates (Not Dragon Age apostates, but people that leave the religion)
-Lack of a strong female presence. (Although this is probably just not present in-game since Bioware has politically-correct sensitivities)
-Refusal to assimilate within foreign cultures/submit to foreign law as opposed to dogma, especially when conflicts exist (As in Sharia).

- Many religions had that attitude and no, historically speaking, the Caliphates were not interested in conversions as it reduces their taxes. Conversion was not forced nor was it mandatory. Were there possible social pressures and all? Yes, but for the most part, it was one of the most tolerant culture in the Middle ages. 
People of the Book (which was extended to Zorastrians, Hindus and Budhists even though technically they are not people of the Book) were for the most part tolerated. The Qun do not tolerate others, except maybe the Rivainis were alowed to keep some of their religion, as it wasn't in opposition.

- Don't all religions do that? This moral absolutism is based on Divine Revelation. The Qunari don't have that. The Qun is a philosophy.

- While there are religious scholars (again, like almost any religion), the 'ulama, it's not a caste. And therer are 4 main Schools of Laws, which allows for flexibility. Before, there were many more schools of law.

- There is no dogma that assigns to women tasks that she should do or not do, unlike the Qun (it was rather tradition and social attitudes). For instance, at the Battle of Uhud, a woman fought and saved Prophet Muhammad's life. She also fought at Yamama and lost her hand. Another woman fought at Yarmouk..etc. And in the middle ages, the rights it provided to women were greater than say what European women had (since we are interested in the medevial era).

So I find the comparision very superficial and not pertinente.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mars 2011 - 04:00 .

[dwinning]

I think it's at least clear that the qunari are an amalgam of different aspects of ideologies and philosohies, but my initial thought was that it had strong echoes of imperial japan, from the meiji restoration in 1868 to the WWII. Nationalistic, militaristic, elevation of the nation over the individual, and so on.

[Mark B]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Neither.

Nanashihito wrote...
The case for Militant Islam:[/b][/u]
-Focus on conversion and subjugation of alien cultures.
-Promotes moral absolutism, has an intense focus on grabbing the moral high ground (Although communism tends to do this too, it tends to be more secular.)
-Existence of Dogma and clerical "interpretors".
-Promotes and calls for the killing of apostates (Not Dragon Age apostates, but people that leave the religion)
-Lack of a strong female presence. (Although this is probably just not present in-game since Bioware has politically-correct sensitivities)
-Refusal to assimilate within foreign cultures/submit to foreign law as opposed to dogma, especially when conflicts exist (As in Sharia).

- Many religions had that attitude and no, historically speaking, the Caliphates were not interested in conversions as it reduces their taxes. Conversion was not forced nor was it mandatory. Were there possible social pressures and all? Yes, but for the most part, it was one of the most tolerant culture in the Middle ages. 
People of the Book (which was extended to Zorastrians, Hindus and Budhists even though technically they are not people of the Book) were for the most part tolerated. The Qun do not tolerate others, except maybe the Rivainis were alowed to keep some of their religion, as it wasn't in opposition.

- Don't all religions do that? This moral absolutism is based on Divine Revelation. The Qunari don't have that. The Qun is a philosophy.

- While there are religious scholars (again, like almost any religion), the 'ulama, it's not a caste. And therer are main 4 Schools of Laws, which allows for flexibility. Before, there were many more schools of law.

- There is no dogma that assigns to women tasks that she should do or not do, unlike the Qun (it was rather tradition and social attitudes). For instance, at the Battle of Uhud, a woman fought and saved Prophet Muhammad's life. She also fought at Yamama and lost her hand. Another woman fought at Yarmouk..etc. And in the middle ages, the rights it provided to women were greater than say what European women had (since we are interested in the medevial era).

So I find the comparision very superficial and not pertinente.

I must agree with KnightofPhoenix, all of those points raised about militant islam can be applied to the majority of religions, whether currently / historically as a whole or in groups zealots.

Modifié par Mark B, 16 mars 2011 - 01:48 .

[M8DMAN]

They remind me more of the mongol empire.

[Chthonic]

bushido.
Nail=head.

[Stevie 402]

They seem to more akin to the borg. Resistance is futile!

[Beaynid]

Mox Ruuga wrote...

Uber conformist and collectivist dystopia, that's the Qun. Everyone has their place assigned to them, you are not allowed to complain or have ambitions beyond what someone in authority has decided for you. Everyone is supposed to be just a cog in the whole soulless machine that is the Qun society.

It goes beyond what real world commies have achieved, because it somehow seems to work and doesn't cause holodomors and mass repression of revolting and hungry peasants like the real thing did.

that is what they are a collectivist society.  I was going to say originally that they are like a hive but they lack the communal aspects.

The qunari have essentially bred themselves and trained themselves to be efficient and decisive within the confines of their role, but lack any aspirations, thoughts or views not within their narrrow caste.  free thought for the most part has been culled or bred out.   most likely the few who still have it are entered into training for the ruling caste at an early age before they complete any other training. 

And i can tell you why it seems to work and doesnt cause mass repression anymore where real world communism does.  the rebel elements or qunari resisting the qun and want to fight back or resist are either killed or become tal vashok, which if qunari find them, they kill on sight.

Remove the problem elements and breed and train for the results you want, and you could make almost any government work after a long time(if it survives long enough through it all)

but in the real world, those governments never last long enough under those kinds of conditions to complete the process, and do you really blame anyone for resisting?

[vigna]

Meltemph wrote...

I would put them as a form of meritocracy realized in philosophical form, much like Confucianism.

I was thinking this too.  I can see where people say Islam, but it is more of a philosophy rather than religious idealization.

[Parrk]

The Qun differs from most known religion-based structured societies because roles are assigned based on on metrics other than birthright. What is most striking about what I have seen of the Qun, is that women are kept to a certain type of role, but not disparaged. There is not indication that Qunari harbor any of the typical misogynistic views common in religion-based structured societies.

The Qunari are, in my mind, essentially militant pragmatists.

Modifié par Parrk, 16 mars 2011 - 03:17 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

Freestorm Skinn wrote...

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

Fascistic? How so? Again, I strenuously object to the application of 19th and 20th century ideologies to a philosophical stance.

For a story written by writers in the 21st Century with intended contemporary political analogies?  The Qunari's stance goes way beyond philosophical and into the political, and the Arishok's inflexibility makes him and his followers fanatics.  

Your argument would make more sense if this was actually written before the 19th or 20th Century, before those ideologies existed.  

It still makes them proto-typical at best, rather than communists (or fascists) typified. Ideologies depend on conflicts of ideas: the Qun is a totality. Completely incompatible.

As far as politics goes, you're wrong to draw a line between philosophy and politics: the two can and often are coextensive. What the Qun demands of a society is simply the natural outgrowth of the fact that it subsumes all aspects of life but it is not intended as a political statement. It just so happens to affect politics.

As far as fanaticism goes, so what? The Qun have no party structure; they have no ravanchism and reimagined national glories; they have no fervent nationalism; they have no notion of a separation of state and society to even contemplate nationalization etc.

Equating them to fascists or communists simply shows a singular lack of intellectual curiosity and imagination. There was a world before yesterday, and given the remarks about Eastern and Western philosophy in this thread, it does seem that people realize this.

[naledgeborn]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Neither.

Nanashihito wrote...
The case for Militant Islam:[/b][/u]
-Focus on conversion and subjugation of alien cultures.
-Promotes moral absolutism, has an intense focus on grabbing the moral high ground (Although communism tends to do this too, it tends to be more secular.)
-Existence of Dogma and clerical "interpretors".
-Promotes and calls for the killing of apostates (Not Dragon Age apostates, but people that leave the religion)
-Lack of a strong female presence. (Although this is probably just not present in-game since Bioware has politically-correct sensitivities)
-Refusal to assimilate within foreign cultures/submit to foreign law as opposed to dogma, especially when conflicts exist (As in Sharia).

- Many religions had that attitude and no, historically speaking, the Caliphates were not interested in conversions as it reduces their taxes. Conversion was not forced nor was it mandatory. Were there possible social pressures and all? Yes, but for the most part, it was one of the most tolerant culture in the Middle ages. 
People of the Book (which was extended to Zorastrians, Hindus and Budhists even though technically they are not people of the Book) were for the most part tolerated. The Qun do not tolerate others, except maybe the Rivainis were alowed to keep some of their religion, as it wasn't in opposition.

- Don't all religions do that? This moral absolutism is based on Divine Revelation. The Qunari don't have that. The Qun is a philosophy.

- While there are religious scholars (again, like almost any religion), the 'ulama, it's not a caste. And therer are main 4 Schools of Laws, which allows for flexibility. Before, there were many more schools of law.

- There is no dogma that assigns to women tasks that she should do or not do, unlike the Qun (it was rather tradition and social attitudes). For instance, at the Battle of Uhud, a woman fought and saved Prophet Muhammad's life. She also fought at Yamama and lost her hand. Another woman fought at Yarmouk..etc. And in the middle ages, the rights it provided to women were greater than say what European women had (since we are interested in the medevial era).

So I find the comparision very superficial and not pertinente.

Thanks for that spared me a rant. 

[Statulos]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Neither.

Nanashihito wrote...
The case for Militant Islam:[/b][/u]
-Focus on conversion and subjugation of alien cultures.
-Promotes moral absolutism, has an intense focus on grabbing the moral high ground (Although communism tends to do this too, it tends to be more secular.)
-Existence of Dogma and clerical "interpretors".
-Promotes and calls for the killing of apostates (Not Dragon Age apostates, but people that leave the religion)
-Lack of a strong female presence. (Although this is probably just not present in-game since Bioware has politically-correct sensitivities)
-Refusal to assimilate within foreign cultures/submit to foreign law as opposed to dogma, especially when conflicts exist (As in Sharia).

- Many religions had that attitude and no, historically speaking, the Caliphates were not interested in conversions as it reduces their taxes. Conversion was not forced nor was it mandatory. Were there possible social pressures and all? Yes, but for the most part, it was one of the most tolerant culture in the Middle ages. 
People of the Book (which was extended to Zorastrians, Hindus and Budhists even though technically they are not people of the Book) were for the most part tolerated. The Qun do not tolerate others, except maybe the Rivainis were alowed to keep some of their religion, as it wasn't in opposition.

- Don't all religions do that? This moral absolutism is based on Divine Revelation. The Qunari don't have that. The Qun is a philosophy.

- While there are religious scholars (again, like almost any religion), the 'ulama, it's not a caste. And therer are 4 main Schools of Laws, which allows for flexibility. Before, there were many more schools of law.

- There is no dogma that assigns to women tasks that she should do or not do, unlike the Qun (it was rather tradition and social attitudes). For instance, at the Battle of Uhud, a woman fought and saved Prophet Muhammad's life. She also fought at Yamama and lost her hand. Another woman fought at Yarmouk..etc. And in the middle ages, the rights it provided to women were greater than say what European women had (since we are interested in the medevial era).

So I find the comparision very superficial and not pertinente.

There is an element in Islam that takes away any resamblance to Qun: equalty.

Islam, as any other Abrahamanic religion, considers that ultimately everyone has a soul and that soul is no better nor worse than the rest. As human beings, a beggar and a sultan have the same value and thus, a person can progress socially and personaly no matter what their backgrounds.

The Qun removes the soul part and the progress part. People are; since their birth to their deaths. Islam does not tell you to accept your place and excel at it. Islam tells you to be a better beliver, a better person and actually encourages to make the world a better place for everyone.

If you want to add to the part of social assimilation, well, just look at Morocco and Indonesia how assimilated they are one and the other even in the same religion.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Statulos
Indeed. If we look at the middle ages, Islamic (or Islamicate as Hodgson likes to call it. I prefer that term) societies had relatively flexible social mobility. There was practically no serfdom. "Slaves" ended up being very wealthy and even Sultans and rulers (Mamluks). Some, like Ziryab were prominent scholars and scientists. We have cases of peasants rising through the ranks to the very top, like Abi 'Amer al-Mansur (Almanzor in Spain, through their merit.

So that's very different from the Qun, where there is no social mobility. That said, even the Qunari believe in equality, though perhaps have a different interpretation of it. Sten says that all are equal under the Qun. That no one is fundamentally superior to the other. That no "caste" is better than the other. That all are part of an organic society, each equally necessary for it to function. It has a hierarchy (like any society), but I do not think the Qunari believe that some are superior to others, except maybe in merit, and that merit is determined by how well they serve the Qun.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mars 2011 - 04:21 .

[Pileyourbodies]

More militant muslim. Sten questions the female warden about how women can do anything in Fereldan.

Tobi the only reason women are in that role is because thats the only role the Qun allows them to be.

[Statulos]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Statulos
Indeed. If we look at the middle ages, Islamic (or Islamicate as Hodgson likes to call it. I prefer that term) societies had relatively flexible social mobility. There was practically no serfdom. "Slaves" ended up being very wealthy and even Sultans and rulers (Mamluks). Some, like Ziryab were prominent scholars and scientists. We have cases of peasants rising through the ranks to the very top, like Abi 'Amer al-Mansur (Almanzor in Spain, through their merit.

So that's very different from the Qun, where there is no social mobility. That said, even the Qunari believe in equality, though perhaps have a different interpretation of it. Sten says that all are equal under the Qun. That no one is fundamentally superior to the other. That no "caste" is better than the other. That all are part of an organic society, each equally necessary for it to function. It has a hierarchy (like any society), but I do not think the Qunari believe that some are superior to others, except maybe in merit, and that merit is determined by how well they serve the Qun.

He he, Mr. Al-Mansur Billah, the victorious for al-Lah. One of my fave fellow Spaniards; we even tried to find his grave when I worked in archeology...

Still, my point is rooted not in "spiritual" or "metaphoric" equalty, but what Max Weber calls the "****** aequalis" and the "****** hierarchicus". Islam is crearly part of the first. Qun is clearly part of the second.

[KenKenpachi]

Hmm, I see the Chantry as being closer to Islam, the Qunari strike me as more of Communist confucianism.

[KnightofPhoenix]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Hmm, I see the Chantry as being closer to Islam, the Qunari strike me as more of Communist confucianism.

In terms of theology, not at all. Muslims would say it has way too much idolatry. They'd think that Andraste being the "bride of the Maker" is ridiculous. And they'd think that the Maker does not fit their idea of "Tawhid", the absolute oneness and perfection of God.

In terms of political / social structure, I think they are very dissimilar. The Chantry is an independent religious order with political, military and economic power (lyrium trade). In Islamicate societies, there is no such thing as "The Mosque", as in a political, social and military order / organization. It was tied to the state. The religious scholars ('ulama) were part of the state (loosely, it was flexible), and it applied Sharia' law. There was no religious police or military perse, like the Templars (or the Inquisition and Templars and others in rl).  The only semblance of that is the police the Caliph al-Ma'mun put in place and that was to hunt down literralist scholars who disagreed with this rational and Greek inspired interpretations.

The only similarity is that Andraste was also a military leader (well it's really Maferath), like Prophet Muhammad. But other than that, I don't see much similarities.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 mars 2011 - 05:12 .

[Statulos]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Hmm, I see the Chantry as being closer to Islam, the Qunari strike me as more of Communist confucianism.

The Chantry is clearly christian catholic based. And it´s not difficult to see at all.

-Vows. Check.
-One god. Check.
-Paralell and separated from the civil power. Check.
-Prophet executed. Check.
-Saints and relics. Check

Modifié par Statulos, 16 mars 2011 - 05:13 .