647 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lithuasil wrote...
I do so, because it's the only thing we have proof for - there are individuals that manage to free themselves from Qun-brainwashing. There are Qunari that appear brainwashed beyond reasoning. There is no proof whatsoever, aside from you wishing it to be so, that the Qunari are psychologically different from humans.

Most Tal Vasoth we see end up being pseudo-nihilists who believe in nothing except their own material gain. Not sure how useful their freedom is to anyone other than themselves. Why should they matter more than the whole? 

But all that is not relevent. So far you have not provided any strong evidence that Qunari society does not function, other than the limited appearance of Qunari (who certainly look more functional than the ****hole Kirkwall) and because they do not fit your ideal of how a society is supposed to function, because apparently you know how it must function. 

What you see is very limited and cannot act as a foundation of objective and rational judging of an entire society. 

In war, hideous crimes get commited. A party that is attacked and has to fight back restraining themselves is rare, and by no means to be expected. Thus, while those individuals commiting crimes of war need to be held accountable, the bodies need to be piled up where they belong - at the feet of the people who started the war in the first place. 

Not when that crime served no military purpose whatsoever and not when the war was already being won. Being a vengeful a-hole is not absolved because you acted second instead of first. The responability of the act remains in large part on the perpetrators' shoulders. 

Contradicting yourself. How can someone be held accountable, and yet you shift all the blame to the one who started the war?

[Weltenschlange]

Lithuasil wrote...
In war, hideous crimes get commited. A party that is attacked and has to fight back restraining themselves is rare, and by no means to be expected. Thus, while those individuals commiting crimes of war need to be held accountable, the bodies need to be piled up where they belong - at the feet of the people who started the war in the first place. 

Indeed.

[CaptainZaysh]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That's just ridiculous. Dresden is rightfully seen as a crime and an act of terror that mostly everyone, including the British, reject. 

Not wanting to drag this OT, but I'd just like to say that's a more controversial position than you might think, KoP.  Quite a few people would find your interpretation arguable.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That's just ridiculous. Dresden is rightfully seen as a crime and an act of terror that mostly everyone, including the British, reject. 

Not wanting to drag this OT, but I'd just like to say that's a more controversial position than you might think, KoP.  Quite a few people would find your interpretation arguable.

Most scholars and books I've read agree that Dresden served no military purpose. A such, it was a deliberate targetting of civilians, so a war crime.

The atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are much more controversial. But for the most part, all academic works I've read say that Dresden was a war crime and I think most people agree.

Regardless, the main responsability falls on the Allies. Whether you think it's justified or not is not the point.

[Lithuasil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 

What you see is very limited and cannot act as a foundation of objective and rational judging of an entire society. 

I'm judging based on everything we can see throughout two games. You are judging solely on what you really desperately want to be true, pointing out time and time again that all the proof against your theory "isn't all of Qunari society". No it's not, it's just all we can see and judge, everything else is just projecting.

KnightofPhoenix wrote... 
Not when that crime served no military purpose whatsoever and not when the war was already being won. Being a vengeful a-hole is not absolved because you acted second instead of first. The responability of the act remains in large part on the perpetrators' shoulders. 

Contradicting yourself. How can someone be held accountable, and yet you shift all the blame to the one who started the war?

You can hold the individuals that ordered the dresden bombings and those who followed those orders accountable, but the majority of the blame remains with **** germany. What you did earlier however, blaming the chantry, is equal to saying "because of dresden, britain is responsible for the death in WW2, the germans retreated after all".

[PantheraOnca]

Lithuasil wrote...

But the Qun, since thinking is all hard and scary, wants you to abandon the whole concept outright.

where do you get this from?

where do you get whatever point you are trying to make about conscience from?

judging all followers of the qun by the actions of the military branch is like judging all muslims by the actions of terrorists. its extrapolating from one set of people to another that have different values and priorities than the first.

all we know of the non-military qun is second-hand at best, and generally from somewhat objective sources (br. genitivi i think?). if you restrict your remarks down to the military branch of the followers of the qun i might not find your arguments to be wild a-- guesses/accusations, but since you seem to refuse to do that, and insist that "ALL DEY R EZ MILITORY!@~!@!~!!" you look foolish.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lithuasil wrote...
I'm judging based on everything we can see throughout two games. You are judging solely on what you really desperately want to be true, pointing out time and time again that all the proof against your theory "isn't all of Qunari society". No it's not, it's just all we can see and judge, everything else is just projecting.

And yet you feel knowledgeable enough about them to judge them entirely.

Unlike you, I am not judging the Qunari as worthless, pathetic or non-functional, or as perfect, awesome and wonderful. And the evidence I bring to argue that they are functional is not only in the game, but also in the codexes.

A society that can challenge all of Thedas combined cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can attract so many followers who would rather die than re-convert, cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can progress in terms of technology cannot a non-functional society. A society where the military leader is held accoutnable to the law like everyone else, cannot be a non-functional society.

Is it perfectly functional? Of course not, unlike what they claim. However to argue that Qunari society simply does not function does not hold up to the evidence we have.

You can hold the individuals that ordered the dresden bombings and those who followed those orders accountable, but the majority of the blame remains with **** germany. What you did earlier however, blaming the chantry, is equal to saying "because of dresden, britain is responsible for the death in WW2, the germans retreated after all".

Most strongly disagree with you and put most of the blame on Britain (including the British) for that specific act. If the Germans had a military garrison there, then you can argue that Germany was responsable.

Not at all, you did not understand my point. The point was, the Qunari are not solely to blame or mostly to blame, for the deaths that happened during the wars. As the Chantry massacres seved no military purpose and they didn't even put a dent on the Qunari military. 

The Qunari are solely responsable for initiating the war. That does not mean they automatically carry all the blame or most of it for the deaths in it (the only accounts of actual massacres durign the wars are perpatrated by the Chantry). The argument does not hold up.

"It's like saying faction A attacks faction B, but avoids civilians and generally conducts itself well.  Faction B retaliates savegely and commits a genocide. Most of the responsability for the deaths goes to faction A".

That kind of logic makes little sense, as it completely dismisses the concept of disporportianate retaliation and massacres with no military pupose. And essentially is an apologetic position for Faction B. 

The wars with the Qunari are different, as the Qunari did not conduct themselves well. That does not absolve the Chantry of the responsability of committing massacres with no military purpose.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2011 - 04:58 .

[Hrodric]

Please, let's leave WWII out of the discussion.

There are plenty of other things in DA2 that we could argue with, insult, demean, and kill each other without having to bring up the real world.

=P

[Lithuasil]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And yet you feel knowledgeable enough about them to judge them entirely.

Unlike you, I am not judging the Qunari as worthless, pathetic or non-functional, or as perfect, awesome and wonderful. And the evidence I bring to argue that they are functional is not only in the game, but also in the codexes.

A society that can challenge all of Thedas combined cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can attract so many followers who would rather die than re-convert, cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can progress in terms of technology cannot a non-functional society. A society where the military leader is held accoutnable to the law like everyone else, cannot be a non-functional society.

Is it perfectly functional? Of course not, unlike what they claim. However to argue that Qunari society simply does not function does not hold up to the evidence we have. 

I feel knowledgeable enough, to question those who play the same games I've played and say "There's this race who's philosophy doesn't make sense, and who's entire contribution to both games is a laundry list of failure, them be so coooll, I totally wanna sign up".

[Superposition]

PantheraOnca wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

But the Qun, since thinking is all hard and scary, wants you to abandon the whole concept outright.

where do you get this from?

where do you get whatever point you are trying to make about conscience from

I have the same questions. Furthermore what is exactly your point ? Why the Quanari philosophy doesn't make sense?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lithuasil wrote...
I feel knowledgeable enough, to question those who play the same games I've played and say "There's this race who's philosophy doesn't make sense, and who's entire contribution to both games is a laundry list of failure, them be so coooll, I totally wanna sign up".

If I was living in the mess that is Kirkwall, I might have considered it myself. Probably I would have migrated and left to somewhere else though.

Anyways, I agree, those who idealize the Qunari too much have little basis to do so. I disagree that the Qunari have only contributed failures, but I won't get into that.

To return to the main topic, the appeal of the Qunari, for me, is that they are different. They provide something new. As a political scientist / historian, I like to analyse different systems and regimes and the Qunari provide one that never existed in our own history (though there were aspirations to create something similar).  I am practicularly impressed by how the Arishok is accountable to the Law despite being the commander of all the military. That implies strong institutions.

Plus, they are badass. Have said things I consider to be wise, even if I might end up having a different twist to it. Focus on technology, which requires more intellect than magic (hence my fascination with Dwarves too). And that they are impressive overall.

But, in most circumstances, I would not join them. Seek to learn about and from them yea, but I wouldn't join. Except if I am treated like dog crap in another society and the Qunari see my merit and assign me to a task I deserve and can be useful at. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2011 - 05:12 .

[PantheraOnca]

the qunari philosophy makes perfect sense.

society is more important than any individual. each person is most capable at something. that person should do that thing for society's benefit.

i can agree to a lot of that. all of it if any time an individual must sacrifice for society they do so willingly and not out of coercion.

the problem with their philosophy is 1-finding out what someone is best at, and 2-who makes that decision.

i dont see where you are confused.

[Lithuasil]

Superposition wrote...

PantheraOnca wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

But the Qun, since thinking is all hard and scary, wants you to abandon the whole concept outright.

where do you get this from?

where do you get whatever point you are trying to make about conscience from

I have the same questions. Furthermore what is exactly your point ? Why the Quanari philosophy doesn't make sense?

Any philosophy that regards sentient individuals as resources has a pretty deep flaw from the very start, by my book anyway. The whole point, that is raised about fifty thousand times throughout the game, of the Qun, is to offer certainty. You no longer need to reflect upon what you are doing or why, the Qun demands. You need not worry about moral, about those around you, about your feelings or theirs, the Qun demands. The moment someone starts questioning the whole thing, the moment someone isn't contempt with their role, the whole thing breaks down.
Alternatively, if their military leader grows bored, the whole thing also breaks down.

[Statulos]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...
I'm judging based on everything we can see throughout two games. You are judging solely on what you really desperately want to be true, pointing out time and time again that all the proof against your theory "isn't all of Qunari society". No it's not, it's just all we can see and judge, everything else is just projecting.

And yet you feel knowledgeable enough about them to judge them entirely.

Unlike you, I am not judging the Qunari as worthless, pathetic or non-functional, or as perfect, awesome and wonderful. And the evidence I bring to argue that they are functional is not only in the game, but also in the codexes.

A society that can challenge all of Thedas combined cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can attract so many followers who would rather die than re-convert, cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can progress in terms of technology cannot a non-functional society. A society where the military leader is held accoutnable to the law like everyone else, cannot be a non-functional society.

Is it perfectly functional? Of course not, unlike what they claim. However to argue that Qunari society simply does not function does not hold up to the evidence we have.

Basically you're taking an approach to society outlined by Durkheim. And in that sense, your argumentation is fully valid because you are not making a moral judgement on the Qunari. Do they "work" as society? Yes, and they work very well. Do we like the values and attitudes they use to define their standards? Yes or no, that is a moral judgement. In fact, the amount of antinomies found in Qunari is surprisingly low, that's why the have been able to "convert" so many people.

From a real world perspective. Slavery systems such as Rome do work. They do work fantastically well. However, do we like them on a moral level? That's a completely different story.

Lithuasil wrote...
Any philosophy that regards sentient
individuals as resources has a pretty deep flaw from the very start, by
my book anyway. The whole point, that is raised about fifty thousand
times throughout the game, of the Qun, is to offer certainty. You no
longer need to reflect upon what you are doing or why, the Qun demands.
You need not worry about moral, about those around you, about your
feelings or theirs, the Qun demands. The moment someone starts
questioning the whole thing, the moment someone isn't contempt with
their role, the whole thing breaks down.
Alternatively, if their
military leader grows bored, the whole thing also breaks down.

Your consideration of flawed comes from a moral appreciation. From a functional one, morals are simply irrelevant.

Modifié par Statulos, 22 mars 2011 - 05:20 .

[Lithuasil]

PantheraOnca wrote...

the qunari philosophy makes perfect sense.

society is more important than any individual. each person is most capable at something. that person should do that thing for society's benefit.

Crucially wrong. Society is to serve man, never to rule over him.
Society is the grounds on which we can allow individuals to be individuals without too severely limiting each others freedoms (i.e. by killing each other over food). The very moment, that society is more then the set of rules individuals come up with to be able to coexist, the moment society becomes *more* important then the individual, society has lost it's only purpose (allowing the greatest amount of freedom possible for the greatest number of people possible). What we get, when society is valued of the individual, is an anthill. But that's existing, not living.

[Statulos]

Lithuasil wrote...

PantheraOnca wrote...

the qunari philosophy makes perfect sense.

society is more important than any individual. each person is most capable at something. that person should do that thing for society's benefit.

Crucially wrong. Society is to serve man, never to rule over him.
Society is the grounds on which we can allow individuals to be individuals without too severely limiting each others freedoms (i.e. by killing each other over food). The very moment, that society is more then the set of rules individuals come up with to be able to coexist, the moment society becomes *more* important then the individual, society has lost it's only purpose (allowing the greatest amount of freedom possible for the greatest number of people possible). What we get, when society is valued of the individual, is an anthill. But that's existing, not living.

Society is the product of a group of individuals who agree (or force) and understanding of how relationships among them should be and follow that understanding. And that is all.

Your ideas about the respect to the indivudual are as arbitrary as the opposite and not inherent at all. And it is arbitrary because there is no natural law that dictates how they must be. Freedom, individuality and self realization are values inhereted from the Enlightenment and as much as said tendency loved to portray itself as natural, inherent and logical, it is as constructed as all the rest.

Modifié par Statulos, 22 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Statulos wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And yet you feel knowledgeable enough about them to judge them entirely.

Unlike you, I am not judging the Qunari as worthless, pathetic or non-functional, or as perfect, awesome and wonderful. And the evidence I bring to argue that they are functional is not only in the game, but also in the codexes.

A society that can challenge all of Thedas combined cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can attract so many followers who would rather die than re-convert, cannot be a non-functional society. A society that can progress in terms of technology cannot a non-functional society. A society where the military leader is held accoutnable to the law like everyone else, cannot be a non-functional society.

Is it perfectly functional? Of course not, unlike what they claim. However to argue that Qunari society simply does not function does not hold up to the evidence we have.

Basically you're taking an approach to society outlined by Durkheim. And in that sense, your argumentation is fully valid because you are not making a moral judgement on the Qunari. Do they "work" as society? Yes, and they work very well. Do we like the values and attitudes they use to define their standards? Yes or no, that is a moral judgement. In fact, the amount of antinomies found in Qunari is surprisingly low, that's why the have been able to "convert" so many people.

From a real world perspective. Slavery systems such as Rome do work. They do work fantastically well. However, do we like them on a moral level? That's a completely different story.

Exactly.

From what we've seen / heard / read, Qunari society functions at least as well as the strongest nations of Thedas. I'd say they function better, as a society. The Arishok's contempt over the nobility / elite that only notice that something is wrong when they are interrupted from their meals is probably somewhat true of the other societies in Thedas.

Seems to imply that there is no Qunari petty infighting, like the nobility in Ferelden (over apples trees), or like Orlais.  And that no Qunari soldier can just walk up to a Qunari citizen and pillage and rape them a la Orlesian Chevaliers. And that there is no assassin guilds that control the Qunari like in the Antiva. All of those characteristics in the other countries point to some material / political dysfunctionality. And these are things the Qunari seem to be immune to.  

The ideological foundations for their society is mostly internally coherent and consistent. If the Rule of Law is seen as the pinnacle of a succesful society (debatable), the Qunari would rank the highest.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[Superposition]

I agree with Statulos and KnightofPhoenix. I would also like to add that the purpose of groupings in general is to achieve goals that cannot be achieved indvidually. Furthermore efficient societies tend to create many specialiazations.

Some other thoughts as well : Thinking is in general "hard"  i.e. brain receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization. Additionally in complex societies it is exeptionally hard to question specific roles, functions and beliefs. Let's take some contemporary examples : Can an average person question whether the theory of relativity is wrong or right ? Can an average person discuss about the fine points of certain laws ? Can an average person decide if a doctor is sufficiently skilled ? e.t.c.

Modifié par Superposition, 22 mars 2011 - 06:11 .

[Lithuasil]

Superposition wrote...

I agree with Statulos and KnightofPhoenix. I would also like to add that the purpose of groupings in general is to achieve goals that cannot be achieved indvidually. Furthermore efficient societies tend to create many specialiazations.

There's a gradual difference between collaboration (to achieve goals) and collectivism (at which point any possible goal beyond existing has become obsolete).

[PantheraOnca]

Lithuasil wrote...

PantheraOnca wrote...

the qunari philosophy makes perfect sense.

society is more important than any individual. each person is most capable at something. that person should do that thing for society's benefit.

Crucially wrong. Society is to serve man, never to rule over him.
Society is the grounds on which we can allow individuals to be individuals without too severely limiting each others freedoms (i.e. by killing each other over food). The very moment, that society is more then the set of rules individuals come up with to be able to coexist, the moment society becomes *more* important then the individual, society has lost it's only purpose (allowing the greatest amount of freedom possible for the greatest number of people possible). What we get, when society is valued of the individual, is an anthill. But that's existing, not living.

I wasn't saying that the qunari are right, just that their philosophy makes sense. i guess what i meant by that was that there is no glaring contradiction within it.

IRL i am a big fan of individual freedom, but qun show another side of things. when i first read plato's republic i was repulsed by some of the practices he suggests because it would allow those in power miles of room to abuse.  plato addresses by saying that those who would choose would not abuse, which sounds an awful lot like "stfu noob" to me, but if that WERE true, the system could work. the qunari show us an APPARENTLY working system. yes, we have only seen the military. but the qunari have achievements that no one questions that suggest that they are more than just spartans with horns.  as mentioned before gunpowder implies knowledge of chemistry, i think their ships are steam-powered? (i may be making that up) which implies a certain level of mechanical engineering, and the fact that people stuck with their philosophy even after the horned ones left suggests that it has merits of its own outside of "DO WHAT WE SAY OR ELSE" and that there is some fluidity within the qun if the people who stuck to it were able to survive without the horned qunari (we also need to find out the species name of the horned guys cause the multiple definitions of qunari are making me sad) being their supposed "masters"

[cglasgow]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

1. In a world with casteless, alienages, slavery, and serfdom they treat people equally, regardless of race or class.

Yes.  Everyone is given the exact same equal 0% freedom of choice.  'I treat everybody the same!' is a virtue only when its good treatment.  If you're consistently awful to everyone, then you're still consistent, but you're not nice.

2. They value honesty.

Except when they lie.  Which is often.  Cripes, in game 1 Sten even shows a human level of sarcasm, unless you really believe he spent 20 days playing riddle games with the passers-by, and that qunari sex involves red-hot crowbars.

Qunari are as truthful as human beings; that is to say, they tell the truth when it suits them, and make up bull**** when it suits them.

3. They value knowledge.

4. They protect their people.

These are value-neutral attributes; even the most psychopathic Tevinter magelord still values knowledge and protects his people.  (Even if his definition of 'his people' starts and ends at his own ass.)  Even the goddamn Architect can legitimately claim both of these.

Modifié par cglasgow, 22 mars 2011 - 06:22 .

[Statulos]

Superposition wrote...

I agree with Statulos and KnightofPhoenix. I would also like to add that the purpose of groupings in general is to achieve goals that cannot be achieved indvidually. Furthermore efficient societies tend to create many specialiazations.

Not necessarily. Paleolithic societies have a quite comparatively level of specialization and they were very successful.

That's why ultimately you and me are now talking.

Answering the original question: Qunari are interesting because they are alien. Aliens challenges our notions of normality and evident. It makes us unconfortable and interested at the same time because "they" are not "us".

Modifié par Statulos, 22 mars 2011 - 06:29 .

[cglasgow]

Oh, and a point about the whole 'the qunari put you at what you're best suited for' thing.

No, they don't. They put you where they believe you will be the best suited... and you're stuck there for life. If it turns out the tamassran made a mistake with you, your entire life will be defined by that mistake, and your only choice will be to stay and suffer in a role where you're being forced to be something you're not good at, or else to go Tal-Vashoth.

And yes, the tamassran do make mistakes. They're not angels.

Besides, we've got a perfect example right there in the game where the tamassran would epically **** up, if everybody lived under the Qun.

Aveline.  (Or Ser Cauthrien, or the female Warden, or Leliana, or Lady Hawke, or etc, etc, etc.)

Remember what Sten said about gender roles in human society? "Women are priests, artisans, farmers or shopkeepers. None of them have any place in fighting." If Aveline had been born under the Qun, no tamassran would ever have considered even for a moment sending her to the soldiers; she's got the wrong plumbing.

And yet can anyone really say that Aveline isn't exactly where she should be, doing exactly what she should be doing? She's got every aptitude to be ideally fitted for her job, she loves her job, she's found as much fulfillment and happiness in her job as anyone can. She is in her proper place.

But according to the Qun, she is not. Not because of who she is or what she can do, but simply because she's the wrong gender.

So yeah. The tamassran sorting process is full of as much superstition and ignorance as anything else in Thedas. It specifically embraces sex-based discimination, which is something even Ferelden, let alone our own modern world, has recognized as full of it.

And if we know that the tamassran are wrongheaded there, then what else could they be wrongheaded about?   The problem with a system that claims to have found perfection in something is that as soon as you catch it making even one mistake, its no longer perfect.

Human systems generally do not claim perfection in politics (well, except during campaign season *rimshot*) for this very reason: 'yeah, its crappy, but mostly it works' is the best we realistically hope for, because we acknowledge that any system involving human beings will also involve human error.

Modifié par cglasgow, 22 mars 2011 - 06:32 .

[Statulos]

cglasgow wrote...

Oh, and a point about the whole 'the qunari put you at what you're best suited for' thing.

No, they don't. They put you where they believe you will be the best suited... and you're stuck there for life. If it turns out the tamassran made a mistake with you, your entire life will be defined by that mistake, and your only choice will be to stay and suffer in a role where you're being forced to be something you're not good at, or else to go Tal-Vashoth.

And yes, the tamassran do make mistakes. They're not angels.

Besides, we've got a perfect example right there in the game where the tamassran would epically **** up, if everybody lived under the Qun.

Aveline.

Remember what Sten said about gender roles in human society? "Women are priests, artisans, farmers or shopkeepers. None of them have any place in fighting." If Aveline had been born under the Qun, no tamassran would ever have considered even for a moment sending her to the soldiers; she's got the wrong plumbing.

And yet can anyone really say that Aveline isn't exactly where she should be, doing exactly what she should be doing? She's got every aptitude to be ideally fitted for her job, she loves her job, she's found as much fulfillment and happiness in her job as anyone can. She is in her proper place.

But according to the Qun, she is not. Not because of who she is or what she can do, but simply because she's the wrong gender.

So yeah. The tamassran sorting process is full of as much superstition and ignorance as anything else in Thedas. It specifically embraces sex-based discimination, which is something even Ferelden, let alone our own modern world, has recognized as full of it.

And if we know that the tamassran are wrongheaded there, then what else could they be wrongheaded about?   The problem with a system that claims to have found perfection in something is that as soon as you catch it making even one mistake, its no longer perfect, and thus no longer lives up to its advertising.

Human systems generally do not claim perfection for this very reason: 'yeah, its crappy, but mostly it works' is the best we realistically hope for, because we acknowledge that any system involving human beings will also involve human error.

Just as the Chantry refuses to have a masculine devine. Tevinter has one, so it's in the same level. Problem with Qunari is that they are absolutely confident that Qun is the natural order, the ultimate logic and the perfect "handbook for social engineering". These criteria are as arbitrary as considering that people's individuality is evident, natural and should be preserved.

[Superposition]

Lithuasil wrote...
There's a gradual difference between collaboration (to achieve goals) and collectivism (at which point any possible goal beyond existing has become obsolete).

What do you mean by that ?