647 réponses à ce sujet

[Superposition]

I think we are getting somewhere...

Lithuasil wrote...
But that, having to ask for someone to give you purpose, as opposed to accepting that single greatest challenge that life has to offer - that's the cowardice I belittled in the Op.

If I understand correctly you say that the single greatest challenge in life is to find a purpose by your own means. Joining the quanari is an act of cowardice, because you don't take this challenge.

Some thoughts : Some people do not want challenge they want results.

cglasgow wrote...The problem with trying to create the perfect system is that people are not, and never will be, perfect.   Not in judgement, not in moral character, not in attention to detail, not in anything.   We're mortals.  That means we **** up a lot.

So any system that's based on the principle that somebody will always make the right decision is a system whose foundation is built on sand.

Correct, note however that this arguement applies to humans and that there are no right or wrong decisions without specific goals. ( i.e. There exist machines with superhuman capabilities, which can make better decisions than humans given a specific task and specific goals.)   Now in relation to the quanari : Are the leaders of the quanari intellectually and "moraly" superior than then average quanari ?

[Medhia Nox]

@Lithuasil - I'm going to be a pain in the arse and say - "We cannot know that's "universally" true." for every sentient creature. We "could" say that for humans - but again, it's not true, there are some people so gone that they never doubt their actions and choices. They're extremely rare, but they exist.

Let's be cautious what we call "safe" options. You hate the Qun - would you following it be "safe"? I don't value the family unit - yet many people will do any number of evil things to protect their family. I think "that" is safe... but neither of us are really correct.

We have natural laws of the universe which we cannot conquer - like death. Raging against it is futile and childish. That is an absolute truth. Nothing will EVER save you from death. It is inevitable and it is waiting - no matter what you do to stop it.

Some people believe that about purpose. And those that admire the Qun find their purpose through it. Yes, the Tal Vashoth are hunted... but not if they migrated to somewhere else in Thedas. We don't let traitors to the state... or those who spread sedition... to just hang out in America. So is America evil for court marshaling traitors?

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 mars 2011 - 08:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Never mind.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 mars 2011 - 08:44 .

[blothulfur]

Then there are those who come to us because they have never known tribulation, they have never felt the burden of duty and the chains of trust that bind them to that duty be it ever so heinous and in their souls they thirst for challenge, for something more than the dull and dreary masquerade that they pantomime in their pathetic attempts at social acceptance and belonging.

The qunari will grant you duty and respect, it will challenge everything you ever were and hammer you down until the steel in your soul shows pure and true and when a perfect tool of the Qun stands naked before the blows of fate it will not break but bend with each strike then return to the shape it must and forever shall be.

Anaan esaam Qun.

[cglasgow]

Superposition wrote...

Now in relation to the quanari : Are the leaders of the quanari intellectually and "morally" superior than then average qunari?

Wrong question to ask, in this context. 

The question is 'Are the leaders of the qunari infallible?'   As that's what it takes to make Plato's 'priest-king' system work; infallible leadership.

And we can see that the big guy is not infallible.   Either Hawke kills him and wrecks his conquest of Kirkwall, or else Hawke gives him Isabela and the relic and then Isabela just escapes from him and steals it again.   Either way, Arishok's just as mortal and fallible as the rest of us.

[Dean_the_Young]

Lithuasil wrote...

Lianaar wrote...

I do understand where you come from. But I think you are not willing to consider there are other perspectives. Some people (characters) operate with other base believes. You'll never be able to understand what they say without being willing to say: let us presume, having free choice is not the purpose of life.

Every sentient creature, by the very fact of being capable of thought, will inevitably face doubt and choice. That at least is universally true. Now as we fortunately know, sentient beings ARE capable of greatness, of miraculous achievements and exploits. By overcoming their doubt, and by trying to make the most of the choices they are presented with. Passing that up, for a "safe" option like the Qun, that's taking the "less risk, almost no reward" option in the most important wager you can possibly make. And I find it hard, to not see cowardice in that.

Then you fail to see why people can agree with other people, and even a belief system, without being cowardly.

[Camenae]

What I do not understand about the Qunari is: Ok, they waste nothing, and they look at you and sees what you're good at and then put you in that role. Then why would they have arbitrary rules such as, women can't be warriors ever? Does that mean that if Aveline decided she wanted to join the Qun, they'd say, no, you're a woman so you can only do administrative things? That seems to contradict their philosophy. I get that it is highly highly unlikely that any woman would be as physically capable of being a machine of war as the average dude Qunari, but it is the drawing-an-arbitrary-and-absolute-line thing that, to me, seems to go against their use-something-as-long-as-it's-good-for-that-role philosophy.

[Mox Ruuga]

Lithuasil wrote...

Every sentient creature, by the very fact of being capable of thought, will inevitably face doubt and choice. That at least is universally true. Now as we fortunately know, sentient beings ARE capable of greatness, of miraculous achievements and exploits. By overcoming their doubt, and by trying to make the most of the choices they are presented with. Passing that up, for a "safe" option like the Qun, that's taking the "less risk, almost no reward" option in the most important wager you can possibly make. And I find it hard, to not see cowardice in that.

Yeppers.

And that why it is silly that the writers have made the soulless commie dystopia of the brainwashed and crazy into the technological powerhouse utopia of Thedas. The society where individual thought or personal ambition is not encouraged has managed to outstrip all other societies in productivity and technological process? They are at the same time extremely efficient, creative, and not only are people born into the cult happy and content with their "gentle" totalitarian overlords, but every Andrastian can't seemingly abandon their original beliefs fast enough?

Uh huh writers... Time to stop drinking the bong water.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lithuasil wrote...

Lianaar wrote...

I do understand where you come from. But I think you are not willing to consider there are other perspectives. Some people (characters) operate with other base believes. You'll never be able to understand what they say without being willing to say: let us presume, having free choice is not the purpose of life.

Every sentient creature, by the very fact of being capable of thought, will inevitably face doubt and choice. That at least is universally true. Now as we fortunately know, sentient beings ARE capable of greatness, of miraculous achievements and exploits. By overcoming their doubt, and by trying to make the most of the choices they are presented with. Passing that up, for a "safe" option like the Qun, that's taking the "less risk, almost no reward" option in the most important wager you can possibly make. And I find it hard, to not see cowardice in that.

But why would a Qunari ever face doubt? He knows no such thing. He IS a farmer, or warrior, or priest or any other profession, he knows that, and he would never doubt that. A Qunari does not face the same doubts an individual does. But apparently you equate certainty with cowardice...

[Lithuasil]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Lithuasil - I'm going to be a pain in the arse and say - "We cannot know that's "universally" true." for every sentient creature. We "could" say that for humans - but again, it's not true, there are some people so gone that they never doubt their actions and choices. They're extremely rare, but they exist.

The very definition of sentience, as opposed to merely existing piloted by instinct alone, is the ability to reflect upon our actions. In other words the ability to judge, i.e doubt what we have done. Some people might be good at not showing it, but a sentient creature living without ever encountering doubt or choice, isn't possible when those are the single two defining key features of what we call sentience. So judging by logic alone (which in itself can of course be doubted), this is universal truth.

Medhia Nox wrote...
Let's be cautious what we call "safe" options. You hate the Qun - would you following it be "safe"? I don't value the family unit - yet many people will do any number of evil things to protect their family. I think "that" is safe... but neither of us are really correct.
 

I meant 'safe' in the sense of responsibility - the greatest risk isn't physical harm, it's tossing yourself in the fray and finding out that your beliefs are wrong. The Qun reliefs you of all responsibility, at the cost of all potential gain you as an individual could experience. That makes it appealing first and foremost to those who struggle to face their doubts, those that fear they could be wrong.

[Lianaar]

Lithuasil wrote...

Every sentient creature, by the very fact of being capable of thought, will inevitably face doubt and choice. That at least is universally true.

No, that is your truth. That is not the universal truth. There are no such thing as universal truth. Just little subjective truths. Sorry, I don't believe in dogmas as such.

(Reality and truth are not the same. True is an objective thing that exists wether peopel believe in it or not. Reality is something people believe in and because of that you can not declare it non existent, you must count with it. So while it is a reality that everyone must decide once upon a life, it is not truth.)

[Lithuasil]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


But why would a Qunari ever face doubt? He knows no such thing. He IS a farmer, or warrior, or priest or any other profession, he knows that, and he would never doubt that. A Qunari does not face the same doubts an individual does. But apparently you equate certainty with cowardice...

If they didn't face doubts, how are there tal vashoth? The Qun is just opressing it's people, taking from them the very thing that differentiates them from vermin.

[Lianaar]

A dog choses to do this or that, but how about ants or bees? They are, simply are what they are. They do not question their role, they do not step outside of boundaries, they do not question it. They are still highly socialised, marvelous creatures that are intelligent. They are different then us. But they are still valid in their own way.

Qunari do not think as humans. They are not humans. They are not even antropomorph monsters. They are different. And because they are different, youc an not apply your thought pattern to them. Just like they'll never understand why you speak of choice and what you want anyway.

You might see them as coward, and in return they'll see your choice as an endlessly selfish and arrogant way of life. We are not saying one should live by the Qun. We say within its setting it is valid. In itself it is neither good nor bad, it is an answer to the question of life. A different answer then what humans and dwarves and elves give. But still a valid answer.

[Lianaar]

I do have a question though @Lithuasil.
In the post it reads: what is the appeal, someone explain.
Now I wonder, do you want to understand, or do you want to simply claim it is wrong.

My personal opinion is, that the Qun is not appealing to me. But I understand whom it can appeal to and why.
If you just want to say it is wrong, then I stop arguing, since I see where people come from claiming it is wrong. If you want to keep an open mind and attempt to understand the different mindset of the Quen, I'll keep trying to explain.

[Zan Mura]

Lithuasil wrote...

Zan Mura wrote...

Where's the difference? 

The difference is if you died the death of a hero, or that of an empty thrall. To some, that means something.

So who gets to decide whether someone died as a hero, or as an empty thrall? You? We're discussing the defining differences here, but instead of opening up to us the logic that leads you to the conclusion that one is a choice where the other is not, you're just applying your own conclusions and judgements on everything as if they were the universal truth.

You do realise the irony in what you said btw? According to the Qun, much as it happens in the game, someone who dies a "hero" for a random chaotic society with no goal or purpose, is nothing but a random death with no purpose of its own either. Basically to them, your hero is an empty thrall that has achieved nothing. To the contrary, someone who has accomplished far less but in service to the Qun is far closer to that concept of a "hero", because they have given of themselves to a greater cause.

For the fiftieth time in this thread alone - being anti Qun does not make me pro chantry.

So you're anti-everything then? I used the chantry simply because in Thedas that's what it is. You can use Christianity if you want for the same purpose: religion.

The point of ALL this, is that it's all a matter of a point of view. It really is. And in my opinion, people who are unable to see other points of view are as unbelievable, as unproductive, and as dangerous as they come. It's ok to disagree, but to not even understand... no, that's not good. Any person who absolutely believes they are right about anything at all, has to be wrong. Because life has no absolutes, our minds cannot understand them at any rate. And the second you decide you absolutely know something is more right than something else, you blind yourself to all the other options. Which means even if you were right, it could only be as a result of one in a billion stroke of blind luck, as your method of getting there was flawed to begin with.

Modifié par Zan Mura, 22 mars 2011 - 09:07 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lithuasil wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


But why would a Qunari ever face doubt? He knows no such thing. He IS a farmer, or warrior, or priest or any other profession, he knows that, and he would never doubt that. A Qunari does not face the same doubts an individual does. But apparently you equate certainty with cowardice...

If they didn't face doubts, how are there tal vashoth? The Qun is just opressing it's people, taking from them the very thing that differentiates them from vermin.

Tal Vasoth aren't Qunari.
And doubt is not a defining factor of sentience at all. Reflection is the one and only defining quality of sentience, and Qunari are fully capable of reflecting, they just never doubt their actions, as long as they are true to the Qun.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 22 mars 2011 - 09:04 .

[cglasgow]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Tal Vashoth aren't Qunari.

No True Scotsman!

[Lianaar]

The Sarabaas is given a free choice. He reflects, and he feels it is wrong to act against the Qun. He remains loyal to his ideals, even if it hurts and kills him. Because it is the "right thing to do".
Now what the right thing to do is varies from faith, upraising, education, experience...
Anders believes the right thing to do is to blow up the Chantry
Fenris believes the right thing to do is to imprison mages.
Merril believes the right thing to do is restore the Aluvian
THe Keeper believs the right thing to do is to submit to the demon
Neither of them went: oh, I am doing what is wrong.

[Gadarr]

Lianaar wrote...

A dog choses to do this or that, but how about ants or bees? They are, simply are what they are. They do not question their role, they do not step outside of boundaries, they do not question it. They are still highly socialised, marvelous creatures that are intelligent. They are different then us. But they are still valid in their own way.

Qunari do not think as humans. They are not humans. They are not even antropomorph monsters. They are different. And because they are different, youc an not apply your thought pattern to them. Just like they'll never understand why you speak of choice and what you want anyway.

You might see them as coward, and in return they'll see your choice as an endlessly selfish and arrogant way of life. We are not saying one should live by the Qun. We say within its setting it is valid. In itself it is neither good nor bad, it is an answer to the question of life. A different answer then what humans and dwarves and elves give. But still a valid answer.

Bees or ants can't reflect on their actions, Qunari clearly can. That's why there are Tal Vashoth. In any case, if they were so different from humans in that they were simply unable to experience doubt, they would simply be unable to do ... well, really anything they're actually doing. Like scientific research. Or developing the code of the Qun. It didn't drop from heaven...

[Lithuasil]

Lianaar wrote...

I do have a question though @Lithuasil.
In the post it reads: what is the appeal, someone explain.
Now I wonder, do you want to understand, or do you want to simply claim it is wrong.

My personal opinion is, that the Qun is not appealing to me. But I understand whom it can appeal to and why.
If you just want to say it is wrong, then I stop arguing, since I see where people come from claiming it is wrong. If you want to keep an open mind and attempt to understand the different mindset of the Quen, I'll keep trying to explain.

I am perfectly contempt with being called arrogant, or selfish even. I am.

What I am trying to find out is where the appeal lies, considering what you are actually giving up (which many seem not to grasp).
And the second question would be, would a person that says they value certainty over freedom, be contempt with me considering them cowardly (just as I am, with them considering me arrogant), or why not.
The conscious choice "this battle is too hard for me, I give up" is something I can fathom. (Just like I'd for example rather go to a circle, then be an apostate). What I can not understand however, is how someone can make such a decision, and claim it to be brave. (and indeed, what other reason aside from saying "life's too complicated for me, I want certainty and order" there could be, to submit to the qun).

[Superposition]

Medhia Nox wrote...

We have natural laws of the universe which we cannot conquer - like death. Raging against it is futile and childish. That is an absolute truth. Nothing will EVER save you from death. It is inevitable and it is waiting - no matter what you do to stop it.

But there are no natural laws ( at least to my knoweldege ) that prevent a sentient entity to live several billion years.

cglasgow wrote...
Wrong question to ask, in this context.  

The question is 'Are the leaders of the qunari infallible?'   As that's what it takes to make Plato's 'priest-king' system work; infallible leadership.

And we can see that the big guy is not infallible.   Either Hawke kills him and wrecks his conquest of Kirkwall, or else Hawke gives him Isabela and the relic and then Isabela just escapes from him and steals it again.   Either way, Arishok's just as mortal and fallible as the rest of us.

I disagree. "Are the leaders of the qunari infallible?" for me is essentially non question. The question is whether their leaders statistically outperform their average subordinate on certain tasks that are related to their authority (and how many standard deviations).

[Lithuasil]

Zan Mura wrote...

So you're anti-everything then? I used the chantry simply because in Thedas that's what it is. You can use Christianity if you want for the same purpose: religion.

While as a person in this world, I regard those turning to faith for answers with not equal, but similar disdain, for the purpose of being in thedas - I'm pro circles actually, if not for religious reasons.

[cglasgow]

Superposition wrote...

The question is whether their leaders statistically outperform their average subordinate on certain tasks that are related to their authority (and how many standard deviations).

The problem is, with a system that relies on perfection (such as Plato's), 'better' is not good enough.  You need 'perfect' for it to work, so any flaw is ultimately damning.

Likewise, the Qun assumes that the Qun is infallible and unchanging.  So it has zero error-correction mechanisms and is massively fault-intolerant.  

Which means that you have a much smaller margin of error before things end up pear-shaped like the Kirkwall situation.  

Which means that you don't just need good leadership to make your system function without at least occasional catastrophe, you need perfect leadership... which no mortal being can supply.

[Lianaar]

Lithuasil wrote...
The conscious choice "this battle is too hard for me, I give up" is something I can fathom. (Just like I'd for example rather go to a circle, then be an apostate). What I can not understand however, is how someone can make such a decision, and claim it to be brave. (and indeed, what other reason aside from saying "life's too complicated for me, I want certainty and order" there could be, to submit to the qun).

Because that is not their reasoning. They do not go to the Quen because they fear life without the Qun.
Because they do not think as you think. They do not ask: hey, is it scary to think for myself? Ooo, let's go to the Qun.

No, they go: there are questions in life that have various answers given by various groups, and the Qun is a consistent, secure, noble, heroistic, social structure that will respect me for the role I perform. I can live a whole life, and the Qun provides for me.

Wether you think then coward for that is not something they give a damn about  You are not of the Quen, your opinion matters little to those of the Qun, unless you prove yourself worthy (with having a purpose of your own).

You presume, they are coward and use that as an explanation why they are coward.
However I do not know if they are coward or not, the Qun is not made to avoid decisions.

[Lianaar]

cglasgow wrote...
Likewise, the Qun assumes that the Qun is infallible and unchanging.  So it has zero error-correction mechanisms and is massively fault-intolerant.  

I do not believe the Qun is sustainable, because it can not adapt. Should the situation change, it'll be unable to properly respond to the challenge, because, as you said, it doesn't have an error-correction mechanism.
However in the current setting the Qun is succesful. The more chaotic, repressive, exclusive others get, the more they ignore the plead of people, the more will turn to the Qun, because the Qun cares for every last member of the society and everyone is valued. Being respect for who you are.. that is what most people seek.  And that is exactly what the Qun gives.