1008 réponses à ce sujet

[Ivucci]

DPSSOC wrote...

Everybody wants to rule, the only reason most of us don't try is we lack the means.  Mages have a much better head start.

No.

Power easily corrupts - oh yes, totally.
Everybody wants to rule - no. Some want to rule. Some want to have and raise children. Some want to be left alone.


Also, the problem I see is that mages are too often referred to as an independent, separate class, stratum, political party even. It's too easy to assign political and power ambitions to such a separate group of members who have certain unique mental powers but I see an error in this reasoning right at the beginning, in assuming that they will always act as an independent social/political group and in assuming that they draw their main identity from the "I am a mage and who is more" label.

I inderstand where is that tendency coming from - Tevinter. But the current Circle system is much to blame, too. We deprive them of all possibilities to develop other identities, other than "I am - first and foremost - a mage, an enemy to the majority". They become what the majority *forces* them to become by shutting them in the Circles and labelling them as social and political outcasts.

Part of the change I would like to see is giving them enough space to develop and maintain other, healthy social and individual identities than just "I am a mage". Yes it will take long and there needs to be some nasty fighting at the beginining apparently, but oh well.

Family identity - I am a son who will inherit my father's estate, I am a mother who takes care of her family, I am a grandmother who bakes cookies for her grandchildren.
National identity - I am a Ferelden and as a combat mage, I serve in the Ferelden army to help my king.

This needs to happen. No doubt the mage identity will always be there, but it shouldn't be regarded as automatically rewriting the other ones on a mass scale.

Modifié par Ivucci, 03 mars 2012 - 11:33 .

[dragonflight288]

DPSSOC wrote...

Everybody wants to rule, the only reason most of us don't try is we lack the means. Mages have a much better head start.

No.

Power easily corrupts - oh yes, totally.
Everybody wants to rule - no. Some want to rule. Some want to have and raise children. Some want to be left alone.


Also, the problem I see is that mages are too often referred to as an independent, separate class, stratum, political party even. It's too easy to assign political and power ambitions to such a separate group of members who have certain unique mental powers but I see an error in this reasoning right at the beginning, in assuming that they will always act as an independent social/political group and in assuming that they draw their main identity from the "I am a mage and who is more" label.

I inderstand where is that tendency coming from - Tevinter. But the current Circle system is much to blame, too. We deprive them of all possibilities to develop other identities, other than "I am - first and foremost - a mage, an enemy to the majority". They become what the majority *forces* them to become by shutting them in the Circles and labelling them as social and political outcasts.

Part of the change I would like to see is giving them enough space to develop and maintain other, healthy social and individual identities than just "I am a mage". Yes it will take long and there needs to be some nasty fighting at the beginining apparently, but oh well.

Family identity - I am a son who will inherit my father's estate, I am a mother who takes care of her family, I am a grandmother who bakes cookies for her grandchildren.
National identity - I am a Ferelden and as a combat mage, I serve in the Ferelden army to help my king.

This needs to happen. No doubt the mage identity will always be there, but it shouldn't be regarded as automatically rewriting the other ones on a mass scale.

Bravo. *applauds* Wonderful idea for change. That's a good goal to seek.

[DPSSOC]

Plaintiff wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Everybody wants to rule

You need to prove this.

Well let's see there's social interactions where in every social group has a defined and recognizable hierarchy and all those in lower positions strive to reach higher with the ultimate goal of reaching the top (this can be observed in groups as small as 3 individuals).  To support this there's the simple fact that even infants and toddlers exhibit this behaviour of attempting to establsh dominance over those around them without, and even inspite of, outside conditioning.

Or we can look at it simply as an animal behaviour; all social animals, with the exclusion of insects, strive to be the alpha of their particular groups.  This is true of primates, wolves, deer, lions, rhinocerai, elephants, etc.  All of these groups have regular, violent competitions for dominance.  Humans are distinct only in that most animal groups do not compete across genders.

[dragonflight288]

Uh huh. And what of people (like myself personally) who have absolutely no desire to rule anything?

[DPSSOC]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Uh huh. And what of people (like myself personally) who have absolutely no desire to rule anything?

You've never once taken charge in a group?  Never thought things would be better if you were running them (group, company, nation, etc.)  Never strived to be the best?  Not even once?  Like I said most of us are aware (conciously or otherwise) that we lack the means to really control others and content ourselves with what we have, but that doesn't mean the drive is gone.  I have no real drive for world domination either but that has more to do with the fact that such a goal is unrealistic.  The question is would you turn down control if it were given to you?  If the opportunity arose at work to be promoted to manager/director/partner/what have you would you turn it down because you don't want to rule?

Alistair's a good example to look at, someone who seemingly doesn't want to be in charge.  However if you talk to him it's clear that it isn't a lack of desire but a perceived lack of ability.  He's reluctant to take charge of the Wardens or become King because he thinks he'd be bad at it, not because he doesn't want to.

[dragonflight288]

You've never once taken charge in a group? Never thought things would be better if you were running them (group, company, nation, etc.) Never strived to be the best? Not even once? Like I said most of us are aware (conciously or otherwise) that we lack the means to really control others and content ourselves with what we have, but that doesn't mean the drive is gone. I have no real drive for world domination either but that has more to do with the fact that such a goal is unrealistic. The question is would you turn down control if it were given to you? If the opportunity arose at work to be promoted to manager/director/partner/what have you would you turn it down because you don't want to rule?

Alistair's a good example to look at, someone who seemingly doesn't want to be in charge. However if you talk to him it's clear that it isn't a lack of desire but a perceived lack of ability. He's reluctant to take charge of the Wardens or become King because he thinks he'd be bad at it, not because he doesn't want to.

Nope. So long as the person in charge knows what they're doing and can do it well, I'm all for letting them have it. If they're incompetent, don't know what they're doing, I'd like someone else to be in charge, just not me.

As for the opportunity to become a manager, director, or partner of something....that would depend on if I had the skills to do it. I wouldn't turn it down if I was asked to do it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to try and get a position. Well, maybe I would turn it down depending on various factors.

I have no real drive to rule or manage anything. If everyone was looking up to me for it, I would step up, but unless that happens, I'm more than happy to be a follower.

[Wulfram]

I think a lot of people shun leadership positions.

Even if individual mages want power, they're not really in all that much better position to get it than anyone else. Power comes from politics, not personal combat skill.

[HiroVoid]

Not everyone wants to rule. Some people like simply getting by in day to day life living comfortably. This mostly has to do with pretty much anything that isn't required for living though usually won't be universally true for everyone though.

[Koire]

I agree that not everyone wants to rule.

[Plaintiff]

DPSSOC wrote...
Well let's see there's social interactions where in every social group has a defined and recognizable hierarchy and all those in lower positions strive to reach higher with the ultimate goal of reaching the top (this can be observed in groups as small as 3 individuals).

Again, you need to prove this. Or link to a psychological study or something. As it is, I have only your word, and the generalizations you make are laughably vast. I have had many social interactions where there was no perceivable dominant personality.

To support this there's the simple fact that even infants and toddlers exhibit this behaviour of attempting to establsh dominance over those around them without, and even inspite of, outside conditioning.

Or we can look at it simply as an animal behaviour; all social animals, with the exclusion of insects, strive to be the alpha of their particular groups.  This is true of primates, wolves, deer, lions, rhinocerai, elephants, etc.  All of these groups have regular, violent competitions for dominance.  Humans are distinct only in that most animal groups do not compete across genders.

Humans are also distinct in that they are capable of higher brain functions and are completely capable of recognizing that leadership positions come with risks and responsibilities that they don't want to deal with, or that would interfere with other personal goals.

But not every leadership position could reasonably be considered "ruling". Your definition of the word "rule" is ridiculously broad. Using your meaning, the desire to direct films or head a book club is on par with the desire to take over a country, because both are positions of dominance that involve bossing other people around.

[Ivucci]

DPSSOC wrote...

Well let's see there's social interactions where in every social group has a defined and recognizable hierarchy and all those in lower positions strive to reach higher with the ultimate goal of reaching the top (this can be observed in groups as small as 3 individuals).  To support this there's the simple fact that even infants and toddlers exhibit this behaviour of attempting to establsh dominance over those around them without, and even inspite of, outside conditioning.

Or we can look at it simply as an animal behaviour; all social animals, with the exclusion of insects, strive to be the alpha of their particular groups.  This is true of primates, wolves, deer, lions, rhinocerai, elephants, etc.  All of these groups have regular, violent competitions for dominance.  Humans are distinct only in that most animal groups do not compete across genders.

Wouldn't it be easier to imprison everyone (toddlers especially - their methods of excercising dominance through crying for food and nappy-change are extremely treacherous) to prevent them from seizing power? Why don't we?

Not only I don't agree with half of this, but mostly I wonder if you are still using this to prove the point that "mages will immediately attempt to control everyone if given freedom", or what is it about?

[General User]

It's just human nature. The natural drive to dominate a group is only as destructive or negative as what it drives us to do (and how we go about doing it).

The patriot who leads his countrymen to liberty and the dictator who hold his nation under tyranny are each, to varying degrees, motivated by a desire to lead.

[Ivucci]

General User wrote...

The patriot who leads his countrymen to liberty and the dictator who hold his nation under tyranny are each, to varying degrees, motivated by a desire to lead.

Maybe, but both of them have the *ambition* to do it. While there are millions other people who just can't be bothered because they don't have the ambition.

Besides, there are tons of other human "natures". Why would the tendency to lead (even if I temporarily agree that it is human nature) be stronger than other desires? Why should the desire to lead be stronger than the desire to be part of a group? Why should the desire to lead be stronger than the desire to find a mate? Etc etc.

How is this useful as an argument against freedom of mages?

Modifié par Ivucci, 04 mars 2012 - 08:02 .

[General User]

Ivucci wrote...
Maybe, but both of them have the *ambition* to do it. While there are millions other people who just can't be bothered because they don't have the ambition.

They do have the ambition.  It's just not as strong as other impulses and drives.  Nor need the desire to lead be particularly assertive in it's expression.

Ivucci wrote...
Besides, there are tons of other human "natures". Why would the tendency to lead (even if I temporarily agree that it is human nature) be stronger than other desires?

It needn't.

Ivucci wrote...
Why should the desire to lead be stronger than the desire to be part of a group?

A leader is a part of a group.  The dominant part.

Ivucci wrote...
Why should the desire to lead be stronger than the desire to find a mate?

The two are intimately (no pun intended) related.

Ivucci wrote...
Etc etc.

Ditto.

Ivucci wrote...
How is this useful as an argument against freedom of mages?

Was someone trying to argue against mage freedom?  If so, it certainly wasn't me.

Modifié par General User, 04 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[Ivucci]

General User wrote...
Was someone trying to argue against mage freedom? If so, it certainly wasn't me.

Oh, this response took you a lot of work.

I had the impression that this power dispute, which is now admittedly going nowhere, started with "mages will automatically attempt to use their powers to rule" or something along the lines. Anyway.

[General User]

Ivucci wrote...

General User wrote...
Was someone trying to argue against mage freedom? If so, it certainly wasn't me.

Oh, this response took you a lot of work.

I had the impression that this power dispute, which is now admittedly going nowhere, started with "mages will automatically attempt to use their powers to rule" or something along the lines. Anyway.

Some mages will do that, "mage freedom" or not.  We've met quite a few of that sort.  As it's been said: it's human nature.

Modifié par General User, 04 mars 2012 - 09:01 .

[Ivucci]

Ok, no problem with that, I guess.

[DPSSOC]

Plaintiff wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Well let's see there's social interactions where in every social group has a defined and recognizable hierarchy and all those in lower positions strive to reach higher with the ultimate goal of reaching the top (this can be observed in groups as small as 3 individuals).

Again, you need to prove this. Or link to a psychological study or something.

The Evolution of Human Sociality: A Darwinian Conflict Perspective by Stephen K. Sanderson
Chapter 15 starting on page 287 outlines the biological foundations of hierarchal structure in humans with specific comments on page 288 with regards to the human drive for prestige (wealth/power/influence) relating to basic bilogical desires like attracting mates.

Thomas Hobbes State of Nature in the Leviathan also enforces this idea by arguing that, in a world without government, we'd be constantly at war attempting to dominate or kill those who threaten our interests.

Nietzsche's will to power.

Even Shakespear acknowledges this as a fundamental aspect of human nature in Hamlet and Macbeth.

Plaintiff wrote...
Your definition of the word "rule" is ridiculously broad. Using your meaning, the desire to direct films or head a book club is on par with the desire to take over a country, because both are positions of dominance that involve bossing other people around.

It's all the same behaviour, just varying degrees.  The man/woman who insists on being head of the household, the person who wants to run the book club, and the man who wants to conquer nations all want the same thing; power and control over others.  Motivations and degrees vary but it's all the same behaviour.

Ivucci wrote...
Wouldn't it be easier to imprison everyone (toddlers especially - their methods of excercising dominance through crying for food and nappy-change are extremely treacherous) to prevent them from seizing power? Why don't we?

Because prisoners make much poorer workers than subordinates. But in many cases we do see people imprisoning or outright killing those who challenge their power. Saddam did it, Gadhafi did it, China does it.

Ivucci wrote...
Not only I don't agree with half of this, but mostly I wonder if you are still using this to prove the point that "mages will immediately attempt to control everyone if given freedom", or what is it about?

My initial contention was that everybody wants to rule but lack of means keeps us from making attempts. Mages, being capable of more, will be constrained less and therefore will be more likely to make attempts to take control

Plaintiff asked for proof that everybody wants to rule my argument was for that. Since the second part of my initial statement wasn't brought up I didn't argue it. If Plaintiff or others want to argue that mages aren't anymore likely than normal people to attempt to seize control despite naturally having better means to do so that'd be another argument.

Also I never said immediately.  They will because they can, but like the return of the magisters in Tevinter it won't be an overnight thing.  It's the Magneto principle.  Any group of inherrently superior beings will attempt to establish dominance for their kind. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Uh huh. And what of people (like myself personally) who have absolutely no desire to rule anything?

Do you want to be ruled? Because if you don't, then you desire to rule over your own life. Which is only natural. We all have a desire to be in charge of certain things. The degree of this desire is, of course, very different between each individual.

[Koire]

 @DPSSOC

And here I thought Social Darwinism is not popular these days...
I won't argue with you but will point out that it is only one of the theories, and it is not universally acclaimed.

[DPSSOC]

Koire wrote...
 @DPSSOC

And here I thought Social Darwinism is not popular these days...

True, though to be fair the idea that human beings are not inherrantly noble, or worse that for all our supposed sophistication we are still governed by the same forces as beasts, has never been popular.

Koire wrote...
I won't argue with you but will point out that it is only one of the theories, and it is not universally acclaimed.

Also true however like all sociological theories it does have evidence behind it and of the ones I'm familliar with it is the one I find the most compelling.  Not as a justification of political policy but as an explanation for some of the more universal norms in human behaviour.  It's also interesting to consider as a biological basis for Carl Jung's collective unconcious theory.

[Maria Caliban]

Waiter, there is an evopsych in my soup.

[Ivucci]

DPSSOC wrote...

True, though to be fair the idea that human beings are not inherrantly noble, or worse that for all our supposed sophistication we are still governed by the same forces as beasts, has never been popular.

Many would also say that human beings are driven by forces far worse than beasts, and I'm not gonna argue with that (what happens in the Circles is a nice, if fictional, display of that). My point is, I would like to state that I wasn't disagreeing with you because I was living a dream of a sophisticated noble humanity, but because I don't agree with linking all these (overly generalized, I think) proofs of the dark side of humanity to the problem we have been discussing here, i.e. the damned mages freedom thing. The best I could come up with as a counter-argument is the top of the page post and I guess I’ll just leave it at that.

[dragonflight288]

Do you want to be ruled? Because if you don't, then you desire to rule over your own life. Which is only natural. We all have a desire to be in charge of certain things. The degree of this desire is, of course, very different between each individual.

Actually, yes, I do prefer to follow.

Thomas Hobbes State of Nature in the Leviathan also enforces this idea by arguing that, in a world without government, we'd be constantly at war attempting to dominate or kill those who threaten our interests.

Hobbes also said that man was inherently evil and had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The only reason we act as we do is the Social Contract.

Needless to say, compelling idea, but I disagree wholeheartedly.

[DPSSOC]

Ivucci wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
True, though to be fair the idea that human beings are not inherrantly noble, or worse that for all our supposed sophistication we are still governed by the same forces as beasts, has never been popular.

Many would also say that human beings are driven by forces far worse than beasts, and I'm not gonna argue with that (what happens in the Circles is a nice, if fictional, display of that). My point is, I would like to state that I wasn't disagreeing with you because I was living a dream of a sophisticated noble humanity, but because I don't agree with linking all these (overly generalized, I think) proofs of the dark side of humanity to the problem we have been discussing here, i.e. the damned mages freedom thing.

 
Fair point this has gone decidedly off topic.  Though I wasn't looking to show the dark side of humanity (apologies if that's how it came across) just that we seemingly instinctually form hierarchies amongst ourselves (like other social animals) and that those on the lower end of the ladder will endeavour to climb higher with the goal being to reach the top.

Ivucci wrote...
The best I could come up with as a counter-argument is the top of the page post and I guess I’ll just leave it at that.

And you raise a fair point.  If I'm to be perfectly honest I am perhaps too quick to dehumanize mages and see "mage" as being the entirety of their identity.  However the game doesn't exactly make it easy to see the other aspects of mages when we meet four mages in the entire game who do not inevitably succumb to raving lunacy.  I'm actually trying to think of what changed cause in DA:O I was decidedly pro-mage.

Maybe it's the lack of sensible life-long apostates.  We really only get 3 in the game; Merril, Marethari, Feynriel, and of the three Feynriel's the only one who can be said to have maintained any semblance of sanity (IMO).  DA:O seemed to paint mad apostates as the exception rather than the rule.

dragonflight288 wrote...

Thomas Hobbes State of Nature in the Leviathan also enforces this idea by arguing that, in a world without government, we'd be constantly at war attempting to dominate or kill those who threaten our interests.

Hobbes also said that man was inherently evil and had no redeeming qualities whatsoever. The only reason we act as we do is the Social Contract.

Needless to say, compelling idea, but I disagree wholeheartedly.

Meh different life experiences I guess. I can easily buy Hobbes assessment because it fits with my experiences with people growing up.