Very very interesting read. To be honest though I doubt Bioware thought about it as much as you did, considering they didn't decide on the nature of the ending until the last minute. But the way you've presented it makes thinking about the ending a lot more interesting, rather than simply befuddling.
Bioware Attempted To Tell The Story That Cannot Be Told.
Débuté par
MyChemicalBromance
, mai 31 2012 02:40
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 07:15
ardensia
-
- Members
- 424 messages
Now I'm curious how many people who liked the ending have already come to terms with nihilism.
#28
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 02:59
Samuel_Valkyrie
-
- Members
- 703 messages
MyChemicalBromance wrote...
I understand what he was trying to say, and it's based on a false premise. Or, more correctly, the assumption that the statement means anything is based on a false premise. Descartes fails to explain why there is still an "I" that performs the act of thinking. Why does "I" have to exist for thought to exist? Any answer I can see is based in faith.
Ah, I understand what's going on.
No, I freely admit that that is not the sort of answer Descartes will give you. That's because he didn't set out to answer the questions you are asking. In fact, no philosopher would.
Again, what Descartes was looking for is a kernel of pure truth, undeniable. "I think, therefore I am" is exactly that: Even if all is a lie, if logic itself is incorrect, if 1 +1 does NOT equal 2, there is still an *I* that exists to make those errors. Asking 'why' there is an 'I' would be pure conjecture, pure speculation. And, simply put, not scientific.
You see, what many people fail to realize, is that philosophy is a science. It's not random thoughts on life, but a structured, theoretical approach on how we experience life. On the nature of human existence, not the purpose of it. On 'how' we live, not 'why' we live. 'Why' is not an answer you will get from a philosopher. Because it's not philosphy. You cannot approach it scientifically, because, again, it's pure conjecture. It's not philosophical. It's a religious question.
Asking 'why we live' to a philosopher is akin to asking a literary critic how a magnet works, or a biologist to explain the nature of gothicism in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
So, yeah, don't be surprised that, when you ask a religious question, you get a religious answer.
#29
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 06:42
Jostle
-
- Members
- 168 messages
Samuel_Valkyrie wrote...
MyChemicalBromance wrote...
I understand what he was trying to say, and it's based on a false premise. Or, more correctly, the assumption that the statement means anything is based on a false premise. Descartes fails to explain why there is still an "I" that performs the act of thinking. Why does "I" have to exist for thought to exist? Any answer I can see is based in faith.
Ah, I understand what's going on.
No, I freely admit that that is not the sort of answer Descartes will give you. That's because he didn't set out to answer the questions you are asking. In fact, no philosopher would.
Again, what Descartes was looking for is a kernel of pure truth, undeniable. "I think, therefore I am" is exactly that: Even if all is a lie, if logic itself is incorrect, if 1 +1 does NOT equal 2, there is still an *I* that exists to make those errors. Asking 'why' there is an 'I' would be pure conjecture, pure speculation. And, simply put, not scientific.
You see, what many people fail to realize, is that philosophy is a science. It's not random thoughts on life, but a structured, theoretical approach on how we experience life. On the nature of human existence, not the purpose of it. On 'how' we live, not 'why' we live. 'Why' is not an answer you will get from a philosopher. Because it's not philosphy. You cannot approach it scientifically, because, again, it's pure conjecture. It's not philosophical. It's a religious question.
Asking 'why we live' to a philosopher is akin to asking a literary critic how a magnet works, or a biologist to explain the nature of gothicism in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
So, yeah, don't be surprised that, when you ask a religious question, you get a religious answer.
What about philosophy of religion? :innocent:
#31
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 07:13
Ryuzetsu
-
- Members
- 470 messages
Those who believe is nothing, are fulfilled by the thing they believe in.
#32
Guest_Sion1138_*
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 07:20
Guest_Sion1138_*
Guest_Sion1138_*
-
- Guests
Ryuzetsu wrote...
Those who believe is nothing, are fulfilled by the thing they believe in.
Nothing is not a thing.
You can not be fulfilled with nothing.
Oxymoron.
Modifié par Sion1138, 31 mai 2012 - 07:22 .
#33
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 07:30
PreciousIsland
-
- Members
- 190 messages
"Don't worry, Donny, these men are cowards."
"Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos."
"Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos."
#34
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 07:54
darkchief10
-
- Members
- 2 056 messages
excellent read! it really makes one think about what we truly believe and whether it matters, i do believe that anyone who accepts that life is meaningless will no longer function in society, as nothing you do has any meaning, and good and evil are subjective terms
#35
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 08:07
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 188 messages
Well, OP, you raise some interesting questions. I think there are logical flaws in your reasoning though:
(1) To die is not an intrinsic attribute of organic life. There are real-life examples to prove this.
(2) "Nothing matters" or "meaninglessness" is a matter of perspective. It's rather likely that life as such has no meaning at all in the greater scheme of things because there is no greater scheme of things. The universe exists. Life exists until it doesn't. Period. But still, my life, life on Earth etc.. matters to *me*. The fallacy here is to think that all meaning must be eternal, ultimate, objective meaning. But there is no meaning without a mind for which that meaning exists. Ultimate meaning can only exist if there is an ultimate mind. But that there is no such thing (at least if you're not religious) doesn't mean there is no meaning at all. By interacting with my environment, I create meaning for myself. It doesn't matter that this is bound to end at some point.
I very much believe there is no ultimate meaning in life, no ultimate good and evil, no ultimate anything except that trivial fact that "something exists". All those are human-made concepts. But even though I live as an accident of nature, I have a mind and that mind creates meaning for itself. Because I create it, it exists. For a limited time. My thinking may encompass a century or a billion years, it is enough. I don't need eternity.
(3) Time is not a human invention. That we don't understand its nature and cannot conceive of "timelessness", even though there are hints that something like timelessness exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Instead, it would be more correct to say that causality *may* be a human invention. Yet again, it may not - it may just be a concept with limited scope, just like time is a concept with limited scope: it has no meaning from an out-of-the-universe perspective because it is created by the expansion of the universe.
How this impacts the points you make in your OP I'll attempt to point at a later time. Need to think more about this......
And lastly, a note about ME3: I very much doubt that this - what you point out in your OP - is the story Bioware wanted to tell. I think it's rather more likely they just screwed up.
(1) To die is not an intrinsic attribute of organic life. There are real-life examples to prove this.
(2) "Nothing matters" or "meaninglessness" is a matter of perspective. It's rather likely that life as such has no meaning at all in the greater scheme of things because there is no greater scheme of things. The universe exists. Life exists until it doesn't. Period. But still, my life, life on Earth etc.. matters to *me*. The fallacy here is to think that all meaning must be eternal, ultimate, objective meaning. But there is no meaning without a mind for which that meaning exists. Ultimate meaning can only exist if there is an ultimate mind. But that there is no such thing (at least if you're not religious) doesn't mean there is no meaning at all. By interacting with my environment, I create meaning for myself. It doesn't matter that this is bound to end at some point.
I very much believe there is no ultimate meaning in life, no ultimate good and evil, no ultimate anything except that trivial fact that "something exists". All those are human-made concepts. But even though I live as an accident of nature, I have a mind and that mind creates meaning for itself. Because I create it, it exists. For a limited time. My thinking may encompass a century or a billion years, it is enough. I don't need eternity.
(3) Time is not a human invention. That we don't understand its nature and cannot conceive of "timelessness", even though there are hints that something like timelessness exists, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Instead, it would be more correct to say that causality *may* be a human invention. Yet again, it may not - it may just be a concept with limited scope, just like time is a concept with limited scope: it has no meaning from an out-of-the-universe perspective because it is created by the expansion of the universe.
How this impacts the points you make in your OP I'll attempt to point at a later time. Need to think more about this......
And lastly, a note about ME3: I very much doubt that this - what you point out in your OP - is the story Bioware wanted to tell. I think it's rather more likely they just screwed up.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 31 mai 2012 - 08:17 .
#36
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 08:15
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
When I think of art, at least in the Europeon sense, I sense I great deal of nihilism coming from the art house cinema.
Ieldra, for example most likely knows who Werner Herzog is. I love that man to death. Why? Because he only asks questions about such things. Does life have meaning? Am I happy? What is infinite? What is madness? That makes him a great artist to me, simply because he allows the audience to choose what they believe. I believe that Herzog is willing to ask deep questions but never over step his bounds when talking with others.
Contrast that with someone in France, say Robert Bresson and you have a whole new ball game. His films are dry, humorless and steeped to the core in nihilism. One of the most depressing films I've ever seen is a film called, The Devil, Probably. That film ends with a man paying someone to shoot him because he cannot bring himself to do it himself. The worst part however, is that he is shot from behind, while posing a question about life is. He is then shot point blank in the face to finish him off. The film ends with the shooter running away. Bresson allows the audience to reach their own consensus even in the midst of the depression he has created.
Bioware was able to do that before, they only failed in execution at the very end. The difference is HOW much you allow the audience to interpret. The ending was not out ending to interpret, which is why it failed in my opinion.
Ieldra, for example most likely knows who Werner Herzog is. I love that man to death. Why? Because he only asks questions about such things. Does life have meaning? Am I happy? What is infinite? What is madness? That makes him a great artist to me, simply because he allows the audience to choose what they believe. I believe that Herzog is willing to ask deep questions but never over step his bounds when talking with others.
Contrast that with someone in France, say Robert Bresson and you have a whole new ball game. His films are dry, humorless and steeped to the core in nihilism. One of the most depressing films I've ever seen is a film called, The Devil, Probably. That film ends with a man paying someone to shoot him because he cannot bring himself to do it himself. The worst part however, is that he is shot from behind, while posing a question about life is. He is then shot point blank in the face to finish him off. The film ends with the shooter running away. Bresson allows the audience to reach their own consensus even in the midst of the depression he has created.
Bioware was able to do that before, they only failed in execution at the very end. The difference is HOW much you allow the audience to interpret. The ending was not out ending to interpret, which is why it failed in my opinion.
#37
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 08:24
dreamgazer
-
- Members
- 15 759 messages
Taboo-XX wrote...
Bioware was able to do that before, they only failed in execution at the very end. The difference is HOW much you allow the audience to interpret. The ending was not out ending to interpret, which is why it failed in my opinion.
Or if it is out for interpretation, we don't have a clear enough indication that it is.
The relays and the Normandy crash are a tether ball flying around with a clipped string, one that could very well just be a volleyball. I see it as a tether ball, something that needs to be interpreted; others see it as a volleyball, something to be taken independently. BioWare needs to tie that sucker down to interpretation, or make it clear that it's to be knocked around on its own.
And yes, I know that analogies can be a no-no, but I had fun with it and it makes sense to me.
#38
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 08:26
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
dreamgazer wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
Bioware was able to do that before, they only failed in execution at the very end. The difference is HOW much you allow the audience to interpret. The ending was not out ending to interpret, which is why it failed in my opinion.
Or if it is out for interpretation, we don't have a clear enough indication that it is.
The relays and the Normandy crash are a tether ball flying around with a clipped string, one that could very well just be a volleyball. I see it as a tether ball, something that needs to be interpreted; others see it as a volleyball, something to be taken independently. BioWare needs to tie that sucker down to interpretation, or make it clear that it's to be knocked around on its own.
And yes, I know that analogies can be a no-no, but I had fun with it and it makes sense to me.
I agree FULLY with this statement. I can only bear the scene in a symbolic sense, as any other interpretation just makes my head hurt.
But if some wish to interpret it literally I have no issue with it.
#39
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 08:28
Han Shot First
-
- Members
- 21 206 messages
Time isn't just a human construct.
Time is fundamental to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which may be one of the most important laws in all of physics. Time is an integral part to how the universe works, as we currently understand it.
Time is fundamental to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which may be one of the most important laws in all of physics. Time is an integral part to how the universe works, as we currently understand it.
#40
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 08:30
GAMMARAYBURST
-
- Members
- 13 messages
Very interesting take on it. I appreciate the effort you put into this. I personally think an ending of this nature could have worked if done correctly, but they were very much off the mark with the execution of it. If going this route, they should have emphasized the futility of our choices, and brought reality (not the idealist human view of reality) crashing down in a glorious finale. Absolutely cut out the crash landing scene, with it's completely out of place glimmer of hope, and also trash the stargazer scene. Yes, it would be a shift from the themes of the series up until that point, but at least it could have some sort of emotional and thought provoking result, instead of this tepid, confused, emotionless ending that we actually got.
#41
Posté 31 mai 2012 - 09:47
Ryuzetsu
-
- Members
- 470 messages
[quote]Sion1138 wrote...
[quote]Ryuzetsu wrote...
Those who believe is nothing, are fulfilled by the thing they believe in.[/quote]
Nothing is not a thing.
You can not be fulfilled with nothing.
Oxymoron.
That is what I 'm trying to say.
Besides I could never be a Nihilist anyway. I don't own a cricket bat, the only time I harass stoners is at the polling booth, I don't (nor would I ever) own a marmot, and if I ever tried to cut off my wife's toe well... I'm a sound sleeper so you do the math.
[quote]Ryuzetsu wrote...
Those who believe is nothing, are fulfilled by the thing they believe in.[/quote]
Nothing is not a thing.
You can not be fulfilled with nothing.
Oxymoron.
That is what I 'm trying to say.
Besides I could never be a Nihilist anyway. I don't own a cricket bat, the only time I harass stoners is at the polling booth, I don't (nor would I ever) own a marmot, and if I ever tried to cut off my wife's toe well... I'm a sound sleeper so you do the math.
#42
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 02:50
MyChemicalBromance
-
- Members
- 2 020 messages
ardensia wrote...
Now I'm curious how many people who liked the ending have already come to terms with nihilism.
I just realised, if Mac and Casey are actually Nihilists, then the Retakers sent a bunch of cupcakes to Nihilists.
If I ever start a band, it's going to be called Cupcakes for Nihilists.
#44
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 02:56
TheClonesLegacy
-
- Members
- 19 014 messages
Sorry I saw you Wrote Nihilism,
So instead of reading your post I Watched The Big Lebowski instead....
So instead of reading your post I Watched The Big Lebowski instead....
#45
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 03:18
SolidisusSnake1
-
- Members
- 890 messages
You're are reading WAY too much into the ending man the ending was not some attempt to showcase nihilism it was just a ****ty ending where they tried to rip off Deus Ex and failed.
#46
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 03:43
Evo_9
-
- Members
- 1 233 messages
N7 ironman wrote...
*Starts to read thread*
*ADHD mode engaged*
*Gets distracted by something shiny*
#47
Guest_Paulomedi_*
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 04:19
Guest_Paulomedi_*
Guest_Paulomedi_*
-
- Guests
Very good read OP. NIce to see something different from " I @#$%¨& hate the endings".
#48
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 05:12
SC0TTYD00
-
- Members
- 187 messages
I am free to find, choose or even invent my own meaning.
In life and also, what we are doing now with the Mass Effect 3 endng.
In life and also, what we are doing now with the Mass Effect 3 endng.
Modifié par SC0TTYD00, 01 juin 2012 - 05:13 .
#49
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 05:32
SAmaster01
-
- Members
- 192 messages
You are giving the writers too much credit, and I'm calling BS.
The basis for your theory is that the main point is 'we are all going to die' and that the Geth/ synthetic/organic conflict was the main focus of the games.
A: 'We are all going to die' is such a horrible premise for story people don't write about it for a reason. If this was the Writers intent, they are either terminally stupid, or too artsy for thier own good.
B: The Synthetic/Organic conflict still is a side plot, resolved on Rannoch, not on the Citadel. I'll likely be acused of simply hating the endings, but the whole organic/synthetic arguement the Catalyst gives is still BS.
The basis for your theory is that the main point is 'we are all going to die' and that the Geth/ synthetic/organic conflict was the main focus of the games.
A: 'We are all going to die' is such a horrible premise for story people don't write about it for a reason. If this was the Writers intent, they are either terminally stupid, or too artsy for thier own good.
B: The Synthetic/Organic conflict still is a side plot, resolved on Rannoch, not on the Citadel. I'll likely be acused of simply hating the endings, but the whole organic/synthetic arguement the Catalyst gives is still BS.
#50
Posté 01 juin 2012 - 06:22
RaidShock
-
- Members
- 75 messages
For those doubting it, this is definitely worth the read. Thanks for a very well thought out and written post, Bromance.
