192 réponses à ce sujet

[MyChemicalBromance]

CosmicGnosis wrote...



I like this, but do I actually believe it? Hm... I still don't think this justifies making a choice that physically alters all life in the galaxy.

It doesn't. But what I'm contending is that nothing can be justified in an absolute sense. Whichever set of morals you try to justify it by, you cannot deny that those morals are a creation of humanity, and thus they are not absolutes. The values you use aren't even universal to our culture, let alone our species, and let alone the galaxy. You will be making a flawed, illogical, and ignorant decision no matter which ending you choose.

However, if one of those endings could lead to the creation of meaning, then that is correct choice.

What the Catalyst seems to have realized however (with Synthesis being inevitable) is that all paths lead to the same end. If we can reach true meaning, it will happen regardless of our decisions, much less our intentions.

Modifié par MyChemicalBromance, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[CosmicGnosis]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...



I like this, but do I actually believe it? Hm... I still don't think this justifies making a choice that physically alters all life in the galaxy.

It doesn't. But what I'm contending is that nothing can be justified in an absolute sense. Whichever set of morals you try to justify it by, you cannot deny that those morals are a creation of humanity, and thus they are not absolutes. The values you use aren't even universal to our culture, let alone our species, and let alone the galaxy. You will be making a flawed, illogical, and ignorant decision no matter which ending you choose.

However, if one of those endings could lead to the creation of meaning, then that is correct choice.

What the Catalyst seems to have realized however (with Synthesis being inevitable) is that all paths lead to the same end. If we can reach true meaning, it will happen regardless of our decisions, much less our intentions.

So then the inevitability of Synthesis suggests that the Catalyst has failed? That there is no way to preserve "true" organic life?

[Bill Casey]

Mortality makes life more valuable, not less...
If you live forever, the state of being alive becomes something trivial...
Something to be taken for granted...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:12 .

[MyChemicalBromance]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...



I like this, but do I actually believe it? Hm... I still don't think this justifies making a choice that physically alters all life in the galaxy.

It doesn't. But what I'm contending is that nothing can be justified in an absolute sense. Whichever set of morals you try to justify it by, you cannot deny that those morals are a creation of humanity, and thus they are not absolutes. The values you use aren't even universal to our culture, let alone our species, and let alone the galaxy. You will be making a flawed, illogical, and ignorant decision no matter which ending you choose.

However, if one of those endings could lead to the creation of meaning, then that is correct choice.

What the Catalyst seems to have realized however (with Synthesis being inevitable) is that all paths lead to the same end. If we can reach true meaning, it will happen regardless of our decisions, much less our intentions.

So then the inevitability of Synthesis suggests that the Catalyst has failed? That there is no way to preserve "true" organic life?

Yes. The construction of the Crucible proves that the Reapers can be destroyed, and that the "solution won't work anymore."

The only apparent logic jump is "Reapers won't work=Nothing will work." However, the statement isn't so much about the Reapers as it is about the amount of energy the Crucible is able to harness. It's the largest realization of Eezo's ability to violate conservation of energy, and thus reality.

Much like how no amount of military presence will ever force nuclear weapons "back into the bottle," no amount of Reaper presence will force the Crucible technology away either.

[MyChemicalBromance]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mortality makes life more valuable, not less...
If you live forever, the state of being alive becomes something trivial...
Something to be taken for granted...

Regardless of how long your life is, make no mistake that it was "granted." You didn't put a lot of effort into being conceived.

[CosmicGnosis]

Bill Casey wrote...

Mortality makes life more valuable, not less...
If you live forever, the state of being alive becomes something trivial...
Something to be taken for granted...

Yeah, I could argue that I simply accept that I cannot live forever, and can find more meaning in a brief existence.

[Bill Casey]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

Regardless of how long your life is, make no mistake that it was "granted." You didn't put a lot of effort into being conceived.

I'll have you know I was a very strong swimmer...

[MyChemicalBromance]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Mortality makes life more valuable, not less...
If you live forever, the state of being alive becomes something trivial...
Something to be taken for granted...

Yeah, I could argue that I simply accept that I cannot live forever, and can find more meaning in a brief existence.

I'm not saying immortality=true meaning, much like I'm not saying that Synthesis=true meaning.

Immortality is a tool you'd need to reach it (well, that we would most likely need to reach it), but it is not ultimate goal.

Besides, the concept of "you" probably isn't going to stick around long in the same room as true meaning, so you could equate it to death if you want.

[CosmicGnosis]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...



I like this, but do I actually believe it? Hm... I still don't think this justifies making a choice that physically alters all life in the galaxy.

It doesn't. But what I'm contending is that nothing can be justified in an absolute sense. Whichever set of morals you try to justify it by, you cannot deny that those morals are a creation of humanity, and thus they are not absolutes. The values you use aren't even universal to our culture, let alone our species, and let alone the galaxy. You will be making a flawed, illogical, and ignorant decision no matter which ending you choose.

However, if one of those endings could lead to the creation of meaning, then that is correct choice.

What the Catalyst seems to have realized however (with Synthesis being inevitable) is that all paths lead to the same end. If we can reach true meaning, it will happen regardless of our decisions, much less our intentions.

So then the inevitability of Synthesis suggests that the Catalyst has failed? That there is no way to preserve "true" organic life?

Yes. The construction of the Crucible proves that the Reapers can be destroyed, and that the "solution won't work anymore."

The only apparent logic jump is "Reapers won't work=Nothing will work." However, the statement isn't so much about the Reapers as it is about the amount of energy the Crucible is able to harness. It's the largest realization of Eezo's ability to violate conservation of energy, and thus reality.

Much like how no amount of military presence will ever force nuclear weapons "back into the bottle," no amount of Reaper presence will force the Crucible technology away either.

This intrigues me. This means that the ending could be more about the Catalyst than Shepard. Sure, Shepard makes the decisions, but the Catalyst's perspective is the root cause of the entire series. Everything happens because of the Catalyst's interpretation of its mission.

Once the Crucible docks, the Catalyst realizes that everything it had worked for was meaningless. It was doomed to fail. That's the nihilism. The Catalyst confirms that it will never be able to preserve organic life. Even when Shepard refuses to use the Crucible, the Catalyst still fails.

Also, our morality completely collapses under the weight of the final choices. No matter what we choose, it breaks us. We are dealing with a nihilistic entity on an impossible mission. And there is no way to predict what the distant future holds. Thus, none of the choices matter.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:30 .

[inko1nsiderate]

I like the way you think MyChemicalBromance. That isn't much to add to this discussion, but the way you describe the inherent synthetic/organic conflict seems to be mirrored by Javik's thoughts on the matter.

[Bill Casey]

Meaning is an abstract concept. It is something to be found or given...
If living things ascribe meaning to something, it has meaning...

No matter how large, small, long or brief that may be...
It is significant and meaningful because something finds it so. That is enough...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:30 .

[Hey]

I cant believe i just read that entire ****ing thing...

[CosmicGnosis]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

I like the way you think MyChemicalBromance. That isn't much to add to this discussion, but the way you describe the inherent synthetic/organic conflict seems to be mirrored by Javik's thoughts on the matter.

Yeah, that's what I think validates his interpretation. Everything about the ending seems to match Javik's statements. And they aren't pleasant. That's why the ending is so uncomfortable. It brings us face to face with a cosmic horror. And the Catalyst is not necessarily that cosmic horror. Rather, it's the Catalyst that is the one battling the cosmic horror... and fails. Organic life is doomed. It cannot be saved.

EDIT: You know what, this must be what Indoctrination feels like.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[StarcloudSWG]

You assume that the 'technological singularity' means that *only* synthetic life will exist. No one can know what happens past the singularity. That's why it's called a singularity.

You also assume that the singularity is inevitable.

Neither premise can be proven.

[CosmicGnosis]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

You assume that the 'technological singularity' means that *only* synthetic life will exist. No one can know what happens past the singularity. That's why it's called a singularity.

You also assume that the singularity is inevitable.

Neither premise can be proven.

As the universe ages, organic life will have a harder time sustaining itself, much less coming into being. It makes complete sense that synthetics will be better-equipped to handle a universe that is hostile to organic life. As the stars begin to burn out and the universe darkens, only synthetics will remain, until they finally die as well.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:43 .

[Bill Casey]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Organic life is doomed. It cannot be saved.

The Reapers couldn't even wipe out their own organic creators in over a billion years time...

The Reapers are a perfect foil for Shepard because they embody the ideology of fatalism and inevitability, while Shepard represents your choices mattering...

[inko1nsiderate]

Bill Casey wrote...

Meaning is an abstract concept. It is something to be found or given...
If living things ascribe meaning to something, it has meaning...

No matter how large, small, long or brief that may be...
It is significant and meaningful because something finds it so. That is enough...

I agree with this.  This is essentially the existential argument.  I think even 'nice nihilists' have trouble not ascribing meaning to things that are mundane.  This is the point of the thread, isn't it?  Synthetics see humanity pointing to these things as meaningful, sees it for the lie it is, and then organics can't help but react badly because we ascribe deep meaning to a lot of things and then insist this meaning be at least respected.  It wouldn't be a big deal, except that we are mortal.  Like Liara says in ME1, shorter live spans gives humanity this ferocity that the Asari lack.  So much sound and fury that means nothing.  The synthetics end up acting in self-defense and the organics must overreact and this leads to conflict inevitably.

[AdrynBliss]

One of the big red flags that should be going up concerning syth is no one being no matter how intelligent has the right to say ok now all life is ready for this. its not something that can be granted by any one. Perhaps syth is the true final evolution maybe not but it should be reached naturally and thats not even taking into account that sheps been fighting against beings being forcibly changed without their consent for the entire series.
I'm not saying destroy is 'good', wiping out edi and the geth was horrible but making that tough call is something thats reiterated through out the series, compared to syth and what it means destroy was the way to go and my firm belief that it was the 'right' choice and likely what would be 'canon'.

Modifié par AdrynBliss, 01 novembre 2012 - 06:54 .

[Bill Casey]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

As the universe ages, organic life will have a harder time sustaining itself, much less coming into being. It makes complete sense that synthetics will be better-equipped to handle a universe that is hostile to organic life. As the stars begin to burn out and the universe darkens, only synthetics will remain, until they finally die as well.

ehhh, another Big Bang'll come around probably...

[inko1nsiderate]

AdrynBliss wrote...

One of the big red flags that should be going up concerning syth is no one being no matter how intelligent has the right to so ok now all life is ready for this. its not something that can be granted by any one. Perhaps syth is the true final evolution maybe not but it should be reached naturally and thats not even taking into account that sheps been fighting against beings being forcibly changed without their consent for the entire series.
I'm not saying destroy is 'good', wiping out edi and the geth was horrible but making that tough call is something thats reiterated through out the series, compared to syth and what it means destroy was the way to go and my firm belief that it was th 'right' choice and likely what would be 'canon'.

Paragade and Renegade sheps make plenty of choices that ignore what people think or feel 'for the greater good'.  And Paragon shep has the option to sacrifice 300,000 Batarians to slow down the Reapers.  I'm not saying this justifies synthesis, I'm just saying it justifies my signature (different Shepards should choose different endings).

[Zazzerka]

Bill Casey wrote...

ehhh, another Big Bang'll come around probably...

We probably aren't even living in the first universe that has existed.

Sorry, not on topic, just interesting.

[inko1nsiderate]

Bill Casey wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

As the universe ages, organic life will have a harder time sustaining itself, much less coming into being. It makes complete sense that synthetics will be better-equipped to handle a universe that is hostile to organic life. As the stars begin to burn out and the universe darkens, only synthetics will remain, until they finally die as well.

ehhh, another Big Bang'll come around probably...

Not if accelerating expansion is correct.  Then the universe dies in heat death, the last protons eventually decay (if there is physics beyond the SM), and eventually there is nothing anywhere.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Bill Casey wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

As the universe ages, organic life will have a harder time sustaining itself, much less coming into being. It makes complete sense that synthetics will be better-equipped to handle a universe that is hostile to organic life. As the stars begin to burn out and the universe darkens, only synthetics will remain, until they finally die as well.

ehhh, another Big Bang'll come around probably...

It's hypothesized that either the universe will grow so big that it will tear itself apart in an event called the Big Rip, or that gravity will overpower the growth and the universe will crah back down into it's pre-Big Bang state in an event called the Big Crunch.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 01 novembre 2012 - 07:07 .

[CosmicGnosis]

I think I'm finally having some epiphanies here. The ending is finally starting to make significant sense. It may actually be an incoherent mess and this is all just an accident, but at least I can salvage it in some way.

You see, Shepard is battling the inevitability of the Catalyst/Reapers all this time, only to discover they they are battling an even greater inevitability: the demise of organic life. The revelation of the ending is that organic life truly is doomed. The Catalyst failed. The choices don't matter. All lead to the same end. Synthesis is the only choice that offers something new. Control and Destroy don't change anything.

However... you can accept all of this and still choose Destroy. It's your way of saying that you don't care about the inevitability of organic extinction. What will happen will happen. So be it.

EDIT: Wait, if none of the choices matter because they all lead to the same end, you could probably argue that they all matter. Why? Because you can assign any meaning to them that you want. The choices mean whatever you wish them to mean.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 01 novembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[Bill Casey]

If anything, the Catalyst underestimated organic life...