47 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Though I'd be interested in seeing how the Dalish, Revini, and Avvar protect their mages from abominations, I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more harsh.

Don't Rivaini Seers *intentionally* become possessed?

[ledod]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Though I'd be interested in seeing how the Dalish, Revini, and Avvar protect their mages from abominations, I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more harsh.

Don't Rivaini Seers *intentionally* become possessed?

yes

[vortex216]

Blood Magic is not about morallity, I support Anders and Fenris's you gotta be insane, stupid or desperate to use it. Consolting with demons is never good ( not all but most do), and eventually the mage will crack and not only use ther own but other peoples life fforce for power. Otherwise, I'm pro mage.

[Wulfram]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Though I'd be interested in seeing how the Dalish, Revini, and Avvar protect their mages from abominations, I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more harsh.

Don't Rivaini Seers *intentionally* become possessed?

Being possessed by a relatively nice, or even relatively weak spirit might actually make sense as a precautionary measure.  Means you can't get taken over by one of the really big and nasty ones.

[StarcloudSWG]

Archyyy wrote...

Faith doesnt qualify as a reason to believe which is my point. Without a reason to believe into something one shouldnt believe into something. Its irrational and often very harmful. Making up dogma and beliefs doesnt constitute as an explanation. Its faith and faith, which literally means a belief without evidence, is stupid and irrational. If you find a world without a "higher being" a cold place then the fault is in you. I certainly dont and simply because one doesnt like something doesnt mean its not true.

"Religion attempts to answer the questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from? Why do we exist? What is our purpose? How should we treat each other? What happens to us after our bodies die?"

That is the realm of philosophy, usually not science and especially not religion. Religion can only answer with useless dogma or guesswork whereas philosophy can try to reach a rational conclusion. Even science does better than religion as it has an actual basis in which to start from. Biology and chemistry for example. If it doesnt have a basis the question can often be dismissed as useless. But philosophy and thinking can provide far better answers.

There isnt any purpose for us being here for example. We're here because the conditions on our planet which is one of trillions and trillions happened to make it possible. Its not strange that, despite it being unlikely, the conditions for life were met on at least one of countless planets. No more explanation is needed. If you want purpose you can decide it for yourself. Theres no other way. Happiness for example is a good place to start. As to where we came from science can explain it perfectly with chemistry and biology. And it has solid evidence to back all that up. No faith is needed. When we die we rot in the ground and thats all there is to it. Our bodies turn to whatever formed them in the first place and our minds cease to exist. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

If you tried to answer any of those with religious dogma youd have no basis but faith and some old books written by ignorant nomads millennia ago. Faith doesnt count as a basis since it has neither empirical nor rational proof. And I cant believe that youd believe the word of nomads that lived millennia ago rather than modern day scientists with actual knowledge or that of philosophers who try to answer those questions with thought and rationality.

1: I'm glad you've found a philosophy and worldview that works for you. However, it doesn't work for everyone, or even most people, and *that* is why Religion exists. Whether you think it is rational or not is irrelevant. Religion exists. Religion will always exist wherever there are people. Period.

2: You assume that I follow one of the Abrahamic faiths. You assume I'm arguing that following such a faith is a good thing. What you've said comes close to a backhanded personal attack. Please eliminate all reference to specific real-world religions in future discussion here. 

3: And what do you think Religion is? Do you think it is somehow devoid of philosophy, of moral reasoning, of ethical reasoning? Religion is the foundation of the study of philosophy and ethics. Religion arises out of the human need to understand; without that need, there would not be philosophy or science either.

You also make the open and obvious assumption that religion is devoid of reason and rationality. This is true only if you follow it blindly. Few religions are meant to be followed blindly; mostly it is the church that has accreted around the religion that insists on obedience without understanding.

4. The very definition of faith is belief in something that canNOT be proven empirically. This is clearly something unsatisfying for you, personally, but that does not mean it should be unsatisfying for everyone, even in a fictional world. Especially when said fictional world was written in a way to evoke how people in the real world actually behave.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 09 novembre 2012 - 03:20 .

[Archyyy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

1: I'm glad you've found a philosophy and worldview that works for you. However, it doesn't work for everyone, or even most people, and *that* is why Religion exists. Whether you think it is rational or not is irrelevant. Religion exists. Religion will always exist wherever there are people. Period.

2: You assume that I follow one of the Abrahamic faiths. You assume I'm arguing that following such a faith is a good thing. What you've said comes close to a backhanded personal attack. Please eliminate all reference to specific real-world religions in future discussion here. 

3: And what do you think Religion is? Do you think it is somehow devoid of philosophy, of moral reasoning, of ethical reasoning? Religion is the foundation of the study of philosophy and ethics. Religion arises out of the human need to understand; without that need, there would not be philosophy or science either.

You also make the open and obvious assumption that religion is devoid of reason and rationality. This is true only if you follow it blindly. Few religions are meant to be followed blindly; mostly it is the church that has accreted around the religion that insists on obedience without understanding.

4. The very definition of faith is belief in something that canNOT be proven empirically. This is clearly something unsatisfying for you, personally, but that does not mean it should be unsatisfying for everyone, even in a fictional world. Especially when said fictional world was written in a way to evoke how people in the real world actually behave.

1. I havent found nor adopted one as is. I've created my own and taken influences from things I find rational. Its irrelevant whether others find rational beliefs suitable or not, theyre still more correct than their irrational beliefs. Religion does exist and it exists because the human mind is fond of it. Spiritual beliefs also will exist for as long as the average human mind is what it is. Thats true and im not arguing that. My point is that faith and the fondness towards religious beliefs the human mind has is irrational and religious beliefs cant be used to explain a thing. Religion explains without reasoning and instead with faith. And faith doesnt explain but simply states and believes. Just because faith and religion exist doesnt mean theyre any more correct.

2. Its irrelevant whether you follow the abrahamic faiths. The essence of faith is still the same which is my point. The chantry though is largely based on the abrahamic faiths so if it should be compared to anything its those.

3. Religion is mostly devoid of philosophy and reasoning. At least the abrahamic ones. If you follow buddhism for example the situation is a bit more different. The major ones adhere to dogma. Its something that is correct because whatever god they follow says so and theres no room for criticism. There isnt any reason beyond god said so to believe in it. Thats also the case with the chantry. There are things that can be looked at critically and found to be good in these religions but the religions dont come to that conclusion with the right way. They say their teachings are correct because their book says so. And the book is correct because its written by this or that god. Same with the chantry. They dont back their beliefs with evidence or rationality but instead with dogma and faith.

Religion is most certainly not the foundation for philosophy nor arts. They work on entirely different principles. Theyve been used by religion at times but that doesnt mean religion would be theyre foundation. Philosophy for example literally means the search for wisdom. And the method is either empirical or rational. Not based on faith.

Religion, among other more important things, rises from the need to understand. But it also rises from the fear of death, the seeking of comfort, the desire to have something infallible and perfect in the world, the need for a perfect and good authority etc. Those come before the need to understand. None of those have anyhting to do with it being correct of false however. It just explains why the average human mind is fond of spirituality. Science and philosophy rise from the need to understand too but that doesnt mean religion somehow becomes more correct.

The abrahamic faiths which the chantry is based on are meant to be followed blindly. Their books are pretty clear on that. They offer dogma and faith and both are always blind. If you dont believe or if you question the authority of their gods youre wrong. And with no evidence or reason to believe in theyre gods or their omnipotence it requires blind faith. Their dogmas arent open to criticism either. Only interpretation. They cant be changed fundamentally. Science and philosophy evolve whereas religion doesnt. It only gives way or changes if it absolutely must.

4. Faith by definiton is a belief without proof. Its as simple as that. And if something cant be proven and falls beyond the realm of proof and rational thinking its useless and doesnt need to be considered. And all gods do. Along with santa claus and all other mythological beings. If however we look at them scientifically we find that their simply claims and can dismiss them as false. Its completely irrelevant what feelings the existance or non existance of these things evoke in humans. Feelings dont change the truth. Just because people dont find it nice or comforting to not believe doesnt mean they should believe.

[Zeta42]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Zeta42 wrote...

Well, it was kinda obvious that the Chantry warns against using magic to enslave people, wasn't it? To prevent a situation like in Tevinter. But please, someone explain to me how it ties with forcing mages to choose between Tranquility and death.

The Harrowing predates the Chantry.

Though I'd be interested in seeing how the Dalish, Revini, and Avvar protect their mages from abominations, I wouldn't be surprised if they were even more harsh.

Don't know about Rivaini and Avvar, but the Dalish have only one precaution against abominations. When a Keeper becomes possessed, they are to be killed.

[CaptainBlackGold]

The issue in Thedas is not between "reason" and "religion" as some here are arguing. "Reason" is simply a process to ensure that the conclusions reached stem logically from the initial premises. However, reason alone cannot demonstrate that the premises are necessarily "true."

Therefore let us not confuse "reason" with "materialism" i.e., which begins with an unproved, and ultimately unprovable assumption. In this case, "religion" can be and often is just as "reasonable" as "materialism" once you grant the initial premise.

Furthermore, once one has accepted an initial premise, that premise itself tends to deny "evidence" that would support any other premise. Real world example; do ghosts exist? The materialist would say "no" and either deny or reinterpret any "evidence" to fit within a materialist framework. Those who say "yes" to ghosts can look at the same phenomenon and insist that the "evidence" supports their beliefs.

In Thedas, there are certain phenomenon; spirits, possession, the fade, the black city, magic, etc. that all "prove" that the world is more than what we would call "materialistic." The Chantry, the Elves and the Dwarfs all offer differing explanations for these phenomenon. Furthermore, the writers deliberately do not tell us which one of these "explanations" is the true one.

And if one thinks the Chantry is "oppressive" and "dogmatic," then one has never held an opinion that differs from the dominant worldview of any modern university - can everyone say "Intelligent Design?" The history of the scientific movement is that the dominant worldview suppresses and denies the minority view until a paradigm shift takes place (Kuhn). Until that shift takes place, tenure is denied, scholars/scientists are ostracized, refused employment and their careers destroyed by those with different presuppositions.

In comparison, Thedas is a most "liberal" place at the time we first encounter it. The Dalish are allowed mostly, to live and believe as they will. The Dwarfs venerate their paragons and "reasonable" accommodation has been made to treat mages like people while protecting the average citizen from what is the equivalent of walking nuclear bombs (as opposed to the Qunari and what they do to their mages).

But please, do not confuse "materialism" with "reason."

And for the record, John Cleese is a brilliant comedian, but a terrible philosopher. Every person who "began" a major religion (Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, etc.) would have insisted that they were giving "true" insights into the ultimate nature of reality, the existence of God, Brahma, etc. and the proper way to live as a result of that "revelation."

[StarcloudSWG]

Yes, but the point there wasn't about John Cleese specifically, but the observation that intelligent people tend to express themselves in metaphorical terms, and that when these metaphors are presented to people of average intelligence, those people take the metaphors literally.

When applied to an office setting, this tendency results in easily corrected mistakes. When applied to a religion where the founder is long dead, this leads to some very unfortunate results, ranging from injustices against individuals, to a schism within the faith to outright war.

I've come across this same observation in standard psychology and sociology articles, Mr. Cleese just happened to remind me of it.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 09 novembre 2012 - 08:17 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Regardless of whether John Cleese said it first, or one read it in Psychology 101, the statement that the founders of religions used metaphorical language that their followers then misinterpreted is factually wrong; at least in the sense of their fundamental beliefs/practices. That is not to say that they did not use metaphorical language on occasion (e.g., "This is my body...") but whether their poor dumb followers were just too stupid to figure out what they meant until some nice, 19th century materialist could come along and explain it all to them... (sarcasm intended).

However, to prove the above, would require us to take a long and controversial tangent, examining the presuppositions, assumptions and beliefs of a wide variety of people. I fear though that taking that tangent might well get your thread locked unless we can in some way, relate it back to DA3, the Mage/Chantry War and how religious beliefs in the Thedas universe might work out.

In game, Thedas has certain phenomenon; magic, spirits, demons, the fade etc. Different groups interpret this phenomenon differently - i.e., Merril insisting that the distinction between "spirits" and "demons" is an artificial construct of the chantry hence why she is not concerned about a "demon" helping her fix the mirror. In effect, Merril makes my point - same phenomenon, different interpretations based on pre-existing beliefs.

But that does not in any way imply or necessitate that Andreste (SIC) was misinterpreted by her followers because she spoke in "metaphors" which they took too literally. Every piece of evidence we have in game, suggests that she literally believed what she taught and expected her followers to do likewise - i.e., she really did appear to think that she was in some sense the "bride" of the Maker.

Whether she was right or wrong, we do not know, because the writers have deliberately made the "truth" of this ambiguous - and no amount of meta-gaming knowledge is going to help us because they can and will change the "facts" to suit their narrative goals.

But believe it or not, in some way, I was actually trying to give a little support to StarcloudSWG because I felt that the thread was in danger of being taken over by materialists who wanted to do some religion bashing. Love it, hate it or be apathetic over it, religion is a crucial part of the Thedas universe - and will continue to play a central role in its history (see how I tried to bring this back to DA3? :-).

[StarcloudSWG]

I did use the words 'tend to' for a reason. They are not throwaway words.

That said, the original point remains, though possibly in modified form; "Magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him." has multiple meanings. Only the most literal interpretation is that of "Mages should only be servants and slaves."

And thank you for your support. This really wasn't about 'religion and how it's nonsense and should be relegated to the dustheap of history'.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 10 novembre 2012 - 01:35 .

[Thomas0910]

blood magic is not evil, BUT it is taught by demons,
and makes mages even more attractive to them.
Of course the chantry declares that blood magic is evil.
how else should have andraste and her followers encouraged
the people to revolt against the tevinter empire if not by
declaring that blood magic is evil?
blood magic was the reason for the tevinter empires superiority
and lots of slaves, back then a great part of the society,
were slayed to fuel the blood magic, surely something lots of
andrastes people wanted to stand up against, even if not believing in the maker
she could have hardly said "well, lets free us from the empire
and use their magic and kill all those innocents just like they do"

[CaptainBlackGold]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

I did use the words 'tend to' for a reason. They are not throwaway words.

That said, the original point remains, though possibly in modified form; "Magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him." has multiple meanings. Only the most literal interpretation is that of "Mages should only be servants and slaves."

Not to be snarky or dissrespectful (seriously here) but your above quote that "Mages should only be servants and slaves" is not a "literal" interpretation of "Magic is meant to serve man..." And if someone can show me in either of the two DA's where this interpretation is offered I would appreciate it.

Maybe I missed something, but I do not recall the circles ever being considered an application of this principle - instead, they were a "health and safety" measure - some control had to be exercized over mages just because they are so potentionally dangerous. I remember reading a codex entry somewhere, a long time ago about how the circles came into being so I'll leave the direct quotation to someone whose memory cells were not destroyed by a dissolute youth...

The issue that the writers have set up looks to me to be a variation of Lord Acton's dictum, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Mages have power. Without some external control, you have the Tevinter Empire where magic ruled over man, both the magisters as well as all the slave populations. Something had to be done to keep the demons at bay because the mages were constantly seeking more power both over "norms" as well as other mages.

As I see it, the circles invited repression and prejudice, which in turn instigated enmity and rebellion amongst the mages, which in turn demanded more repression, ad nauseum...

I think the writers intentionally set it up this way with abominations on one hand, and sick, perverted templars on the other because, it is not just a black and white issue - it was always intended to be complex and often morally gray with no clear right or wrong. The people of Thedas had been given a difficult world to live in and they are fumbling their way to finding a solution.

But in no way do I see the conflict stemming from a misinterpretation or missapplication of their most basic ethical value; magic is a powerful tool but a horrible and oppressive master/mistress. In effect I see the Chantry here as offering a really progressive ethical system by making room for mages - acknowledging that they too are a part of the "Maker's" plan and trying to provide mages with a value system that would lead away from magical abuse.

The alternative is either to follow the Qunari and treat them like pit bulls, or, to immediately murder every child who ever shows any magical ability at all. For all its warts, the Chantry should be given some credit for trying to find a more "humane" way to deal with the real problem that every village has the potential of having a demon ravage them, at any moment - think Connor and Redcliffe - one boy, partially trained, one Desire Demon and without the Warden, the entire town would have been destroyed.

So everyone who claims that the mages are unjustly oppressed has to face the consequences of what just not one kid, but an entire army of abominations could do to a nation. Maybe the people of Thedas have not yet found a solution; at least the circles seemed to have disbanded. But what to replace it with?

So I do not think that the problem is "literal" vs. "metaphorical" but rather how to balance liberty and safety. To err on either side is to invite disaster for everyone, mage and "norm" alike.

[Archyyy]

One more distraction from the original topic and im done. Promise.

@CaptainBlackGold

In the dragon age universe there are things that cant be explained with materialism unlike in the real world. Dont try denying materialism in the real world. Everything we have in this world is of materia or are emergent from it. Youve read some philosophy obviously so I take it youve read metaphysics as well and know about emergent materialism for example. There is materia and then there are ideas born out of materia. The brain namely. Materialism in one form or another is the rational way to go, believing in something that lacks evidence simply based on faith or preference is irrational and wrong.

Back to Thedas. Even in Thedas more reality based alternatives for religions and beliefs exist according to much of the lore. The old gods for example simply being high dragons in hibernation and awaken by the blight. The nature of the fade and magic though arent explained but doesnt mean religions automatically becomes correct. The faiths of thedas are attempts to explain something without the means to explain it and are therefore useless at explaining it. These things simply arent known yet so we cant make assumptions. Much like how everything came to exist in our world isnt known. We dont know but its useless trying to explain it without the means to do so. Science is getting closer all the time though.

And now to the original topic. The verse shouldnt be taken for truth just because its written in the chant but if we look at it critically it has some points. Magic shouldnt be something without bounds. Mages arent allowed to do whatever they wish much like in the imperium. Ends do however justify the means even with magic like with Avernus for example. His research despite being blood magicky and cruel to certain could yield results that cause far greater good. Also his attempts to defend the wardens with blood magic and demons from a tyrant were justified despite failing.

Just because magic is bound by morality though doesnt mean it should be shunned or feared. It has great potential. Mages also shouldnt be imprisoned so stricly, supervised and taught instead, and they shouldnt be stripped of opportunity and everything else simply because theyre born mages.

Also blood magic is not evil in itself. Nothing is evil in itself. Its only evil if used wrong but has great potential if used for good. It should be supervised though and some limits as to who can practice it responsibly should be placed.

Modifié par Archyyy, 10 novembre 2012 - 02:58 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Archyyy wrote...

One more distraction from the original topic and im done. Promise.

@CaptainBlackGold

In the dragon age universe there are things that cant be explained with materialism unlike in the real world. Dont try denying materialism in the real world. Everything we have in this world is of materia or are emergent from it. Youve read some philosophy obviously so I take it youve read metaphysics as well and know about emergent materialism for example. There is materia and then there are ideas born out of materia. The brain namely. Materialism in one form or another is the rational way to go, believing in something that lacks evidence simply based on faith or preference is irrational and wrong.

{Much Good Stuff Snipped...}

Not quite; what we have is not "materia" but "phenomenon" that is, things that can be perceived. The real issue for discussion is that some people "perceive" things that others do not. For example, say that a man was born blind - in a world of blind people. Light, as we know it, could not be perceived - therefore, would it exist? What would the most brilliant scientists say about even the possibility of light? 

In the DA universe, there are phenomenon that can be perceived (magic, spirits, demons, the fade, etc.) that we, in our universe would consider "supernatural" or "metaphysical." But its origins has yet to be demonstrated, as well as its explanation.

The DA writing team could come up with a materialistic explanation for this phenomenon; that Thedas is surrounded by some form of energy source that utilizes previously unknown portions of the brain that some "gifted" people can use to generate physical phenomenon without physical exertion. Or, they could just say, "A wizard did it..." It's their world and they can play with it how they want... At least to this point, they have chosen to give a "metaphysical" answer, even if they have not yet filled in the details.

However, whether they realize it or not, or intend it or not, they have opened a "can of worms" because they have based the morality of that world firmly on some sort of metaphysical, or supernatural basis - "People should live this way because we can bring the Maker back and all live in a paradise with puppies and butterflies and no IRS..."

Materialism, by itself, does not and cannot provide that same moral basis - whatever is, is right, because there is nothing outside of the system to generate values. Why shouldn't mages rule, however they want? Why shouldn't templars take advantage of mages, whenever they want? It is that "why" question that a strict materialism cannot answer.

Heinlein tried to offer an explanation in "Starship Troopers" based on evolution - and explaining why I think he failed miserably will get this thread locked because it is not strictly DA related.

And one final thought; say that world of blind people actually existed, but occasionally, a very few people were born with sight. They could perceive things that no one else could. They could see colors and shapes. How do you think the rest of the population would treat them if they tried to explain what they could see, that no one else could? The strict "materialist" would have to insist that these people were deluded, fools, maybe even dangerous ones. Anyone who believed them would risk ridicule, ostracism and perhaps even persecution.

The mages in Thedas can "see" things that the average person cannot see; they can do things that "normal" people cannot do. That alone is enough to make them feared and hated; envy is a common human emotion. Then, with that perception and power, some mages think that they are the elite, that they should rule.

One final recap thought; remember, "reason" is simply a process of ensuring that the conclusions flow logically from the premises. A "rational" explanation of anything that fits with your basic presuppositions. It cannot and should not be used as the opposite of "faith" since both materialism and supernaturalism both begin with premises that cannot be proved by direct observation (which is the foundation of all scientific knowledge).

My apologies for writing so much on this; DA is a fascinating world and the writers have not avoided introducing complex ideas that have profound implications while making a really fun game. Kudos to them, and I hope that in the future, they do not shy away from giving us many more moral and ethical dilemmas.

[StarcloudSWG]

It is an absolutely fascinating topic, the way the writers have set it up. And it cannot be solved simply, either; this is a good thing.

The statement, "Magic should serve man, not rule over him." is founded in reason. It speaks to ethics and morality, and the need for self-control on the part of mages. It is presented as a part of a religion. Many people take religious texts as literal, never examining the premises behind the text.

Another fascinating part of the whole thing is the mixture of 'real history' events in Thedas with the Chant. Specifically, the tale of the Black City and the Magisters. Thanks to Legacy, we know that the Black City was the Black City even before the Magisters reached it. And that it was black *before* they reached it.

The Maker may or may not exist. There's no way to prove it one way or another, and no hints that the Maker does exist. Andraste may have been delusional on that point or she may have been actually divinely inspired. Her ashes may be curative because of a miracle, or they may be curative because so many people have dreamed and wished that they were. Since magic is an expression of the Fade, and the Fade is basically made of dreams, it is impossible to tell which is the 'real' answer.

Here, again, I have to congratulate the writers. They have managed to insert an actual religion, one based on faith and not empirical evidence, into a world where magic exists and its effects are provable.

And yes, I know this is a digression from the original point.

[Medhia Nox]

Luke 12:48 Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

I see the Chantry quote to be much in line with this - and it holds along lines of moral truth outside of metaphysics.

It is a priori knowledge that a man who has been gifted much - but does not use those gifts for the betterment of the world - is a wastrel.

Several major philosophical structures suggest that a king must be the servant of the people - and that only a king who is such a servant is blessed (a term often used to affirm a humans success at a task).

Of course - it is not to be limited to a king, but to all men who have the power to rule over others - but the responsibility to serve instead.

The premise is even shared in the movie Schindler's List when Schindler tells a story about an Holy Roman Emperor who pardons a man he has every reason to condemn.

===

All this is to say, that I believe the philosophy of the statement is fairly simple and already suggested on this thread.

The best mages will use their abilities to serve mankind.

The alternative need not be discussed - again, it is a priori knowledge that those who use their powers to serve themselves are the worst of mages.

"Worst" doesn't mean evil... it simply means, that they are the least part of the society because they serve only their own individualism.

====

Now, mage supporters will say: "Why must mages be held to a different standard."

The answer should be evident in the reality that other men cannot cast a spell to hurt or heal, but often - selfishness derides any sense of true justice and people want unique powers - and also the utter lack of responsibility (which no man should truly consider himself free of - no matter how powerless)

Much is given to mage-kind... so much must also be given back to obtain any form of real "equality".

====

Which is why the rebellion is a genuine evil - even if the Chantry and the Templars are also an injustice and must change.

All - are performing on the level of the least of humanity.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Sorry I must disagree with the idea that somehow, those with gifts have a duty to those left gifted as being "a priori" knowledge. If that were true, one would find the history of the world to have been far different than what it was. To the contrary, we rightly celebrate those few individuals in history to posit this concept just because until they came up with it, the common, accepted beliefs and values were far different.

Furthermore, the concept that the "King is under the Law" was a direct product of the Reformation and the English Civil Law (see Rutherford's "Lex Rex") - a radically new idea that directly combated the "divine right of kings." The prevalent view before that was Hobbe's opinion that man's life in his natural state was "nasty, brutish and short" therefore requiring a strong king to govern him - and there was no appeal from that rule. This view goes all the way back to the "god-kings" of Sumeria, Babylon and Egypt wherein the king, was the direct link to the metaphysical universe and therefore the god's ultimate representative on earth.

Ethics and values do not arrive in a vacuum. One's concept of the ultimate nature of reality has a direct influence on the kinds of values one develops. In the DA universe this is clearly seen in the difference between the Qunari's oppressive, ant hill communism vs the Tevinter Empire's brutally oppressive magical meritocracy as well as the feudalism of Feraldom. Each civilization attempts to build a social structure based on what they think is ultimate with wildly different results.

In so far as judging the morality of the mage rebellion, well, that depends on one's personal values, does it not? If "He would be great among you must first become the servant of all" is not a priori knowledge, then someone has to be the first person to say it - someone with authority - someone who can claim to be connected to the ultimate nature of reality in some special way...

Let he who has an ear, hear... ;-)

[StarcloudSWG]

The thing about the Qunari is.. I think there's something the Kossith have that humans don't. I have the impression, from various hints in the game, that the Kossith understand and connect with each other at a level that humans, elves, and dwarves simply cannot.

Whether it's because they speak with each other at frequencies far too low for human ears to hear them, or whether they actually have some kind of telepathy, or they have very keen observational abilities regarding body language... Kossith seem to be connected in an almost uncanny way.

The Qun, too, is a philosophy. It's not a religion. It's a philosophy that is very practical in its effects. Everyone in their place, doing tasks for the betterment of the people of the Qun. And it wouldn't work without the Kossith's apparent connection with each other.

[CaptainBlackGold]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

The thing about the Qunari is.. I think there's something the Kossith have that humans don't. I have the impression, from various hints in the game, that the Kossith understand and connect with each other at a level that humans, elves, and dwarves simply cannot.

[SNIP]

The Qun, too, is a philosophy. It's not a religion. It's a philosophy that is very practical in its effects. Everyone in their place, doing tasks for the betterment of the people of the Qun. And it wouldn't work without the Kossith's apparent connection with each other.

FWIW, I had the exact same thought about the Kosssith - that their civilization might be stable and productive, just because they are not human but an altogether different species. Thus their culture "works" for them, because it is constructed consistently with their biological nature. I did not want to say it at the time because I rightly feared people accusing me (or Bioware) of racism. The idea that intelligent beings (even pretend ones in a made up world) might be so different because of biological reasons is not one that most folks want to even explore.

But that brings up several other interesting issues, one of which you touched on above. The first is that if their culture is somehow an organic expression of their distinct biological nature, that means that it might not work so well for Elves, Dwarfs or Humans who might be attracted to the philosophy. All these different peoples might like the ideas, but find that it is simply incompatible with "human nature." That would lead to some interesting internal dissension down the road. For example, the Quanri have no concept of romance, sex is restricted to regulated breeding programs, etc. Can you seriously imagine any human civilization accepting that in the long term? It is simply inconsistent with human nature.

The second point is really more of a quibble - and one we probably will not be able to settle - the difference between a "religion" and a "philosophy." I would argue that they are at heart, the same, because as previously mentioned they both rely on unproved and unprovable axioms as their starting points. Materialism, Logical Positivism, Existentialism, et. al. are all philosophies but they all begin with certain assumptions. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, et. al. are all religions, but again, rest on certain premises that cannot be "proved" but must be assumed. Both however, are attempts to explain "reality" and answer the fundamental questions of "Who are we?" and "Why are we here?" as well as "Where are we going?" The details of the answer may differ (whether or not there is even such a thing as a metaphysical reality and a deity) but otherwise they serve the same function.

I suppose it is way too much to expect Bioware to explore these things in too much detail - after all, they are primarily making a game, not creating fodder for a freshmen bull session in epistemology, phenomenology and ontology. But I do hope that we at least get to know if the "Kosssith" (Mr. G. does not seem to like that term for some reason) are actually "human" in some way - which of course would have profound implications for a "Kossith LI." But I guess if some people happily romanced Garrus, a raptor like alien, then a non-human, horned, muscle bound human looking Kossith would not be much of a hurdle...

Elves and Dwarfs seem to be sub-species of humans from what we can tell - since apart from external characteristics like height and ear shape, they can interbreed with humans and produce viable offspring - though biology may work differently in the DA universe. Are "Kossith" just another branch on the human tree or something completely different which would make both their biology and psychology fascinating to explore.

We certainly saw that Felicia Day's character had a lot of problems adjusting to Qunari culture and she had far more freedom than someone actually stuck in one of their settlements who would never see the outside world. I really do hope they explore this dimension, and demonstrate the consequences - like say what seems to be an unstoppable Qunari advance halted by internal dissension, riots and revolutions back home - or that their culture suddenly finds itself starving because the human converts just refuse to work without rewards.

Anyways, great comment and interesting insights - hope this thread continues...

[Archyyy]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

Not quite; what we have is not "materia" but "phenomenon" that is, things that can be perceived. The real issue for discussion is that some people "perceive" things that others do not. For example, say that a man was born blind - in a world of blind people. Light, as we know it, could not be perceived - therefore, would it exist? What would the most brilliant scientists say about even the possibility of light? 

(I wont get into the other stuff as thats based on the whims of the
writers instead of something concrete. They can and will do what they will but I hope if they do offer explanations they dont come across as absolute bullcrap which wont really explain anything.)

Materia is not something that is dependent on perceiving. Nor is it phenomenon. Materia would exist whether there was no one to perceive it which would be the case if life died. There is no reason to assume that the existance of materia is dependent on the existance of perception. How we see materia can more or less be about how we perceive it but only connection between their existance is that the existance of perception is dependant on materia. Not the other way around. We cant perceive without the brain which is materia. There are limits to our perception though and therefore limits to what we can know of materia. Our perception can also deceive and if we want to be extremely literal theres nothing outside the fact that I perceive and think that can be known for absolutely certain. But if we want to even attempt knowing something which is a worthy goal we need to go with the tools we have. Very likely to be true is as good as absolutely true in this case. Its all we have and we need to be content with it if we are to bother thinking in the first place.

In essence we are born in a world of blind people. There are things that we cant perceive without the help of science and its methods. If we were literally blind we would know of light with the help of science. Light is waves and radiation and we only perceive it the way we do because of the way we evolved. Light has forms beyond the things we see which can be perceived with machines and readings very easily. There are many kinds of radiations for example that we cant perceive with any natural means but we still know of because of science. If we were limited to our natural ways of perception we wouldnt know much anything.

So everything we know of would exist even if we did not know about it. The world isnt dependant on our perception of it. Our perception might shape our image of the world but the world exists regardless. And theres no reason to think that the world only exists if it is perceived. That would assume that materia doesnt exist. Even if we go with what we can know 100% certain we still have something to know that with which must be something concrete, materia. Therefore other materia can and does exist as well.

[Archyyy]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

The thing about the Qunari is.. I think there's something the Kossith have that humans don't. I have the impression, from various hints in the game, that the Kossith understand and connect with each other at a level that humans, elves, and dwarves simply cannot.

Whether it's because they speak with each other at frequencies far too low for human ears to hear them, or whether they actually have some kind of telepathy, or they have very keen observational abilities regarding body language... Kossith seem to be connected in an almost uncanny way.

The Qun, too, is a philosophy. It's not a religion. It's a philosophy that is very practical in its effects. Everyone in their place, doing tasks for the betterment of the people of the Qun. And it wouldn't work without the Kossith's apparent connection with each other.

Humans (and elves and dwarves) can feel just as connected. Its simply a matter of culture and conditioning (not the best word but will have to do). If one is taught to think his entire life that there is no I but only we, then thats what he will strongly believe in and feel for. It would feel very alien for him to think that theres no place or purpose and everyone only furthers their own goals. Humans have a very strong affinity towards group behaviour and strong emotional attechment towards the group so the potential for the way the qunari society works is there. That affinity has some good effects, for example enabling us to work efficiently as a society, and then some bad ones like nationalism and xenophobia. The trait has been very useful for survival however and humans have evolved so that they all have it to some extent.

I personally find the Qun very appealing. If we assume that the tamassrans can give everyone a place which suits them and make the society work efficiently and as one as a result that comes very close to my ideal of a perfect society. Its also just that everyone do what theyre good at. Some are fit to rule, some are fit to fight and some are fit to farm. The qun also says that a person should know himself, what hes good at, what hes not and where he fits, which not many do. The only things I strongly disagree with that come to mind (there might be others if I did more reasearch) is the treatment of mages and the idea that genders are mentally suitable to some things and not to others.  What little mental differences there are between genders arent big enough to put any emphasis on and the place of isnt in a cage to be controlled. They need to supervised and taught to resist demons but it isnt just to imprison them just for who they are. There are also many practical uses for them. If the qunari had taken advantage of magic theyd have probably conquered thedas when they started their wars.

Modifié par Archyyy, 12 novembre 2012 - 12:07 .

[StarcloudSWG]

I would point out the Saarebas 'Ketojan' and the way the Arvaraad seemed to understand exactly what 'Ketojan' was asking for. Despite 'Ketojan's voicing being identical to half his previous grunts and grumbles.

Based on what was presented in game, there was no way to get from *grumblegrowl* to "I would ask you to allow me to speak to the one who led me here." Even gagged or with your mouth loosely sewn shut, there is a difference between a wordless grumble and actual attempts to form words. 'Ketojan's' speech was the former, a wordless grumble.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 12 novembre 2012 - 09:21 .