617 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Wayning_Star wrote...
Destroy folks gets all gears of war'd up for the big boss fight to end the reaper threat and end up with a four dimensional chess game with the past and more than one of the pieces missing.
I'd be pissed too..lol

Destroy folks got all Mass Effect'd up, if that's what you mean. Let's not pretend the Mass Effect series was anything other than literal before the ending.

[mvaning]

Ieldra2 wrote...

mvaning wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As a general rule, all claims of the instrinsic desirability of non-interference in natural processes are either Romantic or religious in nature, contrasting with position of Enlightenment thinking (the preceding intellectual movement), which would see man's rule over nature as fundamentally desirable.

Absolutely not.   In the MEU and in real life, we have hundreds of years of the use of knowledge to show that forcing changes in evolution has always ended badly.      The desire not to interfer with nature is neither romantic nor religious.   It is based on fact and sound evidence.

The ENLIGHTNEMENT brought about ideas such as the scientific method, which are completely in favor of the ethical mandate that we should not be attempting to construct our future using evolutionary tactics.   Don't confuse the Romantic period's argument for natural epistemology with this.   The idea of evolutionary ethics is a direct product of the scientific method and a result of ideas that are clearly based on principles founded in the Enlightenment period. 

Tell me, do you even read YOUR OWN sources? If I may quote:

"We inherit our impulses and our tendencies from our ancestors. These impulses and tendencies need to be modified. They need to be curbed and restrained. So much goes without saying. The question is regarding the nature of the modification; the nature of the restraint, and its relation to the original impulses of self-assertion. Surely, w do not want to suppress our animal inheritance; nor do w wish to restrain it absolutely,—that is, for the mere sake of restraint".

Nowhere does this article affirm the intrinsic desirability of letting nature run its course. Quite the opposite, in fact. What makes an interference desirable or not is its nature, what it does.

A further quote from Dewey may illustrate his stance:

"What Humanism means to me is an expansion, not a contraction, of human life, an expansion in which nature and the science of nature are made the willing servants of human good"

As opposed to Romanticism, which would affirm the intrinsic desirability of retaining the sovereignty of primal forces over the human condition.

What you are trying to argue is that the idea of "allow evolution to take its course" is romanticism because it neglects the basic principles of the Enlightenment.     This is pretty much the equivalent of name calling IMO.    Can't prove your point?    It's OK, they are just romanticists.   That's a very poor approach to making an argument.   My point in posting Dewey is to give context for an better argument.     You say  "allow evolution to happen (in the context of MEU)" is the same as Romanticism.    I say Prove it.   I say manipulating evolution to achiev goals has empirically been shown to have horrible effects.    You say "That's romanticism" even though I've just stated that the principle is based on empirical evidence, which is contrary to romantic ideals.  I've also given examples of this empirical evidence ( eugenics and selective dog breeding. )

Dewey is making an argument for the idea that man manipulating his environment is a favorable part of evolution.   He is not stating that manipulating evolution is part of evolution.     Allowing evolution to take its course in the context of changing evolution vs allowing evolution to occur naturally is distinct from the romantic ideals.  We are not talking about the manipulation of our environment to better suit our goals.   We are talking about manipulating our genes so that we can better fit our environment. 

Lets look at this qoute again in terms of what I have just said:

"What Humanism means to me is an expansion, not a contraction, of human life, an expansion in which nature and the science of nature are made the willing servants of human good"

"Nature and the science of nature are made the willing servants of human good" 

From wikipedia:

"Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism).  "

The argument to "allow evolution to happen" is the same as the argument to "allow Humanism to occur".    In contrast, synthesis and control are clearly an approach for a solution that are based on FAITH that the given solutions are correct rather than facts based on empirical knowledge.

When we look at the Catalyst(the reaper god), we can either chose to become god (control), accept god's divine knowledge as true (synthesis) or reject him in favor of the idea that we can create a good and better universe based on our own empirical knowledge(destroy).

This is not romanticism.  Dewey's approach proves that it is not romanticism.  You can't argue that control or synthesis make nature the willing servants of human good because there is no empirical evidence to support these claims. 

Lets look at the other qoute you used.

"We inherit our impulses and our tendencies from our ancestors. These
impulses and tendencies need to be modified. They need to be curbed and
restrained. So much goes without saying. The question is regarding the
nature of the modification; the nature of the restraint, and its
relation to the original impulses of self-assertion. Surely, w do not
want to suppress our animal inheritance; nor do w wish to restrain it
absolutely,—that is, for the mere sake of restraint".

You are implying that the notion of "letting evolution take its course" is the same as restraining for the mere sake of restraint?   No, I say unshackle evolution from the restraint of the reapers, destroy them.   The very idea of Synthesis and Control revolve around a "controlled change."   The very notion of a controlled change implies providing an absolute restraint to the humanistic approach.  This same idea is based on the faith that the AI construct(god) is correct.    This, in itself, is an ode to romantic ideas by placing the knowledge of the catalyst(reaper god) above the knowledge of an empirical approach.

Modifié par mvaning, 15 février 2013 - 05:44 .

[Makaveli The Don]

Everybody being green-eyed abominations seems boring to me.

[CronoDragoon]

mvaning wrote...
 This, in itself, is an ode to romantic ideas by placing the knowledge of the catalyst(reaper god) above the knowledge of an empirical approach.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Catalyst had given you a 1,000 page document listing all his "examples" in support of his doctrine, how would this change your opinion of empirical knowledge vs. faith in terms of classifying the endings?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 15 février 2013 - 05:28 .

[Ticonderoga117]

ruggly wrote...

I think Ieldra has mentioned several times that he loathes that line as well.  That line (along with the forcedness of synthesis (inb4 it's optional for the people, no, it's not)) is the straw that broke the camels back for me.

Well that's fine and dandy, but it's still a part of Synthesis. Psudo-science mixed with Psudo-mysticism. It's crap.

[ruggly]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I think Ieldra has mentioned several times that he loathes that line as well.  That line (along with the forcedness of synthesis (inb4 it's optional for the people, no, it's not)) is the straw that broke the camels back for me.

Well that's fine and dandy, but it's still a part of Synthesis. Psudo-science mixed with Psudo-mysticism. It's crap.

oh no, I agree with that.  But I still appreciate Ieldra taking time to point out flaws in synthesis as well. Do I agree with him on the rest synthesis? No, not really.  But that's fine, he's made his choice, and I've made mine.

Modifié par ruggly, 15 février 2013 - 05:40 .

[Uncle Jo]

ruggly wrote...

oh no, I agree with that.  But I still appreciate Ieldra taking time to point out flaws in synthesis as well.

Ieldra2 is one of the most interesting synthesis supporters, along with saracen16. Too bad his back up in this thread consists in BirdsallSa and Auld Wulf..

[ruggly]

Uncle Jo wrote...
Ieldra2 is one of the most interesting synthesis supporters, along with saracen16. Too bad his back up in this thread consists in BirdsallSa and Auld Wulf..

That is really quite unfortunate.  Even though it makes me laugh that BirdSallSa has now admitted that (s)he has never played 1 or 2.

[Ieldra]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't believe in pseudomystical crap like the "soul of my species". None of my Shepard would ever use that term in any circumstance whatsoever. It's out of character.

So why did you pick synthesis?

"Add your energy to the Crucible's."

Don't remind me. I could hit someone every time I read or hear this nonsense. But I choose Synthesis for the outcome. I found a way to interpret Shepard's sacrifice in less nonsensical terms, and treat this line as the Catalyst underestimating Shepard's intelligence and trying to "make it simple". The Catalyst speaks as if to a caveman anyway for much of the conversation. Since I don't believe it actually *is* that stupid, I need another explanation for what it says.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 05:50 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Am I the only one who thinks it is a bit egocentric to call your own work compelling specially when its not.

[Ieldra]

Also, please note: I see Destroy as a valid choice. I just find the outcome extremely boring.

[Ticonderoga117]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Don't remind me. I could hit someone every time I read or hear this nonsense. But I choose Synthesis for the outcome. I found a way to interpret Shepard's sacrifice in less nonsensical terms, and treat this line as the Catalyst underestimating Shepard's intelligence and trying to "make it simple". The Catalyst speaks as if to a caveman anyway for much of the conversation. Since I don't believe it actually *is* that stupid, I need another explanation for what it says.

Well to be frank, this sounds a lot like ignoring "the point" of Synthesis. You don't like what our... provider of the endings is saying and then just fill in what you took out just to make it appealing.

I could very well be wrong, but that's how I'm seeing it. It's like me going "Well this kid is nutty about Destroy killing all AI's, so I do some mental gymnastics and suddenly everything is ok".

[BirdsallSa]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Don't remind me. I could hit someone every time I read or hear this nonsense. But I choose Synthesis for the outcome. I found a way to interpret Shepard's sacrifice in less nonsensical terms, and treat this line as the Catalyst underestimating Shepard's intelligence and trying to "make it simple". The Catalyst speaks as if to a caveman anyway for much of the conversation. Since I don't believe it actually *is* that stupid, I need another explanation for what it says.

Well to be frank, this sounds a lot like ignoring "the point" of Synthesis. You don't like what our... provider of the endings is saying and then just fill in what you took out just to make it appealing.

I could very well be wrong, but that's how I'm seeing it. It's like me going "Well this kid is nutty about Destroy killing all AI's, so I do some mental gymnastics and suddenly everything is ok".

My point exactly. Ieldra is not a true synthesis supporter. It's nothing but an imposter. It disregards all the principles that make Synthesis great, fills in the blanks with its own headcanon and then calls itself a Synthesis supporter. I don't like "adding my own energy" so the Intelligence must have meant something else. I don't like the idea of Reaper troops integrating into society, so I'll replace it with something else. That kind of liberal attitude towards Synthesis disgusts me.

[Ticonderoga117]

BirdsallSa wrote...
My point exactly. Ieldra is not a true synthesis supporter. It's nothing but an imposter. It disregards all the principles that make Synthesis great, fills in the blanks with its own headcanon and then calls itself a Synthesis supporter. I don't like "adding my own energy" so the Intelligence must have meant something else. I don't like the idea of Reaper troops integrating into society, so I'll replace it with something else. That kind of liberal attitude towards Synthesis disgusts me.

...That escalated quickly.

[ruggly]

BirdsallSa wrote...
The reason I'm a big fan of all of Ieldra2's posts is because all of them consist of pure logic, just like the conversation with the Intelligence, and the entire ending in general.

BirdsallSa wrote...
My point exactly. Ieldra is not a true synthesis supporter. He's nothing but an imposter. He disregards all the principles that make Synthesis great, fills in the blanks with its own headcanon and then calls himself a Synthesis supporter. I don't like "adding my own energy" so the Intelligence must have meant something else. I don't like the idea of Reaper troops integrating into society, so I'll replace it with something else. That kind of liberal attitude towards Synthesis disgusts me.

so which is it..

edit: formatting got all weird.  Also, Ieldra is quite the better person than you, and deserves to be called more than "it" (unlike you).

Modifié par ruggly, 15 février 2013 - 06:19 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, please note: I see Destroy as a valid choice. I just find the outcome extremely boring.

and the world present by synthesis isn't? a world where everything is known, there is nothing left to explore, and there is no conflict, a world that is basically doomed to stagnation and extinction?

[Dabrikishaw]

The idea of fake supporters for the endings is interesting.

[Ieldra]

mvaning wrote...
The argument to "allow evolution to happen" is the same as the argument to "allow Humanism to occur".    In contrast, synthesis and control are clearly an approach for a solution that are based on FAITH that the given solutions are correct rather than facts based on empirical knowledge.

You don't understand the thrust of the argument. I am arguing against letting evolution happen without interference as a matter of dogma, disregarding any negative outcomes thereof because letting this happen is seen as intrinsically good. Overpopulation? Too bad, don't interfere, people will die out the natural way. The Romantic stance often accepts and even embraces suffering caused by this because it thinks the encounter with primal forces elevates our spirit. As opposed to that, I don't care about this mystical elevation of our spirit, I'd prefer the suffering to be reduced. If I must interfere with the natural course of things, then I will not hesitate to do so.

Ieldra2 wrote...
"We inherit our impulses and our tendencies from our ancestors. These impulses and tendencies need to be modified. They need to be curbed and restrained. So much goes without saying. The question is regarding the nature of the modification; the nature of the restraint, and its relation to the original impulses of self-assertion. Surely, w do not want to suppress our animal inheritance; nor do w wish to restrain it absolutely,—that is, for the mere sake of restraint".

You are implying that the notion of "letting evolution take its course" is the same as restraining for the mere sake of restraint?

I am not implying that. I am implying that "letting evolution take its course" means implementing no restraints at all to our natural impulses and tendencies. While I also agree there should be no restraint without cause, i.e. not for the sake of restraint, it goes without saying - there Dewey agrees with me - that there need to be some. To deny that human artifice can be used constructively to affect ourselves, to affirm that our nature is sacrosanct, *that* is Romantic. The Romantic vibe of Destroy can be summarized in one sentence: "Destroy the abominations and all which is of them, for it will lead us down a path that will destroy what we are". This is of course not the only thematic current in Destroy, but it exists.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 06:12 .

[Ieldra]

Also, BirdsallSa is a troll. Yesterday he posted similar things for the other side.

As for that line: I don't have to accept things that make no sense just because someone says them. That line either means something - then I need to find out what it means - or it's completely meaningless and I might as well ignore it completely. You don't expect me suddenly to believe in "organic energy" just because someone says so?

[masster blaster]

Problem is there is no good or bad right.

Destroy we kill the Geth, if we haven't done so already, and EDi, plus all synthetic life. However we free the galaxy from the Reapers and we win. The cycle chooses what path/ future we they can build, and decide whether to continue the cycle, or end it as long as they can.

Control you save everyone. Your former Shepard now controls the Reapers, but the Husk army as well. However Shepard does not free the Reapers, nor does Shepard let the husk die in peace. He, or she instead either uses the Reapers, and the Husk army as a police force, or Dictator Shepard. Then you have to consider if Shepard is deciding how the galaxy should live their lives, well the organics, and synthetics, then your taking away free will from them. Nobody would want to oppose Shepard because Shepard commands the Reaper, and the Husk armys, and any Indoctrinated agent if I might add.


Synthesis. You make everyone the same in DNA. You stop the cycle and everyone is at peace. However nobody in their right mind is theirself. Where is the hate, the sorrow, pain, revenge, bitterness. Was it right to synthesis everyone without considering the fact Shepard synthesis the husk. How do they now feel? Are they not angry at the Reapers for what they did to them? Then there is a point when everything stops. How would civilization advance, if all is already done. There would be no point of living on, and no point in anything. Everything would be the same. If everyone acted the same, then where is the opinion of the one disagreeing with another person? Then there is the catalyst it'self. It programming is done, and it has no purpose. What's it going to do? Then there is the thing about what it said. Synthesis is the FINAl evoultion. That means no more adapting. Moreover we give the Catalyst what it always wanted synthesis. What did the galaxy want? TIM wanted to control the Reapers, yet he was Indoctrinated. Anderson wanted to Destroy the Reapers. Hackett wanted to Destroy the Reapers. Our squadmates that we have wanted to Destroy the Reapers. Yet what about the player. Is it about what you think is right, or what the galaxy thinks is best.


But I am getting ahead of myself. The point of that matter at hand is the endings are not perfect, however did you do what was best for the galaxy, or what you thought was best? You may say I picked Control to save everyone, but what if the galaxy didn't want you to pick control? What if they wanted blood for the horrific crimes the Reapers have done. Do you deni them revenge?

Did you pick synthesis to save everyone from the cycle continuing, or did you pick Synthesis because you think it's the best thing for the galaxy. What if the people did not want to be Synthesised? Would you synthesis them if they said no. Their are many people in the galaxy who would not agree with synthesis. Yes in the ending of synthesis it does not happen, but how can they, if they are rewriten?

If you pick Destroy, what are the synthetics going to say? Will they be okay to die, if it ment seeing the Reapers pay? Well if you listen to the galaxy's cry, then yes. EDI said she would die for Joker, Shepard, and the Normandy crew if it ment this war would end. The Geth said there would be no more compermising with the Reapers. So if they told you this after the catalyst has said his thoughts. Would you still pick Destroy?

Now you may say, well if you say the synthetics are okay with dying, then why can't the galaxy be okay with control, and synthesis? Well let's look at this this way. Hackett told us that TIM is crazy, which he is due to him being controlled in all. Then we see what happens when someone is given to much power. TIM believed in controllling the Reapers so much he had to implant Reaper tech in all of his troops, and the abducted coloniest to use for as his army. TIM even begins to crave for power at the end of ME2. If you blow up the base he is beyoned pissed, however if you don't TIM is very happy. Now Then TIM's lust for power takes are darker turn. He then begins to have his workers turn people into husk for his experiemnts, yet claiming he is doing it to save Humanity alone. Now if you look at Cerberus reputation in the galaxy in ME1, it's not that bad, as it does in ME3. All of this happened due to TIM wanting control. Now If Shepard is going to pick Control, and the galaxy's people tell Shepard that he, or she is going to end up like TIM craving for power, would you not listen to them? Would you believe the catalyst over the people of the galaxy your Shepard is fighting to save?

It may not seem how is this not what the galaxy would say about why Shepard should not pick control, but it is. If you go renegade Shepard, and pick control in your mind you did this to save everyone right, yet what does Shepard think? Let's find out. As the EC epilogue starts in renegade control Shepard sounds like he, or she is craving for power, and will not have anyone get in his/her way. From removing one dicator you replaced another one.

However if you pick Control as Paragon Shepard it's not that bad. Yet now Paragon Shepard has to maintain that once ORGANIC feeling that holded true to his, or her beliefs. Yet how will the galaxy react to this? Again in the players mind you saved everyone, but what does everyone else think? Just a few seconds ago Reapers are killing all the people fighting them in the galaxy, and now the very hero they all thought was going to solve the Reaper problem takes over as the Reaper's leader, only to use the Reapers to enforce the law in the galaxy. Nobody is going to have a problem with that? Doubt full, yet again the slide shows don't show this, yet it should.


Now for synthesis. Gravin Archer. Believed he could save everyone iforganics just combined with synthetics there will be no more wars with the Geth sounds familiar. However he did nost consider how his brother felt. Gravin kept pushing his own brother beyoned the limates, and in the end Shepard tells Gravin that did he even see what he has done to his brother. All in the name of synthesisng to save everyone, yet forgot about how his brother felt. Later in ME3 we can find him, and he tells Shepard that he is sorry for what he did to his brother. Now there is Javik. He's seen his own people been synthesised by the Reapers. True this is not the same thing we see as in synthesis, but it's still synthesis is it not, just not in the version at the end if you pick Synthesis. No way Javik would let this happen after again what happened in his cycle. And if Javik says Synthesis should not happen, if a Hanar heard Javik say this, then what do you think the Hanar will say about Synthesis? I am only pointing out that the Hanar view Javik as a god, and if Javik said that synthesis should not happen, then the Hanar would stand with Javik.

Furthermore we have the Leviathans. Now way would they want everyone to be the same. They would rather have Shepard pick Destroy, and control. Yes I know what your going to say, well in Destroy you give the Leviathans everything. The same could be said in control. Leviathan would still want to control the Reapers, and now that they know Where the catalyst ( Shepard) is at. You don't think the Leviathans would not try anything against Shepard the intellegence now would they? And if the Leviathans Do take Control of Shepard.The Leviathans have control of the Reapers, Husk, and Indoctrinated agents.

But back to synthesis. Leviathans would go against Synthesis. Now take a look at the Korgan. Only reason for them to have Shepard pick synthesis, is if you cured the Geno, however if you cured the Geno, then their support of synthesis goes out the window. Then we have the Geth. Why do they need synthesis when they have their upgrades? Is Legions death not worth more than it already is? Then what about the Quarians, why should they want synthesis, if it gains nothing for them? Sure maybe to help with their immune systems, yet do we see it in synthesis? No.

Then the Batarians come into synthesis. Why should they want to be synthesis, and be like everyone else? Oh and I forgot to mention do you think the Batarians are just going to let a "former Human" lead an Army of Reapers, that can harvest, or kill all the Batarians? Not at all. If fear plays into this, then that's not how a leader should be to his, or her people. Anyways then we have the Rachni queen if you saved her in ME1, and ME3. Does she want synthesis? If she is going to have to live in a world where the very monsters that took her children away from her, and turned them into foot soldiers and had her chained up like a pet. Is going to want Shepard to pick synthesis, or control? She has every right does she not, or no?

Well this about it. As I said I can go on, but this is enough. You can either say I am ranting, or think about this. I really don't care because in the end it's all going to happen again.

[masster blaster]

And I respect control and synthesis, yet I find synthesis BS, and control stupid.

[Ieldra]

DinoSteve wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, please note: I see Destroy as a valid choice. I just find the outcome extremely boring.

and the world present by synthesis isn't? a world where everything is known, there is nothing left to explore, and there is no conflict, a world that is basically doomed to stagnation and extinction?

I don't see it that way. There is a spirit of advancement in Synthesis. Just listen to EDI towards the end of the epilogue. Also, where the hell did you get the idea that after Synthesis, everything is known? Or that there is nothing left to explore? As for conflict, well, there is a generally peaceful golden age, that doesn't mean it's universally peaceful. Listen to the epilogue when you don't cure the genophage. There is an undercurrent of conflilct. Post-Synthesis civilization is not a stagnant utopia.

[BirdsallSa]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Also, BirdsallSa is a troll. Yesterday he posted similar things for the other side.

As for that line: I don't have to accept things that make no sense just because someone says them. That line either means something - then I need to find out what it means - or it's completely meaningless and I might as well ignore it completely. You don't expect me suddenly to believe in "organic energy" just because someone says so?

If you don't believe in it, then what exactly do you believe in about Synthesis? How do you figure synthetics all of a sudden have a complete understanding of organics? You are cherry picking and headcanoning, then expecting people to take what you're saying seriously. It's nonsense, and with that I say good day.

[Ieldra]

Once unmasked, the troll will leave....

For anyone who wants to know my Synthesis interpretation, I've written about 64k of text about it in my Synthesis thread. I won't repeat all that here just because some people are too lazy to click on a link in my sig and read.

Also, this thread was supposed to be about Destroy and my opinion that its outcome is boring.

BTW, the idea that I have to believe nonsense in the exposition just because I like the outcome sounds mightly strange to me.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 15 février 2013 - 06:27 .

[ruggly]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The Romantic vibe of Destroy can be summarized in one sentence: "Destroy the abominations and all which is of them, for it will lead us down a path that will destroy what we are". This is of course not the only thematic current in Destroy, but it exists.

To which I disagree for the most part.  I have a problem with the reapers acting as an armada of deadly babysitters over the galaxy, but I have no problem with us possibly reverse engineering their tech after they're gone, or fixing the relays.  Hell, we did it before with the Thanix Cannons.  And I can even go beyond that to say that my Shepards (since two that have gone through have survived) will become an advocate for synthetic rights, or even advocating synthesis on our own terms.  Since now Shepard knows this is possible, would it not be possible to look back at the schematics for the Crucible's ability to do so, and somehow tweak it so it does become optional for people to choose?  That is probably wandering far into headcanon territory, though.  Anyways, I think destroy presents a lot of exciting possibilities for the future, and that synthesis really nothing more than an Age of Enlightenment.  Apparently, that holds all the exciting possibilities for you, but  nothing exciting will happen for me.  There's plenty of chaos to be faced in destroy, and more challenges to overcome.  I just don't see that in synthesis.

BirdsallSa wrote...
If you don't believe in it, then what exactly do you believe in about Synthesis? How do you figure synthetics all of a sudden have a complete understanding of organics? You are cherry picking and headcanoning, then expecting people to take what you're saying seriously. It's nonsense, and with that I say good day.

And I maintain that you need to leave the basement more often.  Fresh air will be good for you.

Modifié par ruggly, 15 février 2013 - 06:34 .