1799 réponses à ce sujet

[DKJaigen]

MisterJB wrote...

You know, for a society to exist there needs to be people practicing all forms of activities. Some grow food, others make clothes and others still protect the citizens.
Warriors like Cassandra Pentaghast are capable of killing High Dragons and mages and Abominations because they spent their entire lives honing their skill to the point of perfection which, of course, means these people don't have to dedicate to tend to the earth to produce an harvest, for instance.

Nowadays, only a small percentage of the population are trained soldiers. If Earth was invanded tomorrow by aliens, would you support them because not every human is a trained killer?

That depends on the values of the aliens now wouldnt it? The mages simply want to have a normal lives without the chantries BS. And yes cassandra pentagast is an amazing women but she is just one women and will age and die. if everybody was like cassandra pentagast then circles would no longe be needed safe for education. if redcliff's milita  where reavers and spirit warriors the warden didnt need to fix the damn mess in the first place.

The disturbing part of the mundanes of thedas that they WANT to remain oblivious to the fact that their is an army of monsters under the ground and a an army of monsters only seperated by a thin magical barrier. Yet the do not prepare. In fact as soon as the blight is over they do very little to contain the darkspawn problem.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That's a very silly statmenet, given that we have no idea what the Eluvian actually does.

Whatever it does, it's better without tainting the land around it.

Id say that if it's something bad...like a portal to hell...it's better for it to be NOT working.

You dont know it so dont judge it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Learn to read.

There is an IF there and it was a repose to the statement that a repaired Eluvian is objectively good.

[The Red Onion]

MisterJB wrote...

But, our world does not create situations where biology is the ultimate
determinant factor regarding how much one can rise in life. Certainly,
natural predisposition towards certain traits such as intelligence plays
a large role in life and there are, of course, many societal
constraints that can impair one's life and that are determined by one's
birth.
However, all technology on Earth can be used by anyone; all
knowledge can be learned regardless of where you were born; money does
not care about your biology. Society may make it easier for some to earn
money/knowledge/technology than it is for others but
money/knowledge/technology itself can just as easily be held by anyone.

I read over most of your stuff on this page, but this is the snippet I was focousing on.

(Although I'm now tempted to quibble over whether technology can truely be used by everyone, I will disicpline my childish urges to do so... it's not relevant to the discussion.)

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Learn to read.

There is an IF there and it was a repose to the statement that a repaired Eluvian is objectively good.

Assumption is still the mother of all F up's  . I dont deal with IF's only facts and what Merril did was good because we can have facts

Modifié par DKJaigen, 15 juin 2013 - 04:51 .

[MisterJB]

alexbing88 wrote...
I read over most of your stuff on this page, but this is the snippet I was focousing on.

(Although I'm now tempted to quibble over whether technology can truely be used by everyone, I will disicpline my childish urges to do so... it's not relevant to the discussion.)

Ah, thank you. I'm glad because I believe that was where I delved more deeply into my position. Answering your post now.

[The Red Onion]

Ieldra2 wrote...

alexbing88 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@alexbing:
I do not agree that there is no recognizable theme to the mages you can positively identify with. Mages embody the theme of empowering the individual, templars the theme of subsumption under the will of a community established by tradition. It is very apparent in the extremes of both sides - Tevinter, where the powerful enjoy unrestricted freedom by their own innate power which cannot be separated from them (i.e. it does not lie in a role, and thus is not dependent on the agreement of your social environment like other kinds of power), and qunari society, where everyone's bound to fixed roles. Both extremes are painted as bad of course, which makes it possible for anyone to define themselves apart from the extreme positions but still take a position on the line between the extremes.

What you call "no identification" is exactly the point here, since individuals become empowered if they can define themselves apart from, and in opposition to, established traditions and their restrictions. There can be no common theme apart from the autonomy itself on the mages' side because that there is no such thing is exactly the point. To expect a cohesive philosophy from the mages' side is like expecting one from real-world atheists.

I appreciate the critique, and I'll attempt a defense. (and hope I haven't misinterpreted your points)

I agree that the individualism / collectivism dichotomy is a somewhat well-grilled one in discourses of social conflict. But the Collectivist aspect of the Templars is so overwhelmed by the Religious aspect that the former carries little literary effectiveness. (Or is that just my subjective perception? I can defer to your judgement on this one.)

Well....yes and no. Religion and collectivism are entwined. Religion, from a functionalist perspective, can be defined as a system of ideas and rituals which gives cohesion to a community. I'd go so far as to say that this is the primary social role of religion. Individualism will, almost by definition, clash with religion at some point. 

This dichotomy also extends to ethics. There is a moral domain some call "ethics of autonomy" which concerns itself with the moral obligations people have to each other as individuals. This is the dominant domain in the western hemisphere, and its ruling principle is where there is no harm or injustice to an individual, there is no evil, and where there is, there is evil which must be addressed. A second domain encompasses "ethics of community" which is concerned with moral obligations an individual has to a group they belong to, such as a religion or a nation. The ruling principle here is that where damage is done to the community, even if it's intangible like a loss of reputation or cohesion, then there's evil. It's easy to see how the latter applies to religion in its role of giving cohesion to a community (On a sideline, imagine my standard rant against "ethics of divinity" and the role of the "corruption" theme here, which is beside the point but I can't avoid mentioning).

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that while real-life individualism is reasonably cohesive, the in-game mage position is actually a mish-mash of real-life schools that a traditional theist would lump together, but in truth are altogether diffuse.

That may be because historically, politically influential individualist philosophies are relatively new, and the creators of Thedas didn't want to introduce elements which could be seen as anachronistic. Didn't you notice how Anders notion of justice, his affirmation of a natural right of individuals to be free, seems a little anachronistic? 

If i may also ask: does it weaken the mage position, as a story element, that it isn't based on a cohesive system of thought? It was the point I wanted to make that it does not weaken it as a story element. It may weaken the mages' position within the story, but that's yet another typical element movements based on the idea of individual autonomy have to deal with. I find it rather realistic that "the mage position" cannot be presented as a system, and I think this makes the story stronger, not weaker.

The mages are actually a stiching of disparate schools that are only connected by the one thread: that they run afoul of religion (not tradition or collectivism, but religion per se). For example, despite how the actions of Anders and the actions of Tevinter might evoke a similar disgust in some characters and fans, we cannot simply reduce Tevinter to an "extreme Anders" or vice versa. And that one might respect Anders a tad more than the Tevinters cannot simply be reduced to "a matter of degree" but rather a matter of basics.

You think so? I don't have the means to prove it, but if you could make a poll "which is less evil: Tevinter or the qunari" and a second one "Do you side with the mages or the templars", I'm reasonably sure that there would be a statistically significant correlation between Tevinter/mages and qunari/templars.

There's also this: religion encompasses a number of themes: sacredness,
rightness, tradition, community, to name a few. There is no other social
system which does that, so of course unless you want to write about a
clash between two religions, there will by definition be a disparity in
the cohesiveness of the underlying philosophies. I would find it rather 
boring if the mage/templar conflict could be written as a conflict
between religions.  

That's why I think the narrative covertly has a "Chantry gaze" - its critique of the Chantry notwithstanding. And it's also why I feel that the mages' position is precisely one of opposition WITHOUT autonomy, because whatever cohesive stance they muster is purely contingent on a Chantry.

I think this is wrong. The various mage positions exist independently from the existence of a Chantry, it's just that they cannot be subsumed under one position. The mage positions lack not autonomy, but a unifying identity.  Yet again, I think this is very appropriate.

Good good, you know more about all this than I do, and I concede on most points, I do acknowledge now that the mage position is legitimate. Just a few lingering quibbles here and there:

Do humor my doubts on your prediction of statistical significance; because many religous stances are so mutually hostile, that my hypothesis over the poll might contradict yours. I had hoped to evade naming RL religion in their specificity, but seems like I can't talk coherently now without doing so. (Forum forgive me.) My point is this: if the Chantry seems like an abstract, hypothetical religion, with its real life analogues unclear, then I submit to your hypothesis. But as is, the Chantry depiction is not only pan-Christian, but so obviously Catholic in its specificity, that it would potentially evoke defensiveness in the fanbase. Such consumers, if I may venture to guess, might (but not necessarily) react more violently to a Qunari with a clear real analogue, rather than a Tevinter without. This possibility cannot be overlooked. It arises out of a natural defensiveness, that is in turn due to the deployment of a transcendental symbol.

This also relates to other parts of my stance in some ways. It's just my own taste and nothing more, but I actually think of freedom as the mobility between paradigms, rather than the ability to operate "without one." Because (and I may be wrong on this) it seems to me that the only way to operate autonomously is to do so in a vacuum, which seems like a tall order.

Lastly a minor minor quibble is that there are anti-traditionalist schools, which, though its braches are diffuse, altoghether provide a toolbox from which a fairly cohesive stance can be wrung. I think I have conflated "cohesion" with "robustness," and I at least should have been more clear. Pragmatically though, both coherence and robustness are forms of legitimation, and I perfer such things because I actually care about some form of "positional victory" rather than just having "a way to be." 

You probably guessed by now that I am actually a quasi-collectivist, and that what I extol in an individual is not her capacity to critique all traditions as concepts, but her capacity to do so against the specific traditions that have socialized her own life. Our possible divergence in position notwithstanding, I do yield to most your points and appreciate your lesson.

Modifié par alexbing88, 15 juin 2013 - 04:52 .

[Vort3xX]

Hard to say now, i guess it depends how the war plays out since i haven't a clue yet.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Here's a dirty little secret:  If a Templar supporter can prove a society is a magocracy, he or she then will automatically equate it to Tevinter in all it's 'glory'.  "Magocracy" is code for: Free Mages will automatically turn the world into Tevinter at it's most hateful.

It's a bogus argument but there it is.

-Polaris

That's not true, IanPolaris. See my answer to Xilizhra, you'll notice I made not a single mention of the manner in which mages use their power. That is because I find it irrelevant.
What I oppose is the very existence of a magocracy which doesn't mean I necessarely believe that the mage-dominated society that I envision would be any more brutal than modern America.

Of course it's true.  In fact the Chantry in the game itself uses the same bogus argument so it's not a suprise.  Fenris even voices it:  Loosen up on mages even a little bit and the next thing you know they are running things, and it's Tevinter all over again.  Fenris in the game actually says this.

-Polaris

MisterJB is literally using a different argument. He is a templar supporter. You say ALL templar supporters use Tevinter.

Hence it is untrue.

I disagree.  MisterJB is only masking it.  I find his argument that one sort of autocratic govt is better or worse than another to be specious at best.  The argument about "mages cause a magocracy" only gets teeth if you make the further (and often implied) assumption that magocracy==Tevinter.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Learn to read.

There is an IF there and it was a repose to the statement that a repaired Eluvian is objectively good.

Assumption is still the mother of all F up's  . I dont deal with IF's only facts and what Merril did was good because we can facts

[DKJaigen]

Ah just like JB you value ignorance over knowledge. But that seems to be a common trait among templar supporters and not an amiable one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Knowledge? You didn't show any.

On what "facts" pray tell did you base you claim that an Eluvian is a good thing?

Also, I can at least form cohesive sentances.

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
I disagree.  MisterJB is only masking it.  I find his argument that one sort of autocratic govt is better or worse than another to be specious at best.  The argument about "mages cause a magocracy" only gets teeth if you make the further (and often implied) assumption that magocracy==Tevinter.

-Polaris

Yeah, I'm totally in the "magocracy=Tevinter" closet. You got me.
You know, MisterJB is right here. You could just ask him. 
Yes, I firmly believe some autocratic governments can be preferable to others; Dalish and Tevinter, for an extremely obvious example; and I've explained why in previous posts. Disagree all you want but going up to people telling them what they believe is rather arrogant.

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  MisterJB is only masking it.  I find his argument that one sort of autocratic govt is better or worse than another to be specious at best.  The argument about "mages cause a magocracy" only gets teeth if you make the further (and often implied) assumption that magocracy==Tevinter.

-Polaris

Right, so you're just going to ignore anything that goes against your preconceptions.

Business as usual.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I disagree.  MisterJB is only masking it.  I find his argument that one sort of autocratic govt is better or worse than another to be specious at best.  The argument about "mages cause a magocracy" only gets teeth if you make the further (and often implied) assumption that magocracy==Tevinter.

-Polaris

Yeah, I'm totally in the "magocracy=Tevinter" closet. You got me.
You know, MisterJB is right here. You could just ask him. 
Yes, I firmly believe some autocratic governments can be preferable to others; Dalish and Tevinter, for an extremely obvious example; and I've explained why in previous posts. Disagree all you want but going up to people telling them what they believe is rather arrogant.

Your arguments about the Dalish have never been convincing.  You try to argue it's bad, but ultimately the Dalish choose to live under this arrangement and they like it.  What's more, it's not really a magocracy anyway, and I daresay the Dalish live better lives than human peasents in Orlais and elsewhere.

So, yes, I don't believe you.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  MisterJB is only masking it.  I find his argument that one sort of autocratic govt is better or worse than another to be specious at best.  The argument about "mages cause a magocracy" only gets teeth if you make the further (and often implied) assumption that magocracy==Tevinter.

-Polaris

Right, so you're just going to ignore anything that goes against your preconceptions.

Business as usual.

No, but The pattern has been there for years.  The templar argument both here and in the damn game has always been, "Show that free mages lead to mage domination"  then "mage domination == Tevinter".  The problem is that JB is on step one.

-Polaris

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Mages earn their way of life through the use of their abilities. That is exactly equality.

By that logic, mages and non-mages are equal in Tevinter which is, of course, absurd.

What a total strawman. Equality doesn't exist in Tevinter because mages actively subjugate non-mages. It has nothing to do with allowing mages to earn better lives for themselves.

"Equality" that lends to people being unequal is no true equality. I'm certain the mages would absolutely love the freedom to use their superior abilities to place themselves above all non-mages. Hey, it's not their fault some are born with it and some are not. Deal with it, peasant.

There is no such thing as "true" equality, and that's not what I'm talking about when I use the term "equality". Classism is inevitable in any society, even in communist soiceties that actively sought to acheive true equality. Classism is present in most of Western society now, the division between rich and poor is nigh insurmountable and gets ever wider, but that doesn't mean that the poor are somehow being automatically subjugated.

The best any society can hope to acheive is to give everyone equal rights, primarily the right to better their lives through non-harmful means, and make sure those rights are properly protected.

But it should come as no suprise that those who actually care about the non-mage population of Thedas have a problem with this.

I care about the non-mage population of Thedas, and I don't have a problem with it, because I'm not a big jealous crybaby. Some people are naturally more inventive, or naturally shrewder when it comes to business, and they use these skills to better their lives. Such handicaps are insurmountable. All other inputs being equal, the naturally talented person will always enjoy more success than the less-so. It's the same with mages.

Mages living more comfortable lives than the peasantry is not a problem. As pro-Templar whiners keep saying, that's already the case, assuming you ignore the trauma of being kidnapped and the obvious psychological problems that develop from being repeatedly told that your existence is everything wrong with the world.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 juin 2013 - 05:13 .

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
The best any society can hope to acheive is to give everyone equal rights, primarily the right to better their lives through non-harmful means, and make sure those rights are properly protected.

A personal belief. You value the intention more whereas I prioritize the actual results of a decision more. We could give equal rigths to mages and non-mages but it wouldn't result in them being equal, only in mages becoming more sucessful. At least, it's refreshing to see a pro-mage who simply says "I don't care" rather than trying to argue that it would not be the final result.
But there is no reason why non-mages should simply accept that or worse, actually assist the mages in taking over; rather, they should take steps to avoid it.

It's true, there is no true equality nor will there ever be. I expanded more on the subject all we as how that applies to today's world in the previous pages. You can check it if you want. Or just ignore it.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Knowledge? You didn't show any.

On what "facts" pray tell did you base you claim that an Eluvian is a good thing?

Also, I can at least form cohesive sentances.

You need to aquire knowledge to survive. if the eluvian is good you can use it if its bad  you can control it. if you remain ignorant to its abilities it can spiral out of control or fall in the wrong hands.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
The best any society can hope to acheive is to give everyone equal rights, primarily the right to better their lives through non-harmful means, and make sure those rights are properly protected.

A personal belief. You value the intention more whereas I prioritize the actual results of a decision more. We could give equal rigths to mages and non-mages but it wouldn't result in them being equal, only in mages becoming more sucessful. At least, it's refreshing to see a pro-mage who simply says "I don't care" rather than trying to argue that it would not be the final result.
But there is no reason why non-mages should simply accept that or worse, actually assist the mages in taking over; rather, they should take steps to avoid it.

It's true, there is no true equality nor will there ever be. I expanded more on the subject all we as how that applies to today's world in the previous pages. You can check it if you want. Or just ignore it.

I don't believe it will be the final result. I don't believe mage freedom will make a great deal of difference to the overall operation of Thedas at all. Barring some sort of spontaneous world-changing event, mages are still a minority, even if their numbers are increasing. They have little to no poltiical powerbase, and mundane society already has countermeasures against magic.

But if your worst fears are realised and the mages better their lot in life through entirely legitimate means that harm no-one, you're right, I won't care. I'm only interested in actual oppression, not the imaginary oppression you describe, where the peasantry suffers a worldwide epidemic of butthurt for no reason.

If the mages do become actual oppressors, instead of just sitting in their ivory towers and minding their own business, then I'll worry about that when it happens.

[Qyla]

Grumpy cat is always right

[MisterJB]

alexbing88 wrote...
PPS: okay, I'm just scrolling up the page to understand your postion - sorry if I look inattentive but I can only read your posts in between edits...

Okay - so we do agree that your priciple position against mageocracy is contingent on something else. Namely, if I read your above posts correctly, you are opposed to the idea of a Ontological Monopoly over the right of governance. And yes, I agree that this tenet has merit. However, if there are no alternatives to Ontological Monopolies, can we brand anyone a tyrant?

You can, of course, raise two counter arguments. First, you will say that Chantry rule is right in front of us, and their agents are not of an Ontological elite. I will then disagree, because just as "mage" is an ontology, "not-mage" is also an ontology. In a regieme where any ontology is systematically disempowered, its opposing ontology automatically has the monopoly. You will then counter me by saying that non-mages, by virtue of being in the majority, cannot be an ontological ELITE. But still I'd doubt when it comes to ontological monopolies, numbers is a final arbiter. The act of preventing ontological elitism cannot be weighed in a vacuum, but has to be placed in the context of the ontological oppression that it seems to entail.

At this philosophical impasse I can rest easy and give my own blunt opinion in simple words. A wrong world cannot be goverened rightly. In terms of action, I will have multiple playthroughs side with a variety of factions and making a variety of choices. But that will not a be a blase decision based on entertainement. I actually mean the mumbo jumbo that I say.

Actually, it's not, precisely, about the possibility of a state where only mages are allowed to rule. I don't actually consider that to be an inevitability.
It's also not about ontology; at least not in the sense where the differences between the ontology "human" and the ontology "elf" are nearly objectivelly irrelevant in any fashion beyond societal constructs.
Rather, it's about the possibility; or inevitabilty; of most of society's infrastructure becoming reliant on magic meaning that mages control the infrastructure. And when that, avenues for the improvement of non-mages are simply closed off and they can't even try to lower the mage elite; which can and has been done to the noble elite; without reinventing society as a whole.
Therefore, we can say my doubts come from empirical effects. Now, you can say our own world today has its own elites despite the inexistence of magic i our world. And that's true. But, in theory, anyone can rise because knowledge, money and technology are not, unlike magic, exclusive to the bloodlines of certain people. Technology; once again, unlike magic; can be used by everyone (which brings us back to that remark of yours).
Chances are that if DA happened in a 21st century setting, I would be less pro-templar than I am today.

Ultimately, this also means I don't believe a middle term; or equality, if you will; is a possibility. One side must, inevitably, dominate the other. Given my own existance as a human without acess to any magical ability plus non-mages making up the majority of people in Thedas, I have chosen to side with the non-mages which also means siding with the Templars.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, you missed a good use: Alain waking up your sibling. Cleansing the Eluvian of darkspawn taint was also objectively good.

That's a very silly statmenet, given that we have no idea what the Eluvian actually does.

There's nothing silly about Xil's statement. The taint can corrupt the land, objects, and even people (as the other shards in the Elven Ruins turned the elves who came into contact with it into ghouls) - removing the taint from the shard can be seen as a good thing for those of us who aren't darkspawn.

Also, we have some idea about what the ancient elven technology does. The Eluvians were once used for communication over vast distances, and apparently can lead to a place "beyond this world, and beyond the Fade". Merrill and Morrigan have researched the lore on the Eluvians.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
I don't believe it will be the final result. I don't believe mage freedom will make a great deal of difference to the overall operation of Thedas at all. Barring some sort of spontaneous world-changing event, mages are still a minority, even if their numbers are increasing. They have little to no poltiical powerbase, and mundane society already has countermeasures against magic.

What if magic becomes the equivalent of electricity and oil? Only a minority of people; when compared to the world; dominate those sectors.

But if your worst fears are realised and the mages better their lot in life through entirely legitimate means that harm no-one, you're right, I won't care. I'm only interested in actual oppression, not the imaginary oppression you describe, where the peasantry suffers a worldwide epidemic of butthurt for no reason.

If the mages do become actual oppressors, instead of just sitting in their ivory towers and minding their own business, then I'll worry about that when it happens.

Imaginary? Well, imagine this situation. Elves live in alienages exactly as they are now. But humans simply stay in their part of town. No human bothers the elves, they have equal rights (as they do now, actually). There is simply an enormous pro-human bias that impossibilitates any elf from gaining any employment beyond the lowest steps of the ladder. But again, no violence.

Is their opression imaginary?

Modifié par MisterJB, 15 juin 2013 - 05:50 .