191 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Mmm. You see, what's happening is that you've stumbled across what you imagine is a weapon in my thread - you get to pretend you're a stalwart defender of 'science' and I'm the brainless gung-ho fool discarding it.

To quote Mike from Breaking Bad, "Now you wear it if it makes you feel better, but if push comes to shove, it's not gonna help."

Remember your phase of quoting terms off Wikipedia or somewhere? That didn't go so well either.

[dreamgazer]

I'm courageous. Get in, losers. I'm gonna go win us a war!

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Mmm. You see, what's happening is that you've stumbled across what you imagine is a weapon in my thread - you get to pretend you're a stalwart defender of 'science' and I'm the brainless gung-ho fool discarding it.

To quote Mike from Breaking Bad, "Now you wear it if it makes you feel better, but if push comes to shove, it's not gonna help."

Remember your phase of quoting terms off Wikipedia or somewhere? That didn't go so well either.

If you are talking about the fallacies you used, it is irrelevent where someone got the defenition, it still applied.

And if you are referring to the time where you refused to believe the neuro-science I posted because you didn't understand the wording, thats your own problem.

Modifié par Steelcan, 07 janvier 2014 - 08:32 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Mmm. You see, what's happening is that you've stumbled across what you imagine is a weapon in my thread - you get to pretend you're a stalwart defender of 'science' and I'm the brainless gung-ho fool discarding it.

To quote Mike from Breaking Bad, "Now you wear it if it makes you feel better, but if push comes to shove, it's not gonna help."

Remember your phase of quoting terms off Wikipedia or somewhere? That didn't go so well either.

It went very well as I remember. I still do it. Literally everything you say is an appeal to ridicule. 

That statement was a contextomy by the way. 

And it's not like I've ever gone onto TV Tropes and changed things then proceeded to present them as evidence.

And yes, I do believe you are that, mainly because you haven't demonstrated otherwise. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm courageous. Get in, losers. I'm gonna go win us a war!

Heroes and characterization will win the day!

[ruggly]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm courageous. Get in, losers. I'm gonna go win us a war!

With zero combat training, I will help you anyways!

[Steelcan]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm courageous. Get in, losers. I'm gonna go win us a war!

[ImaginaryMatter]

dreamgazer wrote...

I'm courageous. Get in, losers. I'm gonna go win us a war!

I'm ready

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
So let me get this straight. You're somehow under the impression that revulsion at monsters is 'meaningless defiance' with 'nothing real to back it up.'

Revulsion is just an emotion. Emotions drive our actions, but emotions *alone* (please note the distinction) are meaningless without the power to back them up, and determination does not give you power in any real sense. Why the hell should the Reapers give a crap about how charismatic and determined Shepard is? Why should anyone, if there is no real argument behind it? A mere "You must do it" or "I can do it" is meaningless without either good arguments or big guns.

Ieldra, do you have any clue what 'real' means? That revulsion is the same revulsion we feel when confronted by any evil. Every society in existence condemns murder. Every system of law and justice. And they do it based on the same revulsion both the player and Shepard are faced with when they look at the Reapers.

Is that your claim, Ieldra? That morals are not 'real'? Good and evil are not 'real'? Are you prepared to follow through with even the easiest ramifications of such a belief, let alone the more difficult ones?

Well....no. The revulsion people feel is a combination of rejecting the Reapers' actions and a visceral disgust which is mostly driven by their disgusting appearance - what I call "abomination aesthetic". I also think mere revulsion is not what should drive your actions if they determine the fate of a galaxy. That decision needs to be made with expediency, not with passion, except maybe passion for the kind of future you want.   

What do I think? I think that morality is based on a set of human intuitions which has evolved in our species in order to make us work together in a community, which we, as a social species, need to survive. It's a survival trait like many others and has no special meaning. Most notably, it is not real in an ontological sense. That certain actions are "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense is purely a figment of our imagination. It does not *have* meaning rather than we *ascribe* it meaning. It is "good" for us that we have it in the sense that it's useful for the survival of our species and that without it our life would be more unpleasant in some ways, but it's a purely human conceit in the end.

If you ask me what is "good", I will ask you "good for what?"

Having said that, yes, I do have some of the same intuitions, but I do not ascribe them any meaning beyond their domain - human interaction.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 janvier 2014 - 09:25 .

[David7204]

First of all, determination gives a person a great deal of power regardless of what it's based on. If someone on the street was very determined to kill me, they could almost certainly figure out a way to do it, regardless if their reasons were completely stupid or nonsensical. So that's just nonsense. It would be a stupid story and is thus unfit for narrative, but it's no less real.

Secondly, you've clearly backed yourself into a dead end. Okay, you might be able to argue that Shepard's revulsion of the Reapers, along with all other human values are 'meaningless.' Fine. Do you think you can argue any of your goals are any more objectively meaningful? Do you suppose you can argue that anything in any fiction is 'objectively meaningful' if Shepard's resistance to the Reapers is not? Do you suppose you can argue than anything, anywhere, in fiction or reality is objectively good or 'meaningful'?

No Ieldra, it's clear you me you believe 'Everything is meaningless!' long enough to make a nice forum post and then let it slide away off your brain.

Modifié par David7204, 07 janvier 2014 - 09:37 .

[ImaginaryMatter]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, determination gives a person a great deal of power regardless of what it's based on. If someone on the street was very determined to kill me, they could almost certainly figure out a way to do it, regardless if their reasons were completely stupid or nonsensical. So that's just nonsense. It would be a stupid story and is thus unfit for narrative, but it's no less real.

Determination doesn't give the person on the street any power, guns, knives, and cars do. He already has the power it's just a matter of whether or not he wants to use them.

Modifié par ImaginaryMatter, 07 janvier 2014 - 09:41 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, determination gives a person a great deal of power regardless of what it's based on. If someone on the street was very determined to kill me, they could almost certainly figure out a way to do it, regardless if their reasons were completely stupid or nonsensical. So that's just nonsense. It would be a stupid story and is thus unfit for narrative, but it's no less real.

Secondly, you've clearly backed yourself into a dead end. Okay, you might be able to argue that Shepard's revulsion of the Reapers, along with all other human values are 'meaningless.' Fine. Do you think you can argue any of your goals are any more objectively meaningful? Do you suppose you can argue that anything in any fiction is 'objectively meaningful' if Shepard's resistance to the Reapers is not? Do you suppose you can argue than anything, anywhere, in fiction or reality is objectively good or 'meaningful'?

No Ieldra, it's clear you me you believe 'Everything is meaningless!' long enough to make a nice forum post and then let it slide away off your brain.

The difference between Ieldra and you is that Ieldra isn't trying to objectively prove anything. He's not saying any of his idea's are objectively meaningful in a universal sense (and if he is, then he is indeed incorrect imo).

And no, there is no objective good or meaningful thing in the universe. That is my true belief. 

In that, there's its own beauty. You find your own meaning. You make your own meaning. You make your own good.

As I said, you're not very experienced with either fiction or philosophy. This is a stance on moral nihilism from how I'm observing it. Or, to spin it better, there is no such thing as objective morality. There is no great cosmic reward for good or eternal punishment for bad. They're simply actions of chaos that don't do or mean anything intrinsic to the universe.

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
Secondly, you've clearly backed yourself into a dead end. Okay, you might be able to argue that Shepard's revulsion of the Reapers, along with all other human values are 'meaningless.' Fine. Do you think you can argue any of your goals are any more objectively meaningful? Do you suppose you can argue that anything in any fiction is 'objectively meaningful' if Shepard's resistance to the Reapers is not? Do you suppose you can argue than anything, anywhere, in fiction or reality is objectively good or 'meaningful'?

Why would I want to argue that? I don't believe in *any* objective values, and as for fiction, take any story and you'll find people who find it meaningless to them.

No, all that a story can hope to accomplish is to resonate with many people in some way, giving it meaning *for them*. Consider the Mass Effect trilogy. It resonates with many people in drastically different ways, and you come here and *dare* claim that there's some "objective" meaning in it? Our disagreements alone should tell you it's not so. 

No Ieldra, it's clear you me you believe 'Everything is meaningless!' long enough to make a nice forum post and then let it slide away off your brain.

*Sigh* It would be nice if people like you stopped telling me what I believe and making strawmen out of the real thing. Clearly you have no understanding of what it's like to have a perspective like mine. I believe that meaning rests in the mind of those who ascribe meaning to things, and nowhere else. It can be important on several different levels, the personal and communal, but it still has no reality outside the minds of those who believe in it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 janvier 2014 - 10:41 .

[David7204]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Why would I want to argue that? I don't believe in *any* objective values, and as for fiction, take any story and you'll find people who find it meaningless to them.

I'm glad we've established that.

So on what basis are you complaining that Shepard's defiance of the Reapers is 'meaningless'?

[Obadiah]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The basic dissonance is more about intellect than power: we have entities with cognitive abilities and knowledge far beyond that of galactic civilization, and here comes a human of average intelligence, if that (let's face it, Shepard isn't the brightest if you take everything at face value), and "solves" it all through sheer defiance and determination, nothing of which is backed up by any kind of real argument. If Shepard had spoken at least with above-average *human* intelligence, it would be far less galling.

Do we need to understand the Reapers to defeat them? I thought that was one of the take-aways from Vigil's conversation. We don't need to understand the Reapers or win an argument with them to defeat them. Also, I always looked at the story as "life" defeating the Reapers, with Shepard and this cycle as one important aspect of it, but unable to defeath the Reapers on its own.

Modifié par Obadiah, 07 janvier 2014 - 11:34 .

[CrutchCricket]

The article is right on the money. It's unfortunate because it means cheapening the Reapers was inevitable, at least if you wanted them defeated. Still, there are better ways to do it that making them killbots slaved to holographic children and broken logic.

The dissonance described need not be completely contradictory however. Our insignificance in the scale of the universe is a favorite topic of mine. But just as I realize that nothing we do matters from the cosmic perspective, I also must acknowledge that we have another perspective, namely our own, by virtue of being self-aware "I's" and in that perspective it does matter. Of course it'd be hard to build a game around that, particularly when the main threat is stretching to the cosmic. But I think that distinction is a reconciliation of sorts.

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Why would I want to argue that? I don't believe in *any* objective values, and as for fiction, take any story and you'll find people who find it meaningless to them.

I'm glad we've established that.

So on what basis are you complaining that Shepard's defiance of the Reapers is 'meaningless'?

Because defiance by itself can't accomplish anything real?

[SwobyJ]

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The basic dissonance is more about intellect than power: we have entities with cognitive abilities and knowledge far beyond that of galactic civilization, and here comes a human of average intelligence, if that (let's face it, Shepard isn't the brightest if you take everything at face value), and "solves" it all through sheer defiance and determination, nothing of which is backed up by any kind of real argument. If Shepard had spoken at least with above-average *human* intelligence, it would be far less galling.

Do we need to understand the Reapers to defeat them? I thought that was one of the take-aways from Vigil's conversation. We don't need to understand the Reapers or win an argument with them to defeat them. Also, I always looked at the story as "life" defeating the Reapers, with Shepard and this cycle as one important aspect of it, but unable to defeath the Reapers on its own.

You got it.

Life and Death.

Chaos and Order.

Hell and Heaven, Earth and Purgatory.

It's all there

Personally though, as a player I LIKE to understand them. I do think it contains at least hints on where the series will go, or I at least like to try to work with info to imagine what will come.

I just don't think the war is about understanding the Reapers. I think understanding the Reapers, at least for now, is a temptation that can drive us away from the goal.

[David7204]

AlanC9 wrote...

Because defiance by itself can't accomplish anything real?

First of all, it can.

Second of all, it's not by itself.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Because defiance by itself can't accomplish anything real?

First of all, it can.

Second of all, it's not by itself.

No it can't. Explain how it accomplishes anything.

Yep. It's just the little munchkin behind the bigger and stronger things.

[AlanC9]

That's my question as well.

[Ieldra]

Obadiah wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The basic dissonance is more about intellect than power: we have entities with cognitive abilities and knowledge far beyond that of galactic civilization, and here comes a human of average intelligence, if that (let's face it, Shepard isn't the brightest if you take everything at face value), and "solves" it all through sheer defiance and determination, nothing of which is backed up by any kind of real argument. If Shepard had spoken at least with above-average *human* intelligence, it would be far less galling.

Do we need to understand the Reapers to defeat them? I thought that was one of the take-aways from Vigil's conversation. We don't need to understand the Reapers or win an argument with them to defeat them. Also, I always looked at the story as "life" defeating the Reapers, with Shepard and this cycle as one important aspect of it, but unable to defeath the Reapers on its own.

Vigil is an idiot in that, and ME sends an idiotic message in that. Maybe it's not necessary in the end that you understand them, but how would you ever *not* strive to understand your enemy in a war, try to discern what drives them, what they can do, on which principles their capabilities are based, maybe predict their moves? There mere idea that anyone would consider gathering such intelligence unimportant in a war is ludicrous.

Mass Effect: "Your task is not to understand them, but to stop them"
XCOM: Enemy Unknown: "How can we hope to defeat an enemy we don't understand?"

I find the  latter message much more plausible, and there's another thing XCOM gets right: Such knowledge *will* change you, it's inevitable. ME gives us the Catalyst as a convenient means to stay ignorant in the Lovecraftian sense, but I am firmly convinced that such ignorance is not an option.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 janvier 2014 - 12:16 .

[David7204]

Mass Effect never 'sends' that message. In fact, in having Shepard continually ask such questions, it sends the opposite message. Perhaps you should edit your post to dispel that very misleading conclusion.

Modifié par David7204, 08 janvier 2014 - 12:19 .

[SwobyJ]

I thought the idea was that against the Reapers, the normal rules no longer apply. That they're so far ahead, and no unlike anything fought before, that understanding them would only distract from the main issue of stopping them before that even becomes a thing.

Vigil has no problem with understanding the CYCLE and mistakes made - and one of the mistakes made could have been that people wanted to understand them (and thus open themselves up to indoctrination influence... which seems to be the pattern).

I don't think that's idiotic, but the start of an understanding of Reaper tactics. By 'understand', Vigil clearly means 'open yourself up to sympathizing with'. We can understand their tactics and even their technology to a point, but understanding their motives will only hurt any fight *against* them. And lo and behold...