264 réponses à ce sujet

[Invisible Man]

@ necanor
I'm not sure tojo fits that list, he was just a figurehead iirc.

Modifié par Invisible Man, 17 février 2014 - 11:18 .

[Sir DeLoria]

You're completely ignoring my main point, individuals, no matter how much of an "übermensch" they might be, are incapable of ruling. Yes, I acknowledge that democracy isn't a perfect system either, but when compared to a state ruled by the authority and ideology of a single man it comes off to me(and most people) as the far better deal. Needless to say, that systems similar to yours very often ended in catastrophe.

[Sir DeLoria]

Invisible Man wrote...

@ necanor
I'm not sure tojo fits that list, he was a just a figurehead iirc.

Not really, Emperor Hirohito was a figurehead(more or less). Prime Ministe Tojo held the real power.

[Sir DeLoria]

StreetMagic wrote...
Ubermensch isn't necessarily tyrranical. Conan is probably the more accurate description of what Neitzsche meant. He had no ideology.. He was almost childlike. Which is what Neitzsche really was advocating. Some kind of approximation of humanity before philosophy and "civilization" shaped us. Some kind of ideal of a man that was part beast.

One of the better illustrations of how Conan acted was this short story where he got arrested for stealing food or something, and some guards caught up with him. They made claims of arrest, but he didn't see it that way. He just went with them, because he was curious. He'd never heard of anything like it. They took him to a magistrate. He didn't understand any of their notions of law or what the courtroom was about. But by the end of the proceeding, they condemned him. Then he realized it was a power play, and simply killed everyone in the courtroom. Then walked out of town. To him, that's the only thing that put someone in the "right": That he could simply win and overpower everyone. No beating around the bush, no moral considerations (neither good or evil), no understanding of law or how societies worked.

I think I get what you're saying and I'm not even condeming the very idea of the Nietzschean übermensch(though I heavily disagree with it), but what I'm saying is, that this principle doesn't work in real life. Conan, like Shepard is but a fictional character in a fictional world. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

You're completely ignoring my main point, individuals, no matter how much of an "übermensch" they might be, are incapable of ruling.

Provide me proof how this claim is factual. Don't simply list examples, tell me how it is categorically impossible.

Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great would like a word with you on it too.

Yes, I acknowledge that democracy isn't a perfect system either, but when compared to a state ruled by the authority and ideology of a single man it comes off to me(and most people) as the far better deal. Needless to say, that systems similar to yours very often ended in catastrophe.

As have many of yours. You really can't name any system that hasn't fallen over time. And why do you believe it's the better deal? Would anything or anyone change your mind to a notional capacity?

[Invisible Man]

Necanor wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

@ necanor
I'm not sure tojo fits that list, he was a just a figurehead iirc.

Not really, Emperor Hirohito was a figurehead(more or less). Prime Ministe Tojo held the real power.

i always thought it was the military leaders that called the shots and left tojo holding the bag. though i could be wrong.


---edit typos

Modifié par Invisible Man, 17 février 2014 - 11:25 .

[Sir DeLoria]

StreetMagic wrote...

Necanor wrote...

You're completely ignoring my main point, individuals, no matter how much of an "übermensch" they might be, are incapable of ruling. Yes, I acknowledge that democracy isn't a perfect system either, but when compared to a state ruled by the authority and ideology of a single man it comes off to me(and most people) as the far better deal. Needless to say, that systems similar to yours very often ended in catastrophe.

Just to be clear, your dispute is with MassivelyEffective, I think. I'm not advocating "ubermenschen". I'm just trying to give some definition to it a little. It's not as simple as tyranny.

I know, don't worry lol. My point is that the principle of the übermensch, when applied in real life usually results in tyranny.

[Sir DeLoria]

Invisible Man wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

@ necanor
I'm not sure tojo fits that list, he was a just a figurehead iirc.

Not really, Emperor Hirohito was a figurehead(more or less). Prime Ministe Tojo held the real power.

i always though it was the military leaders that called the shots and left tojo holding the bag. though i could be wrong.

Tojo was a military leader, he was iirc the highest ranking officer in the IJA. By 1944 Tojo had pretty much taken complete control over the Japanese government.

[Invisible Man]

Necanor wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

Necanor wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

@ necanor
I'm not sure tojo fits that list, he was a just a figurehead iirc.

Not really, Emperor Hirohito was a figurehead(more or less). Prime Ministe Tojo held the real power.

i always though it was the military leaders that called the shots and left tojo holding the bag. though i could be wrong.

Tojo was a military leader, he was iirc the highest ranking officer in the IJA. By 1944 Tojo had pretty much taken complete control over the Japanese government.

i was referring to the admirals & generals under him, he relied on their advice nearly to the point of having no individual thoughts of his own, politically or militarily. I've studied ww2 quite a bit as a hobby, though that twas in my youth.


---edit
we're getting a bit off topic ,so i'll call it quits here

Modifié par Invisible Man, 17 février 2014 - 11:32 .

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Provide me proof how this claim is factual. Don't simply list examples, tell me how it is categorically impossible.

Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great would like a word with you on it too.

A generalization like that is impossible, that's not how humans work. But if you look at all leaders that qualify for your idea, you'll find that far more have failed than succeeded. Btw, Alex was a great general, a tactical genius, but he was not a good statesman and had severe problems with the loyalty of his own men. Thus his Empire crumbled right after his early death. 

As have many of yours. You really can't name any system that hasn't fallen over time. And why do you believe it's the better deal? Would anything or anyone change your mind to a notional capacity?

It's quite simple really, leaving the decisions to multiple minds is better than leaving them to one, no matter how great. The Romans ultimately proved that both systems don't work. However, the state probably faired better in the long run under the senate than the emperor. 

Modifié par Necanor, 17 février 2014 - 11:36 .

[RangerSG]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It is rigging the game. It's basically social darwinism for leaders. The issue with the French Aristocracy was that they were't very economical with their power and resources. I'd honestly say the French Revolution led to a greater tyranny in the short term than what existed before. And that tyranny was an improvement under Napoleon. Prior to that was economic devestation.

Of course the post-revolution years were bad, because no clear form of government had been established yet and the revolution was slowly eating its own children. Ultimately, the French Revolution set a milestone in modern political development and helped abolish one of the most unjust political systems in history.

Brought forth by the people themselves no less. And I thought it became more of a totalitarian system after the Revolution, which was hardly just. Necessary, but not just. It's kind of my personal idea on why populism is worthless.

Again though, what is justice?

The French Revolution has to be the most overromanticized event in history. They beheaded a King, and replaced it with an authoritarian council, only to replace that ultimately with an Emperor who openly despised the very precepts of the Revolution. They claimed to want Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. But ended up with a system where secret police could and did intrude on anyone, at anytime, for no reason and no due process. A system where the 'law' was used to settle grudges with such ferocity that the creators of the Council were devoured by their own creation. A system so broken they went back to a Reigning Monarch to have SOME concept of justice and order.

Unchecked populism is no less tyrannical than Totalitarianism. The Classical Philosophers believed strongly in "mixed government," by and large. And from Ancient Greece through modern times, the most effective governments have been neither autocratic nor democratic. But ones where there was a check on the power of either the Titular Head of State, or the Mob. 

Democracy is not, in itself, virtuous or just. And whenever it's enshrined as such by fiat, instead of carefully constructed so that checks and balances exist to protect the powers of minorities and those on the losing side of a ballot, the end result is the tyranny of the majority. 

So is the Council a 'bad' idea? Not if there's a legitimate check on its power. And it seems from the lore that there is. Each Councillor is not a 'ruler' in themselves. They can only act in concert with their own governments. The Specters don't represent unbridled authority, as there is a check on what they can do. Saren loses his status after all, Shepard can as well (for far less cause). 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'd say that being a tyrant, as Aristotle and Plato described it, is lacking in one thing for my personal ideal: I wouldn't be one to rule for myself. Power is a tool, not an end, and one that I'd use to enact policy that is socially progressive and economically flexible. I'm out for the overall benefit of the system in the long-term. Otherwise, I would rule outside the law and unrestricted by it when it was necessary, and I'd use cruel and extreme tactics against those that warrant its usage by the system.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Provide me proof how this claim is factual. Don't simply list examples, tell me how it is categorically impossible.

Caesar Augustus and Alexander the Great would like a word with you on it too.

A generalization like that is impossible, that's not how humans work.

Then why did you say it's impossible for a single human to effectively wield authoritative power? Claiming that it's psychologically or socially not possible for humans to work like that is akin to saying that all fish can't fly. It would be a true assertion if you said that it was impossible for humans to go a day without oxygen. But categorically saying that everyone is incapable of singular effective ruling is what you have already said: impossible to take seriously.

But if you look at all leaders that qualify for your idea, you'll find that far more have failed than succeeded. Btw, Alex was a great general, a tactical genius, but he was not a good statesman and had severe problems with the loyalty of his own men. Thus his Empire crumbled right after his early death.

I never claimed that any of those leaders qualified for my idea. You did. 

And I seem to recall that Alexander was a strong politician capable of uniting ties in hisconquered lands through his diplomacy and charisma. It's exactly why he died that his Empire crumbled. What happens when you remove the charismatic leader who's holding everything together?

It's quite simple really, leaving the decisions to multiple minds is better than leaving them to one, no matter how great. The Romans ultimately proved that both systems don't work. However, the state probably faired better in the long run under the senate than the emperor. 

Hmm, I'd say the State of Rome worked best under an Emperor who kept a council and a senate to bounce idea's off of and who listened to his advisors perspectives to gain insights that he might have missed, yet still retained ultimate authority. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 février 2014 - 11:53 .

[CroGamer002]

Terrible idea.

Everyone should be held responsible and accountable for their wrongdoings.

[Sir DeLoria]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Then why did you say it's impossible for a single human to effectively wield authoritative power? Claiming that it's psychologically or socially not possible for humans to work like that is akin to saying that all fish can't fly. It would be a true assertion if you said that it was impossible for humans to go a day without oxygen. But categorically saying that everyone is incapable of singular effective ruling is what you have already said: impossible to take seriously.

Simply put, I made a mistake there and acknowledge it. Your over-analysing and analogies are adorable but pretty pointless.

And I seem to recall that Alexander was a strong politician capable of uniting ties in hisconquered lands through his diplomacy and charisma. It's exactly why he died that his Empire crumbled. What happens when you remove the charismatic leader who's holding everything together?

He claimed most lands and allies by force and intimidation rather than dimplomacy and charisma. Like i said, he was a great general. He was never much involved in politics, seeing as how he spent a good half of his l short life on military campaigns. He might have been a charismatic leader, but failed to establish a stable Empire. Like I said, there was also extreme dissent among his officers and many believed he was poisoned.

[RangerSG]

Mesina2 wrote...

Terrible idea.

Everyone should be held responsible and accountable for their wrongdoings.

And who holds accountable those who hide behind borders to cause terror? The military? That kills more innocents. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Necanor wrote...
Simply put, I made a mistake there and acknowledge it. Your over-analysing and analogies are adorable but pretty pointless.

It's not over-analyzing. I do it in seconds. As for pointlessness, I'd argue that you tend to call any counter-argument one. 

He claimed most lands and allies by force and intimidation rather than dimplomacy and charisma. Like i said, he was a great general. He was never much involved in politics, seeing as how he spent a good half of his l short life on military campaigns. He might have been a charismatic leader, but failed to establish a stable Empire. Like I said, there was also extreme dissent among his officers and many believed he was poisoned.

And how do you think he held onto those lands? I ennunciated clearly that they were conquered. What kept Alexander's territories from descending into madness during his reign? His own charisma and leadership (along with his military prowess.) Beyond technological limitations for the time, there really was nothing that could stop Alexander from his holdings. It took exhaustion from nigh endless campaigns and heavy depletion of his forces against India, as well as what is believed to be typhoid fever exacerbated by malaria to kill him. His dissent among his officers was known but believed to be overstated glory-hunters and wall-flys who wanted in on his power, but his actual soldiers were fanatically loyal to him.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 18 février 2014 - 12:40 .

[The Night Mammoth]

I don't really know enough about them to comment. Mass Effect is like that sometimes. Some of the good parts of the lore are criminally underdeveloped.

So I fill in the gaps with head canon. The Specters I think of long after I've finished with the games is a decent enough idea. Each one is individually recruited from a range of organizations and races. They're largely dependent on the Council for their resources (ships, guns, materials), information (criminal profiles, mission reports, the Council archives), and their influence. I imagine they can prove their identities through an extranent mainframe, that also tracks their movements.

The big thing about these imaginary Specters is that they're built to self regulate. When one goes bad, their privileges are revoked and several other Specters are sent on a man hunt. You wont find ten Specters suddenly defecting because they don't form bonds with each other on account of them being solitary agents.

I think this system could make them a decent idea. Their primary use would be to level the playing field between the races. The turians can't go all USA on the Hanar and start drone bombing innocent civilians on the off chance they find a terrorist, because a Specter will come along and take away their toys.

[TheMyron]

IDK, I kind of like the immunities that come with Spectre status...

Including the kind Shepard should have utilized when the Alliance called for his arrest.

Modifié par TheMyron, 18 février 2014 - 02:34 .

[AlexMBrennan]

If Shepard had attempted to hide behind his spectre status the Alliance would just have had the council revoke it (his mandate is to deal with the collectors, not blow up Baterians) with the net result that everyone in the galaxy now knows that humans can't be trusted with anything.

[CrutchCricket]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If Shepard had attempted to hide behind his spectre status the Alliance would just have had the council revoke it (his mandate is to deal with the collectors, not blow up Baterians) with the net result that everyone in the galaxy now knows that humans can't be trusted with anything.

Wrong. His mandate is the same mandate as any other Spectre- preserve galactic stability. Preventing a Reaper invasion falls under that mandate, as does stopping the Collectors. Funny though, how neither tasks come to him by way of the Council.

And last I checked the Council needs evidence of wrongdoing before revoking Spectre status. If the Alliance were to implicate Shepard, they would also implicate themselves and the damage would be far greater than stripping one Spectre of rank.

The sheer stupidity of not only scapegoating Shepard for it, but Shepard actually going for it still galls me. I think only the endings are more nonsensical.