68 réponses à ce sujet

[WillieStyle]

And I think Hegel's notion of daisen is related to the epistemology of quantum mechanics; "there is no truth, only phenomena". However, I've never completely understood Hegel; his work is very dense. So perhaps I'm completely wrong.

[WillieStyle]

Thank you for your response, Hedinve. I concur: insofar as Heidegger understood dasein (I appreciate your suggestion here on the spelling of Da-sein, even though I like keeping it as a capital letter for non-linguistic reasons) as the human being, which is characterized as being-in-the-world, there is no way dasein can satisfy this property without having a body...

Snip

I actually understood that. Neat!

[Radiant Heart]

Interesting, I think I understand your point. However, how is The Well different from any other repository of knowledge, or indeed, any type of learning at all?

 

Everything is tainted by something, there is no such thing as "pure knowledge", because even the simplest of observations which led to any kind of knowledge had to be made by a person or a group of persons, which in turn must "taint" their observations.

 

You are absolutely correct: there is no such thing as 'pure knowledge'. The illusion of the 'sovereign subject', entirely detached from the world, able to observe all things before him as objects, is one of the most enduring misconception of our human condition. We are indeed characterized by our (well-documented and psychologically confirmed) cognitive biases.

 

However, I would caution against using the word 'taint' to describe this condition. A 'taint' is a corrupting influence upon something otherwise free of disorder. If indeed the human condition is always and everywhere qualified by its historical context, then our "historically effected consciousness" is not a taint. Rather, our historically effected consciousness is precisely the precondition for any inquiry or understanding at all!

 

In this respect, the Well of Sorrows is the same as any other 'knowledge' we may acquire, with one important difference: the knowledge I acquire through my own dialectical relationship with the world in which I live is filtered through my own historically effected consciousness. Once I partake of the Well of Sorrows, it appears as though my frame of reference will be dramatically altered once my horizon of meaning fuses with the numerous other minds! In a sense, I will be sacrificing my very identity (if we think Heidegger is a good guide for understanding being). This new identity appears as though it will be entirely servile to Mythal. I, for one, would forgo knowledge if it meant sacrificing my very self.

 

You asked a very good question, and I wanted to provide a thoughtful response, Tzeentchian Apostrophe. I hope this addresses your concern. If not, please let me know in what way I could be clearer.

[Medhia_Nox]

@Radiant Heart:  Warhammer 40K says what you're trying to express in a much more fun way.

 

"Beward the alien, the mutant, the heretic."  (Note:  It's why you fear them and what thinking like them will do to a human mind that carries the weight of your point)

 

Yes, downloading a full new perspective is amongst the many stupid magic things people get up to in DA.  Morrigan deserves everything she gets. "Knowledge at any cost" indeed.  Anyone who says that and means it... doesn't have much knowledge to begin with.

[Laughing_Man]

Yes, downloading a full new perspective is amongst the many stupid magic things people get up to in DA.  Morrigan deserves everything she gets. "Knowledge at any cost" indeed.  Anyone who says that and means it... doesn't have much knowledge to begin with.

 

Let's step back for a moment and ignore the overly dramatic and fantastic nature of The Well's dilemma.

 

Any kind of knowledge carries a cost with it. Sometimes the cost is merely time and effort, sometimes there are monetary costs.

Sometimes you can't *really* understand certain facts or concepts without being subject to pain, mental or otherwise.

 

Knowledge of threats can also lead to fear (which is another cost): Fear of sickness, fear of criminals, fear of governments, fear of rich people, fear of terrorists, etc.

 

Yet without knowledge and the search for it, what better are we from any other mindless beast that hides in a cave every time it encounters something slightly disconcerting? How can we hope to evolve and become better that we are today (in every aspect) if we abhor knowledge?

 

Like Mordin said, deleting the data for the Genophage cure will not erase the pain of those experimented upon, or stop future corrupt scientists from using abhorrent methods to achieve their aims.

 

Back to our case: If The Well is a danger, it's more of a danger because of a certain god skulking around, not because its influence on the Inquisitor.

Powerful the Inquisitor may be, but the Inquisitor is just a mortal.

[Big I]

The Well is a device for storing memories. We can't know (either in character or out) how it affects a person, because we don't know how it works. Does it store only memories related to Mythal and her service, or everything from childhood memories to a moment of death? Is there a limit to how much can be stored in it, or how much a single person can add to it? What safeguards, if any, exist to protect a drinkers' consciousness from psychological harm, or from outright possession by the minds of long dead elves?

 

What do we know about the Well? We know is that it doesn't appear to change people on a conscious level. It is not a brainwashing machine. Flemeth must actively use magic to control the physical actions of whomever drinks from the Well. Neither Morrigan or the Herald treat Flemeth with the awe and reverence one would expect a follower of Mythal to give her physical form.

 

However, it may control a person more insidiously. One difference in the confrontation with Flemeth between a Herald who drank and one who did not is that the one who didn't, at a point in the conversation, is able to attack Flemeth. This option is not present for one who drank. Does that represent a physical inability to act, or a lack of desire to do so? I would assume the latter considering how hostile you can be while talking to Flemeth.

 

We know the knowledge of the Well is accessible via "whispers". Flemeth may tell Morrigan to let the voices of the Well teach her "as I never did", and the Herald gains knowledge on how to tame a dragon, a perspective on Corypheus (he tells the advisors "he won't hide"), and can recognise Flemeth as Mythal.

 

To my mind, analysing the Well using theories of philosophy and knowledge is counter-productive. Even if we accept a certain theory about the nature of selfhood and knowledge as it relates to people, we've no way of knowing that that is at all applicable to the contents of the Well. Is it an angel on your shoulder, subtly influencing your actions? Is it a library of magical lore you can access piecemeal? Or something else entirely? The answer lies in the technical and scientific make up of the Well, in how it works and what makes it do so.

[Radiant Heart]

However, it may control a person more insidiously. One difference in the confrontation with Flemeth between a Herald who drank and one who did not is that the one who didn't, at a point in the conversation, is able to attack Flemeth. This option is not present for one who drank. Does that represent a physical inability to act, or a lack of desire to do so? I would assume the latter considering how hostile you can be while talking to Flemeth.

 

...

 

To my mind, analysing the Well using theories of philosophy and knowledge is counter-productive. Even if we accept a certain theory about the nature of selfhood and knowledge as it relates to people, we've no way of knowing that that is at all applicable to the contents of the Well. Is it an angel on your shoulder, subtly influencing your actions? Is it a library of magical lore you can access piecemeal? Or something else entirely? The answer lies in the technical and scientific make up of the Well, in how it works and what makes it do so.

 

Thank you very much for bringing this point up. There is no doubt you are correct on this point: the innumerable 'beings' of the Well are already subtly altering the horizons of possibility for the Inquisitor. This is yet more evidence for arguing for a Heideggerian understanding of being as a hermeneutical framework for understanding the interaction between Da-sein and the wills of the Well.

 

I understand your desire for prudence: it is incautious of me, perhaps, to make such claims on selfhood since I do not have all the information on the Well of Sorrows. It is as yet a mysterious device which we only fleetingly encounter in the story. Surely I should not make claims out of ignorance.

Yet, let us ask what "all the information" about the Well of Sorrows is, after all? Is not the Well of Sorrows a fabrication of some author? There is always more, and more, and more that the author could reveal about this Well. Indeed, the lore could be taken up by another writer in a different direction at some point in the future.

 

Rather, it seems that we should use whatever means we have at our disposal to understand the (admittedly) limited information we have been given. I propose a manner of interpreting the information we have received with an ontological analysis. You have offered me a fantastic critique, which allows me the opportunity to understand new ways of interpreting this phenomenon (or ever better, new ways of interpreting in general).

 

It is my contention that the truth is not found in any answer I may provide, but in the discussion which follows. The discussion is itself the truth.

[ElementalFury106]

lol

[Anaeme]

Now I can confirm that madness has taken root in this place

[turuzzusapatuttu]

*snip*

 

It is my contention that the truth is not found in any answer I may provide, but in the discussion which follows. The discussion is itself the truth.

 

[TheLittleBird]

I'm confused.

 

Wasn't all of this kind of apparent anyway? I see no real reason to approach it with Heideggerian terminology, as it seemed pretty clear to me from playing the game (Inquisition, that is) what the actual danger of the Well, as explained here, entails.

 

I'm also confused because you're on the BSN. You're drawing fancy pictures on the wall of a Neanderthal's cave, basically.

EDIT: I welcome you to the forums, Radiant Heart, I really do, but trust me, in a few weeks you'll have lost the ability to talk like you do now; instead you'll be talking like you're a teenager's text messages after a drunken night out.

[Brodoteau]

I feel it is my duty to point out:

1.  You like jargon.  Is there any reason to discuss the philosophical ideas in a means that confuses or isolates a larger portion of your readership?   I tend to agree with nightscrawl that you just want to show off.  

2.  Heidegger was a Nazi.  No that is not a joke or an insult, he was a card-carrying member of the National Socialist party.  Why is that relevant?  Well it is often hard to parse out the ideas in his philosophy that did not incorporate Nazi ideology since he often inserted those ideas so that he could win favour with the Nazi leadership.   Nazis believed in submission to the Fuhrer/culture/state, so perhaps from Heidegger perspective, accepting the Well of Sorrows is really akin to submission to the "Master Race."   Now do you see why any discussion of Heidegger can lead to uncomfortable conversations. 

3.  If you are going to do an existentialist look at the Well of Sorrows, you might want to start with the proto-existentialists of the 19th century.  For example, Kierkegaard.  Since really, the choice at the end of the Well of Sorrows is a Kierkegaard-esque final stage "leap of faith" -- where, quite literally, you are moving beyond rationality for submission to "a god."  Forget about the knowledge inherent within the the Well of Sorrows, the true choice is contained in the removal/submission of your free will so that you can better understand or join with "the Creator."   Philosophically speaking, this is much more in tune with the RPG elements of the game and also explains why you might leave your Love Interest at the altar (Kierkegaard jokes! Gotta love them)     

[TheLittleBird]

I feel it is my duty to point out:

1.  You like jargon.  Is there any reason to discuss the philosophical ideas in a means that confuses or isolates a larger portion of your readership?   I tend to agree with nightscrawl that you just want to show off.  

 

This I couldn't agree with more. To me, philosophy - and don't get me wrong, I love philosophy - often comes down to the discussion of pretty easily-understood concepts by way of using complex and mostly hard-for-the-layman-to-understand-words, often seemingly in an attempt to be something for the elite - and the elite only.

 

I imagine a lot of people would regularly have to consult the dictionary while reading the OP.

[Silver Moone]

*flips through dictionary* 

[Dio Demon]

We all solve the mysteries of the universe when we're high.

How do you think I became a demon?

 

Not because I was giving blowjobs for cash.

[Dio Demon]

Well.. that's not how I became a demon.

As a Despair Demon I must understand the frailties of the human psyche which can only be understood by... (500 lines later) and that's how one becomes a Despair Demon.

 

Now we have a test tomorrow on that speech worth 50% of your grade...

 

Good luck 

[QueenCrow]

This I couldn't agree with more. To me, philosophy - and don't get me wrong, I love philosophy - often comes down to the discussion of pretty easily-understood concepts by way of using complex and mostly hard-for-the-layman-to-understand-words, often seemingly in an attempt to be something for the elite - and the elite only.

 

I imagine a lot of people would regularly have to consult the dictionary while reading the OP.

 

In my experience, the "elite" are elite because they are able to form solid theses and present their ideas in ways that are easily understood by their target audiences.  They do this because they want the merits solid thesis to be understood.  Something that is written to purposefully seem complex and hard-to-understand is, in my opinion, usually a mask for something other than a sound idea.

 

Brodoteau's idea of incorporating the ideas of other philosophers and students of human psyche is a good idea, I believe.  I hope the philosophical discussion of the Well of Sorrows expands in that direction.

[Medhia_Nox]

@TheLittleBird:  How is that different than ANY discipline? You think lawyers are paid a lot because they're smart?  They're paid a lot because they understand law jargon.  The same with doctors, scientists, businessmen, the religious and yes, philosophers. 

 

There's a slight difference however.  Something like law is often used to confound the truth.  While scientific jargon is used simply to categorize the truth.  Philosophical jargon attempts (whether well or poorly) to illuminate the truth through a deeper understanding of what the topic is that is being discussed.  I'm not saying it is successful - and actually, is why I responded to Radiant Heart with very basic and not philosophical speech. 

 

@Radiant Heart: You speak well when you say that the conversation itself is the truth.  Take Tzeenchian Apostrophe's assertions vs. my own opinion.  I find it funny that I use Warhammer 40K as an example and someone with "Tzeench" in his name responds.  It is very possible that somewhere between his and my 'truth' about knowledge lies an even greater truth illuminated through the discussion.

 

While I can agree with his assertion that "all knowledge comes at a cost" - I do not agree with what he seems to say next "all costs are worth paying".  The sentiment is hidden in the subtext of his assertion that, without knowledge we are simply animals hiding in caves and not bettering.

 

There is no empirical evidence to suggest 1) Animals are lesser beings (or that animals are even capable of what we understand as fear - anthropomorphism of animals does not make it truth). 2) Knowledge leads to betterment. 

 

I would instead assert - that with the advent of the industrial revolution - mankind has been on an environmental downward spiral toward potential self-destruction all because of obsession with knowledge without wisdom.

 

Wisdom, as I use it, can be considered: "Knowledge in conjunction with understanding."  Plenty of knowledge can be known without understanding the principle behind it.  Mathematics is a perfect example.  One can learn the repetition actions of solving mathematical problems without understanding the principles behind math.  An even simpler example would be a machine.  One knows how to drive a car without knowing how to build one or truthfully how it runs.  

 

----

 

Concerning the Well:  This is knowledge without understanding (wisdom).  By itself, it may prove to be 1) Mind shattering or 2) Benign - depending on what the knowledge is.  But without understanding it has a much greater chance of being used ignorantly (not unlike the wasteful, polluting beings of consumption pushing the boundaries of their planets capabilities that we have become because of ignorance).  The chance that it would become 3) Enlightening is small (as it relies on the preparation of the recipient to be capable of assimilating that knowledge before use) - and a gamer is simply playing on the odds of being the "special snowflake" to make such a decision.  And - as we know - there is a very steep consequence to the one who does take from the Well.  

 

This is why I appreciate things like the works of HP Lovecraft and Warhammer 40K.   You're free to take the knowledge, but your stupid little monkey mind simply can't process it... and so, you go mad.  I prefer stories that suggest that the arrogance of self-important people who think they're smart enough to understand the universe as seen by something other than a human is punished for the folly is inevitably turns out to be. 

[Bizantura]

This I couldn't agree with more. To me, philosophy - and don't get me wrong, I love philosophy - often comes down to the discussion of pretty easily-understood concepts by way of using complex and mostly hard-for-the-layman-to-understand-words, often seemingly in an attempt to be something for the elite - and the elite only.

 

I imagine a lot of people would regularly have to consult the dictionary while reading the OP.

 

 

Todays most western elites bearly manage to read the teleprompter.