Todays most western elites bearly manage to read the teleprompter.
Sad, but true.
I understood OP's opening post and the ones thereafter, but... it's flowery and it loses its impact. This is why I hate discussing philosophy, even though I love some philosophers, particularly Kierkegaard and company. This is just two sides of the same coin. Folksy maxims and sentences that weigh more than the meaning of their words.
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.
There's a strong correlation between the Well and religious fundamentals of various cultures, isn't there? Drinking from the Well of Sorrows may be a correlation to the metaphor of taking the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The price of knowledge is the loss of one's innocence, the bliss of ignorance, and proverbial expulsion from paradise. Another correlation can be drawn with various pagan religious philosophies is sacrifice for knowledge. In Germanic pagan belief, Odin sacrificed to a well for knowledge. And the knowledge revealed is usually ugly - perhaps why the well in our game is called Vir Abelasan - The Way of Sorrows. To live is to suffer, as Buddhists regard existence, presence, or being.
Thank you for the HP Lovecraft and Warhammer 40K recommendations. I'll check them out based on your review. 
@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.
I didn't say it was different than any other discipline. There is a reason the term 'jargon' exists, after all.
What I meant was not that philosophy shouldn't use jargon. Instead, what I meant was that the use of philosophy in discussions such as this one too often suffers from the use of said jargon - whereby I do mean discussions that take place in forums, where the average member has never even heard of Heidegger. Complex terms are thrown around incredibly often, which causes the average layman to either evade the discussion altogether or read most of it with a dictionary in hand. I feel that philosophy itself does suffer from this at times.
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.
I agree. But that was basically my point; in that the use of complex and hard-to-understand words bars the 'layman' from fully understanding and joining in on the discussion.
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)
Responses to your points:
1. I want to assure you that I am genuinely sorry that my post came off as though I was trying to show off. You mention that my use of jargon is not only off-putting, but insulting as well. I am sorry for that as well, Brodeteau. I am trying to convey my reflections on a game that I thoroughly enjoy using the philosophical language I was taught. I can only hope that as you get to know me, you'll be more disposed to see me in a positive light. I am actually quite a nice person. I promise!
2. Heidegger was a Nazi. Unapologetically so, from all accounts. This was, and continues to be, a cause for concern in the philosophical community, particularly in the continental tradition. Along with Husserl, the entire phenomenological tradition was founded by him. I can understand your antipathy towards him. I certainly share it! What philosophers who work within this tradition generally do is accept the terminology which was handed down to them, but they are critical in their reception of the arguments Heidegger articulates. Levinas and Przywara are fantastic examples of this: they are able to critically appropriate Heidegger's phenomenological terminology into a healthier philosophical framework. Unfortunately for me, Levinas's work is even more dense and difficult to articulate, and Przywara's seminal accomplishment, the Analogia Entis, has only recently been translated into English, so English speaking philosophical community has not had as much time analyzing their work. I thought Heideggerian terminology would be the best bet.
3. I must admit, I have a difficult time with Kierkegaard for two reasons: (1) He is a fierce critic of Hegel (and I am a Hegel fan-boy), and as a result Kierkegaard's philosophical system is inimical to idealist strains. (2) The "leap of faith" Kierkegaard is advocating is not an epistemological leap. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a violent abadonment of a reasoned morality, back into a Divine-command theory of justice. His argument amounts to: "Abraham was right to have desired to sacrifice his son, because it was God who told him to do so." Most believing Christian philosophers argue against this "leap of faith" argument precisely because it so clearly argues that in order to begin the religious journey, one must abandon morality. Rather, most Christians seem to argue that the journey towards their God begins with a genuine sense of morality, a morality which can be attained through the well-ordered use of human reason.
@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.
Mehdia_Nox, each post you make is philosophical music to my ears.
As I read what you have to say, I am struck that you might shed some light on something that I have been puzzling over. If you share your thoughts on this little puzzle I have found, I would be most grateful: There are two expression/proverbs/definitions which we are very fond of in the English language. Yet, it seems that they are never placed in conjunction, because the conclusion appears to be unpalatable to our sensibilities.
Simply put, they are: (1) Knowledge is Power; and (2) Power corrupts.
These two expressions are considered to be practically axiomatic! And yet, taken together, they seem to inexorably lead to the conclusion that knowledge corrupts! Yet we do not want to believe that knowledge corrupts. We want to believe that knowledge edifies, enlightens, and enobles us. Tell me, what are we to make of this apparent dissonance between desire and reason?
There's a strong correlation between the Well and religious fundamentals of various cultures, isn't there? Drinking from the Well of Sorrows may be a correlation to the metaphor of taking the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The price of knowledge is the loss of one's innocence, the bliss of ignorance, and proverbial expulsion from paradise. Another correlation can be drawn with various pagan religious philosophies is sacrifice for knowledge. In Germanic pagan belief, Odin sacrificed to a well for knowledge. And the knowledge revealed is usually ugly - perhaps why the well in our game is called Vir Abelasan - The Way of Sorrows. To live is to suffer, as Buddhists regard existence, presence, or being.
Thank you for the HP Lovecraft and Warhammer 40K recommendations. I'll check them out based on your review.
I am glad you mentioned Buddhism, Lindraen. I cannot help but mention a Daoist parable I once heard.
As you likely know, Daoists and Buddhists were always arguing. Buddhism was usually presented to its listeners with rigorous philosophical exactitude. Daoism, on the other hand, was presented in fun stories. Here is one which I enjoy:
A Daoist man had passed by the water fall many times in order to collect water, and every day he would see a Buddhist monk sitting on the ground nearby. After a few weeks, the Daoist man built up the courage to approach the Buddhist. "What are you doing, sitting there all day, every day?" the Daoist asked hesitantly. The Buddhist replied in a calm voice, "I am here to find enlightment. I am here to achieve Buddha-hood." The Daoist looked at him incredulously, and then he thought of something. He picked up a rock, and sat down next to the Buddhist, and began wiping the rock with a cloth. The Buddhist looked on as this was happening, and eventually asked him, "What are you doing?" The Daoist replied, "I am shining this rock, of course. Until it becomes a mirror." The Buddhist said, "It does not matter how much you wipe that rock! It will never become a mirror!" The Daoist smiled: "Ah! Now you begin to see the truth."
Maker bless you, Radiant Heart. I still can't decide if you're genuine or trolling, but your posts are humoring the hell outta me. Please stick around the forums
@Radiant Heart, I will agree with ElementaryFury106 that you might still be a massive troll, but at least your last post managed to keep the jargon down and be more readable for those without a background in philosophical academia. That was my point: discussions are more fun when everyone gets to play.
3. I must admit, I have a difficult time with Kierkegaard for two reasons: (1) He is a fierce critic of Hegel (and I am a Hegel fan-boy), and as a result Kierkegaard's philosophical system is inimical to idealist strains. (2) The "leap of faith" Kierkegaard is advocating is not an epistemological leap. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a violent abadonment of a reasoned morality, back into a Divine-command theory of justice. His argument amounts to: "Abraham was right to have desired to sacrifice his son, because it was God who told him to do so." Most believing Christian philosophers argue against this "leap of faith" argument precisely because it so clearly argues that in order to begin the religious journey, one must abandon morality. Rather, most Christians seem to argue that the journey towards their God begins with a genuine sense of morality, a morality which can be attained through the well-ordered use of human reason.
This essentially is my point. Kierkegaard wants you to abandon morality, but more properly you are abandoning "human moral reasoning" for a faith in Divine guidance. And that, essential is what you are doing here in the game. The Well of Sorrows choice is not a rational choice about knowledge. That is how Morrigan wants to present it because she is blinded by the idea that she can "know the wisdom of the ancients." But it is not a rational choice.
The true choice, as Abelas warns however, is that you going to be submitting to Mythal. That's the real choice. Morrigan and Cory think that acquiring the knowledge/power will make you a god but being a god is something more than just being powerful or knowing a lot of stuff -- it is about transcending/abandoning your own humanity (as Kierkegaard argues). If it is simply the matter of acquiring knowledge, then what is the big deal. Solas constantly argues the Cory doesn't really know what he is doing with the Elven ball-thingy. He is a child playing with adult things. If you want to understand the secrets of the universe -- if you want the knowledge of gods -- then, in this case, you must in essence bind yourself to a god. Hence, you are, like Abraham making a leap of faith to become a "knight of faith" and be willing to abandon the ability to reason and make individual choice.
Hence the choice is not one of reason but of faith. And because the Inquisitor and Morrigan approach as a rational choice, they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. The choice is not one of gaining knowledge, but rather surrendering your humanity -- your ability to choose -- so that you can "play with the gods." Ironically, the only one the truly understands this is Sera.
@Radiant Heart: NOTE: This long post is personal opinion and while I believe it to contain truth I do not pretend that 1) this truth is a complete and total thought 2) that this thought is correct in all aspects. I reserve the right to change my mind when new knowledge provides the need to remove old knowledge.
"Knowledge is Power" and "Power corrupts."
My basic thought? They work together and the 'power' of 'knowledge' 'corrupts'.
I'll define first what I think of the three terms. Then the meaning behind the sayings. Then how I might amend to better express 'truth'.
POWER: This is to be understood as the capacity for a human to shape his/her world with greater ability than others who would be said to be 'less' powerful. A rich man has more currency with which to acquire more material goods. A charismatic speaker has the ability to sway multitudes. A genius has the ability to develop more in his field. Spiritual power (or power of Will for my secular friends) gives a person the ability to eschew typical human boundaries.
I would assert that not all power is equal. To be very brief about this as I could go on endlessly. I believe that powers that rely on compensating for fear (the fear of being power'less' or the fear of being incapable of the ability to shape his/her world to any degree) are the weakest (all disciplines concerning the material world) - while powers that focus on abating the fear of power'lessness' are stronger (of which I believe there are only two, with a myriad of choices within. Spirituality(Will) and Philosophy).
KNOWLEDGE: The capacity to have gathered data whether it be in the form of facts or skills or experiences. I burned myself - I should not touch fire. Knowledge is a form of mathematics. Combine the previous statement about fire with: These gloves are fire proof. I burned myself = I should not touch fire. I burned myself + these gloves are fire proof = I should not touch fire without these fire proof gloves.
I believe knowledge without 'wisdom' as I defined it for myself earlier is an inability for people to do this form of mathematics. Ultimately this why humans attach themselves to only a handful of concepts and push those concepts as 'truth'. Religion is not the only such set of 'facts' to embrace this. Science, nationalism, family, and a vast list of many other 'truth' concepts are due to the inability or unwillingness to add more to the current 'knowledge' equation any human has.
This is regardless of whether that person expresses the desire for more and more knowledge. I have seen many people who claim to want more knowledge, but live their lives by several personal truths as if those truths were realities for the rest of the population. This is what philosophers refer to when they discuss a persons private universe.
CORRUPTION: Is simply change, though it is undeniable that it has an almost universal negative connotation. So let us say that it is negative change. Cancer is a negative change of cells within the body that are anathema to life systems. But that is 'simple' corruption. Greed is the corruption of need. How can one come to a conclusion without boorishly debating "moral relativity"? I believe the answer lies in the mathematics of knowledge (without professing to have developed the correct calculations myself)
Need is basic life functions required to sustain mental and physical health. An animal knows what it needs. A human does not (hence, why the concept that animals are inferior to humans is questionable). We know that water and food are 'needs' and then confound it with corrupting items like 'soda' or 'fast food'. I am not exempt from this.
Greed is an excessive function. It is driven by fear (the fear of 'have not'). It is also the absence of satisfaction with 'need'. It has nothing to do with 'Evil' in a metaphysical sense (at least for the purpose of this exercise). It has to do with the corruption of precise and lucid thought (practiced by animals, but no longer by man). It is a confusion of 'need' into the illusion that what we 'want' is also what we 'need'.
=========
So - "Knowledge is power". As we see (if my definitions are to be believed) - knowledge is power. Knowledge provides aptitude through fact, skill or experience. Aptitude provides one to effect greater change - which is, at least for this exercise, power.
Corruption is a negative change in something.
The missing component is wisdom - or the ability to do the mathematics of knowledge which I call "wisdom".
"Power Corrupts" - Power, as we see provided by knowledge, does not come with wisdom. Knowledge - Wisdom = Corrupt Power. The deficiency which corrupts power is a human one not inherent in "power" itself.
So: "Knowledge, with or without the ability to do mathematical knowledge (wisdom), is the ability to effect change (power)." Knowledge is Power
And: "Knowledge, without the ability to do mathematical knowledge (wisdom), is the ability to effect change only within a personal universe (power + illusion)." Power Corrupts is correct, but is inefficient as it doesn't explain "Why" power corrupts. People who cannot put together pieces will not understand "why" and therefore think, incorrectly, that it does not.
Effecting change only within the spectrum of one's personal universe is, ultimately, corrupting to the shared gestalt Truth of humanity (the argument that such a truth does not exist is not part of this exercise). I will assert only that such a Truth does exist. Though I will not assert whether it is a collective agreement between humans or divinely inspired.
Need with Power (Knowledge) without Wisdom (or the ability to ascertain my proposed 'gestalt Truth' through mathematical knowledge) is Corrupt Power.
The assertion of "Power Corrupts" is = All human knowledge lacks the ability to ascertain 'gestalt Truth'.
Without wisdom - you cannot have power that is uncorrupted, And now we are at the very purpose of philosophy and spirituality (whether they are successful or not). They are the attempt to form a gestalt Truth that is bereft of the corruption of the personal universe that lacks wisdom and is the source of the statement "Power Corrupts".
====
THE WELL:
Morrigan's greed is due to her fear of the lack of control. She wants knowledge, but lacks wisdom. This is very clear between DA:O and DA:I. She has gained some wisdom - evidently through the birth of Kieran. Her personal universe has expanded to encompass more than just herself and therefore is one tiny step closer wisdom. But it is clearly not enough to abate her fear of control. She's willing to pay the price of the Well regardless of how that price will impact Kieran (if she has a child) she is obviously still no better than she was. Eternally selfish and locked in the illusion of her personal universe.
Her desire for the well clouds her judgement. The Well takes on an almost Oedipal context. Her fear of being without control leads her to being without control. (the same holds true for the Inquisitor).
Knowledge is Power: Morrigan gains the power of the ancient elves through their knowledge. It corrupts her judgement through greed. It is likely she knows that "not all costs are worth paying" yet she chances it. In this instance - it turns out her fear of being without control is self-fulfilling. I believe we even see a negative implication if Inquisitor drinks from the Well. The Inquisitor is forced to attack Morrigan (even if only to subdue her) and therefore has lost agency through the craven pursuit of knowledge without wisdom.
Without the control of Mythal - the power still remains corrupting as it has no context. Morrigan will use this power as SHE sees fit. Who is Morrigan to use power in such a way?
It is fascinating to me that many people I have met will say: "If God exists he is evil because he does not cater to my whims." but then will say "I want knowledge so the world must cater to my whims." It is a hypocritical double standard possessed by many self-righteous 'clever' people who worship knowledge and why I find Saint Augustine's scathing opinion of 'clever people' to be in conjunction with my own.
TL;DR - Both "Knowledge is Power" and "Power Corrupts" are true. All knowledge is corrupting.
Let us talk about Emmanuel Kant...hmm
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.
That's just continental philosophy for you. It's a product of philosophers building off the ideas of other philosophers and trying to incorporate their words from their language into one's own words in one's own language. But the made-up words aren't just snobbery: they are ways of concisely defining ideas that in the work take sometimes chapters to discuss. By assigning such discussions a word or two, one can easily reference such an idea in the future just with the word.
This is a double-edged sword: for those who have read the previous works and know the long-hand discussion that these words reference, it can make the current work you're reading much easier to contextualize (oh, he said he's using Foucault's definition of punishment. Got it. Saved two chapters of reading), because they don't have to redefine everything and bloat the work. For those who haven't read everything being referenced it's an impenetrable nightmare that, frankly, is pretty much the definition of elitism. But it's a benign elitism, if that makes sense.
Like, yesterday I ate half a cupcake because I was only sort of hungry and left it on the table in case I wanted to eat more later. But by the time I came back it had gotten stale and I threw it out. Such a cupcake I call "nowstaletablehalfcupcake." That word doesn't really mean anything without context but anyone who's read what I wrote before knows exactly what someone is talking about if they mention a nowstaletablehalfcupcake without needing to write my story out again.
Now imagine that process over centuries and you start to understand why continental philosophy is such a mess to read. But it's not because people just want to sound smart, since often the audience is exactly those people who have read all the previous works necessary for context.
Maker bless you, Radiant Heart. I still can't decide if you're genuine or trolling, but your posts are humoring the hell outta me. Please stick around the forums
@Radiant Heart, I will agree with ElementaryFury106 that you might still be a massive troll, but at least your last post managed to keep the jargon down and be more readable for those without a background in philosophical academia. That was my point: discussions are more fun when everyone gets to play.
I have had the opportunity, over the past few days, to read some of the other threads in the forum, and I am only now beginning to understand how insufferably pretentious I must appear to some people. I admit, I am a bit out of my element in this context. So far, these are the words I had to look up in order to understand some of the feedback I have been receiving: troll (which, I understood to be a bad person, but it's far more nuanced than that), which also functions as a denominal verb, 'to troll' (or trolling, in the gerundive). Likewise, I did not know what the initialism BSN was referring to. I was hoping someone would appreciate my use of the word "fan-boy" in one of my posts, which I take to mean 'an enthused admirer'. I have found Urban Dictionary, an internet site devoted to explaining internet colloquialisms, very useful in this regard (although some of these words, I am convinced, cannot possibly be used in common parlance...).
I realize it is not your responsibility to educate me in how to behave properly in this new context, but I have honestly appreciated the feedback you have given me, and I hope you recognize that I am trying to incorporate your suggestions. I hope there is room enough in this forum for someone a bit stodgy, like me, but who has good intent. I honestly want to participate in dialogue surrounding this game, because I found the game to be very fun and exciting, but I do not want to be a presence in this community which causes pain or insult to anyone. If I end up feeling as though I simply do not belong, then I will gracefully leave and beg your forgiveness.
The definitions you provided were a fantastic context for your argument, which I think very satisfactorily resolved the dissonance from the juxtaposition of those two proverbs. "the 'power' of 'knowledge' 'corrupts'." Well put! I will think on this some more. Thank you for your time and your thoughts.
@Radiant_Heart: If you're truly new to large portions of the vulgar internet (assuming that somewhere there is an idealized enlightened version of the internet that would look suspiciously like the way you actually write) - then the best way to deal with criticism that deals with "self" vs "topic" is to simply ignore it.
As I wrote: "Who is Morrigan to decide how knowledge is used?" So too - who cares what a bunch of people typing behind call signs think?
If you want to understand the secrets of the universe -- if you want the knowledge of gods -- then, in this case, you must in essence bind yourself to a god. Hence, you are, like Abraham making a leap of faith to become a "knight of faith" and be willing to abandon the ability to reason and make individual choice.
Hence the choice is not one of reason but of faith. And because the Inquisitor and Morrigan approach as a rational choice, they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. The choice is not one of gaining knowledge, but rather surrendering your humanity -- your ability to choose -- so that you can "play with the gods." Ironically, the only one the truly understands this is Sera.
Ah, it seems I have misinterpreted the intent of your remarks, Brodoteau. I will need to consider this some more, but I love where you are leading me with this! I will have to go back to my Kierkegaard to think on this some more.
The Well tells me I should like this convo, and I do. *Lit Critic in phenomenology and cognitivism here, saying bravo*
So basically Morrigan stabbed Abelas because of "her fear of control" how pathetic is this? Knowledge without wisdom is corruption.
Knowledge without wisdom is corruption.
I consider this statement silly, both in general and as a moral nihilist. The practical applications of knowledge is not limited or hindered by moral or ethical codes. Also the very definition of wisdom is applying knowledge and experience. As an example the most cruel tyrant can be wise.
Wisdom is the obtaining and use of knowledge and experience, so "knowledge without wisdom" is in itself somewhat redundant. A corrupt person can also be wise, even if he is not acting morally. So the statement above is wrong on all levels.
He was a real ****** ant who was very rarely stable.Let us talk about Emmanuel Kant...hmm
I am glad you mentioned Buddhism, Lindraen. I cannot help but mention a Daoist parable I once heard.
As you likely know, Daoists and Buddhists were always arguing. Buddhism was usually presented to its listeners with rigorous philosophical exactitude. Daoism, on the other hand, was presented in fun stories. Here is one which I enjoy:
A Daoist man had passed by the water fall many times in order to collect water, and every day he would see a Buddhist monk sitting on the ground nearby. After a few weeks, the Daoist man built up the courage to approach the Buddhist. "What are you doing, sitting there all day, every day?" the Daoist asked hesitantly. The Buddhist replied in a calm voice, "I am here to find enlightment. I am here to achieve Buddha-hood." The Daoist looked at him incredulously, and then he thought of something. He picked up a rock, and sat down next to the Buddhist, and began wiping the rock with a cloth. The Buddhist looked on as this was happening, and eventually asked him, "What are you doing?" The Daoist replied, "I am shining this rock, of course. Until it becomes a mirror." The Buddhist said, "It does not matter how much you wipe that rock! It will never become a mirror!" The Daoist smiled: "Ah! Now you begin to see the truth."
Thank you for the Daoist parable. It's new to me, and is both educational and interesting.
In return for the parable, I'd to offer you an elaboration on an ancient tale that I've only mentioned in a previous post on this thread. In the interest of brevity, I'll leave it for you to apply to your search engine if you are at all interested. Severely summarized:
The tale is an old Norse tale - perhaps not relevant to a Dragon Age comparision except that the old Germanic tales are also were we get our stories of dwarves, elves, dragons, etc. Mimir's well and Odin's decision to pay the price in order to drink from the well are the subject. The correlation of story elements between the Well of Sorrows in game and the old tale of Mimir's Well is remarkable, I think - it is often highly enjoyable when a good story is remade and told again.
Of course the tale of Mimir's well has been fodder for many theories regarding meaning. Some say that Mimir "The Rememberer" represents something like the Jungian collective unconscious (Freud used the term "archaic remnant" for the same collective presence) and the collective unconscious is what is being offered in the drink from the well. That may correspond with what you're relating to a collective being in the Well of Sorrows? Speculative theory says that Odin paying the price of his eye for a drink from the well symbolizes the forfeiture of mundane perception for a deeper and different perception that includes expanded knowledge by being bound to knowledge that is older and broader than oneself and one's personal experience.
Also there is the element of choice present in both the tale of Mimir's well and in the Well of Sorrows game play. None but the willing take the Path of Sorrows, something later repeated by Flemythal, which I believe is an unfinished strain of the story line that is announced by a demand from Solas whether the Inquisitor drinks from the well, or Morrigan does.
"What will you do with the power of the well?"
Cheers, Radiant Heart. And thank you for such a thoughtful topic and for opening up the topic to everyone, even those without knowledge of Heidegger, or confidence in his philosophy. Thanks, also, to those who responded thoughtfully. All ideas presented have been really fun to consider.
.
@someonestolemyname: While I would assert wisdom leads to morality - wisdom itself is not morality. A man can be considered evil - while being wise, but wisdom does not lead to traditionally "evil" action. It is the means by which knowledge is utilized. Having knowledge is useless - a computer "has knowledge". You know how to operate a car - do you understand how a car works? From the concert of simple machines to the more complex chemical reactions of combustion? I wager you don't. You can "know" something without understanding it.
Many things can be utilized without knowledge - even knowledge, and therein lies the problem.
Wisdom is the most lucid use of knowledge. Animals are actually wiser than humans - as they seem to perform nearly all action with lucidity and without confusion. Their application of knowledge nears perfection. It is our level of "knowledge" that has a wider range - though empirically there can be no assertion made that having a wider range of knowledge is inherently superior (which you, as a nihilist must surely agree).
Those who lack wisdom can still use knowledge poorly. A great quote by Aristotle: I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do from fear of the law.
You're a 'moral nihilist' - so I assume we won't have much to discuss. I don't believe you are of course - as I think there are plenty of things you could be convinced through experimentation to apply morals too, but it's a convenient way to be chevalier about things you don't like.
I would ask though - what would a moral nihilist do with the well. Knowledge simply is - if you are truly nihilist, obtaining it would not be inherently a "good" thing. Nihilism doesn't just erase all those things we call bad. It's not a get out of jail card for every base impulse - it's an expulsion of all impulse. It's a laymen's "zen".
So I suppose you are indifferent to the Well - just as you must be to knowledge?
Even if you say: "I want" the knowledge and that's why I'll take it. Why do you want it? Because you like it? Why do you like it? Because it makes you feel superior? You've stopped being a moral nihilist and have now become a moralist. You have judged having the knowledge is superior to not having the knowledge.
Retour en haut