|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Dec 17, 2023 15:22:10 GMT
"You Either Die a Hero or Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become the Villain" How true is this quote for you guys? I generally choose to start as the villain, it saves time. |
|
|
|
Post by nikomachos on Dec 17, 2023 15:53:35 GMT
"You Either Die a Hero or Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become the Villain" How true is this quote for you guys? I generally choose to start as the villain, it saves time. now a redemption arc and than start from beginning and loop it. Gl. |
|
|
|
Post by verily on Dec 17, 2023 19:20:59 GMT
I generally choose to start as the villain, it saves time. now a redemption arc and than start from beginning and loop it. Gl. as a quote say, we love heroes as a child, we understand villain as adult. but i refuse to this quote. its just i can't understand some of it. why there's so many movie about villain. next side characters. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Dec 17, 2023 20:38:27 GMT
now a redemption arc and than start from beginning and loop it. Gl. as a quote say, we love heroes as a child, we understand villain as adult. but i refuse to this quote. its just i can't understand some of it. why there's so many movie about villain. next side characters. Speaking as a (wanne-be) writer myself, I absolutely agree. I'm tired of the majority of modern characters (and modern media) in general. They are either your generic 100% good angelic paragon, dark brooding anti-hero, or pure monstrous guy "evil for evil's sake." I miss the good ol' days when we had genuinely good characters with flaws (when did being good and being naive became the same thing, by the way? 🤔), like real people, instead of such dull archetypes, an extremely lacking view and gross oversimplification of the incredible depth of human mind. Life is neither black or white, nor it's fully gray. Usually, human behaviour simply cannot be forced into one single label. The days when storytelling was still an art, basically. Now, of course there are many exceptions to this, there are many great artists in our time, and I'm probably sounding like a grumpy grandpa  , but the thing is, those are scattered into niche genres, overshadowed by mainstream media, the product of mindless consumption. It's been long since art lost its old spirit, its soul...  But I should probably cut short before this already boring rant turns into a even more boring philosophical essay |
|
|
|
Post by nikomachos on Dec 17, 2023 22:26:01 GMT
as a quote say, we love heroes as a child, we understand villain as adult. but i refuse to this quote. its just i can't understand some of it. why there's so many movie about villain. next side characters. Speaking as a (wanne-be) writer myself, I absolutely agree. I'm tired of the majority of modern characters (and modern media) in general. They are either your generic 100% good angelic paragon, dark brooding anti-hero, or pure monstrous guy "evil for evil's sake." I miss the good ol' days when we had genuinely good characters with flaws (when did being good and being naive became the same thing, by the way? 🤔), like real people, instead of such dull archetypes, an extremely lacking view and gross oversimplification of the incredible depth of human mind. Life is neither black or white, nor it's fully gray. Usually, human behaviour simply cannot be forced into one single label. The days when storytelling was still an art, basically. Now, of course there are many exceptions to this, there are many great artists in our time, and I'm probably sounding like a grumpy grandpa , but the thing is, those are scattered into niche genres, overshadowed by mainstream media, the product of mindless consumption. It's been long since art lost its old spirit, its soul... But I should probably cut short before this already boring rant turns into a even more boring philosophical essay >Speaking as a (wanne-be) writer myself, I absolutely agree< Heck yes! >when did being good and being naive became the same thing, by the way?< Rhetorical question or not i shall respond: possibly romanticism, where they drove good and bad to extremes but maybe it ever was and always will be one form that "goodness" can take. Idk. Actually medieval era literature has lots of it so it cant be romanticism. All them naive fair maidens already encompass that. But to be perfectly honest i love the "simple archetypes" still. Everything has a place in your story if you add enough characters and couple thousand pages more 😆 book pitch, bc i think its the greatest series in the world: Malazan Book of the Fallen. All the characters, all the nuance, loads of history nods, best psychological selfevaluation and inner monologue, major philosophical themes: so if you are a philosophy student your brain would probably have fun dissecting themes and ideas. If you are not a student of philosophy in an academic sense, but like philosophical thoughts on paper bc you feel like YOU have them, therefore characters should have them as well but find most other fiction writings to be lacking in this regard, than you know what to do... Might need to get to book 2 until your hooked though 😆. Never cut short philosophical thoughts, man! Honestly struggling with the impact certain Uni lectures had on me recently and my brain can never return to the state before. I am not old, yet already nostalgic about the now lost state of mind with which i read fiction before that. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Dec 18, 2023 7:27:52 GMT
>Speaking as a (wanne-be) writer myself, I absolutely agree< Heck yes! >when did being good and being naive became the same thing, by the way?< Rhetorical question or not i shall respond: possibly romanticism, where they drove good and bad to extremes but maybe it ever was and always will be one form that "goodness" can take. Idk. Actually medieval era literature has lots of it so it cant be romanticism. All them naive fair maidens already encompass that. But to be perfectly honest i love the "simple archetypes" still. Everything has a place in your story if you add enough characters and couple thousand pages more 😆 book pitch, bc i think its the greatest series in the world: Malazan Book of the Fallen. All the characters, all the nuance, loads of history nods, best psychological selfevaluation and inner monologue, major philosophical themes: so if you are a philosophy student your brain would probably have fun dissecting themes and ideas. If you are not a student of philosophy in an academic sense, but like philosophical thoughts on paper bc you feel like YOU have them, therefore characters should have them as well but find most other fiction writings to be lacking in this regard, than you know what to do... Might need to get to book 2 until your hooked though 😆. Never cut short philosophical thoughts, man! Honestly struggling with the impact certain Uni lectures had on me recently and my brain can never return to the state before. I am not old, yet already nostalgic about the now lost state of mind with which i read fiction before that. Definitely agreed, sometimes simple archetypes are better, not all stories need to be that deep. Just do whatever your story needs, tell the story you want to tell. For example, one can say they're just a cheap Tolkien copy, but I really love the classic D&D novels (like R.A. Salvatore's), because that classic fantasy spirit is what makes them special in the first place. You read them because you want to experience that feeling you had when you first entered into the realm of fantasy literature. Or let's take Star Wars. It's full of simple tropes and cliches, from the chosen one to old mentors and prophecies, and yet we still like it (I also like it though I'm more of a Star Trek guy myself ). Why? Because the story itself is good. Tropes aren't always bad, and every story has been told at least once anyway, no? So, if you ask me, the execution of an idea is more important than whether it's original or not. This doesn't mean we should just repeat the same boring story, this is why I hate mainstream media anyway. It just means that while originality and depth are good, sometimes it's okay to turn to tropes as well. There's a reason they became cliches in the first place: they work. Like I've said before, tell the story you wanna tell. At least that's how I see it, not that I'm an expert or something 😅 Yeah, that's fair. I think that's a really harmful way to see life though. Nothing is ever 100% good or bad, but both good and bad at the same time. Sometimes one of them weighs more, but in the end, they coexist throughout the universe. Everything is within this contradiction imo, this is the driving force behind life, this constant contradiction and conflict between the two sides. That being said, it's of course still fine to enjoy the classic "good vs evil" stories, I like many such stories myself. Again, there's a reason why they became classics in the first place: they work. Oh, that series sound really interesting. I always regularly see it being mentioned on Reddit and the like, yet I haven't been able to find the time to look into it myself. Rn my main focus is on non-fiction stuff that I've been delaying to read for a while (history, philosophy etc), but I'll definitely add it to my list! Oof, that sucks lol. Sometimes I also wish I can get back to the the way I read things before I became interested in writing. Back then, I only focused on enjoying them. But now, I see everything from a critical eye, constantly questioning "what the author could have done better?"/"what can I learn from this?" etc which sometimes prevents me from just enjoying it. I suppose that's the curse of the writer, the burden we have to carry. But again, it can also be a gift. Depends on how we use it, eh? 😁 Anyways, you're interested in writing too?  |
|
|
|
Post by nikomachos on Dec 18, 2023 10:15:26 GMT
Yeah its very much the same for me.
Reading history and philo for Uni atm and really slacking on fiction.
If there had been a writing programm anywhere "near" back then i would have enrolled there. But now i am so much down a different path that i dont know whether my interest in writing has and will survive this phase of my life or i end up one of them guys who say they will write a book one day but never get to it.
Reading actually interesting stuff outside of lectures quenched much of the fire to create my own, sadly. My "TBR" used to be an endless list of fiction i wanted to check out, seldom older than the early 19th century. Now it turned into endless lists of philosophers works, and historical accounts all the way to earliest writings of humankind.
I just hope i will have the possibilty to return to many of the things that fell to the wayside, bc i didnt get to it, or was too damn lazy to put in some effort.
But yes at the very least i developed writers brain also, lol. But its mainly focused around storytelling and not sentence structure. Meaning i never came around to study why sth in english "works" subtly better, not bc of style, but syntax. Whilst deconstruction of story elements any "hobbyist" like me can quickly pick up on after devouring enough texts. I would say dissecting storys might be my most consistent hobby 😆, if it can be called such.
Also like dnd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Dec 18, 2023 11:10:26 GMT
nikomachos, yeah, I can definitely understand that. It's also been a long while since I last wrote something. I really want to get back to it, considering it's probably my biggest passion along with philosophy & history. But I just lack the motivation to actually sit down and write. At least, on the brighter side, this means I got to broaden my horizons during this break. Maybe you can squeeze some time to write just for fun too, even if not professionally? Either way, at the very least, I'd say philosophy can enrich your future writings. My passion for learning and self-education is also owed to this, hence I chose to take a break, to deepen my knowledge in other aspects, which will hopefully result in thus enriching my writing as well. That's what I hope for, anyway 😁 Let's hope both of us will achieve success in this endeavour, eh? The tremendous task of getting oneself to write... I feel like just starting is harder than the whole writing process itself lol Another problem with me is, seldom have I enjoyed traditional literature as of late. I used to read a lot of classics and modern stuff alike, but nowadays the only fiction I read is interactive stuff, and just non-fiction. I want to get back to fiction as well, but I've already devoured my favourite authors. I suppose that's the writer's curse, like I've said before. Rarely are we able to find a book we enjoy, as mainstream media is eliminated from the options due to its lack of quality, and the only remaining option is niche genres. Alas, that seems to be the curse of the modern artist, one we have no option but to endure At least we are not alone. Also, which schools of philosophy are you most into? Ancient ones? Enlightenment? Personally, I'm more interested in the last two centuries, usually the materialist schools rather than idealist ones, plus existentialism. Not that idealist schools aren't good, on the contrary it's the foundation of modern philosophy, it's just not my cup of tea, y'know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Dec 18, 2023 13:40:10 GMT
"You Either Die a Hero or Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become the Villain" How true is this quote for you guys? In a sense, one could be hero and villain at the same time, depending on whose subjective view is used, and what "objective" metrics are applied. Honorable surrender when success or victory, whatever they may be, seem impossible saves lives. But, you just betrayed your country's cause. A very vicious attack that drained an enemy of much willpower and fighting capability, leading to an early surrender that saved many lives is good. However, you intentionally chose to sacrifice a many lives in the process. You can also believe yourself to be a hero as of that moment, but see yourself as a villain with time, wisdom and external feedback. Oversimplified example: The royalists of Toulon welcomed the British during the French Revolutionary Wars, who were invaders. The British could see themselves as protecting people who wanted them there, but they are invaders of France itself. Of course, I'm not well-read, so I don't know if any Britsh commander or man saw himself as a hero turned villain later on, but the British are heroes and villains at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Dec 18, 2023 17:15:31 GMT
"You Either Die a Hero or Live Long Enough to See Yourself Become the Villain" How true is this quote for you guys? In a sense, one could be hero and villain at the same time, depending on whose subjective view is used, and what "objective" metrics are applied. Honorable surrender when success or victory, whatever they may be, seem impossible saves lives. But, you just betrayed your country's cause. A very vicious attack that drained an enemy of much willpower and fighting capability, leading to an early surrender that saved many lives is good. However, you intentionally chose to sacrifice a many lives in the process. You can also believe yourself to be a hero as of that moment, but see yourself as a villain with time, wisdom and external feedback. Oversimplified example: The royalists of Toulon welcomed the British during the French Revolutionary Wars, who were invaders. The British could see themselves as protecting people who wanted them there, but they are invaders of France itself. Of course, I'm not well-read, so I don't know if any Britsh commander or man saw himself as a hero turned villain later on, but the British are heroes and villains at the same time. It's not even hard to find more recent and relevant examples. Was the guy who ordered the atom bombs on Japan a hero or a villain? Or right now, in Ukraine. Both sides want to see the conflict as black and white, with themselves as the heroes. I've seen both sides and it's not black and white. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Dec 18, 2023 18:05:11 GMT
It's not even hard to find more recent and relevant examples. Was the guy who ordered the atom bombs on Japan a hero or a villain? Or right now, in Ukraine. Both sides want to see the conflict as black and white, with themselves as the heroes. I've seen both sides and it's not black and white. Those are really wise words. The idealist "one side must be 100% good/evil" view is a really harmful outlook at life. One side can even be right and wrong at the same time, as nothing is free from such inherent contradictions. Nothing is ever completely good and bad (except pizza. Pizza is the best thing ever), and even the "bad guys" do it because they believe they are doing the right thing. Let's take the atomic bombings for example. Personally, I'd say they were inhumane, but we must see it through the lense of historical context if we want to be objective. It's easy for me to play the judge sitting comfortably on my couch, but there was a world war going on at the time, and millions of lives were at sake: on the other hand, Japanese lives were equally important, and those civilians did nothing to deserve this. Don't forget the ecological affects either. My point is, even if they were really wrong, they did it because material conditions of the period led them to it. In short, we must analyse such events from every side, instead of jumping at conclusions straight away. We must ask ourselves: what caused them to do it? Was there any other option? Was it worth the cost? In my personal opinion, it wasn't. But even I can understand possible counter-arguments. Furthermore, I believe that there is no pre-determined objective morality, an immaterial concept that stands above the entire universe. Imo it's just an arbitrary non-material concept that has evolved together with us, and every culture has a different view of it. Of course, this doesn't make morality any less valid, and we all must strive to be better, that goes without saying. Even though I'm a Westerner myself, this is one of the things I dislike about our society: we act as if our ideals are something sacred, as if we know everything. Alas, we don't. None of us do. To quote LoTR: "Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. But can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."In conclusion, I believe that things are rarely as simple as they might seem. We shouldn't jump at conclusions or judge people right away, but instead we must thoroughly analyse things from every side if we want to arrive at the truth. Those are my two cents, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Theron of Acragas on Dec 18, 2023 18:35:02 GMT
Eugene V. Debs , I do believe in an absolute morality, so we definitely have a different worldview But without one, it's hard to justify labeling any act as "moral" or "immoral", because if we disagree, what makes your standard of morality any better than mine? And if that's true for the present, then it's even more difficult to judge past actions. Regarding the atom bombs, FWIW, I do believe that they significantly shortened the war, likely prevented an invasion of Japan and saved very many lives. I can't disregard your points regarding innocent civilians (I would probably disregard ecological effects as an argument because I suspect they weren't well understood). But that, again, has to be considered in the context that for six years, all sides had accepted civilian population centers as legitimate targets. In fact the firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians in a single night than either of the atom bombs. If we're going to pass judgment, we can't consider the atom bombs in isolation, we need to look further back and consider, how it came to be that civilians were considered legitimate targets. Edit: I do like that quote from Tolkien. If you boil it down, it's basically - you aren't God. Unfortunately many people think that they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikomachos on Dec 18, 2023 18:55:55 GMT
nikomachos, yeah, I can definitely understand that. It's also been a long while since I last wrote something. I really want to get back to it, considering it's probably my biggest passion along with philosophy & history. But I just lack the motivation to actually sit down and write. At least, on the brighter side, this means I got to broaden my horizons during this break. Maybe you can squeeze some time to write just for fun too, even if not professionally? Either way, at the very least, I'd say philosophy can enrich your future writings. My passion for learning and self-education is also owed to this, hence I chose to take a break, to deepen my knowledge in other aspects, which will hopefully result in thus enriching my writing as well. That's what I hope for, anyway 😁 Let's hope both of us will achieve success in this endeavour, eh? The tremendous task of getting oneself to write... I feel like just starting is harder than the whole writing process itself lol Another problem with me is, seldom have I enjoyed traditional literature as of late. I used to read a lot of classics and modern stuff alike, but nowadays the only fiction I read is interactive stuff, and just non-fiction. I want to get back to fiction as well, but I've already devoured my favourite authors. I suppose that's the writer's curse, like I've said before. Rarely are we able to find a book we enjoy, as mainstream media is eliminated from the options due to its lack of quality, and the only remaining option is niche genres. Alas, that seems to be the curse of the modern artist, one we have no option but to endure At least we are not alone. Also, which schools of philosophy are you most into? Ancient ones? Enlightenment? Personally, I'm more interested in the last two centuries, usually the materialist schools rather than idealist ones, plus existentialism. Not that idealist schools aren't good, on the contrary it's the foundation of modern philosophy, it's just not my cup of tea, y'know. honestly reminding me that i dont have to write for an audience is the best reminder to take the pressure of. I have heard it a million times before but still, the effect of this reminder frees the soul, so thank you for that. I will need to hear it a million times more though. What kind of interactive storys? What philosophies do i like? Funnily: the ones i know. Its ridiculous but its usually how it works: the better i know them the better i like them. Didnt like plato->like plato. But just some stuff: Aristotle is my bro in many respect. His metaphysics is nice. Ethics excellent. Teleology profound. Ontology i am lacking in knowledge. The medievals as always suffer in lectures. Well i didnt read Thomas yet for realz, and only fragments of Augustine. I guess i dont- dislike them... unlike some of the mathematics of ockham and canterbury but honestly i know so little i am convinced if you ask me in 9 months i will like STH about them... I am in the process of wrapping my head around Kants: Duty = Freedom interpretation to apply it to personal life: meaning in every moment of your life there is one correct thing that you should do at any moment. And you are truly free not when you do what you want, but exactly when you do what you OBJECTIVELY (godly absolut style) have to do so that you dont become an "Ursache" (cause, but terminology weird 😉) to your affectations. No matter how unrealistic this thought is addicting. The way i see it currently is that even if usually refferd to in the broad normativ context of deontological ethics, if applied to individiual action it can be an (unattainable but still valid) form of Lebensphilosophie. So currently more intruiged than usual. Read Nietzsche, went trough all the stages the more books i opened to explain him... He is important, ok. Whats the hype? Repulsion. / what a psycho. Oh wow. Hm. Wow. I get it. I f... get it now! F... only scratched the surface. Whatever. Therefore absolutely yes to existentialism, the others as well. I looked at materialistic views mostly in the field of philosophical anthropology which goes into human animal relations in a metaphysical rather than psycholgical or biological sense. So i like the non-materialistic amongst the materialist? Idk I do not subscribe to many materialistic philosophies though, and maybe lean towards idealisitic stuff, especcially morality and Metaphyisics, ...if i had to choose. 😆 Edit. Actually there wouldnt be a choice. Bc perspectivism just doesnt cut it when it come to truths. |
|
|
|
Post by nikomachos on Dec 18, 2023 19:03:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene V. Debs on Dec 18, 2023 19:05:25 GMT
Eugene V. Debs, I do believe in an absolute morality, so we definitely have a different worldview But without one, it's hard to justify labeling any act as "moral" or "immoral", because if we disagree, what makes your standard of morality any better than mine? And if that's true for the present, then it's even more difficult to judge past actions. Regarding the atom bombs, FWIW, I do believe that they significantly shortened the war, likely prevented an invasion of Japan and saved very many lives. I can't disregard your points regarding innocent civilians (I would probably disregard ecological effects as an argument because I suspect they weren't well understood). But that, again, has to be considered in the context that for six years, all sides had accepted civilian population centers as legitimate targets. In fact the firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians in a single night than either of the atom bombs. If we're going to pass judgment, we can't consider the atom bombs in isolation, we need to look further back and consider, how it came to be that civilians were considered legitimate targets. Of course, that's an equally valid view. And just to clarify, I don't reject morality per se, I just don't think it's absolute, or pre-determined (didn't wanna sound as a villain myself ). That being said, I also hold some moralistic views myself such as pacifism, though personally I can accept some exceptions to it due to my worldview (such as wars of national liberation). But in the end, in my opinion, the one who lost the war was civilians and soldiers on both sides though... Perhaps the US could have used it somewhere less populated, and there is even evidence pointing to that it might not have been necessary at all.. But can we ever be sure? On a sidenote, many prominent Nazis and Japanese war criminals survived this war with little to no damage, with many crimes being covered up willingly "for some reason" (like Unit 731). Not only that, but many high-ranking criminals were also granted amnesty. Curious... Anyways, I agree with your point regarding the shortening of the war, and that's also what I tried to say: we should carefully analyse whether it was a necessary evil from the POV of both sides. We must also keep in mind that the wish to scare off a very certain country might also have played a role in the bombings as well; the Soviets were mobilising against Japan, which would be the the opposite of American interests, for the better or worse. Hence they wanted to intimidate them, and force Japan to surrender before they could get a chance to intervene. Which was a logical move from their point of view considering the historical context, even if it's immoral. In any case, the US did what any other nation would do: try and protect its interests. After all, by the immediate surrender, they secured a stronghold in Asia for the upcoming decades. Regardless of our personal opinion on the subject, both sides did what they thought was right. And alas, we can never be completely sure about what ifs, and what's done is done. Many people would have died either way, unfortunately. |
|
, but the thing is, those are scattered into niche genres, overshadowed by mainstream media, the product of mindless consumption. It's been long since art lost its old spirit, its soul... 
