Jump to content

First question = hypothetical.   

98 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

 

To be clear, I absolutely agree with iblis' statements - that's why this entire debate exists in the first place. If I say "this is terrible", then the preference I hold about the object "this" is a valid and true statement, since I do hold that viewpoint. It is true.

 

Then you aren't actually talking about the preference per se, but rather the fact that a person has the preference.  These are two very different things; namely, the second is a (potentially discrete) internal experience.  

 

At this point, you're taking what I'm saying out of context and twisting what I said to insert an arbitrary distinction into the debate. I do not see the need to draw a distinction between the fact that a person has a preference and the preference itself in this context. In any case, the fact that Mr. Salvus has the preference is enough to draw that it is a valid one - Mr. Salvus has that one, does he not?

 

While I could refer to a preference generically, it would simply indicate that that preference is possible for a person to have. It is extremely difficult to refer to a preference generically because preferences are qualities of entities - in this case, people. The phrase "BIONICLE is cool" is assigning a positive preference value to Bionicle, as stated by people - but you cannot divorce preference from the people who have it, since it is a quality of human beings.

 

-------------

 

Secondly, preferences are NOT internal "experiences". They are causes of internal experiences (i.e. emotions), which ultimately result in external changes to the external environment of the people around them.  

 

For the purposes of this discussion, I've been treating preferences as a constant in reference to time, because a lot of them are. Your assumption in the above statement suggests that they are instantaneously mutable, which they are not. My positive preference for Bionicle is not going to change overnight. Many people find themselves stuck between what they want to happen in their lives and what is actually possible in a given situation - but that is a discussion for another day.

 

I expected you to come back with the "preferences of people can change" argument. Yes, I can put a white cover on the red book, changing its color. However, the new preference is still a cause, the same as the old one, of emotional effects. In terms of emotions, which happen rapidly and based on a combination of preference and expieriance, preferences are static. 

 

It's emotions that you're looking for - these, in fact, have no truth value and are outside of the realm of logic - indeed, the concepts are frequently pitted against each other in many psychological readings. But don't confuse the emotions themselves with the logical cause of these emotions, i.e. preference. 

 

Consider the similarity in syntax of the statements:  "this is terrible" and "this is red."  In both cases, the referent is "this," not "I who am making this statement."  But you've said that preferences refer instead to the person making the statement. 

You're still making the mistake that preferences are aspects of the objects being referred to with them, not the persons referring to with them.

 

It's merely a matter of syntax. The statement "this is terrible" you listed are logical fallacy based on preferences, not the preference itself. I already said that. It's an invalid statement, because someone could walk in the door right as they were saying that, saying "this is wonderful!" and render both statements FALSE.

 

I would encourage you to avoid mixing up logical fallacies with preference, and emotions with preference. You are blurring all three of them together when you talk.

 

Do you think that the statement "BIONICLE is cool" has a truth value?

As I have stated previously, it is false. It attempts to assign a preference value to Bionicle. Since Bionicle isn't a person who holds the preference, and the statement says that all people hold a positive preference value of Bionicle (which is wrong) the statement is false.

 

 According to Schlick, it doesn't.

May I guess that the purpose of yonder debate was to defend Schlick? He sounds like a disreputable character. I would take his words with grains of salt. :P

 

Why do you believe that objects have properties?

Because that's an obvious statement of the world. Books have colors, lamps have colors. Observation. I don't see why over-thinking it is necessary.

 

 Have you ever directly experienced a property?  Or have you only experienced a sensation presumably caused by this property? 

To the first question: no. To the second question: yes, but I wouldn't word it quite that way.

 

It seems here that you are agreeing with me, and that my lowly plain English is preventing you from seeing the facts.

 

Statements, by the definition of validity, cannot be invalid.  Statements have truth values.  The phrase "logically invalid statement" runs counter to the actual definitions used in logic, as described by logicians.  I understand that you actually mean to say "true," but these sorts of fuzzy semantics can get out of hand, especially since we're talking about truth values here.

I stand corrected. 

 

 (If you want to explore this question in more depth, I recommend reading first Plato, then Bishop George Berkeley, and then Bertrand Russell, plus probably some other works on the question of qualia/properties/Dingen an sich/etc.  Those names a just a few halfway decent signposts in the debate over whether objects themselves have properties and whether objects/properties exist.  Some readings in philosophy of language and broader philosophy of science may also help.)

 

Throughout all of your posts here, you've been doing philosophy, so demonstrating greater familiarity with the acceptable terminology of the field would be helpful (although not technically necessary).  (It also wouldn't hurt to try to gain a greater familiarity with the history of these ideas, and the greater modern dialogue in which you are participating--if only because it can be fun to see that you're not the only one who's thought these things)

Let's be honest and up front here BioGio. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a web designer (or a writer, or whatever I need to be). I don't claim formal training in logic - as I recall, someone here was foolish enough to do that without in fact having it - and I welcome your perspective at times.

 

But there is a time and place for such terminology, and this forum is admittedly not the time nor place. I'm pretty sure many beings in this discussion understood my first post about ToaSalvus - it simply highlights a common playground reality of someone who stubbornly repeats themselves and twists everything everyone else says to support what they say. I was that person once, I've seen other people act that way many times, and I simply wanted to highlight the fact that the particular reality was in play - and that reality does not respond to objections or logical reasoning.

 

At the same time, I'm speaking to an audience of adults, pretty much. It behooves me to state my opinions in such a way that does not insult their intelligence, and that was the reason for the terminology that I did use.

Edited by fishers64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My morals?

Your morals are off. It's okay to win sometimes.

Edited by Anonymous User

   te0FrhT.jpg                                                                                                                            

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I get into this:  Aanchir, would you mind pointing out exactly what you find difficult to follow?  I'd be more than happy to clarify and/or suggest further reading if you're interested.  I do sometimes forget my audience to a certain extent, hence the brevity of my sketch of (just for example) Schlick's work.  It's a pretty bad habit, and my paragraph about Plato/Berkeley/Russell falls into it pretty badly, although that was also directly more specifically at fishers than a more general audience.

 

"At this point, you're taking what I'm saying out of context and twisting what I said to insert an arbitrary distinction into the debate. I do not see the need to draw a distinction between the fact that a person has a preference and the preference itself in this context. In any case, the fact that Mr. Salvus has the preference is enough to draw that it is a valid one - Mr. Salvus has that one, does he not?"

 

No, I am not misrepresenting your words; I'm reading them on their own terms.  More importantly, this distinction is not arbitrary when it comes to evaluating the truth values of preferences (or better said, the two distinct things you've conflated into the term "preferences").  This distinction is meaningful for the reasons I laid out in my very first post.  To put it as linearly as I can:

 

This is a preference per se:  BIONICLE is cool.  (B)

This is a preference per se:  BIONICLE is not cool.  (~B)

This is a statement of the fact of a person holding a preference:  Tom thinks BIONICLE is cool.  (T)

This is a statement of the fact of a person holding a preference:  Dick thinks BIONICLE is not cool.  (D)

 

The distinction here is absolutely essential because we're trying to talk about whether any preference is "always objectively true."  If any preference is "always objectively true," then both B and ~B are true, and we have a contradiction.  If any statement of the fact of a person holding a preference is true, then both T and D can be true without contradiction.  These are two wildly different things, and combining them makes any work with aesthetics nearly impossible.

 

It's also worth pointing out that a statement of the form "X thinks BIONICLE is cool" is not always true.  Let us assume for the moment that I hate BIONICLE fan, so I think it's not cool.  Thus, the statement "BioGio thinks BIONICLE is cool" is false.  What if some day I walk into a BIONICLE convention and (maybe for the sake of trolling) claim to be a BIOINICLE fan, so I say "BIOINCLE is cool."  To the outside observer, it may appear that "BioGio thinks BIONICLE is cool" is true.  But in fact they would be mislead by my vicious lies.  Hence, we need some means of evaluating statements of the fact of a person holding a preference; we can't just say that they are "always objectively true."  (In brief:  What if Salvus was lying for a joke?  How does your theory of aesthetics handle this possibility?)

 

"but you cannot divorce preference from the people who have it, since it is a quality of human beings"

 

Yes, this is your definition of preference.  I've been trying to show how confounding the preference with the act of having the preference actually makes discussing aesthetics even more difficult.

 

"I expected you to come back with the "preferences of people can change" argument. Yes, I can put a white cover on the red book, changing its color. "

 

I have made no such argument and I'm honestly not sure from where you got the idea that I have.  Please point me to it.

 

"Secondly, preferences are NOT internal "experiences". They are causes of internal experiences (i.e. emotions), which ultimately result in external changes to the external environment of the people around them. [...] It's emotions that you're looking for - these, in fact, have no truth value and are outside of the realm of logic - indeed, the concepts are frequently pitted against each other in many psychological readings. But don't confuse the emotions themselves with the logical cause of these emotions, i.e. preference."

 

If preferences are not internal experiences, then what are they?  They're apparently qualities of persons.  But what sort of qualities are they?  Are they physical properties?  No.  Are they mental properties?  Yes.  Then they are internal experiences.

(I found a webpage with a decent start towards defining internal experiences and verifiability, but it terminates with a brief discussion of religion, and I figured it skirted BZP's rules a bit too closely.  Especially since I've already taken a bit of a tangent, I didn't want to start an actual flamewar or anything.)

 

Now, allow me just to say:  I know for a fact that I am not looking to say emotions.  I know this because my first post very closely followed Schlick and a number of other 20th century positivists, and they dismissed aesthetics as being impossible to evaluate, since internal experiences such as aesthetic experiences (i.e., preferences such as "BIONICLE is cool") are not verifiable.  (And bear in mind that my purpose in was only to show one way in which.  There are a number of alternatives, such as taking a more Greek approach and arguing that qualities of aesthetic goodness are in fact objective and independent of an individual's personal aesthetic experience.)  I know that this sounds a bit blunt and /r/imverysmart material, but I was very particular with my word choice.

 

Preferences must be internal experiences, especially since they are the causes of emotions (i.e., they are mental states that cause other mental states.  All of this (i.e., the holding of preferences and their causing of emotions) goes on in the mind, internal to the holder of the preference.

 

Incidentally, that phrase "logical causes of emotions" has a ton of baggage that I don't think I'm fully prepared to comment on.

 

"It's merely a matter of syntax. The statement "this is terrible" you listed are logical fallacy based on preferences, not the preference itself. I already said that. It's an invalid statement, because someone could walk in the door right as they were saying that, saying "this is wonderful!" and render both statements FALSE."

 

No, "this is terrible" cannot possibly be a logical fallacy, since it is a simple statement.  Statements cannot be fallacious, because fallacies are invalid argument structures.

 

This gets back to problems with validity as opposed to truth.  "This is terrible" is neither a valid nor invalid statement, because statements cannot be valid or invalid.

 

Furthermore (and here let us assume that "this is wonderful" is the logical negation of "this is terrible," i.e., its opposite), "this is terrible" and "this is wonderful" cannot be simultaneously false.  If they were to be simultaneously false, then we would have both a statement and its negation having the same truth value, which is logically impossible.  ("This is terrible" is false.  "This is wonderful" is logically equivalent to "this is not terrible."  "This is wonderful" is false.  "This is not terrible" is false.  Therefore, "this is terrible" and "this is not terrible" are simultaneously false.)

 

"I would encourage you to avoid mixing up logical fallacies with preference, and emotions with preference. You are blurring all three of them together when you talk."

 

No, I am not blurring these things together.  What I'm doing is treating the class of internal experiences and asking how you can possibly verify them.

 

"As I have stated previously, it is false. It attempts to assign a preference value to Bionicle. Since Bionicle isn't a person who holds the preference, and the statement says that all people hold a positive preference value of Bionicle (which is wrong) the statement is false."

 

If the statement is false, then shouldn't its negation be true?  What ultimately settles this matter most quickly is (probably) to say that the statement "BIONICLE is cool" refers to an internal experience (i.e., a preference per se) and is therefore nonsense.  We cannot objectively verify it, it falls outside of the purview of logic and science, and we must pass over it without speaking.

 

"Let's be honest and up front here BioGio. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a web designer (or a writer, or whatever I need to be). I don't claim formal training in logic - as I recall, someone here was foolish enough to do that without in fact having it - and I welcome your perspective at times."

 

See, this is what I find so funny:  you're not a philosopher and you don't think of yourself as one.  But you've been doing philosophy right along!  You're engaging with some really fascinating ideas that have long histories, and I'm just trying to place that within a larger context.

 

One quick side note:  I'm not sure whom you're talking about when you say "someone here was foolish enough to do that without in fact having [formal training in logic]."  I figure the only people I know who've claimed such a thing are Gatanui, myself, and arguably bonesiii.  Gata has a math degree (well, at least one of him does), so he's definitely got formal training in what is at least a very closely cognate field.  I'm honestly not sure about bonesiii.  And as for myself, I think I've always taken great pains to stress that I do not have a philosophy degree (although I do know many people who do, and I can get you into contact with them, depending upon whether your and their interests align!--and that's an offer open for pretty much anyone).  I have taken some logic classes, but it was like two undergrad courses at most, and every other scholastic treatment of logic I've had was just sort of incidental.

 

But back to the main point:  When you start engaging with such heavy philosophical ideas, it is at worst irresponsible and at best self-limiting to say that history of formal philosophy isn't situationally appropriate.  Imagine if someone were handling explosive materials, but refused to use technical terminology (like, say, "grams" and "C4"--instead favoring idiosyncratic terminology) and didn't consider prior findings about the behavior of these materials--that could be pretty dangerous!  I realize that lives aren't on the line here, maybe we could say that minds or worldviews are, but even that might be a stretch.  Still, why not have a little fun with these ideas we're handling?  Why not think a little deeper about why we think what we think?

 

re: properties:  You say that you have never experienced a property directly, only experiences caused by them.  So then how have you ever "observed" a property?  So why is it so obvious that things have properties?  All I'm trying to do here is to eek out a little more thought about the unexamined presumptions you've been operating on (e.g., things have properties, preferences are properties of thinking persons, etc.).  You can still conclude what you've always believed, but I'm just trying to show places where those beliefs may be challenged or improved.  This particular topic is really just incidental to our present conversation, so I don't hold it particularly dear.  I'm just hoping to spark a bit of interest that may lead to further personal inquiries.

 

~ BioGio

Edited by BioGio
  • Upvote 1

 

"You're a scientist? The proposal you make violates parsimony; it introduces extra unknowns without proof for them. One might as well say unicorns power it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My morals?

 

Your morals are off. It's okay to win sometimes.
But you can't always win. That's what I'm getting at.

That's more of a midway, pre-climax plot device forcing the heroes to stop, think and come back stronger for the final, climactic battle. A good place for the 'heroes lose' ending would have been the Inika arc, where the newly minted Inika lost the race for the MoL, but saw it slip from the Piraka's hands down to Mahri Nui, setting up the next arc. Or the Swamp of Secrets arc, where all of the Nuva are captured and imprisoned by the Makuta, only to be freed when the Toa Ignika jump starts Karda Nui again and they have to flee the energy storms on the jet powered vehicles. The latter might be poor storytelling for any number of reasons, but it would be a much better way to do what you're expecting without ruining the entire plot of the line.

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to the main point:  When you start engaging with such heavy philosophical ideas, it is at worst irresponsible and at best self-limiting to say that history of formal philosophy isn't situationally appropriate.  Imagine if someone were handling explosive materials, but refused to use technical terminology (like, say, "grams" and "C4"--instead favoring idiosyncratic terminology) and didn't consider prior findings about the behavior of these materials--that could be pretty dangerous!  I realize that lives aren't on the line here, maybe we could say that minds or worldviews are, but even that might be a stretch.  Still, why not have a little fun with these ideas we're handling?  Why not think a little deeper about why we think what we think?

Sorry if my post was a bit snappy. I didn't actually intend to provoke a deep philosophical debate with any of my posts here lol. It just comes across as odd to me that you appeared when I was trying to make a statement, which comes across to me as "you don't know what you're talking about, fishers." I'll be honest and say that, while the possibility of that is slightly annoying to me, it may well be true here. Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

 

The true point of resistance here is that if preferences are outside the realm of logic and are arbitrary, you open up the door for all sorts of negative things, including "my preferences don't matter" (i.e. depression) and "my preferences are superior to everyone else's preferences" (tyranny). Believing that everyone's preferences are valid kicks both of those negative outcomes to the curb. It also prevents selfishness, disrespect, and a whole list of other problems, all of which I would prefer to avoid (you can now laugh at my circular reasoning). So it may be a moral schtick, rather than logic (since someone brought up morals...).

 

But let's see if I can finish what I started in the land that I started it in.

 

-------------------------------------- 

No, I am not misrepresenting your words; I'm reading them on their own terms.  More importantly, this distinction is not arbitrary when it comes to evaluating the truth values of preferences (or better said, the two distinct things you've conflated into the term "preferences").  This distinction is meaningful for the reasons I laid out in my very first post.  To put it as linearly as I can:

 

This is a preference per se:  BIONICLE is cool.  (B)

This is a preference per se:  BIONICLE is not cool.  (~B)

This is a statement of the fact of a person holding a preference:  Tom thinks BIONICLE is cool.  (T)

This is a statement of the fact of a person holding a preference:  Dick thinks BIONICLE is not cool.  (D)

 

The distinction here is absolutely essential because we're trying to talk about whether any preference is "always objectively true."  If any preference is "always objectively true," then both B and ~B are true, and we have a contradiction.  If any statement of the fact of a person holding a preference is true, then both T and D can be true without contradiction.  These are two wildly different things, and combining them makes any work with aesthetics nearly impossible.

I still have trouble wrapping my head around this. I agree with you that both of the last two statements were logically true.

 

But the first two statements are sentences removed from context without any meaning. If I say the words "Bionicle is cool" that implies that it is my preference - if someone else says it, it implies it is theirs. It would simply be a truncated form of the second set of statements, missing the qualifier "I think".

 

The only other interpretation (that I could think of) would be implying that everyone thinks Bionicle is cool. "Everyone likes Bionicle" is a bandwagon fallacy (something even this web designer knows about :P). Or ascribing coolness to Bionicle, which is a fallacy, since coolness is a subjective quantifier that indicates emotional benefit, which cannot be applied universally, because that goes back to the bandwagon fallacy and implies that everyone derives that emotional benefit.

 

"This is red" has no meaning unless we define what "this" refers to; that's the mechanics of language. In the same way, "Bionicle is cool" is a meaningless statement until we define who is receiving the emotional benefit from Bionicle.

 

I will concede that meaningless statements are outside the realm of logic, much as asfrgrnaovna;nwoienfa is outside the realm of logic. However, I maintain that said meaningless statement does not define a preference, since it does not define whose preference it is. Therefore, all properly defined preference statements are logically...true.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

It's also worth pointing out that a statement of the form "X thinks BIONICLE is cool" is not always true.  Let us assume for the moment that I hate BIONICLE fan, so I think it's not cool.  Thus, the statement "BioGio thinks BIONICLE is cool" is false.  What if some day I walk into a BIONICLE convention and (maybe for the sake of trolling) claim to be a BIOINICLE fan, so I say "BIOINCLE is cool."  To the outside observer, it may appear that "BioGio thinks BIONICLE is cool" is true.  But in fact they would be mislead by my vicious lies.  Hence, we need some means of evaluating statements of the fact of a person holding a preference; we can't just say that they are "always objectively true."  (In brief:  What if Salvus was lying for a joke?  How does your theory of aesthetics handle this possibility?)

It calls your statement a lie. Your true preference "BioGio thinks Bionicle is not cool" is a true one - you are just misrepresenting it. Lying about your true taste doesn't invalidate your taste, it just makes your statement a lie.

 

"I would encourage you to avoid mixing up logical fallacies with preference, and emotions with preference. You are blurring all three of them together when you talk."

 

No, I am not blurring these things together.  What I'm doing is treating the class of internal experiences and asking how you can possibly verify them.

 

"As I have stated previously, it is false. It attempts to assign a preference value to Bionicle. Since Bionicle isn't a person who holds the preference, and the statement says that all people hold a positive preference value of Bionicle (which is wrong) the statement is false."

 

If the statement is false, then shouldn't its negation be true?  What ultimately settles this matter most quickly is (probably) to say that the statement "BIONICLE is cool" refers to an internal experience (i.e., a preference per se) and is therefore nonsense.  We cannot objectively verify it, it falls outside of the purview of logic and science, and we must pass over it without speaking.

I'm starting to get what you're saying now (I think). No, I would not be able to verify such a meaningless statement either - but my question to you is - could I verify the last two statements of your linear analysis? If I walked up to Tom and asked him "Do you think Bionicle is cool?" and he said yes, would that not be evidence? If he got into a debate with a bunch of people over the coolness of Bionicle, had a huge Bionicle collection, etc - would that not be evidence?

 

Now it might not be perfect verification, but it would be pretty darn close. It would be unwise to presume the opposite. 

 

For the purposes of this debate, and my post, however, I assumed that people weren't lying about their personal preferences in this debate. That's because people on BZPower have very little reason to lie about them. Nobody here is going to get money or other benefits from misrepresenting how they really think. Even in situations where they do have motivation, the preference tries to manifest itself in other ways than that misrepresentation situation. It tends to "leak". 

 

I tend to find when someone is misrepresenting themselves for a joke, they make it really obvious or eventually end up acknowledging it. :P It is very hard to hide from yourself. 

 

(But now we are in the realm of people-speaking psychology, not logic. Which is what the original post was using lol.)

 

Incidentally, I should be able to verify all of my own preferences, since I have access to my own internal realm. At least, to myself. 

 

"I expected you to come back with the "preferences of people can change" argument. Yes, I can put a white cover on the red book, changing its color. "

 

I have made no such argument and I'm honestly not sure from where you got the idea that I have.  Please point me to it.

 

"Secondly, preferences are NOT internal "experiences". They are causes of internal experiences (i.e. emotions), which ultimately result in external changes to the external environment of the people around them. [...] It's emotions that you're looking for - these, in fact, have no truth value and are outside of the realm of logic - indeed, the concepts are frequently pitted against each other in many psychological readings. But don't confuse the emotions themselves with the logical cause of these emotions, i.e. preference."

 

 Are they mental properties?  Yes.  Then they are internal experiences.

 

Preferences must be internal experiences, especially since they are the causes of emotions (i.e., they are mental states that cause other mental states.  All of this (i.e., the holding of preferences and their causing of emotions) goes on in the mind, internal to the holder of the preference.

My point was that you were making the argument for internal experiences and mental states. Internal experiences change rapidly (at least, in my mind they do) - I have held a positive preference for Bionicle for the last decade, and probably have had billions of internal experiences during that time.

 

I will allow myself to acknowledge the word internal (but this mental property usually manifests itself in external effects, making it hard to hide), but the word experience doesn't seem to fit, simply because it implies a short amount of time in which it is held. Many preferences are lifelong.

 

"Let's be honest and up front here BioGio. I'm not a philosopher, I'm a web designer (or a writer, or whatever I need to be). I don't claim formal training in logic - as I recall, someone here was foolish enough to do that without in fact having it - and I welcome your perspective at times."

 

See, this is what I find so funny:  you're not a philosopher and you don't think of yourself as one.  But you've been doing philosophy right along!  You're engaging with some really fascinating ideas that have long histories, and I'm just trying to place that within a larger context.

 

One quick side note:  I'm not sure whom you're talking about when you say "someone here was foolish enough to do that without in fact having [formal training in logic]."  I figure the only people I know who've claimed such a thing are Gatanui, myself, and arguably bonesiii.  Gata has a math degree (well, at least one of him does), so he's definitely got formal training in what is at least a very closely cognate field.  I'm honestly not sure about bonesiii.  And as for myself, I think I've always taken great pains to stress that I do not have a philosophy degree (although I do know many people who do, and I can get you into contact with them, depending upon whether your and their interests align!--and that's an offer open for pretty much anyone).  I have taken some logic classes, but it was like two undergrad courses at most, and every other scholastic treatment of logic I've had was just sort of incidental.

I'd rather not name names on my foolish and offhand remark. :P 

 

Thanks for the compliment, though, even though it is probably unwarranted. :) 

 

re: properties:  You say that you have never experienced a property directly, only experiences caused by them.  So then how have you ever "observed" a property?  So why is it so obvious that things have properties?  All I'm trying to do here is to eek out a little more thought about the unexamined presumptions you've been operating on (e.g., things have properties, preferences are properties of thinking persons, etc.).  You can still conclude what you've always believed, but I'm just trying to show places where those beliefs may be challenged or improved.  This particular topic is really just incidental to our present conversation, so I don't hold it particularly dear.  I'm just hoping to spark a bit of interest that may lead to further personal inquiries.

 

~ BioGio

This is probably me over-complicating things - and I was in the "preferences are causes of experiences" mode, preferences are properties, therefore I cannot "experience" them. But if I experience something caused by a property, does that not point to that property as a cause of the experience?

 

If I say "Bionicle is cool" say, on Eurobricks' System discussion forum, and get tons of backlash, that should tell me about some preferences they might be holding, yes? Would it be wise to at least infer that they think Bionicle is not cool? If I don't, am I logician, or am I just stupid? I suspect the latter is the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My morals?

Your morals are off. It's okay to win sometimes.
But you can't always win. That's what I'm getting at.

That's more of a midway, pre-climax plot device forcing the heroes to stop, think and come back stronger for the final, climactic battle. A good place for the 'heroes lose' ending would have been the Inika arc, where the newly minted Inika lost the race for the MoL, but saw it slip from the Piraka's hands down to Mahri Nui, setting up the next arc. Or the Swamp of Secrets arc, where all of the Nuva are captured and imprisoned by the Makuta, only to be freed when the Toa Ignika jump starts Karda Nui again and they have to flee the energy storms on the jet powered vehicles. The latter might be poor storytelling for any number of reasons, but it would be a much better way to do what you're expecting without ruining the entire plot of the line.

How can you believe the heroes struggles are really going to make them win, when you know that no matter what, they will win? As the vast majority of stories will have you believe.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By a similar logic having a failure not being permanent makes it pointless; & sooner or latter you might just die and not going to be revived/contiue-existing-in-some-form by people/AI/alien/deity/whatever, & everything you know falls apart leaving nothing left; entropy removing most hopes.

 

Learning that there is a chance that things just won't work out doesn't seem that bad. Plenty of people die under horrible circumstances, plenty of people have incredibly unpleasant lives, some people find their lives to be utterly pointless.

 

So yeah; if you see nihilistic as terrible and soul crushing that's one view.

 

Another view is that the smart mastermind won despite his various character flaws (ie: arrogance &/or paranoia; being not nice); showing that intelligence is a good thing, & being flawed doesn't automitically mean you will loose, but on the other hand spelling out you as a hero won't win because of luck etc.

 

Oh yeah, and maybe some people just think it would be cool.

 

But according to some people here that doesn't matter because they think it would run the story; it is an understandable perspective.

 

But seriously; Lyichir was doing it a few pages back, but Regitnui: "without ruining the entire plot of the line"

 

Yeah no. It would ruin it in your & plenty of other peoples perspective, it'd be really nice if people stopped presenting their opinion as fact-isn't-the-right-word; as 'story would-be/IS terrible' is it that hard to add on a it would ruin it for me & others, & I think it would ruin it for more people than not, or even just my opinion is more important than yours; because that's what it looks like to me.

 

Just wow, seriously...

  • Upvote 2

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By a similar logic having a failure not being permanent makes it pointless; & sooner or latter you might just die and not going to be revived/contiue-existing-in-some-form by people/AI/alien/deity/whatever, & everything you know falls apart leaving nothing left; entropy removing most hopes.

 

Learning that there is a chance that things just won't work out doesn't seem that bad. Plenty of people die under horrible circumstances, plenty of people have incredibly unpleasant lives, some people find their lives to be utterly pointless.

 

So yeah; if you see nihilistic as terrible and soul crushing that's one view.

 

Another view is that the smart mastermind won despite his various character flaws (ie: arrogance &/or paranoia; being not nice); showing that intelligence is a good thing, & being flawed doesn't automitically mean you will loose, but on the other hand spelling out you as a hero won't win because of luck etc.

 

Oh yeah, and maybe some people just think it would be cool.

 

But according to some people here that doesn't matter because they think it would run the story; it is an understandable perspective.

 

But seriously; Lyichir was doing it a few pages back, but Regitnui: "without ruining the entire plot of the line"

 

Yeah no. It would ruin it in your & plenty of other peoples perspective, it'd be really nice if people stopped presenting their opinion as fact-isn't-the-right-word; as 'story would-be/IS terrible' is it that hard to add on a it would ruin it for me & others, & I think it would ruin it for more people than not, or even just my opinion is more important than yours; because that's what it looks like to me.

 

Just wow, seriously...

The theme of Bionicle G1 was "6 Heroes, 1 destiny". The Nuva, working together, were going to wake Mata Nui. - True?

 

The Makuta, Teridax, would oppose them in every way. In essence his theme is "You cannot destroy me, because I have planned for everything". - True?

 

While 2008's ending would have fulfilled the second theme, it would have stopped the protagonists' theme from having any impact. If Teridax was our villain protagonist, then ending 2008 with him winning would be a satisfying crescendo of story. - True?

 

The Toa Nuva are our protagonists. For the story to end well, they must have some success, or the story is missing resolution. - True?

 

The Bionicle story until 2010 is a good (not spectacular) story. 2008 was the climax, but did not offer resolution. - True?

 

A good story without resolution is unfinished. An unfinished story cannot be as good as a finished one. - True?

 

Ending the story in 2008 is leaving the story unfinished, if the Toa Nuva are our protagonists. The unfinished story loses resolution, and becomes a poorer story for it. The shock twist might have been a good climax, but it is a poor ending without resolution.

  • Upvote 1

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2008's ending as written is either a sequel hook or the climax. Both ways, Salvus, it lacks resolution and is a poor ending unless a true ending, where all loose ends are tied, is offered.

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What good ending ties up all the strings? :D

Every good ending, ye child of the modern entertainment industry. Lord of the Rings does not end with any of Sauron's lieutenants still running around, forming their own orcish armies. The books even detail the end of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue. Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, all have resolution offered for their time in the story. It is by no means the end of their stories, but the end of this one, and therefore is completely tied up, resolved.

 

The Hunger Games series ends with

Katniss raising a family with the still-recovering Peeta. Their stories are resolved, their lives go on, but peacefully and without incident.

 

 

Command and Conquer ends with

Kane, the Dark Messiah of Tiberium, taking his loyal followers and Ascending, leaving the planet stronger and able to use tiberium to fuel an ecologically sound future.

 

 

I could go on, with or without spoiler tags.

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lacks resolution? In a way yes, in another way Makuta wins, & implied that the Toa are helpless to do anything, but also leaves a creative opening; a story can finish with a hook no?

 

Sure it will feel incomplete, but not all will feel that's a bad thing.

 

I would have been content if it ended there; I feel like the story after that point was a weaker (section of the) story, & I would have preferred being able to look at others works or make my own (yes I know still can if I so desire etc.), but I may have been content with an ending which implies that all hope for our protagonists is lost; the villain won.

 

& honestly whilst the story did resolve the primary issue of Teridax; it still feels terribly unfinished to me, it spent time creating more loose ends.

 

I'm not saying ending it with 2008 would be better than ending it in twenty-'ten'~ish~~, but I don't think it would have been worse, I enjoyed things that happened after '08, but I think I would have preferred it just ending there instead (besides I'm confident that there would have been fanfics that would have picked it up from there that I would have enjoyed more than '09 on-wards).

 

I don't think "A good story without resolution is unfinished." is necessarily true, or rather I don't think the implication that all is lost, but let's not deal with that ("kid friendly" etc.), is an insufficient resolution; so for me that was a good resolution, so therefor that isn't enough to make me feel the story is unfinished (or rather: bad).

 

([{But that's all just my perspective, etc.}])

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What good ending ties up all the strings? :D

Every good ending, ye child of the modern entertainment industry. Lord of the Rings does not end with any of Sauron's lieutenants still running around, forming their own orcish armies. The books even detail the end of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue. Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, all have resolution offered for their time in the story. It is by no means the end of their stories, but the end of this one, and therefore is completely tied up, resolved.

The Hunger Games series ends with

Katniss raising a family with the still-recovering Peeta. Their stories are resolved, their lives go on, but peacefully and without incident.

 

Command and Conquer ends with

Kane, the Dark Messiah of Tiberium, taking his loyal followers and Ascending, leaving the planet stronger and able to use tiberium to fuel an ecologically sound future.

 

I could go on, with or without spoiler tags.

I care for none of those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What good ending ties up all the strings? :D

Every good ending, ye child of the modern entertainment industry. Lord of the Rings does not end with any of Sauron's lieutenants still running around, forming their own orcish armies. The books even detail the end of Saruman and Grima Wormtongue. Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, all have resolution offered for their time in the story. It is by no means the end of their stories, but the end of this one, and therefore is completely tied up, resolved.

The Hunger Games series ends with

Katniss raising a family with the still-recovering Peeta. Their stories are resolved, their lives go on, but peacefully and without incident.

 

Command and Conquer ends with

Kane, the Dark Messiah of Tiberium, taking his loyal followers and Ascending, leaving the planet stronger and able to use tiberium to fuel an ecologically sound future.

 

I could go on, with or without spoiler tags.

I care for none of those things.

As the thread has been saying, that doesn't matter. They're good stories where everything has been resolved by the end. Cutting your flippant dismissal neatly in half.

 

Iblis, I do see where you're coming from, and a lot of the '09-'10 loose ends were left not because the MU story hadn't been resolved, but threads were introduced for the Bara/Spherus Magna planet and were not allowed to come to an end by TLG or Greg's other commitments. Doesn't make the MU storyline any better or worse. I'm just saying that the '09-'10 journey of Mata Nui to understand heroism is a good way to resolve the '08 cliffhanger, rushed though it was, and without it, the story feels a little stumpy to me.

  • Upvote 2

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My morals?

Your morals are off. It's okay to win sometimes.

But you can't always win. That's what I'm getting at.

 

Ironically, 2008 proves this statement true - the heroes didn't win there. 

 

But they don't always lose either. The fact that the story kept walking and showed that the heroes did win doesn't discount the fact that the heroes lost there. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm not quite sure what happened here on Page 2, but I skipped ahead to post my thoughts on the OP...

 

My opinion is actually the opposite of most of the sentiment here: I like the clunky Greg reveals (although it would have been cool if they were less clunky), but dislike the unfinished serials that ultimately raised more questions than they were even supposed to answer. So I would prefer to take all the various facts that emerged after the story - Red Star, Velika, etc - but ignore the beginnings of the serials and say the story just ended at Journey's End, and oh by the way here's a few things we wanted to reveal but ran out of time.

IrMSNn3.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly because it was such a departure to the bio mechanical universe of the matoran, and I found most of the characterizations to be bland. And the sets wernt for me.

To be honest, the sets were great in my opinion.

The best sets since the Toa Inika, or better than the Inika.

They had nice colours, they were more unique, had really nice looking weapons/tools (dem skrall and metus shields), and were just good sets overall. 

The Thornax launchers were also cool. They were functional, and the ammo didn't get lost like it did with previous launchers. There were also some nice vehicles and titans, such as the Thornatus, Skopio and Tuma. 

However, I will admit the story wasn't great, and neither was The Legend Reborn. 

But they didn't just abandon the main story, they just followed what happened to Mata-Nui and basically revealed where he came from and expanded the story of the Matoran universe. 

Edited by -Chronix Master of Stuff-

bzpower selfmoc smiley.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been busy doing some very menial research, so I see that the discussion has basically moved on and I'll keep things brief.  (My work has also left my quite mentally drained, so the wording here may be rough; I feel as though I've lost access to a portion of my vocabulary.)  Comments below are numbered by blocks in your reply.

 

1.  I know that you weren't trying to make a philosophical point, but either way you were engaging with the same ideas.  I only really saw this post--the comment about verifiability started off as an idle thought--and then I started thinking about the implications.  (I think I've already told you several times that the word "logic" is terribly misused around here; I really should try to write something more conclusive on the matter, rather than just kind of needle people every blue moon.)  Also, morality and logic are not mutually exclusive.

 

2.  The last two sentences have also been removed from their context.  I do not know the declarant of T="Tom thinks BIONICLE is cool," just as I do not know the declarant of A="BIONICLE is cool."  Why does the necessity of context increase when we're talking about statements B and ~B?  If it is because they are "preferences," then what means do we have of sorting out preferences from other statements.  I need more convincing that a word like "cool" is unique in that it indicates a person experiences the emotional benefit of coolness; in short, the mechanics-of-language argument doesn't hold water.  Syntactically, we can say "BIONICLE is cool" (B) or "BIONICLE is cool to Tom" (T), and we can also say either "this table is red" ® or "this table is red to Dick" (D).  After all, a preference such as "BIONICLE is cool" is just a means of indicating the internal experience of pleasure caused by BIONICLE.  Could a statement such as "This table is red" be interpreted as communicating the experience of seeing red.  As for other interpretations of B, how about this one:  BIONICLE possesses an intrinsic state of coolness, just like my table is intrinsically red.  People with bad taste don't believe BIONICLE is cool, but then colorblind people don't believe my table is red--they're just wrong.  Coolness in this case is an objective property that causes internal experiences (what you've called emotional benefit), just as redness is an objective property that causes the experience of seeing red.  So, either coolness and redness are equally objective, or neither are, or we need much better ways of distinguishing sense from nonsense.

 

3.  Your wording there was just very sloppy, so I kind of went overboard in calling that out.  Your brief response here is thus sufficient in terms of clarifying what you had intended earlier; thank you.

 

4.  Excellent question!  You're now asking the questions I wanted to provoke:  How do we verify the fact that a person stating their enjoyment of something is actually correct?  How do we verify emotions, or preferences, or anything else?  Verification of internal experiences is impossible according to the Vienna Circle, since there is no external sense datum directly associated with an internal experience.  If you are sad and I see you crying, I don't actually see your sadness but rather your reaction thereto.  A person's experiencing sadness is invisible to the exterior world--as is a person's holding a preference.  Now, the issue with Schlick et al. here is that they assume we experience redness more directly.  I'm not so sure of this, but perhaps we'll bracket that question for now.  As for the matter of lying, people can derive simple enjoyment from misleading people online--trolling--or may just be compulsive liars.  I've seen people on this website "play devil's advocate" (i.e., make claims they don't believe in) and only admit to doing so after someone takes them to task.  (Incidentally, the matter of a compulsive liar is philosophically interesting, but I'll bracket that as well.)

 

5.  In much (I don't want to say most for the sake of hedging my bets) logical positivist writing, experiences are discrete (in the sense that they are bounded by the brain's ability to "think" them) but the timeframe for them is not further limited (so an internal experience could be felt lifelong).  Schlick is quite clear that aesthetic judgments (in our parlance, preferences) are internal experiences.  Thus, my first post's use of the term was correct insofar as I was very closely following him.  If we want to talk about whether a preference is an internal experience in the sense of a discrete mental state, then we certainly can--or we can just say that maybe the translation from the German doesn't pick quite the right word.  (My German isn't nearly good enough to tell you about that, though, so I'll not try to.)

 

6.  To be fair, "you've been doing philosophy" isn't necessarily a compliment per se.  (People can do very bad philosophy with or without realizing that it is in fact philosophy.)  I just want to encourage you to be aware of where your statements fall in overall intellectual life.

 

7.  Well, does it?  There are some tremendously intelligent people who have said no.  (For example, Bishop George Berkeley, whose criticism of Newton's calculus actually set out the very problems that later mathematicians had to explore, believed in idealism, which does not suppose the existence of properties.  Berkeley's idealism is basically the logical conclusion of empiricism, and his Three Dialogues are moreover very easy to follow.)  I'm not entirely willing to utterly assume the existence of properties because of the very objections they raise, but then I'm also not willing to ignore their opponents either.  As for whether you're a logician or stupid, it is definitely more useful to just assume that Eurobricks don't like BIONICLE, but what's useful isn't always right.  Many informal fallacies are actually heuristics, which have great cognitive function.  For example, "appeal to authority" is a quick way of sorting out reasonable commentators that works most of the time (lawyers know laws, farmers know vegetables; so I trust them in their respective fields).

 

In short, it would behoove you (and, for that matter, S&T overall) to reason through this philosophy of aesthetics more closely.  (The "taste-preferences" debates that occur here are some of my least favorite BZP logic-applications, mostly for this reason.)

 

~ BioGio

  • Upvote 1

 

"You're a scientist? The proposal you make violates parsimony; it introduces extra unknowns without proof for them. One might as well say unicorns power it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we need an official semantics topic, because while all this discussion of opinion-based statements is fascinating, it's really taken this thread even more off-topic than it had gotten already.

  • Upvote 2

Formerly Lyichir: Rachira of Influence

Aanchir's and Meiko's brother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knew such simple topic like this can get so deep, lol.

  • Upvote 1

   te0FrhT.jpg                                                                                                                            

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good guys winning is so cliche! Lego is about creativity, is it not?

 

You seem to be more focused on the mechanisms by which a story is told than the story itself. From the perspective you've given, it doesn't matter what the message of the story is, or what lead up to an event, or what characters or conflicts are involved, as long as you get a cheap twist for shock value.

 

And who knows? Maybe it's a preference! There's a lot of talk about preferences going on in this topic, and I wasn't able to quite follow all of it, but I do know I've always felt odd about the perspective of all preferences being treated equal. If you saw someone eating garbage, would you be able to withhold judgement and say to yourself "Oh, it's just their preference"? I would have to argue that there has to be at least some loose restrictions as to what preferences are considered reasonable. It may be true that Billy from down the street loves to eat garbage, but does it necessarily mean that garbage is delicious, nutritious, and in any way a well-prepared meal? And is the deciding factor really just that a majority of people will not eat garbage, or is there an objective property to garbage that makes it not a good meal?

 

Similarly, is it necessary to be impartial to an ending that chucks away any and all character development and thematic coherence for a cheap shock? I, personally, would find such an ending akin to biting into a piping hot pierogi, only to find its insides had been replaced with maggots and rotten fish. Sure, it's got shock value! Nobody saw that coming, did they? There were supposed to be potatoes, right? Wow! What a twist! But you know what? I'm going to feel cheated that that delicious-looking pierogi, which looked and smelled so promising, so delicious, turned out to be full of nasty garbage.

 

Of course, there's a place for bad endings. But when a story has made a point of consistently sending a positive message about good triumphing over evil, to suddenly go back on that last-minute and send the message it doesn't matter what you do, because everything is going to end terribly anyway, and you're doomed to a terrible world where you may as well never try at all so lol you suck have a terrible life, would leave a disgusting taste in my mouth, and lead me to decry that particular story arc of Bionicle even more than I already do.

 

(I'm not trying to say that any and all preferences are subject to being objectively true or false, but for some of them, there has to be some metric; there is a such thing as a bad way to tell a story, after all.)

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'm not trying to say that any and all preferences are subject to being objectively true or false, but for some of them, there has to be some metric; there is a such thing as a bad way to tell a story, after all.)

 

I agree, however a story that has a depressing ending for the protagonists doesn't necessarily mean the reader is worse off for it, so yeah, with something like eating garbage it's easy to argue that health this that and the other that if someone agrees with those criteria you can generally come to the conclusion that if they are aware of all these things that are bad for them it isn't good for them and is bad... & overule their contrary perspective on the grounds that they're criteria is utterly alien to you so your 

 

But if a depressing story entertains someone & doesn't make them depressed or whatever? & the whole notion of a disrespectful to the series... these things are so far away from being an agreed upon criteria that to have the debate is pointless; people need to agree to the criteria or conclude the other isn't meeting some criteria before that 

 

Scratch all that. If people don't agree to a set of criteria, (eg it is good to be healthy &/or safe), there is little point saying that there proposal is disrespectful or depressing if to them these things either don't appear to be true or aren't important; eg it doesn't make me depressed or problematically fatalistic & it doesn't offend my morals or sense of respect... You're not going to get anywhere.

 

So sure I think there are plenty of things that can be objectively true or false (or unclear), & people have a perspective on them, but something like purple prose is generally considered to be a bad thing, to much unnecessary information that detracts from the narrative itself et cetera, but a sense of respect seems to be a bit more of a variable; many people "forgive" Tolkien for his very extensive detailing because of X, Y, &/or Z...

 

So yeah as it doesn't seem anyone here has much to add about the poll directly...

 

What criteria do we have? Well here: "an ending that chucks away any and all character development and thematic coherence for a cheap shock?"

 

Cheap shocks = bad, if or especially if: they throw away things the story has put a lot of effort into building &/or a central theme.

Well I would agree that such cheap shocks are usually bad.

 

But is it really a cheap shock? It's been suggested for a while that Teridax out does most beings... Or maybe its not so much one of his schemes succeeding as it is happening at the cost of a protagonists death & nothing really hinting that this would be playing into his hands (other than anything could), I'm going to presume it's this.

What I really dispute is "chucks away any and all character development", which I take to mean all the  'good guys' actions, well no, if they didn't do all that stuff everything would have gone bad sooner, this much should be obvious.

 

Funnily enough I can see what I think is a good moral there: even if you're going to sometimes it's worth fighting on, postponing bad things is good, sure it'd be nice to be able to stop them entirely, but sometimes you just can't, but postponing it gave some people that bit longer of relative peace.

 

I'm not saying this does outweigh those bad points for everyone, but it does for me.

So yeah to really come to a conclusion of A or B IS bad kinda relies on being able to go through enough different points, which is time consuming (& for some, tiresome), I don't by any means think peoples opinions should automatically be respected; if one thinks they are simply wrong that's great, it just doesn't get anywhere if one can't get within a certain reach of proving it...

 

I personally think this particular topic could go on a lot longer & still have people being unconvinced without actually being irrational about anything; there are a lot of things which affects what a persons values are - which is what respect & morals are... - they seem to show up as some people think a story, or this story should have a moral, or shouldn't not have people win by doing the teamwork thing even though the villain is supposedly a genius with a lot of power.

 

I thought & think that Journeys End was a pathetic ending (of sorts) for the series; by the time they got rid of Makuta they'd created a whole pile of pointless tidbits - which if they thought about them would probably take more time than what they likely had to tie them up.

To me it was as poorly thrown together collect McGuffins that you received from the Deus Ex Machina, now use them and press X to win; in one of the very unexciting ways possible.

 

What's worse is that most of the stuff that came after didn't seem to tie up anything of importance, sure we can know what Kanohi arbitrary background character #s three through seven wore but we won't explain anything about those few substories created right at the end of the series.

 

I could call the '08 hypothised complete ending bad easily compared to other series, but compared to Bionicle as a whole ... I honestly think it would have been good, in fact I think it would have been better than the ending (which one, when, where; any of them after that: pick; it doesn't matter to me) we actually got.

I'm not claiming it IS better, but I found it to be better.

 

I really hated soooo much after '08...

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyichir:  This discussion has only been partially about semantics, mostly in that I've been clarifying that I'm using terms in such a way that has closely followed Slick's usage.  Moreover, examining the underpinnings of claims that have been made in this discussion can't really be considered off-topic.  My (and fisher64's) posts get into the question of how we can evaluate the statements that have been made here; that's certainly relevant.  Perhaps they could be called, to continue the spatial metaphor, below-topic or even meta-topic--but not off-topic.  What I've been asking is whether there's a correct answer to the question this thread poses; that's undeniably releant.  That being said, I have been considering making a blog post in which I could address these sorts of issues and related problems with BZP's/S&T's applications of logic.

 

Anonymous User:  I don't know if it's necessarily that surprising.  Consider, for example, throwing a ball.  You can discuss the action in terms of playing catch with your friends, or you can approach it from the perspective of scientific inquiry into mechanics and bring in all manner of equations.  The toughest physics that a freshman class often deals with is related to the movement of things like bicycles (a superficially simple topic).

 

Dina Saruyama:  Exactly!  That's what the whole field of aesthetics is all about--trying determine whether and if so how preferences might be evaluated.  I'm more inclined to believe that aesthetic judgments can be examined much like judgments of other properties of things (i.e., "coolness" is as real as "redness')--but then again I spend too much time with Greco-Roman thought and this belief is probably just interference therefrom.  I also personally go through a panicked phase of Berkeleyan idealism about yearly, so again I'm not sure I want to put all my eggs in one philosophical basket.

 

~ BioGio

 

"You're a scientist? The proposal you make violates parsimony; it introduces extra unknowns without proof for them. One might as well say unicorns power it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it really a cheap shock? It's been suggested for a while that Teridax out does most beings... Or maybe its not so much one of his schemes succeeding as it is happening at the cost of a protagonists death & nothing really hinting that this would be playing into his hands (other than anything could), I'm going to presume it's this.

What I really dispute is "chucks away any and all character development", which I take to mean all the  'good guys' actions, well no, if they didn't do all that stuff everything would have gone bad sooner, this much should be obvious.

 

 

But what's the point? The time they spend fending off Makuta takes on a completely different light if he wins forever in the end. If he is defeated after fighting so viciously to take control, then the story sends a clear message that hope will never die, that, even with stumbling blocks, teamwork and perseverance will win out over selfish ambition in the end. If he wins forever, then it sends the exact opposite message: why waste your time with fighting the good fight? He's ultimately going to wear you down and win, anyway. Why fight? Accept the inevitable and die miserable.

 

Yes, it would make sense, thinking purely rationally without any emotional input, for the unrealistically good at planning Makuta to be able to win forever. However, if writing a story were solely about writing what's rational, all kinds of stories would end with the protagonists dying worthless bloody deaths because they're up against foes much stronger than them. It's not about writing what's "realistic" to happen. It's about the message you send with your story. That's something I see a lot of people in this topic missing: every story has a theme or message, and it is vital that it convey it effectively. If Bionicle, which spent almost all of its run telling you about the power of teamwork, ended telling you teamwork gets you nothing but disappointment, then it has failed to convey the message it's been trying its hardest to tell. Similarly, if J.R.R. Tolkien had changed Thorin's speech to Bilbo at the end of The Hobbit to be him convincing Bilbo of the joys of warfare and greed, and it ended with Bilbo living fat and happy as he shovels gold down his throat, it would be completely at odds with the rest of the book, and The Hobbit wouldn't be nearly the memorable story it is today.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's something I see a lot of people in this topic missing: every story has a theme or message, and it is vital that it convey it effectively.

 

I'm inclined to want to agree with this premise, if only because it's so wonderfully Aristotelian, but I am a bit wary of it.  Imposing possession of a theme/message on the category of things we call stories might be a bit.  Poorly told stories, for instance, might not have any (intentional) theme.  And some ancient literature doesn't mesh well with this idea, depending on how flexible your definition of theme is.

 

Similarly, if I tell a joke that has a form similar to a story (say, a shaggy dog story with a real plot that just terminates in a bad pun), then what might the theme be?  Perhaps it could be "I am a funny person, so watch as I completely subvert your expectations," but then we've allowed for the act of telling the story to be the thing with the message, rather than the story itself having a message.

 

I'm not sure what I think about this, so these are just some preliminary sketches at questions I'll want to pose better and hopefully work towards an answer to.

 

~ BioGio

 

"You're a scientist? The proposal you make violates parsimony; it introduces extra unknowns without proof for them. One might as well say unicorns power it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's something I see a lot of people in this topic missing: every story has a theme or message, and it is vital that it convey it effectively.

 

I'm inclined to want to agree with this premise, if only because it's so wonderfully Aristotelian, but I am a bit wary of it.  Imposing possession of a theme/message on the category of things we call stories might be a bit.  Poorly told stories, for instance, might not have any (intentional) theme.  And some ancient literature doesn't mesh well with this idea, depending on how flexible your definition of theme is.

 

Similarly, if I tell a joke that has a form similar to a story (say, a shaggy dog story with a real plot that just terminates in a bad pun), then what might the theme be?  Perhaps it could be "I am a funny person, so watch as I completely subvert your expectations," but then we've allowed for the act of telling the story to be the thing with the message, rather than the story itself having a message.

 

I'm not sure what I think about this, so these are just some preliminary sketches at questions I'll want to pose better and hopefully work towards an answer to.

 

~ BioGio

 

 

Okay, insofar as poorly-told stories, I guess it should be amended to "a good story should have a theme or message it strives to convey". Even ancient stories tend to be messages about good triumphing over evil, or the importance of proper behavior.

 

The eponymous "shaggy dog story", to me, represents exactly what some people seem to want Bionicle to have been: a huge lead up to a massively pointless ending. Its entire point is to bring the sense of disappointment that a story without meaningful conclusion brings. Its point is that simple shock. It works with stories like the Shaggy Dog story or the puns you alluded to (my personal favorite leads up to "BETTER NATE THAN LEVER") because they're relatively short; you get a far duller sense of wasted time than if you follow a children's toyline for eight years only to find out it was a shaggy dog story in disguise. A shaggy dog story is, after all, a story in the barest sense, in that it's a series of events being told. In the end, what it literally is is a joke, with the twist ending being the punchline.

 

(Sometimes stories like Shaggy Dog stories do have messages, of course; that would be the one I've alluded to about how no matter how hard you work for good, evil will win in the end, so you may as well quit. I tend to hate stories like those.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's the point? [...] Accept the inevitable and die miserable.

 

The point is that postponing bad things, maybe you don't benefit from it directly, but others do; sure you don't win in the end, but each & every moment you postponed it a moment someone else could enjoy (relatively speaking); & hey if you need things to work out for you to do the right thing what kinda morality is that? I don't actually take issue with it ... but I know plenty who would.

 

Accepting that bad things wll happen doesn't mean okay let it happen now; stopping a bad thing s good;  if it happens tomorrow or ten years down the track; at least it didn't happen today. & if you're one of those people that doesn't feel good about making others happy &/or less sad, then you can know that you fighting the good fight arguably is less selfish than those altruistic people who feel good about it (try and ignore that your ego is still benefiting form it) ;)
 
 

[...] every story has a theme or message, and it is vital that it convey it effectively. [...]

 

This is certainly true for many, but really? I'd argue there are a number of things that exist to entertain, they might help with something else, & that may be a goal, but plenty of people go looking for a movie etc. with the intent to be entertained.

So if someone is entertained, & they've payed for it... that's business; & win-win.

 

Mind you the story right did spend about 4 years hinting that Makuta/Teridax was there doing something ... planning or brooding. I think a message that good planning can win you the game is good. Have you heard of rooting for the villain? We see a Toa team needing to work together; spend time working out how to get along, or alternatively see them get rewarded by the Mask of (do-whatever-the-plot-wants-should-have-been-able-to-fix-everything-but-didn't-cause-plot-reasons) Life, i liked the heroes ... but I also liked Makuta.

 

So if I'm right in understanding that the message of Bionicle is teamwork: look at Tahu needing people to help him collect automatic win buttons. I think the God Mata Nui Mask of Life will save you kinda makes any teamwork moot; frankly that moral seems to be overshadowed by what is essentially parent/guardian will save me, I mean there's no point trying to do anything they're the ones who'll fix it all up anyway...

 

 

Regardless all these reasons seem to boil down to it doesn't have a good message (or moral etc.) &/or that's a shock twist; yeah neither of these mean much to me, & I fail to see a reason why they should; a story predetermining itself on the grounds of oh but X has to win otherwise some people will be sad(?!), &/or shock twists are so much worse than a last minute defeat the bad guy because of temperamental-win button we've been following for years & create more questions than answers (which can be interesting, but it just felt uncared for and unfinished [doesn't that sound familiar?]).

 

 

Really though if a bad guy winning means there is no point in doing the right thing... well I suppose that's a wonderfully happy insight into the human psyche.

 

 

I don't want a shaggy dog story, I want a story which makes a bit more sense doesn't end in a pathetic attempt at ending a villain & tonnes of loose ends; if Makuta won then hey it would leave what happens to the Toa but it could easily be implied that they don't win latter (no sequels) or leave it open for people to try and create(!) their own stories ...which would probably be more "respectable" than the soft-reboot that followed Mata Nui, you know that very bland & poorly explained godlike being who ... really wasn't a millionth of what he was cracked up to be. Who had very little "character development". [Really, I don't 'need' an '08 ending to be great; I just 'need' to be able to think it's better than things after it ...which is exactly how I feel.]

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I'm right in understanding that the message of Bionicle is teamwork: look at Tahu needing people to help him collect automatic win buttons. I think the God Mata Nui Mask of Life will save you kinda makes any teamwork moot; frankly that moral seems to be overshadowed by what is essentially parent/guardian will save me, I mean there's no point trying to do anything they're the ones who'll fix it all up anyway...

 

I don't understand what you're talking about at all with this. Everyone succeeded because of teamwork. Artifacts helped, but even their collection required working with other people instead of rejecting the help of others. It never told you "reject the help of others; you can get through life just fine on your own!" Even Mata Nui needed the help of friends to stop Makuta. It was very consistent with that theme, regardless of what you might think.

 

 

This is certainly true for many, but really? I'd argue there are a number of things that exist to entertain, they might help with something else, & that may be a goal, but plenty of people go looking for a movie etc. with the intent to be entertained.

So if someone is entertained, & they've payed for it... that's business; & win-win.

 

I see no satisfactory entertainment in an 8-year shaggy dog story. It's the garbage-filled pierogi. I'm gonna spit it out and decry it.

 

 

Mind you the story right did spend about 4 years hinting that Makuta/Teridax was there doing something ... planning or brooding. I think a message that good planning can win you the game is good. Have you heard of rooting for the villain? We see a Toa team needing to work together; spend time working out how to get along, or alternatively see them get rewarded by the Mask of (do-whatever-the-plot-wants-should-have-been-able-to-fix-everything-but-didn't-cause-plot-reasons) Life, i liked the heroes ... but I also liked Makuta.

 

 

Except it wouldn't just be a message about planning winning you the game. It would also be a message about blind, greedy, corrupted ambition winning out against the forces of good, and how that will always be inevitable and unavoidable. It commands you to sink into despair, because why bother holding off the inevitable if it will prevail anyway? Again, what's the point? You can try and put a positive spin on it all you want, but the ending would be nihilistic, defeatist, and completely at odds with the previous seven years of story.

 

 

Really though if a bad guy winning means there is no point in doing the right thing... well I suppose that's a wonderfully happy insight into the human psyche.

 

 

Gee, an infinite period of subservience and oppression under the iron fist of a power-hungry dictatorial god sure sounds like an EXCELLENT thing so long as we could win a few meaningless battles in the meantime! C'mon, guys, sure, evil won out and will probably never be defeated because it's the very universe we live in, but we won against him a couple times! What kind of weirdo wouldn't want to live in a world like that?

 

It's not about the bad guy scoring a minor victory you need to recover from. It's about the bad guy scoring the ULTIMATE victory that, since the story has ended, can be assumed to be final and irreversible, subjecting you to an eternity of torment forever. It's a message of futility and defeatism.

 

I simply cannot agree that 2008's ending would have been better than 2010's just because you think it made more sense somehow, or it was "cleaner". For starters, the twisted knots of the serials already started to weave together at that time, so there still would have been the loose ends you complain about in addition to making absolutely no thematic sense with everything that happened before.

Edited by Dina Saruyama
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you're talking about at all with this. Everyone succeeded because of teamwork. Artifacts helped, but even their collection required working with other people instead of rejecting the help of others. It never told you "reject the help of others; you can get through life just fine on your own!" Even Mata Nui needed the help of friends to stop Makuta. It was very consistent with that theme, regardless of what you might think.

 

The Mask of Life has incredibly arbitrary restrictions; the only reason they needed teamwork so much from '06 onwards was pretty much because it was temperamental & did it's own thing; much of the time a problem could have been solved by simply someone being able to actually grab it before a villain pops up out of nowhere to try and claim it - or to shoot the golden armour away: Diabolus ex Machina to match it's Deus ex Machina; the heroes were just running back & forth between two very lazy literary tools;

 

Mata Nui needed help because he wasn't a very likable guy - pay attention to the goings on inside of him which he apparently was kinda aware of; him needing help only came about because when he could do almost anything he neglected it, he wasn't an intelligent character & he was only nice after things went wrong for him...

 

 

I see no satisfactory entertainment in an 8-year shaggy dog story. It's the garbage-filled pierogi. I'm gonna spit it out and decry it.

 

Well lucky you, that didn't happen. I still don't see how it would be a shaggy dog story as it doesn't make everything before hand meaningless or irrelevant, it is an inversion; bad guy wins because of all these things he set up in advance, it was a well layed trap; he was clever. Intelligence > hivemind lets work together & follow destiny & do our duty. Sure it's a positive spin on it, but it's based of stuff in the story.

 

 

Except it wouldn't just be a message about planning winning you the game. It would also be a message about blind, greedy, corrupted ambition winning out against the forces of good, and how that will always be inevitable and unavoidable. It commands you to sink into despair, because why bother holding off the inevitable if it will prevail anyway? Again, what's the point? You can try and put a positive spin on it all you want, but the ending would be nihilistic, defeatist, and completely at odds with the previous seven years of story.

 

The message doesn't say you have to be "blind, greedy, corrupted ambition winning out against the forces of good" although that is obviously there, it is also a message about 'intelligence' (or rather planning) > good intentions; you can be the most well meaning person in the world and achieve very little because life depends on multiple factors.

You've mentioned this "why bother holding off the inevitable if it will prevail anyway? " sort of thing a few times; generally speaking many societies say one should do whats moral because it's moral.

 

[To invoke Godwin's law, if you can delay nasty Nazis from getting to innocent victims for even a day, that's one day saved from incredible nastiness; even if you know it won't be enough it might give them hope; to break the analogy: the Toa might not be able to do anything, but the Matoran might find a way in time, sure they aren't thinking it when it happens they are despairing then, but they might gain hope latter... {post-apocalypse Matoran-centered fanfic?}]

 

Silly comparison but it should actually make this clear: preventing a bad thing from happening even for a moment is important; not trying to delay the inevitablle can be a good idea, but sometimes the "moral" thing to do is to try and prevent it, you know you can only delay, but a delay is better than it happening now. (Nevermind go down fighting tropes!)

 

 

//Nihilism is kinda silly, Nietzsche arguably pointed out people can be happy, nice, & do good things despite horrible things happening in the world with the logical assumption that things will get worse (better as well, but also worse; whether it's world war in 100 yrs time, or millions dying of hunger, whatever bad thing thats going to happen sooner or latter), & that people can still try even in the face of what appears inevitable; they can give hope to others, because even if they can't do anything at least they were hopeful for that moment...

 

In the end, many people loose; many people don't think that way because they focus on other things.

 

I'd think this would be irrelevant, then again people appear to be freaking out that a story could have a surprise unhappy ending.

 

You seem to insist you can't even see a point in why, but the reason to do the right thing? Do the right thing because that's good; it's almost literally what parents have been telling kids for generations; there's usually been a variety of intermittent steps, but really, if you're worried that a story ending with the villain succeeding = bad, horrible; somehow means we should be bad, I wonder what you actually think motivates people to even try to be "good" ever? IDK maybe you [don't?] think people try to do the right thing, because they are afraid of punishment, or good feels good, or because of rewards for being good, or maybe something else; IDK.

 

If you want a pragmatic reason to be good to be shown in a series, sure it becomes harder to find them, but then again if people wonder about that aspect they'll probably either see that it is advantageous to them to do away with being good & do what they want etc; or they'll be good because in RL it's often pragmatic to do the 'right thing' because there will be consequences otherwise; as to why I don't think it's important to show that? Because you don't have 40+ powers at your finger tips; you're not powerful enough to succeed where Makuta did, or alternatively are you cunning enough?

 

As it is, having a moral message doesn't strike me as important as it being entertaining, & I've seen people talk about it being cool when Makuta took over...

 

I simply cannot agree that 2008's ending would have been better than 2010's just because you think it made more sense somehow, or it was "cleaner". For starters, the twisted knots of the serials already started to weave together at that time, so there still would have been the loose ends you complain about in addition to making absolutely no thematic sense with everything that happened before.

 

Thematic sense? maybe maybe not; as I've said they spent 4 years alluding to Teridax doing things in the background - people didn't expect that he was either weak(ened) &/or brooding &/or plotting?

 

As for cleaner, well yeah, obviously it wouldn't tie up all the loose ends, but it seems to me to have less than what say Journeys End left us with...

& yeah, as many people wouldn't be happy with 'their' series being left in such a depressing place there would have probably been a lot of fan works out there... Or they all get upset & give up on the series - which I'd suggest would be no great loss if people reacted that badly, although in their defence, they wouldn't be aware of the failures of '09 onwards.

 

 

You don't like the idea of G1 ending with '08; that is fine, & I don't think you're wrong as such; but if you really think these sorts of reasons are going to convince me... Well I need something relevant to me, or rather if you could prove that having a good message is more important than entertainment factors I will most probably concede (it's the crux of me reasoning for my preference), I doubt any other reasons will prop up more than that.

 

Without that we're just going to be going around in circles, as you think message & theme is vital, I think entertainment is (& I haven't seen reason that I should be entertained by an '08 ending!).

 

Then again maybe message/theme vs entertainment is just an arbitrary difference in opinions, or maybe 'one' is objectively more important than the other(s).

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've mentioned this "why bother holding off the inevitable if it will prevail anyway? " sort of thing a few times; generally speaking many societies say one should do whats moral because it's moral.

 

That's an incredibly simplistic worldview. One should fight against an overpowering evil that will win because it's the right thing to do? Why? Because it's the right thing to do? Why is it the right thing to do? Is it the right thing to do because it's the right thing to do? In the end, you've merely delayed the inevitable, and for what? For false hope? For a fleeting glimpse at happiness before it's completely crushed out of every aspect of your life?

 

Heroes fight against evil because it's right, but why is it right to fight evil? It's right to fight evil because the idea is you stop the evil. If you have no hope of stopping the evil, it's a suicide mission. Part of the whole teamwork thing was to show that together, they had the strength to defeat evil.

 

So again, I pose the question: why fight off evil if in the end it's guaranteed to win? "Because it's right" isn't going to fly, because that's circular logic.

 

 

Thematic sense? maybe maybe not; as I've said they spent 4 years alluding to Teridax doing things in the background - people didn't expect that he was either weak(ened) &/or brooding &/or plotting?

 

What does that have to do with the theme? Makuta clearly isn't being shown as the epitome of good intentions and purity, so his traits clearly aren't being shown as something to idolize. Indeed, his greed and selfish ambitions are often the cause of his downfall, including his final one; if he had not pursued power on Bara Magna, he likely could have gotten away with taking control of the universe. You're not supposed to view Makuta's traits as admirable, because they're not; even his good traits are used to further despicable means. Therefore, what Makuta did is clearly the example of behavior the writers mean to decry. In other words: he's not supposed to win. If Makuta wins, the theme is "Selfishness, greed, and jealousy are admirable traits, and teamwork and perseverance are to be shunned". Unless you want to argue that's the kind of theme Bionicle was leading up to all along, what with Makuta's selfishness, greed, and jealousy leading to his downfall on several occasions (the ending of LoMN comes to mind), there's no coherency to the theme.

 

(Plus, if the point was to admire Makuta's planning skills all along, I would have to call foul on how completely unrealistic his planning skills are. Makuta is not a relatable character at all; his mind is far too alien.)

 

 

or rather if you could prove that having a good message is more important than entertainment factors I will most probably concede (it's the crux of me reasoning for my preference), I doubt any other reasons will prop up more than that.

 

 

Well, I mean, the fact that almost every story since stories began has had a theme, moral, or message of some kind, and in fact probably originated for that purpose, seems like pretty solid evidence of the importance of theme to me. Can you think of a fairy tale without a theme? A classic novel? A modern novel? A teen novel? A children's story? Any sizable amount of stories without the intent of conveying a message? I will gladly concede that theme is irrelevant if you can point me to an even vaguely successful story (whether it be book, movie, what have you) that has not tried to cover at least one theme, however poorly.

 

Theme and entertainment are not a dichotomy; even Michael Bay, whose brainless movies are often defended as being purely for entertainment, have heavy-handed, poorly-conveyed messages in them. However, the claim that a story can thrive without a message at its heart seems ridiculous to me. What an empty story that would have to be.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it the right thing to do?

 
It's the right thing to do because you spending a day trying to not get yourself & others killed whilst seems to achieve more than you surrendering to your death then & there; it's the "moral" thing to do because in short the Toa fighting against Makuta & trying to save Mata Nui gives others more time to not be terrorized by Makuta, Matoran being terrorized by Makuta is bad, thus the Toa trying to prevent this achieves more good than if they just accept it'll happen eventually; thus it is "moral" for the Toa to try save Mata Nui & stop Makuta.
 
Preventing bad things happening is generally considered 'good'; less bad things happen if they try & stop Makuta than if they don't.
Thus because they are moral they fight this fight; capiché?
 
Or rather, they do the right thing for the exact reason they originally did them, & people (the audience) can see that even if something bad is inevitable it is sometimes better to try and minimize or delay it, each day without that thing happening is a better day than it would have otherwise been.
 
 

What does that have to do with the theme? Makuta clearly isn't being shown as the epitome of good intentions and purity, so his traits clearly aren't being shown as something to idolize. Indeed, his greed and selfish ambitions are often the cause of his downfall, including his final one; if he had not pursued power on Bara Magna, he likely could have gotten away with taking control of the universe. 

 
The good guys use team work, on the flip side the bad guy uses 'good planning skills'; as I said it's the inverse the theme changes from the good guys to the bad, & you see the virtues of both, as Makuta is the antagonist & villain he has character flaws "greed and selfish ambitions".
 
 

You're not supposed to view Makuta's traits as admirable, because they're not; even his good traits are used to further despicable means. Therefore, what Makuta did is clearly the example of behavior the writers mean to decry. In other words: he's not supposed to win. If Makuta wins, the theme is "Selfishness, greed, and jealousy are admirable traits, and teamwork and perseverance are to be shunned". Unless you want to argue that's the kind of theme Bionicle was leading up to all along, what with Makuta's selfishness, greed, and jealousy leading to his downfall on several occasions (the ending of LoMN comes to mind), there's no coherency to the theme.

 
That doesn't entirely follow. His good traits ('planning' skills) are used to villainous ends; that doesn't prevent those skills from being admirable, that we aren't supposed to view any of his traits as admirable is pathetic; if one suceeds at anything using something beyond luck or being someone else's puppet they did something well, maybe not nice, but they had a skill of some sort; one should be able to view a character as evil villain without needing to pretend that they don't do anything right from an objective perspective, why should one reject reality?
 
& no, if he wins it doesn't mean "Selfishness, greed, and jealousy are admirable traits" it means they weren't enough of an obstacle to prevent his victory (which is another moral: just because your enemy isn't nice & has flaws which do get in his way doesn't mean they always will; he isn't necessarily incompetent), what is shown to be the cause for his victory there is his plans & manipulation (which moral guardian usually shy away from ... but at the end of the day most actions are influential, many intentionally; that his where malicious is cause for disdain), being aware that not so nice things can work well is important; I see no great issue.
 
No I don't think Bionicle was planned to go that sort of route at all, we know this; but just because it ends with him winning doesn't mean the series has no coherency, & as for the theme well there are more than one, ending with the villain & showing his actions come to fruition could be seen as sobering; there has been 'foreshadowing' (to put it lightly) of sorts for Makutas' plans; the theme is compared and contrast between two different methods, & unfortunately the villain despite his flaws ended up wining, maybe luck, or maybe his brilliant plans (which has been made a point of).
 
Certainly it could have been done better, but so could have 2009 or 2010! There is still a logic too 2008 that doesn't fall apart if the series cut off there; it might feel incomplete, but so did the actual ending(s)!
 
 

(Plus, if the point was to admire Makuta's planning skills all along, I would have to call foul on how completely unrealistic his planning skills are. Makuta is not a relatable character at all; his mind is far too alien.)

 
Well we don't see all of his planing, so they might be more realistic than what we think; the gaps arguably help illustrate the idea that he's that much better at it than us; which also helps send the message that there are limits for what can plan for - realising one doesn't know how he planned for things indicates he is ahead of the audience. (One could argue that it's not good writing, but whilst hes been the focus, he's rarely been 'in focus'; as it is the writers could only handle so many plots at a time...)
 
 

Theme and entertainment are not a dichotomy; even Michael Bay, whose brainless movies are often defended as being purely for entertainment, have heavy-handed, poorly-conveyed messages in them. However, the claim that a story can thrive without a message at its heart seems ridiculous to me. What an empty story that would have to be.

 

No they aren't, I think a story needs something to tie it together, but as you say Mr Bays' films are still somehow held together despite the abysmal delivery of its messages

 

[Edit: oops cut off the end:] so his films were primarily about entertainment, yes they need the other bits, but so long as they are there, they may not make great movies but plenty of people enjoy them. As it is, I don't think it ending with 2008 would have destroyed its theme(s) & whilst it would have felt like there could be more to come, it would also work as an ending, albeit dark IMO.

Edited by Iblis

~ Sophistry: A way to be antidisuncorrect. ~


 


 


In a decade you might convince maybe a small tribe of people.


In a decade you might also conquer one million km2 of land,


& in over a thousand years you might have over a billion followers.


 


I like building things. Please don't break the big ones.


& evidential philosophies that dare to extrapolate beyond


an individual's direct experience aren't easily built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why is it the right thing to do?

 
It's the right thing to do because you spending a day trying to not get yourself & others killed whilst seems to achieve more than you surrendering to your death then & there; it's the "moral" thing to do because in short the Toa fighting against Makuta & trying to save Mata Nui gives others more time to not be terrorized by Makuta, Matoran being terrorized by Makuta is bad, thus the Toa trying to prevent this achieves more good than if they just accept it'll happen eventually; thus it is "moral" for the Toa to try save Mata Nui & stop Makuta.
 
Preventing bad things happening is generally considered 'good'; less bad things happen if they try & stop Makuta than if they don't.
Thus because they are moral they fight this fight; capiché?
 
Or rather, they do the right thing for the exact reason they originally did them, & people (the audience) can see that even if something bad is inevitable it is sometimes better to try and minimize or delay it, each day without that thing happening is a better day than it would have otherwise been.

 

I don't follow. This is basically the same as "it's the right thing to do because it's the right thing to do". It doesn't remove the feeling of futility that comes from fighting an evil with all you've got, only for it to win forever in the end. It still feels pointless to fight at all, because that short period of happiness means nothing when you're spending the rest of your life crushed under the heel of Makuta.

 

I just don't understand how it's somehow more moral to fight a fight you'll lose than to never attempt it at all, with you losing being a constant. (After all, your argument is that their failure should have been inevitable anyway.)

 

That doesn't entirely follow. His good traits ('planning' skills) are used to villainous ends; that doesn't prevent those skills from being admirable, that we aren't supposed to view any of his traits as admirable is pathetic; if one suceeds at anything using something beyond luck or being someone else's puppet they did something well, maybe not nice, but they had a skill of some sort; one should be able to view a character as evil villain without needing to pretend that they don't do anything right from an objective perspective, why should one reject reality?

 

Because he uses those good traits to a villainous end, he cannot be admired for it, because that is to say "the morality of the situation doesn't matter, because dang that guy could plan. Be like him! Forget the heroes. What good is "good" and "heroism" when you can be like the bad guy?" Context for actions is extremely important. Whatever person wins a conflict in a story, symbolically, those values have won. In Makuta's case, that's selfishness, greed, and blind ambition, not good planning skills; those were merely the tool by which he exerted his values.

 

& no, if he wins it doesn't mean "Selfishness, greed, and jealousy are admirable traits" it means they weren't enough of an obstacle to prevent his victory (which is another moral: just because your enemy isn't nice & has flaws which do get in his way doesn't mean they always will; he isn't necessarily incompetent), what is shown to be the cause for his victory there is his plans & manipulation (which moral guardian usually shy away from ... but at the end of the day most actions are influential, many intentionally; that his where malicious is cause for disdain), being aware that not so nice things can work well is important; I see no great issue.

 

You cannot slice and dice his character so only his few "admirable" traits remain to be ogled. Every one of his actions were motivated by jealousy, selfishness, and a desire for unlimited power. If he wins, those values win, and they are upheld as admirable. It sends the message that good intentions don't mean squat in the face of pure evil, because evil will always win in the end. Be evil! Evil WINS!

 

No I don't think Bionicle was planned to go that sort of route at all, we know this; but just because it ends with him winning doesn't mean the series has no coherency, & as for the theme well there are more than one, ending with the villain & showing his actions come to fruition could be seen as sobering; there has been 'foreshadowing' (to put it lightly) of sorts for Makutas' plans; the theme is compared and contrast between two different methods, & unfortunately the villain despite his flaws ended up wining, maybe luck, or maybe his brilliant plans (which has been made a point of).

 
Certainly it could have been done better, but so could have 2009 or 2010! There is still a logic too 2008 that doesn't fall apart if the series cut off there; it might feel incomplete, but so did the actual ending(s)!

 

2010's ending contrasts to 2008's in that it actually works for the story they were telling. They were not telling a story where evil wins because evil rules and heroes drool. They were telling a story that, from the beginning, made it quite clear that heroism and teamwork will always win out over greed and selfishness. I fail to see how an ending that would say the polar opposite could ever fit thematically.

 

Well we don't see all of his planing, so they might be more realistic than what we think; the gaps arguably help illustrate the idea that he's that much better at it than us; which also helps send the message that there are limits for what can plan for - realising one doesn't know how he planned for things indicates he is ahead of the audience. (One could argue that it's not good writing, but whilst hes been the focus, he's rarely been 'in focus'; as it is the writers could only handle so many plots at a time...)

 

Let me make this perfectly clear: it is impossible to plan for every contingency. He could not have a backup for every hiccup, every curveball, every twist, and yet we are told that's exactly what he did. Even if we say it's because he has an alien mind, that damages his relatability as a character. Relatability is not something to sacrifice when it's that character's values we're eventually going to worship.

 

No they aren't, I think a story needs something to tie it together, but as you say Mr Bays' films are still somehow held together despite the abysmal delivery of its messages

[Edit: oops cut off the end:] so his films were primarily about entertainment, yes they need the other bits, but so long as they are there, they may not make great movies but plenty of people enjoy them. As it is, I don't think it ending with 2008 would have destroyed its theme(s) & whilst it would have felt like there could be more to come, it would also work as an ending, albeit dark IMO.

 

 

His messages may be abysmally delivered, but there is still a drive to pursue them. Optimus Prime still preaches about pacifism and empathy, even as he tears off Decepticon heads. There is a message that ties the film's spattered scenes together. Yes, people go for the explosions and the fight scenes, but people have decried films for poor delivery of message before. You can't pretend it doesn't matter.

 

I still stand that 2008's end could not work at all for the story Bionicle was trying to tell. Coming off 8 years of story emphasizing the power of teamwork, bravery, and heroism, to have the selfish, cowardly, and greedy antagonist win forever in the end would pretty much be exactly what I called it: a shaggy dog story. You have yet to convince me at all that it doesn't nullify the impact of everything before it besides some weak idea that trying to persist in a hopeless environment is more moral than realizing when you're finished, which still rings hollow for me. It gives a ridiculous tonal whiplash that would feel completely disgusting in a story that was always about hope and the power of heroes.

Edited by Dina Saruyama
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...