Shifting and Concerning Moods Regarding the Writing

[Alec97]

I believe you're overthinking it a bit. The game has already drawn a line between what constitutes a god and what does not. Per this game's lore, something being worshipped as a god does not, in fact, make it a god. A given creature and those faithful to it can proclaim it a god all they want, but that will not make it meet the criteria for godhood as put forth in-story by the writers. Even Zodiark, for all his power and despite the Ascians referring to him as a god on so many occasions, was no god at all. He was just a primal, albeit the original upon which all others were based.
.

We are only discussing what constitutes a god. As I said in my previous post, if you were to summon an eikon of a fork, you would get a fork. Zodairk was a god after a fashion from Emit because he fulfilled the societal purpose of one as he became the embodiment and will of the star. In any other be mythos that would your Gaia, even Venat is—archetypically presented as the Lightbringer or Lucifer who betrays God, leading to the fall of man out of Eden/paradise which leads to a loss of our immortality.

I also didn't overthink it at all Plato was the defining philosopher for the majority of the ancient world to the medieval world and the impact he had on our society, especially on notions of what a human and the soul are is massive. FF14 is not original in how it portrays anything just as the world of warcraft or warnammer isn't, they all steal from the same playbook. This is why when you steal from Chinese mythology you should be surprised when Confucianism seeped into everything.

The problem today is most Westerners haven't received a proper education and couldn't tell you their nose from the arse. What you have instead is westerners being asked why the curtains are red instead of being asked to research the philosophical origins of the narrative because nothing is original.

I don't know that I would call Zodiark a manifestation of the concept of salvation. From what we're told, they took a very scientific approach to his creation, purpose, and the plethora of abilities he received. He was initially regarded as nothing more than a unique and inordinately powerful creation made to some exacting specifications. The worship didn't kick in until afterward, driven partially by utter desperation and partially by incidental tempering.

There were two major creation categories; those with souls, and those without. Creations the planet chose to impart with souls by definition grew beyond the sum of their parts, but the ancients had no actual control over this phenomenon. They could create a form they'd seen the planet grant a soul prior and hope for the best, but that was it. Those without souls were known as arcane entities, and they had no capacity for growth beyond their initial stages. In other words, those enemy types you refer to are basically just standard animals whose origins happen to lie in Elpis. They can adapt and evolve with time like any living creature, but it's worth noting few if any of them actually changed all that much. They for the most part retain the same forms, mannerisms, and intellect or lack thereof. It was their progenitors being granted souls that permitted them to propagate unassisted in the first place.

Modern primals, aside from those embodied in an individual (Iceheart/Shiva, for example), are basically just glorified arcane entities. They have zero capacity to grow beyond their summon state, whatever it may be.

The methodical approach to his creation isn't science, it would considered occult by our world as individuals have control over the fundamental forces of reality. This is actually the key philosophical distinction between occultism and science. Science is about understanding the natural world and how things work. Occultism is about having the innate ability to control and change the natural world.

He is explicitly linked to the need for salvation by Elidibus his heart or core constantly. It becomes his primary function to the point he's forgotten everything but his duty which is to perform his function. Anything with aether is made up of the building blocks of the soul. We don't actually know what constitutes a soul yet as seems to be something very specific but the fact that you can make one does say a lot. There is also only one line from Emit stating they were tempered but there is actually very little evidence to prove he was actually tempered as he shows almost no evidence of it and one would have to question his need for it because he was already driven by his duty to his friends and family, not a parasitic insemination of another beings aether. Tempering also seems to be one of the major differences between how the ancients constructed things versus the beast tribes as almost no ancient concept tempers people. Their ability to create seems to be complete and stable without the need for the concept to acquire more aether to sustain and grow.

When it comes to the primals you are correct they are glorified entities but that is actually what all gods are in the first place. I could make a chicken my god by worshipping it. This is why I said what grants Godhood is people worshipping an ideal that they find to innately have transcendent properties such as war, death, light, dark etc as it functionally important to their understanding of the world and their place in it. The 12 in FF14 setting are just glorified beings but they are still gods and perform the societal function of gods to the point they are moulded by this function.

[Lunaxia]

The problem today is most Westerners haven't received a proper education and couldn't tell you their nose from the arse. What you have instead is westerners being asked why the curtains are red instead of being asked to research the philosophical origins of the narrative because nothing is original.

Unbridled arrogance and Intro to Philosophy references doesn't automatically make you sound intelligent or educated either, just FYI.

[Reap00]

Unbridled arrogance and Intro to Philosophy references doesn't automatically make you sound intelligent or educated either, just FYI.

Eh let them spout their nonsense day in and day out. It is good entertainment. Tis like the tabloids. Nobody in their right mind takes it seriously. I drop by these forums daily for a good giggle. People here think their wordy thought vomit actually matters.

[Swordsman]

Unbridled arrogance and Intro to Philosophy references doesn't automatically make you sound intelligent or educated either, just FYI.

So basically the writers for EW, lmao. I remember I said something like this before. Parts of FFXIV's story sound awfully a lot like someone pretending to be knowledgeable about philosophy when in fact they barely understand any of it.

[Ephremjlm]

So basically the writers for EW, lmao. I remember I said something like this before. Parts of FFXIV's story sound awfully a lot like someone pretending to be knowledgeable about philosophy when in fact they barely understand any of it.

Lmao its funny because as someone who took into to philosophy, and who still flips through the book from time to time, when I stop to think about it this is like dead accurate. I think that's why people love Emet as a character. There were no games or gimmicks, he was who he was, and his portion of the story is what really gave the game the quality FF feel, at least to me. Like he along with like the soft restart in a new world made that story incredibly strong. He was almost like Tidus, who was guiding the story to its conclusion until a certain point then its a "who knows what happens next".

[Alec97]

Unbridled arrogance and Intro to Philosophy references don't automatically make you sound intelligent or educated, either, just FYI.

Opinions are free, and arrogance is earned. Most schools are underfunded pieces of garbage that fail to teach children how to read, write and act at grade level compared to their private counterparts.

I also don't feel the need to sound intelligent. That naturally happens, but you are showing your issues by targeting them.

You also never stated that I was wrong.

Eh, let them spout their nonsense day in and day out. It is good entertainment. It's like the tabloids. Nobody in their right mind takes it seriously. I drop by these forums daily for a good giggle. People here think their wordy thought vomit matters.

I doubt you've read a tabloid and it’s not a good thing if you do. It's video game lore. You can't get any more insignificant regarding the importance of something, so, of course, it's nonsense. I also don't think my wordy vomit matters. That's why it's in a forum on FF14 and not to a politician. For it to matter, you would need to matter.

First, thank you for your first post in this thread, where you curb-stomped Endwalker's narrative. <3 Secondly, thank you for continuing to post. You've alluded to some stuff that I've always found interesting (though I do wish you'd spell Emet right).

You are welcome. Odd, the script made it this far, considering it's logically inconsistent. The franchise writers are prone to massive leaps of logic, scope and ability regarding their characters and themselves. This leads to dues ex machina-type situations and a cast of Mary sues, which are unrelatable.

Plato's Theory of Forms has issues. The issues it has mostly relate to mental perception and agreement on what the concepts behind the forms are. Like Plato believed abstracts like beauty or power are more real than any individual thing that presents them within itself. To assume this is true means one has to completely agree on what beauty or power is defined as. And it's only we the meat that make the definitions.

Yes, Plato believed that the shape matter was subject to the world of forms, though I'm afraid I have to disagree with your take on people agreeing with precise definitions because that doesn't define the essence of the concept. One man can find a stunted corpse beautiful and another a wonderous piece of art, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of a concept, only how it's brought forth as they are still experiencing the same thing but with different mediums, when it comes to power for example it simply the act of dominating the environment and those around you, you could have your opinion on the best way to do that, but it doesn't change the fundamental premise of the concept. This is why Plato used the example of a chair, you can have many forms of a chair, and you can disagree on what constitutes the best or how it should be made, but the essence of the idea is the same. For example, suppose you use a computer. In that case, the concept of the computer will remain the same no matter how it looks because the innate concept has almost nothing to do with looking the same as other pieces of technology. The idea of a computer performs a specific function, which is to compute things. Even if I travelled back in time or even forward, I could still recognise one or someone performing a good example of this would be in the Dune series with Mentats. If I brought someone from the 18th century and showed them a gun, a boat, or a house, for example, they would still know what it is.

I also agree that two cannot be separate and that one cannot exist without the other but the more you try to merge the two the more you are actually going to see a huge disparity between them and not only that the more you try the more your own innate understanding of the universal concept will improve.

[Lunaxia]

Opinions are free, and arrogance is earned. Most schools are underfunded pieces of garbage that fail to teach children how to read, write and act at grade level compared to their private counterparts.

I also don't feel the need to sound intelligent. That naturally happens, but you are showing your issues by targeting them.

You also never stated that I was wrong.

I would have thought that was implied.

To spell it out: people who are intelligent and confident in their knowledge don't feel the need to insult other people and push laboured and pretentious arguments with no real relevance to continually try to assert their fragile sense of intellectual superiority.

And to that end, in the event you do actually have a valid point to make, you'll find that is subsequently lost when you engage with the other party with the emotional intelligence of a grapefruit. "Arrogance is earned", oh, yikes.

There's technically a lot of places that have been mentioned as established locations ...

Thought I'd replied to this, oops.

Ah, that's my bad then. I'm not well-versed in the nooks and crannies of Hydaelyn because I'm not super enthusiastic about them, though I guess what I was trying to say is we'll have traversed all the major continents by then for the most part. Saying that, I realise there's also a large part of Ilsabard we have yet to uncover, though how we'd do that with Garlemald now resolved, I'm not sure...

And I don't think the idea of space travel is entirely shut off to us forever now, especially given the writers' current propensity for bending the lore whichever way they like, lol. I can more than see them suddenly having the Scions going "oh, there's a planet here that miraculously survived"" or that somehow remained beyond Meteion's reach at some time in the future when it's convenient.

[Alec97]

I would have thought that was implied.

To spell it out: people who are intelligent and confident in their knowledge don't feel the need to insult other people and push laboured and pretentious arguments with no real relevance to try to assert their fragile sense of intellectual superiority continually.

To that end, if you have a valid point to make, you'll find that it is subsequently lost when you engage with the other party with the emotional intelligence of a grapefruit. "Arrogance is earned", oh, yikes.

Read a book instead of trying to throw slurs. This is the pot calling the kettle black. You have a deep problem with this as it affects you. The education systems of the West have been called out for producing low-quality students for decades, especially in countries like Britian, America and France. The education system of the West isn't a human being either, and therefore, there is nothing to flaunt my so-called superiority over other than a failed system.

You think I'm acting superior when I'm merely pointing out how most people are ignorant because their governments, teachers and families have failed them, so they barely understand the foundational concepts upon which their society was built.

Yes, arrogance is earned, this is why elitism is rampant in academia, creative works, medical institutions and state craft etc. Humility is only a virtue when you've actually done something and it's amongst peers of like minded capability. I get you don't like it, but it's too bad life is unfair. Instead of trying to project your issues onto other people and add nothing to the conversation, you might want to attempt to fix them.

[Lunaxia]

I get you don't like it, but it's too bad life is unfair.

Oh good, you're one of those.

Read a book instead of trying to throw slurs.

All you're doing is making broad, condescending assumptions and hideous generalisations about the level and quality of other people's education and then passing it off as a criticism of the system - and in this instance, seemingly insinuating an acquaintance with philosophy and classics is somehow a reliable indicator of both when you clearly know nothing about either.

It's true elitism can be found anywhere, but that's because unfortunately, many people pursue these fields for the wrong reasons and seek to propel themselves to the top to satisfy their egos than for any genuine love of learning or desire to better themselves, and that ultimately boils down to their personal issues and the underlying inferiority complexes fuelling them. Thankfully, however, everybody else capable of basic courtesy and self-introspection realises the ridiculousness of such behaviour and opts for human decency, rather than attempting to justify misguided self-importance with their own distorted view of the world.

[Alec97]

Oh good, you're one of those.

All you're doing is making broad, condescending assumptions and hideous generalisations about the level and quality of other people's education and then passing it off as a criticism of the system - and in this instance, seemingly insinuating an acquaintance with philosophy and classics is somehow a reliable indicator of both when you know nothing about either.

It's true elitism can be found anywhere, but that's because, unfortunately, many people pursue these fields for the wrong reasons and seek to propel themselves to the top to satisfy their egos rather than for any genuine love of learning or desire to better themselves, and that ultimately boils down to their issues and the underlying inferiority complexes fuelling them. Thankfully, however, everybody else capable of basic courtesy and self-introspection realises the ridiculousness of such behaviour and opts for human decency rather than attempting to justify misguided self-importance with their distorted view of the world.

Generalisations exist to critique the general public. It’s why they are called generalisations. They aren't inherently wrong, nor is using them condescending or immoral. The only reason you would feel that way is because you feel personally attacked by it, or you know the type of person I'm talking about. The fact that you can't remain civil and need to start throwing slurs shows the very same lack of emotional maturity that you would label others with. You say you are capable of basic courtesy, but you haven't established it once.

This is a post about you

In that case: Then you were wrong.

And look, you need to stop insisting things about people that aren't true. I was in no "absolute rate", and look, you were the one that read me saying "some people hate stuff, but some people just have different tastes, and that's okay", and you perceived that as a personal attack to which you responded very aggressively, did you not?

I differentiate between people critiquing arguments I make and people insulting me personally. For example "I disagree with your argument here, and here is why..." is not an attack on the person. "You are responding in bad faith and have a history of..." is an attack on the person. That should be clear...

...but why am I bothering? You aren't going to listen and you, despite your own sage advice, don't see you're doing the things you're accusing me of.

That said, I appreciate your best intentions and take that at face value of you being a decent person. My recommendation to you is to read what you just wrote here and in the post that I replied to above. Then go back and read this post:



And this post:



And ask yourself if you might need to listen to your own advice. In both cases, you took what I said as some kind of piercing personal attack, even though it wasn't (my first post wasn't directed at anyone, didn't mention anyone, didn't quote anyone, and I don't even recall interacting with you like this before such that you'd have any reason to think it DID apply to you in the first place). And in both cases, you responded aggressively. And in the second case, when you accused me of something - your first post accusing me of expressing false concern is an attack, btw - and I explained to you it was genuine concern, what was your response?

"No, it wasn't". You didn't listen to what I said, you didn't let me explain. You already decided you were personally insulted and you weren't going to let go of that since it was justifying your behavior. If you were wrong and I wasn't personally insulting you, it would mean your first post (and second) were uncalled for.

In essence, it looked like you flew into an absolute rage and responded like that because you felt slighted against or attacked.

You just said it is under no circumstances ever acceptable to behave as you did, right?

Yet...you did.

.

Again, I know you won't listen, but on the off chance maybe you aren't beyond reason, I'm saying in the hopes that you do. I don't believe you're a bad person, but you did what you just accused me of doing. And before I did it, at that.

If you need help, I suggest you leave because you clearly can't deal with a differing opinion as you are inserting your baggage into it, but looking at the other posts you have made recently shows that you are only here to fight people by going on moral crusades instead of adding to the conversation. Instead of perceiving everyone as some form of ideological enemy, you might want to calm down.

“Oh good, you're one of those”. I would also add this is bigoted. Do you have a prejudice against people who see the world as intrinsically unfair or is there some more profound bias that you would like to label me but don't want to say? Either way, I doubt it's suitable for polite conversation and takes away from your so-called human decency.