Fate/Grand Order Story and Lore (CONTAINS SPOILERS)

[InsertNameHere]

I've never read Nasu as being in favor of Kirschtaria's plan. That seems like a strange misread. There's a reason he's the villain, even if a noble one.

I'd have thought that if that was the case he'd provide some actual counterarguments to it, in the same way that he did with the Hero of Justice ideal in FSN. But for whatever reason this particular ideal goes completely unquestioned. Given all his other works suggesting that such a transcendence is both possible and desirable (both of which are heavily debatable), I suspect he has a horse in this race, so to speak.

And just to make things 100% clear, I don't see Kirschtaria as evil. He's just a blatant, unadulterated fool.

[Petrikow]

Because this plotline isn't resolved.

Marisbury and Kirschtaria have the same ultimate goal, and we've yet to find out the true extent of Marisbury's deal. Once that happens, (you) will deny it. That said, the answer is already out there if you read like any of his other works.

[sentence]

Yeah, the way that Beryl’s the only Crypter against it while Pepe (in From Lostbelt) and Kadoc (in Traum) both say they wouldn’t have a problem with it is a good point.

This too.

[fumei]

The funniest thing to me about the counterarguments that get brought up for this discussion every time is that the whole point is that according to Kirschtaria, humans, in their physical and mental limitations cannot grasp the path necessary, in part because their intelligence is lacking. And then, (you), an inherently normal person of normal human intellect, just goes: "no but see, I don't agree". Whether it really was the correct path (which we'll probably never know explicitly per se, but Nasu's other works sort of gives us the answer already), the fact of the matter is that (you) just keep proving Kirschtaria's point.

[Byegod]

A writer can create any scenario and contrive reasonings for it.

Fumei this is a story, we are real people. this was presumably written by a real person. The crux is that inserthnamehere is arguing based on presumably IRL and life, while your basically saying there cant be a debate because nasu says so.

So, whats your opinion, in universe and based on IRL circumstances fumei.

[Rafflesiac]

Do you believe that you can comprehend God in His entirety?

[InsertNameHere]

A writer can create any scenario and contrive reasonings for it.

Fumei this is a story, we are real people. this was presumably written by a real person. The crux is that inserthnamehere is arguing based on presumably IRL and life, while your basically saying there cant be a debate because nasu says so.

So, whats your opinion, in universe and based on IRL circumstances fumei.

Indeed. What Nasu thinks is irrelevant to me because he can just shut down any dissent however he pleases without having to genuinely consider the counterarguments (although I for one feel like the story could have been significantly improved if he did consider them instead of uncritically depicting Kirschtaria's views as being purely good. I on the other hand don't take kindly to having such discussion shut down simply due to authorial fiat and things like what fumei says just convince me even more that he doesn't want to engage it critically.

I've already set forth my reasoning in universe. That is, Kirschtaria himself is just as clueless as anyone else about what humanity's path should be and is staking all of humanity on a plan that may very well blow up in his face, notwithstanding the arrogance of assuming that anyone ought to be in a position to impose anything on humanity as a whole, and the actions of the machine gods should be proof enough that intelligence and wisdom are not enough for virtue. They're just tools, and tools can be used for both good and evil in equal measure.

Out of universe, the latter argument still applies but I can then also point out the countless instances of humans living in the ideal way he believes is impossible for us, which many historians now think is actually the way we lived for the thousands of years before our recorded history. Thus we can have his world where everyone works together without having to sacrifice any of the things that make us human, it just requires identifying the social systems that cause our problems, working to undermine and eventually eliminate them, and creating new ones to take their place that can keep things from going wrong again.

I have ideas on how to do this as well as ways that they could viably be put into practice (and indeed many of them have been implemented in one form or another), but I seriously doubt that this is the best place to talk about radical politics. Even if it was, I am not quite well-versed enough in the theory behind it to adequately discuss it (although I suppose I could point people in the direction of literature which explains it far batter than I could).

Additionally, I find that with such heady ideals the means prefigures the end- an "ascension" that has to be imposed upon people from above without ever allowing them a say in the matter is little more than a mass violation of the existence of everyone who never wanted that kind of faux-divinity and would spend the whole of their existence after that "ascension" trying to get rid of it. If such a thing is even possible (and I highly doubt that it is), it must be a choice taken freely and with full knowledge of the consequences (which incidentally Kirschtaria couldn't possibly know about- all he had there was his faith- which I define in this context as "a willing belief in the unbelievable without proof").

- - - Updated - - -

Do you believe that you can comprehend God in His entirety?

How can anyone comprehend something that hasn't even been defined? You may as well ask if I can comprehend (insert nonsense word that looks like a cat ran across my keyboard here).

[fumei]

A writer can create any scenario and contrive reasonings for it.

Fumei this is a story, we are real people. this was presumably written by a real person. The crux is that inserthnamehere is arguing based on presumably IRL and life, while your basically saying there cant be a debate because nasu says so.

Indeed. What Nasu thinks is irrelevant to me because he can just shut down any dissent however he pleases without having to genuinely consider the counterarguments (although I for one feel like the story could have been significantly improved if he did consider them instead of uncritically depicting Kirschtaria's views as being purely good. I on the other hand don't take kindly to having such discussion shut down simply due to authorial fiat and things like what fumei says just convince me even more that he doesn't want to engage it critically.

No, it is not the case that there cannot be a discussion or critique of it because "Nasu said so" (though I would argue that some people here desperately need to stop reading Nasu stories as a means of him forcing his personal believes on the reader, and more like actual stories). I argue it is the case that this critique of the plan is fundamentally wrong because of what the story says about people. The idea in the story is that humankind, as they exist now and presumably forevermore, cannot attain this path being sought. It requires a completely higher level of existence to do so, both physically and intellectually; a level which a normal, or even abnormal, person could never hope to attain. Thus, when you argue against it based on what you "perceive right now", it's of little consequence because you're trying to apply those same things to something akin to a proper god. But, for the sake of you not feeling like I'm clinging to "author fiat", I'll meet your arguments.

I've already set forth my reasoning in universe. That is, Kirschtaria himself is just as clueless as anyone else about what humanity's path should be and is staking all of humanity on a plan that may very well blow up in his face, notwithstanding the arrogance of assuming that anyone ought to be in a position to impose anything on humanity as a whole, and the actions of the machine gods should be proof enough that intelligence and wisdom are not enough for virtue. They're just tools, and tools can be used for both good and evil in equal measure.

The Olympians are fundamentally tools created for the purpose of preserving and cultivating their own kind. Comparing their intelligence and wisdom to this case feels disingenuous, because theirs is one meant to be used in their position as tools. They were never made to transcend their own "mortal" limitations, nor break free of the accursed cycle of consciousness; they were just made to do what it is they sought to do (and in the end, even Zeus, who cared for mankind in his own way, stuck to that). Kirschtaria's plan is not equivalent to the creation of the Olympians.

Out of universe, the latter argument still applies but I can then also point out the countless instances of humans living in the ideal way he believes is impossible for us, which many historians now think is actually the way we lived for the thousands of years before our recorded history. Thus we can have his world where everyone works together without having to sacrifice any of the things that make us human, it just requires identifying the social systems that cause our problems, working to undermine and eventually eliminate them, and creating new ones to take their place that can keep things from going wrong again.

I have ideas on how to do this as well as ways that they could viably be put into practice (and indeed many of them have been implemented in one form or another), but I seriously doubt that this is the best place to talk about radical politics. Even if it was, I am not quite well-versed enough in the theory behind it to adequately discuss it (although I suppose I could point people in the direction of literature which explains it far batter than I could).


Additionally, I find that with such heady ideals the means prefigures the end- an "ascension" that has to be imposed upon people from above without ever allowing them a say in the matter is little more than a mass violation of the existence of everyone who never wanted that kind of faux-divinity and would spend the whole of their existence after that "ascension" trying to get rid of it. If such a thing is even possible (and I highly doubt that it is), it must be a choice taken freely and with full knowledge of the consequences (which incidentally Kirschtaria couldn't possibly know about- all he had there was his faith- which I define in this context as "a willing belief in the unbelievable without proof").

- - - Updated - - -

How can anyone comprehend something that hasn't even been defined? You may as well ask if I can comprehend (insert nonsense word that looks like a cat ran across my keyboard here).

And this is where I believe your arguments fall in their entirety. You are, fundamentally, arguing about societal structures and inherently human concepts and trying to apply those to a state of godhood, saying "see, this human concept isn't compatible with gods, thus it doesn't work". It is fallacious from the outset, because the whole entire point is that we transcend any such concepts. You say that "utopias" like these have already existed in some capacity throughout history, and imply that they would have continued to do so if we could just "identity the social systems that cause our problems, working to undermine and eventually eliminate them", but stop to think about why this has never, throughout the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have existed, ever even come close to happening, even in the most "utopian" collectives in ancient history. Could it be because there is inherently something about humans that create these issues and systems; something we cannot just "identify and eliminate" because it is so built into our very being that as long as we are "just human", it's a shackle we cannot escape from? In that case, the application of a godlike existence and intelligence very much seems a surefire way to at least begin to work towards the very thing you want, since it should logically be impossible without it.

Because—and here I'm tying it back to byegod's question about what I believe based on real life—I really do believe that mankind is at their very core flawed in a way that would never allow a world like you envision to exist, as long as we remain human. I don't know exactly what "political reforms" you have in mind, nor do I really care, but in a sense it does remind me of the advocates of anprim movements, in their case arguing that it's society or civilization which is the root cause of these issues and "systems", as you put it, not humans themselves. In anprim's case, the idea then is that we just go back far enough in time and live like they used to back then, and we achieve a true utopia. Just as I don't believe that your "radical political systems" would succeed, regardless of what they are, I believe the aforementioned ideas are inherently wrong. I don't believe these things are the root cause of negativity, I believe humans are, or more specifically, consciousness (which, in most aspects, is what really makes us "human"). I well and truly believe that "[humanity was] a breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart. A species had been armed too heavily—by spirit made almighty without, but equally a menace to its own well-being. Its weapons was like a sword without hilt or plate, a two-edged blade cleaving everything; but he who is to wield it must grasp the blade and turn one edge toward himself."

How then, can any reform achieve what you are arguing for, if it doesn't fundamentally—physically and spiritually—change the very definition of what humankind is? This is what's being posited here. Arguments about any human societal or cultural constructs are moot. This is why humans "never make the right choice". We are born into it, and we are shackled by our own nature. We need to supersede that nature in order to achieve the world Kirschtaria seeks, and thus a magical ascent to godhood is the only logical path. At least, this is the case as presented by the story. Whether it would actually work once it has occurred (or whether Nasu himself even believes this to be the "right way" as it were) I think is entirely irrelevant to discuss, because any way you could discuss it is through a lens of humanity and human consciousness, the very thing that needs to be shed to comprehend the path required. That is why I say that the arguments are moot, not because "Nasu says so", but because, like Raff said, how could you comprehend something so transcended in its entirety? Arguing that you can seems to me a coping mechanism of the consciousness, arguing for its insistent self-safekeeping.

And just to top it off with answering your second to last paragraph, about "forcing" this ascension on people and how it should be a "choice". Even if we completely ignore the whole aspect of consciousness mentioned above, you don't have to look much further than the last 3 years in the modern world. A great pandemic spanned the globe. If people could just work together and behave properly, it would result in minimal losses. But people chose not to. A massive climate crisis threatens to destroy the world as we know it. If people could just work together and behave properly, it could be counteracted. But people choose not to.
It is as Kirschtaria says: mankind never makes the right decision. The idea that they would choose the best path because it really is the best path is just flat out wrong, based solely on a optimistic view rooted in the fact that "humanity has persevered this far", but ignoring the fact that such a thing cannot proceed unhindered. It will come to an end, and all of man will answer for the choices the species as a whole made, wrongly.

[InsertNameHere]

No, it is not the case that there cannot be a discussion or critique of it because "Nasu said so" (though I would argue that some people here desperately need to stop reading Nasu stories as a means of him forcing his personal believes on the reader, and more like actual stories). I argue it is the case that this critique of the plan is fundamentally wrong because of what the story says about people. The idea in the story is that humankind, as they exist now and presumably forevermore, cannot attain this path being sought. It requires a completely higher level of existence to do so, both physically and intellectually; a level which a normal, or even abnormal, person could never hope to attain. Thus, when you argue against it based on what you "perceive right now", it's of little consequence because you're trying to apply those same things to something akin to a proper god. But, for the sake of you not feeling like I'm clinging to "author fiat", I'll meet your arguments.


The Olympians are fundamentally tools created for the purpose of preserving and cultivating their own kind. Comparing their intelligence and wisdom to this case feels disingenuous, because theirs is one meant to be used in their position as tools. They were never made to transcend their own "mortal" limitations, nor break free of the accursed cycle of consciousness; they were just made to do what it is they sought to do (and in the end, even Zeus, who cared for mankind in his own way, stuck to that). Kirschtaria's plan is not equivalent to the creation of the Olympians.


And this is where I believe your arguments fall in their entirety. You are, fundamentally, arguing about societal structures and inherently human concepts and trying to apply those to a state of godhood, saying "see, this human concept isn't compatible with gods, thus it doesn't work". It is fallacious from the outset, because the whole entire point is that we transcend any such concepts. You say that "utopias" like these have already existed in some capacity throughout history, and imply that they would have continued to do so if we could just "identity the social systems that cause our problems, working to undermine and eventually eliminate them", but stop to think about why this has never, throughout the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have existed, ever even come close to happening, even in the most "utopian" collectives in ancient history. Could it be because there is inherently something about humans that create these issues and systems; something we cannot just "identify and eliminate" because it is so built into our very being that as long as we are "just human", it's a shackle we cannot escape from? In that case, the application of a godlike existence and intelligence very much seems a surefire way to at least begin to work towards the very thing you want, since it should logically be impossible without it.

Because—and here I'm tying it back to byegod's question about what I believe based on real life—I really do believe that mankind is at their very core flawed in a way that would never allow a world like you envision to exist, as long as we remain human. I don't know exactly what "political reforms" you have in mind, nor do I really care, but in a sense it does remind me of the advocates of anprim movements, in their case arguing that it's society or civilization which is the root cause of these issues and "systems", as you put it, not humans themselves. In anprim's case, the idea then is that we just go back far enough in time and live like they used to back then, and we achieve a true utopia. Just as I don't believe that your "radical political systems" would succeed, regardless of what they are, I believe the aforementioned ideas are inherently wrong. I don't believe these things are the root cause of negativity, I believe humans are, or more specifically, consciousness (which, in most aspects, is what really makes us "human"). I well and truly believe that "[humanity was] a breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart. A species had been armed too heavily—by spirit made almighty without, but equally a menace to its own well-being. Its weapons was like a sword without hilt or plate, a two-edged blade cleaving everything; but he who is to wield it must grasp the blade and turn one edge toward himself."

How then, can any reform achieve what you are arguing for, if it doesn't fundamentally—physically and spiritually—change the very definition of what humankind is? This is what's being posited here. Arguments about any human societal or cultural constructs are moot. This is why humans "never make the right choice". We are born into it, and we are shackled by our own nature. We need to supersede that nature in order to achieve the world Kirschtaria seeks, and thus a magical ascent to godhood is the only logical path. At least, this is the case as presented by the story. Whether it would actually work once it has occurred (or whether Nasu himself even believes this to be the "right way" as it were) I think is entirely irrelevant to discuss, because any way you could discuss it is through a lens of humanity and human consciousness, the very thing that needs to be shed to comprehend the path required. That is why I say that the arguments are moot, not because "Nasu says so", but because, like Raff said, how could you comprehend something so transcended in its entirety? Arguing that you can seems to me a coping mechanism of the consciousness, arguing for its insistent self-safekeeping.

And just to top it off with answering your second to last paragraph, about "forcing" this ascension on people and how it should be a "choice". Even if we completely ignore the whole aspect of consciousness mentioned above, you don't have to look much further than the last 3 years in the modern world. A great pandemic spanned the globe. If people could just work together and behave properly, it would result in minimal losses. But people chose not to. A massive climate crisis threatens to destroy the world as we know it. If people could just work together and behave properly, it could be counteracted. But people choose not to.
It is as Kirschtaria says: mankind never makes the right decision. The idea that they would choose the best path because it really is the best path is just flat out wrong, based solely on a optimistic view rooted in the fact that "humanity has persevered this far", but ignoring the fact that such a thing cannot proceed unhindered. It will come to an end, and all of man will answer for the choices the species as a whole made, wrongly.

All I can say is that you're speaking as someone who's been so conditioned by the current economic system (which I should remind you is just a little over 200 years old or so) that you've lost the capacity to understand that other systems both can and have worked. And it's not the species as a whole that's made those bad choices, but a small handful of humans who have imposed their choices on everyone else and then tricked them into thinking that they couldn't do anything else. And you think I speak of reform when in fact I advocate for a full fledged revolution. The end result may not be utopian, but it would be damn hard to do any worse than we already are.

Truly, it's sad when one can imagine the end of the world more easily than the end of capitalism and hierarchy. But I'll be nice here and give you one of the works that's illustrated all those supposedly impossible things happening in the real world even as we speak, along with another that acts as a primer for the theories behind it. Though it may not convince you, I am sure others will not be so prone to despair or as narrow-minded.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...-anarchy-works

https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html (see sections A, B, C, and I)

If you're still not convinced by that, fine. Just keep your bitter misanthropy, desire to make those problems magically solve themselves, and hatred of what you are to yourself and stop trying to do the very thing you say shouldn't be done- by saying that "humans never make the right choice", you can only refute your own argument because by its own definition it cannot be the right choice either. But if you truly want to break free of that cursed cycle of consciousness, as you call it, there's only one way to do so: by ending that consciousness. I assume you know what I mean by that.

Besides, you also presume too much in assuming that there is a single "human nature". Each and every person has their own "human nature" shaped by their genes, environment, and a dozen other things besides that. Claiming that everyone is fundamentally the same is spreading an absurd myth at best and claiming that they're all fundamentally wicked and selfish is even more so: had that actually been the case, humanity wouldn't have even lasted long enough to get to where we are. It would have self-destructed a dozen times over before then.

Let me put it this way: does "human nature" dictate that because you disagree with me, you ought to murder me and that the only thing holding you back from doing so is the fact that you can't kill someone over the Internet? Or that the nameless boy was somehow an inhuman aberration for not killing Kirschtaria on the spot for whatever belongings he possessed?

[Zurvan]

My guy, that's exactly what we have done since the very beginning.

[asterism42]

Looking at the size chart for the Olympians again, it's sort of weird seeing how much bigger Aphrodite is than the Golden Huge Bear, when they look basically the same size in game.

[Bunhelier]

The answer of all of our problem is genocide! As the genocide will decrease our population this will reduce the chance of human race choosing the wrong choices, even if they still choose the wrong choice the effects will be considerably reduced! Truly genocide is the only answer to extend the age of human race as a whole!

[InsertNameHere]

The answer of all of our problem is genocide! As the genocide will decrease our population this will reduce the chance of human race choosing the wrong choices, even if they still choose the wrong choice the effects will be considerably reduced! Truly genocide is the only answer to extend the age of human race as a whole!

I was actually alluding to suicide, because you can't prove that I and everyone else in the world isn't just a figment of your imagination and that you're the only being that actually exists.

- - - Updated - - -

My guy, that's exactly what we have done since the very beginning.

Murdering literally everyone we don't agree with? In that case, half the people here including me should be dead a few dozen times over right now.

[Nanaya]

Everything has an end. If your species source code is so fucking bugged that you have to buy a ticket for [existence change] to have a shot then you should just stop being a bunch of pussies and pack it in. Sit on that loss, pass the torch and let the next team spend their quarters instead.

[fumei]

All I can say is that you're speaking as someone who's been so conditioned by the current economic system that you've lost the capacity to understand that other systems both can and have worked. And it's not the species as a whole that's made those bad choices, but a small handful of humans who have imposed their choices on everyone else and then tricked them into thinking that they couldn't do anything else. And you think I speak of reform when in fact I advocate for a full fledged revolution. The end result may not be utopian, but it would be damn hard to do any worse than we already are.

Truly, it's sad when one can imagine the end of the world more easily than the end of capitalism and hierarchy. But I'll be nice here and give you one of the works that's illustrated all those supposedly impossible things happening in the real world even as we speak, along with another that acts as a primer for the theories behind it. Though it may not convince you, I am sure others will not be so prone to despair or as narrow-minded.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...-anarchy-works

https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html (see sections A, B, C, and I)

If you're still not convinced by that, fine. Just keep your bitter misanthropy, desire to make those problems magically solve themselves, and hatred of what you are to yourself and stop trying to do the very thing you say shouldn't be done- by saying that "humans never make the right choice", you can only refute your own argument because by its own definition it cannot be the right choice either. But if you truly want to break free of that cursed cycle of consciousness, as you call it, there's only one way to do so: by ending that consciousness. I assume you know what I mean by that.

Besides, you also presume too much in assuming that there is a single "human nature". Each and every person has their own "human nature" shaped by their genes, environment, and a dozen other things besides that. Claiming that everyone is fundamentally the same is spreading an absurd myth at best and claiming that they're all fundamentally wicked and selfish is even more so: had that actually been the case, humanity wouldn't have even lasted long enough to get to where we are. It would have self-destructed a dozen times over before then.

Let me put it this way: does "human nature" dictate that because you disagree with me, you ought to murder me and that the only thing holding you back from doing so is the fact that you can't kill someone over the Internet? Or that the nameless boy was somehow an inhuman aberration for not killing Kirschtaria on the spot for whatever belongings he possessed?

Wow, oh boy. So you complained that I did not "engage critically", and when I instead do the very thing you ask, your first thought is to tell me to kill myself. That sure helps your point. Besides, if you think any misanthrope or pessimist should kill themselves, then the only thing accomplished is that the world is left for the optimists who will continue to run it into the ground and change nothing. I'll play along anyway, though, I guess, since I feel it's important to point out how much you just missed practically every one of my counterpoints.

Your whole refutation of my post here revolves around seeing me as "conditioned by the current economic system", then alluding to these other systems that "can and have worked". Since the comparison point here is essentially a state of eternal godhood, your belief in these post-capitalist systems really has to step up and answer one simple question: if these systems "can and have worked", where are they now? Being the "dominant system" in a tiny community doesn't count, because it doesn't influence the greater human life on the planet. If these systems can (and have) only worked for a short time on a small scale, how can you possibly compare it to godhood? Surely you see the issue here. My whole point is that people will always find a way to disrupt the system in place, whether it's a good or bad one, because it's an intrinsic defense mechanism of consciousness to protect against the primality of life otherwise. We need there to be more, as Zappfe said, and this always holds true. Thus any system put in place by, or for, humans can never truly remain. Consequently, like I said before, you need to surpass humanity.

Still, even what you link here isn't showing some large-scale anarchist system (lol) put into place and continued practice, showing that "the impossible is already happening as we speak". Some people writing a manifesto on how things can work isn't the same as those things actually happening. Whether you think that's me being "conditioned" by a capitalist society doesn't really matter much, because in essence, what you're doing here is ignoring my counterarguments and instead going after my personal beliefs with accusations of being "narrow-minded", when at the same time all you're doing is clinging to theories of anarchist societies. You don't think that's even a tiny little bit hypocritical?

As for the idea of a "single human nature", was it not you who earlier said:

The end results of his plan wouldn't be human either. Flaws are part of what makes humans human. It wouldn't let them transcend anything, it would simply make them into monsters utterly divorced from the human condition. And the great thing about empathy is that it can be ignored...or twisted into a form that openly justifies screwing over anyone you deem unworthy of it. Heightened intelligence wouldn't even remove most of those faults, if anything it tends to make them worse.

It very much sounds like you're saying the same thing as you imply I am here, that there is a single shared nature. Unless, of course, you mean that what you said isn't to be read so literally, but you of course won't say that when what I wrote is to be read literally, right? Still, you are so hellbent on the idea that even when TRANSCENDING humanity, we would REMAIN HUMAN, and retain all the flaws that come with that (which makes absolutely no sense because it's oxymoronic), that refuting my statement of "humans never make the right choice" could hardly seem such a far-fetched concept, I would think.

Well, so much for "engaging critically" with the discussion, I guess. At this point you're not even arguing the merits or possibility of Kirschtaria's plan working, you're just saying "no my anarchist revolution would be way better than magically attained godhood".

- - - Updated - - -

Everything has an end. If your species source code is so fucking bugged that you have to buy a ticket for [existence change] to have a shot then you should just stop being a bunch of pussies and pack it in. Sit on that loss, pass the torch and let the next team spend their quarters instead.

Mankind is that one guy who doesn't pass the controller when he dies because "that one didn't count".

[Nanaya]

Mankind is that one guy who doesn't pass the controller when he dies because "that one didn't count".

This is where Team Furry steps up and beats Mankind off the cabinet with their barbed dildos.

[InsertNameHere]

Wow, oh boy. So you complained that I did not "engage critically", and when I instead do the very thing you ask, your first thought is to tell me to kill myself. That sure helps your point. Besides, if you think any misanthrope or pessimist should kill themselves, then the only thing accomplished is that the world is left for the optimists who will continue to run it into the ground and change nothing. I'll play along anyway, though, I guess, since I feel it's important to point out how much you just missed practically every one of my counterpoints.

Your whole refutation of my post here revolves around seeing me as "conditioned by the current economic system", then alluding to these other systems that "can and have worked". Since the comparison point here is essentially a state of eternal godhood, your belief in these post-capitalist systems really has to step up and answer one simple question: if these systems "can and have worked", where are they now? Being the "dominant system" in a tiny community doesn't count, because it doesn't influence the greater human life on the planet. If these systems can (and have) only worked for a short time on a small scale, how can you possibly compare it to godhood? Surely you see the issue here. My whole point is that people will always find a way to disrupt the system in place, whether it's a good or bad one, because it's an intrinsic defense mechanism of consciousness to protect against the primality of life otherwise. We need there to be more, as Zappfe said, and this always holds true. Thus any system put in place by, or for, humans can never truly remain. Consequently, like I said before, you need to surpass humanity.

Still, even what you link here isn't showing some large-scale anarchist system (lol) put into place and continued practice, showing that "the impossible is already happening as we speak". Some people writing a manifesto on how things can work isn't the same as those things actually happening. Whether you think that's me being "conditioned" by a capitalist society doesn't really matter much, because in essence, what you're doing here is ignoring my counterarguments and instead going after my personal beliefs with accusations of being "narrow-minded", when at the same time all you're doing is clinging to theories of anarchist societies. You don't think that's even a tiny little bit hypocritical?

As for the idea of a "single human nature", was it not you who earlier said:

It very much sounds like you're saying the same thing as you imply I am here, that there is a single shared nature. Unless, of course, you mean that what you said isn't to be read so literally, but you of course won't say that when what I wrote is to be read literally, right? Still, you are so hellbent on the idea that even when TRANSCENDING humanity, we would REMAIN HUMAN, and retain all the flaws that come with that (which makes absolutely no sense because it's oxymoronic), that refuting my statement of "humans never make the right choice" could hardly seem such a far-fetched concept, I would think.

Well, so much for "engaging critically" with the discussion, I guess. At this point you're not even arguing the merits or possibility of Kirschtaria's plan working, you're just saying "no my anarchist revolution would be way better than magically attained godhood".

- - - Updated - - -


Mankind is that one guy who doesn't pass the controller when he dies because "that one didn't count".

What makes your godhood any different from the human state beyond "because it'll be different"? What makes you certain that greater intelligence and wisdom won't make things worse instead of better? How do you know that would even be enough to transcend anything, beyond just being "humanity but with a few more IQ points on average"? How do you know that these posthumans won't end up disrupting their new system too, assuming they even bother to interact with each other at all? After all, a god who has no need of anything would therefore have no need of even acknowledging the existence of his own kind, let alone forming a society with them.

And why should I compare anarchist communities that actually exist, small as they may be, to a state of being that doesn't exist anywhere and almost certainly never will? At least it has actual precedence in human history, as opposed to a state of existence that can only be defined by what it isn't. Hell, that kind of change isn't even limited to humans- look up the work of Dr. Robert Sapolsky on baboons and you'll see how a supposedly irrevocable state of nature isn't nearly as fixed as it looks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_HV...nel=DarioWurmD


In any case, I do not trust anyone with the power of a god, and saying that said power will just magically make them into benevolent sage-kings does nothing to reduce that distrust. The only way to use that power safely is to give it up at the first possible opportunity.

One does not need to insist upon a unitary human nature to understand that nobody is perfect and that their flaws will shape what their natures are. You cannot transcend those flaws, but you can adapt and compensate for them. I am no different.

Speaking of "passing the controller", Kirschtaria himself didn't seem to have a problem doing that with Chaldea after realizing his plan failed. I will pass the torch when it is absolutely and undisputably clear that there is nothing left, but until then anything else is giving up and taking the coward's way out. At the end of the day, "humanity" is just a concept, one I for one use as shorthand for "the people as I know and love the way they are": I would fight against your vaunted godhood even if it was both possible and did everything that it claimed to simply because I accept myself as I am now and have no desire to have that change on anyone's terms but my own. Ironic that despite otherwise being utterly loathsome, Beryl was right about this one thing: such a change would be little more than spiritual rape if it is not accepted willingly and freely. All my life, when I've been told that I need to change aspects of myself that define what I am, it's essentially been a polite way of saying that the person telling me that would prefer that I be replaced by a version of me more to their liking.

If you want that godhood, then keep it for yourself and stop trying to tell me what is and isn't best for me or anyone else. I'll be busy trying to make actual changes that make the world a better place for no reason save that it pleases me to do so, and will do so in my own way. If you disapprove of that, stop me if you can.

[Lily Emilio]

Kirschtaria's idea is actually very similar to Taoist attempts tbh. He wants to give human a body of superior power, lifespan and potential. Taoist practitioners aimed to become immortal, flawless Xians, leaving behind mortal problems, as a collective society of transcended beings. Pretty much his reasoning isn't that far off from existing ideas. You either "worship a god or gods to hope for their guidance and maybe going to Heaven" or "you attain the same level of enlightenment as the gods to escape the mortal limitations". Kirshtaria's idea is unironically very human, he even admitted himself that he is not excluded from making mistakes. It's just that he believed there is no way humans at this point can do what he thought to be a better world and he went for it. Maybe he himself, just like he said, also made a wrong decision, but he will try it anyways.

Nasu doesn't try to make you agree with him, nor trying to say he is right, dude just wrote a story about a guy wanting to turn humans into gods because he thought that would be the solution to all issues. Idk why readers keep trying to imagine Nasu drilling ideas into their head and make them accept it. If anything, Kirschtaria's plan would be most appealing to Taoists and Buddhists, who doesn't actually need convincing in the first place because they are literally aiming to attain the similar thing Kirschtaria want humans to attain.

[AmADo VII]

FGO first OP song already had the answer though.

Mashu denies eternity so Kirsch's plan is big no for Chaldea.

[OnesFleetingGlory]

InsertNameHsre here seems to be fine with just being human with all the flaws, and being presented with ideas to be anything else offends them.

At the end of the day, it's a fictional story, and the ideas it present don't dictate what people should follow or believe, they are free to either agree or disagree with what it tells.