|
Post by zipp on Feb 23, 2010 3:06:20 GMT -5
Hey, I should add that it's not my intention to upset anyone by this line of inquiry. I understand that, because of the particular context of this topic, it could be offensive to readers. I think I've explained what I've wanted to say, so I'll leave it at that and won't pursue this further. I want peace and don't want to start anything here.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Feb 23, 2010 12:30:11 GMT -5
Maerin cackles maniacally at what can be set off with a few choice words.
And people wonder why I enjoy GMing...
The trouble is, it is a chicken-and-egg arguement. Either morality is defined in the codes and morals laid out to describe it. Or morality defines the codes and morals laid out to describe it. A very slight change in wording, but one that has a profound effect on the arguement points that are germinated from each of those starting points.
Unfortunately, neither is an absolutely defensible and empirically neutral assertion/starting point to build an arguement that addresses both sides of the issue. Of those who have an opinion at all some people are simply going to believe the egg came first, others the chicken. I use the verb 'believe' there deliberately. Because it is a belief, there is essentially no lowes common denominator to be found without circling back up and creating a circular arguement. In that respect, zipp has a point.
Unfortunately, that is further complicated by another, similar and related, almost-but-not-quite-chicken-and-egg arguement: that "good" and "evil" are measured in motive/inclination or in actual means and ends. That has been the subject of endless debate when it comes to Adolf Hitler. And yes, there are some, in spite of any evidence offered to the contrary, who hold fast to the idea that the "good" of the man was defined in what are believed to have been his good/noble intents (and that phrasing was deliberate; Adolf Hitler's own writings...and I'm not merely referring to Mein Kampf do NOT make a good case for his good intents). Since "intent" is enshined in the American legal system (and our popular mentality too) as a way and means of legally (which many Americans will move one step further to morally) "mitigating" a wrong based on events and circumstance, this is hardly suprising.
Without necessarily launching that arguement, I will point out that the ultimate limiter of any defense of the "good" Adolf Hitler intended or meant to do was diluted by Mein Kampf, years before he actually did anything. That book illustates, in fairly direct and not pleasant fashion, that whatever "good" intentions Adolf Hilter harbored by the time he was imprisoned, they were already well on their way to twisting into what they would become when he came to power years later and did the things that those on the means and ends side of the debate can reasonably show as being "evil". It may remain uncertain when that twisting stated...but one may presume one has to step back much earlier into his life. And that is going to be where the debate inevitably degenerates into a chicken-and-egg arguement.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Feb 23, 2010 14:27:40 GMT -5
My great-grandfather was called Adolf. He was a clock-maker. He came to Britain around the turn of the 20th century. Supposedly he was Swiss, though we suspect he may have been German. Being Swiss in England was probably easier at the time.
'Noble Wolf'. I like that. Thanks, Chris.
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Feb 23, 2010 14:39:34 GMT -5
Maerin's spot on. My point wasn't to defend Adolf Hitler in any way though it's not hard to see why it could be taken that way. My attack was against our belief in our own language as knowledge itself when all language is is a codex meant to point us towards knowledge. We can't say something is good or evil and trust it to have real meaning. All good and evil do is point us towards cultural codices that can inform us about history and people.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Feb 23, 2010 15:32:08 GMT -5
Yes, but your original point appeared to be that by the standards defined by the people around, lone wolf and hitler could be compared as being a hero to the people who definied heroism. I don't think there was any absolute definition implied, and no one argued with you in that regard.
In the relative definition of those around, Lone Wolf's allies and enemies and the general public all defined LW as a hero, while only a percentage of the general public on his side defined Hitler as one. By the relativistic morality of those involved, they were not measured as being the same.
I mean of course defining heroes and villians in absolute terms is a philosophical nightmare. Willem Defoe said it best when asked if he prefers playing heros or villains - roughly 'there is no difference, everyone thinks they are righteous'
|
|
|
Post by Black Cat on Feb 24, 2010 17:28:05 GMT -5
Funny as we have this conversation while the reality show Survivor is currently airing a "Heroes vs Villains" edition. The contestants, who have all appeared in a previous season of the show, were divided into two tribes, the Heroes and the Villains, depending on how the public perceived them from their first appearance on the show.
|
|
|
Post by chris777 on Mar 2, 2010 0:54:29 GMT -5
If anything, a good comparison to Adolf Hitler in the Lone Wolf world would be Vonatar, or perhaps Gnagg. Also, Voldemort from the Harry Potter series is another excellent comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Mar 2, 2010 13:51:38 GMT -5
Of the ones you listed, probably the Vonotar as depicted in the Legends series is the closest "parallel". Still not tremendously close, particularly the details. But the kinds of self-justifications both used and believed do have their similarities.
Voldemort lacked any capacity for seeing beyond himself, which makes him a poor comparison with the case of Adolf Hitler. Indeed, one of the most profound illustrations of their dissimulariy might be shown in Voldemort's inabilty to assert any kind of measurable and consistent authority over the magic community after his "return". He could manage bits and pieces of control over very specific zones of influence for very finite periods of time (for instance, taking over Hogwarts). But that often only happened through confederates, and Voldemort lacked the leadership qualities necessary to make such overt pieces of control stick in the face of any substantial opposition. Indeed, Voldemort's only capacity for authority was chained to the need to subvert any substantial opposition (which did happen, occasionally, over the course of the story) and the need to keep such opposition subverted (which virtually never happened in the course of the story).
Gnaag, due as much to the nature of the Darklords themselves as any specific qualities of the character, was a completely dissimilar leader from Adolf Hitler. Their respective styles, philosophies, and methods had almost nothing in common with each other.
|
|
|
Post by zipp on Mar 2, 2010 13:55:11 GMT -5
If anything, a good comparison to Adolf Hitler in the Lone Wolf world would be Vonatar, or perhaps Gnagg. Also, Voldemort from the Harry Potter series is another excellent comparison. It's this kind of thinking which got me started on the whole thing in the first place. People just go "oh, Hitler was evil" and then start comparing him to all sorts of evil characters in history. My point is that things are never that simple and to just compare Hitler to Gnaag shows an incredible lack of knowledge of the human character and of the historical precedents for WWII and Hitler's rise to power.
|
|
|
Post by Oghab-e-Khurshid on Mar 10, 2013 8:01:16 GMT -5
"Adolf" isn't the only one around, there are various versions based off "At/Ad + wulf": more ancientwould be "Athaulf", "Adwulf", and "Atavolf".
|
|