If anything, I'd be mad that the Exile was vicariously making ME ugly through the influence system. I know Atton wouldn't take too kindly to having his handsome mug being tampered with.
The irony is not lost on me how much I learn about dealing with life, from video games and fantasy books. There are studies to show this, but that is a different conversation altogether. It is truly fascinating how much I relate to The Exile, especially as I grow older. I remember playing this as a young innocent kid and thinking that helping people is good and im good therefore lightside and getting so done with Kreia because I was really lost at how to get her approval. As a much older individual and coming upon my own few philosophies that I enjoy. I really like your ending to the statement about doing what you think is right. There is a latin term from the Roman Orator, Cicero called Summum Bonum, which means the highest good. As you age, as you grow this concept of what you may find the highest good, or virtue to change. Another saying; no man ever steps into the same river twice. It would be interesting and enjoyable to play these games again after so many years and see how I myself have changed and grown. For in everyday life, if you are set on being your best self, and you discover you are wrong, you would simply learn from that error and grow from it. So in keeping with that mindset, if you realize your pursuit of virtue is misguided or off, you would course correct, after all, we're only human. As you've stated in some videos in the past (i am bingeing all of them now hehe..) some people require religion or something at their core. Same like some of the jedi would choose to die than than give up the force, these people, were religion to be taken from them, may just as well do the same. It's funny, and I'll share a short excerpt from my life where I had a choice between walking away from the religion I grew up on, or persisting and most likely not being here to tell this story, and working on finding what strength I had within myself (sort of like the true lesson of malachor v). After this event in my life I truly do have a deeper appreciation for games like this, and videos that explore these games in depth are always enjoyed. Keep up the good work, and I hope something from this is found useful. See you in the video about skills because I just realized my best and worst one in the bounds of the game skills.
"Do I have a soul?" Geth asked. I remember reading a book, a fantasy novel, where the protagonist had a chat with a Chimera who had sought out a sage this very question. The sage told the Chimera that merely asking the question means that the creature had one. From a secular perspective, to have a soul could mean that you are aware to even ask the question. To understand and be aware of the self is often a basic criteria for sapience. Hence why humans have souls yet chimps don't (for argument's sake). As for the Force, I've noticed it has a rather Taoist perspective which is duelistic in nature. Light to Dark. Man and Woman. Harmony and Discord. Life and Death. Black and White. All of these are opposites and yet intimately connected, some which to the point that you cannot describe one without the other. In Star Wars, you cannot describe the Light side without the Dark side entering the conversation. Are they the same thing? Well, yes, but actually, no. Are they completely different? Well, yes, but actually, no. Sorry for the memetic insert but my point is there is simply the Force. It is not good nor evil, neither is it Light or Dark; the Force simply is. How one uses the Force is where morality steps in. For instance, say a Light side user Force chokes someone that has become an obstacle. Is the Light side user good because they only the Light side? Or are they evil for using the Force to harm others. Or how about a Dark side user uses their knowledge of the Force to heal the sick and infirm. They themselves evil for being a Dark side user? Or are they good for using the Force to help those around them? "But that's not how the Dark side works!", "Hurting people with the Light side never happens!", and so on from nay-sayers. To these people, I can say that you are missing the point. Kreia's statement about "infantile delusions of good and evil" is at the very heart of this conundrum. Children often see the world in a very black and white outlook. The world is simple for a child in that Good is Good and Bad is Bad. And then comes a moment where this child quickly realizes that the world is not so clean cut. Even some adults never acknowledge (Whether from ignorance or willfulness) how complicated and seemingly chaotic the world is. I think Kreia is trying to instill a more pragmatic approach to the Force and the galaxy at large. Killing random strangers serves no purpose and could cause more grief for the attacker down the road. Every choice we make has consequences, some of them good; some are bad, and others are somewhere in the middle. Our choices not only effect us but also those around us. Another way of looking beyond good and evil is asking yourself what are the potential consequences if I choose to go down this path.
Landon Fanning Look too much at the sun and you shall be blinded by it's light, allow too much darkness in as you use those less than desirable methods and you shall be consumed by them, thinking too much with your own gray area may make you blinded to other people's gray areas as well as being consumed by your own
I’m loving your Kreia’s Conundrums videos…but I absolutely love that I’m just listening along to this one, and all of a sudden I head the Ard Skellig theme from Witcher 3 in the background…one of my favorite soundtracks in that game. On top of that, Witcher 3 and KOTOR 2 are my absolute favorite games from my favorite franchises
I think kreia's perspective is nuanced in that contextually, its morality *from a force wielder's perspective*. I think her pov is an action's morality is determined by the ultimate ripple you create, not in the emotional gut reaction. She sees "the draw of the light" as much a temptation as the dark, and I think thats why she's compelling. She wants you to view only the consequences of the choice, (which is interesting in the context of a force user that can forsee the future) When she speaks on revan that's the context. Revan was a jedi natural drawn to the light, but would make himself do the "hard choice" that didn't come naturally to him....because it brought him closer to his goals. Lying to the mercenaries would feel wrong to a jedi drawn to the light (or one afraid of earning dark side points)....but if you use that information to save dantoonie...isn't it worth the personal cost of you losing some connection to the light? Part of the choices morality is the intent, but is the intent drawn from "ill feel good" about this choice, or "I don't like making this choice...but if I want to help this person/people I'm willing to sacrifice my personal desires."
Unlike in Star Wars, it is far more difficult to recognize darkness in individuals. You can't tell whether a person is 'normal' or Darth Sidious under disguise. Such people look just like you and me, and that's what makes them dangerous.
I think the flaw is in trying to judge people based on how they look. It's something that can be very easily manipulated. Even something as simple as wearing a suit vs wearing a bandanna has a massive effect on how others judge you.
You can still tell based on their actions but it can be difficult. Especially if they're sociopaths enough to conceal their evil with genuine caring, good, decency, etc to earn the trust of those around them. Much like Palpatine before he lured Anakin to the dark side.
@@beskamir5977 Actions can be interpreted in many ways. A good enough mastermind will be able to manipulate how his/her deeds look. The truth is that there is nothing much that can be done against such people, until it is too late. A man that has no restrictions upon himself will do whatever is necessary to succeed.
@@beskamir5977 As a side note - this is why darksiders are often more successful and powerful than other people - it's because they do not restrict their movements the same way people carrying morality do. It's the same thing in the real world.
The Light and the Dark Side have always struck me as different ways to draw out the abilities you already hold, ie. the Force. One draws forth the abilities through self-mastery and enlightenment, allowing you access to them consciously, hence the "light" side. The other allows releasing those abilities from he unconscious recesses of your person, hence the "Dark" side and emphasis on passions, particularly anger (although that could just be a Sith thing), as something to lower your inhibitions. Where the "morality" plays out, is that one of the two operates on your visceral impulses, which we as social animals began to repress precisely because of the demands of community and our personal sense of morality, while the other keeps you subject to them. Thus it's not difficult to see the petty, excessive, impulsive cruelties of the various Darths as something that comes as a second nature to them due to the mental state necessary for them to draw power from the Force. That doesn't mean you can't have villainous Lightsiders. Jorus C'Baoth from old canon springs to mind; A Jedi who'se dream galaxy was one with the Jedi Order ruling as benevolent philosopher-dictators. or the remains of the old council in KotOR II who seem to be firmly in the Light, but are led astray by their dogma. It does, however, make imagining a truly heroic darksider very difficult Such a being would need to be considered morally just by independent 3rd party observers after all. For that they would need to rein in their source of power, and excert control over when to release it to avoid becoming an anti-hero or a straight-up villain by offending the moral sensibilities of the audience. But such control would be seemingly emblematic of the Light Side, making the Dark Side simply a label stamped on a character in an inverted case of protagonist centered morality.
Great video dude, but I have to respectfully disagree with a few things. I think Kreia's main "moral objective" is the preservation of life. I say this because how much she tries to fight Nihilus, how she doesn't agree with a dead galaxy Nihilus envision. She doesn't even want the Jedi Masters dead, just defeated, acknowledge her ideals. That's when lying and cheating comes from, I guess, she would kill millions, kill the force, to save billions. Another thing is leaving Malachor V intact would be a terrible mistake. Kreia says that the teachings Nihilus learned must be erased, no one should ever learn that and that the echo must be silenced. All of that is Malachor V, leaving it intact would perhaps spawn more Nihilus and leave an empty galaxy. G0T0's opinion is bullcrap, he knows nothing of the teachings of the Sith, he's a wimp, refusing to even enter at the Korriban's Academy, he probably doesn't even know Nihilus danger, like Mical saw. Lastly, in the conclusion you say, basically, the best we can do is do what we believe is right. I'd complement that with constantly trying to improve and correct what you believe is right. You know, to believe in an ideal is to be willing to betray it. "Betray" by constantly questioning your beliefs. There's this concept of falsifiability, which is the base of scientific hypothesis and theories, which is basically your hypothesis have to be refutable to be considered scientific. Which is KIND OF the same as "willing to betray it" thing, how could you be ever right if you run away from being proven wrong or shield yourself with unprovable ideas. It's the same about the Flying Spaghetti Space Monster in a corner of the universe, you can't prove it wrong since you can't scout every corner of the universe, thus it's very unlikely it exists. All in all, great video, as always, Kreia's Conundrums are always a joy to watch.
And that last phrase might be the most important one; "until they can't anymore." Science is still beholden to the human perspective; limited solely to what we can observe. Over time, we may learn to observe increasingly greater and lesser magnitudes, but ultimately, what we can derive from the universe is always filtered through what we are currently capable of seeing.
armandoalcb, Kreia’s vision was based on Nietzche and Machiavelli paradigm. It makes you absolutely correct, since Kreia’s struggle to protect the Life itself based on “life-asserting” philosophy.
The most feelings I have about is about finding a center. About being in balance with yourself, about accepting yourself and loving yourself. Something I have issues with.
6:00 There's a parallel to high medieval art linked to beauty of the good. The good guys, such as Julius Caesar, were shown in the up-to-date knightly armour. The bad guys, such as the turks, were depicted in outdated armour. The exception was in underdog stories, such as David and Goliath. The latter were shown in full armour, but he often had a shield formed as an ugly monstrous face at his side. Armour wasn't just protective, as is commonly perceived, but an aesthetic expression of your status. Status was everything. Armour was also a work of art with possibly many decorative details such as gold, precious stones, copper gilding, extravagant textiles, etching, engraving, polishing, and for the less affluent, painted armour. Sitting high atop of a destrier, clad in full polished plate, you mimicked an angelic being. An immortal being, with unparalleled protection and fighting skill beyond anything comparable to the common dirty peasant. Beauty mattered to these old knights as well.
Papito Quinn: Killing is a bad thing Mordin Solus: Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients. Sometimes execute dangerous people. Either way helps. Just remembered this comment not mocking you. Like your vids man...
Thanks. I remember that quote from Mordin too. He is right. But in that situation you're still doing a negative thing. But you're doing it for positive reasons.
Games can potentially provide such a profound philosophical education. It will be so great for the world when the psychological power of media on the unconscious mind and (psychology in general), particularly ROLE playing games, is appropriately appreciated. I dare say Kotor 1&2, particularly 2, was and still is without a doubt the pinnacle of this potential being utilised.
I remember being recommended a video on UA-cam about kreia after watching one of your videos that I liked. I decided to check that guys channel out only to find out he was an extreme misogynist. I hate and disagree with just about everything that guy held as a belief, but we both found interest in this kind of obscure star wars character and the philosophical debate around her.
Man-Made Constructs: Beauty, Time, Faith, Morality, Technology, Titles, Societal Culture, Value, Freedom of Choice, Charity, Cruelty, Judgement... I know there are more, but those are the first to come to mind (especially with the topics in this discussion). Humanity has constructed concepts and ideas that have been instrumental to the advancement of our species, but we are flawed and our ideals mirror equally. Beauty, Freedom, Morality, and Value have flaws within that cannot be taken away while keeping the original concept intact. It falls apart the second you try "perfecting" or improving upon it. One of the greatest signs of arrogance I think humanity has ever shown is the concept of freedom. It's not that it doesn't exist, but it does not exist the way we would want it to. The illusion of freedom makes us think that not only can we make any choice we want, but that every choice we can make will matter. Both of these statements are arguable at best, false at worst. We can not do whatever we want, when we want (not even taking consequences into consideration). There are millions of things a single human wishes they could do, but they can't. That is not freedom. We cannot fly, so we must compensate. We cannot create objects from thin air, so we fool ourselves into thinking we can by utilising technology. We cannot see and know everything within the universe, the past, or future, so we make telescopes/calendars/books to describe either what happened in events we personally didn't experience or to plan for the future in a way that is futile and subject to change at any moment. Freedom isn't the biggest flaw of humanity. The hubris to believe that we are in control is hubris. There are fundamental laws, rules, and codes that forbid us true freedom.
Kreia's perspective on moral choices has one commonality: how will this choice strengthen your power and influence. You are not strengthened by becoming a slave to inclinations of contributing to a "greater good", like the Jedi. Contrariwise, living as a Sith not only physically corrodes you, you can hardly trust or become trusted by others which narrows the gateway to manipulation and making people dependent on you. The more people are dependent on you, and the less you are on them, the stronger your position to influence and change the world.
Completely subverted by the fact that you can become supremely powerful (as far as the game is concerned) doing NOTHING BUT "GOOD" THINGS just as well as doing NOTHING BUT "BAD" THINGS. The game doesn't even agree with Kreia. Kreia is overdone, vapid, poor writing masquerading as deep writing, etc. She's the obnoxious dilettante everyone gets tired of hearing after they've had a few drinks and decide to get "philosophical."
@@johnroscoe2406 I must beg to differ. I agree that both the game and Kreia show evidence that she is utterly wrong, if someone has the sense to step back and look at it. But I think she's well written. She's just as much a 'wise-fool' (with some good lessons but many clever sounding self-deceiving follies) as Nietzsche was, and as a lot of other people now are (although the modern version is often less intelligent, with more mimickery).
@@benjaminblack4345 You're only conditioned to see something deeper in Kreia that isn't there because Kreia is a cult figure among fans. You're looking for excuses.
Throughout Kotor II you have Kreia badgering and belittling you for not being selfish and preaching that selfishness is the path to power. Despite this, and the fact that the game gives you poor dialogue options you can still prosper and gain strength by being altruistic. Playing the 'Light Side' option is the refutation of Traya despite everything the game stacks against you.
It's hard to make the _crazier_ "dark-side" options a fruitful endeavor in real world situations just as well. The exile is far too lacking in overall (man or political) power to make meaningful darkside decisions that are actually helpful to themselves. She's right that the player and main character can be stupid as hell when it comes to spontaneous decisions.
Its interesting to hear the praise of lying to one or both sides in order to gain options or to benefit ones self over others. In one of my favourite self help books, 12 Rules for Life: An antidote to Chaos, rule 8 is "Tell the Truth - Or at least dont lie" . When we lie we are manipulating, creating an echo if you will, in the fabric of reality in order to, often, suit our short term needs. But as the nugget of wisdom says "The truth will set you free", we cannot continue to lie and manipulate, one person, even an entire ideology, cannot continue to uphold a bundling knot of lies in the face of the truth of reality and the situation. Eventually the truth becomes revealed, and depending on the depth of the lie, the extent of the manipulation, it will leave a traumatic crater of betrayal to the ones who you lead astray for your gain, at their voluntary whim to the unique situations extent. For the mercenaries, the lie and their belief in it will result in a quick and absolute death. For a, hypothetical, girl who thought you loved her but you just wanted sex, just wanted to use her body, that will results in a traumatic emotional wound that may cause damage for years or decades. Is what you've gained worth the echo of betrayal left in your wake ? Depends on the situation. In Dante's Inferno, the deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and acts of treachery. Humans are social, tribal creatures. We need to trust one another or we cannot survive, a relationship lacking trust is pustulent, toxic and doomed (unless they're codependent, but that's it's own toxicity), even our economic systems are built on trust. To lie is to wrapped and damage that system of trust, the psychology professor who wrote that book, which given the nature of this channel and the demographic of UA-cam I'm sure many know who he is, claims in his clinical practice that betrayal is a wound that few people recover from. It leaves the deepest scar. Lying and the spoken word truly is a weapon more powerful than any sword, or blaster in this context. But to add one more element that the nature of the book I'm referencing is a manual for people to recompose a degenerating and chaotic life. To impose 12 rules, chosen through psychological relevance and the Darwinian process of religious stories and the wisdom within certain ones, to walk a straight and narrow path. That is great when one is learning how to walk. Eventually we will encounter uneven ground and we will need to adapt and make a difficult choice. Eventually a lie may be our best and only option, but it's one that should be behind a piece of glass saying "break ONLY is case of emergency" What do you think?
I think that people will do what they feel they have to. Lying is another power that human beings have. Like any other it's a power that can be used either maliciously or benevolently. It can be detrimental, mostly emotionally, for the one being lied to. But like Kreia says about betrayal. Without such things, there is no hope. Telling the truth is also a form of manipulation, and I'd argue that sometimes the bold faced, unfettered truth creates the largest echoes.
Ooh! Witcher music! Also, the question of possession of a soul is something I cringe away from. Not necessarily because I dislike the idea of it, but rather what the question itself raises in people. Some will say yes all have a soul, others will say no only humans do, some will say no it's a tool of indoctrination and on and on it goes. Some would call me misanthropic to look at it like that. I call myself cautious. I've voiced my opinion before and gotten burned for it.
did you used to post a series of articles under this title on kinja back in the day? feel like i remember seeing them highlighted on kotaku back when i used to keep up with the site. if so, i am very happy to see your work further developed and preserved, i really enjoyed reading them and found them thought-provoking. if that wasn't you... well, this is also a great series that i find very thought provoking! this game really means a lot to me, and i think its writers intended to spark conversations just like these.
That was indeed me, my good sir. I wrote for the "Talk Amongst Yourselves" section and then started doing UA-cam. But I continued to write them for TAY because having them get featured on Kotaku's main page was a great way to get more exposure. It's a shame they took it down.
Soul is just another word for consciousness. Ancient Hebrew belief systems included that essentially all matter was an extension of the prime consciousness (God / The Universe Itself, or the Force in SW), and this included down to plants and mineral. Essentially, all matter is conscious. That's not what sets man apart from other consciousnesses. We have the gift of voice and that by extension has allotted us language.
Random notes and thoughts I had while watching... this may be a lengthy comment: - We (humans) tend to dish our punishment severity based on the crime severity or difficulty of preventing/catching the criminal. Which you've basically noted in the theft from store vs theft from bank example. Which is why I find it rather interesting how in the Bible, God's punishment for _all_ sin is universal and since everyone has sinned in some way during their lives the only way to save anyone from death (the punishment) was to pay everyone's crimes with Jesus. Which theoretically gives us freedom to do whatever we wish since our crimes have already been paid for and thus even if there is an absolute morality there is no punishment for ignoring it. This is somewhat touched upon in 1 Corinthians 9 which essentially end up implying that we're free to do as we please but as followers of Jesus our actions should be aimed at furthering God's kingdom and that we simply wouldn't wish to do "evil". That we'd personally know what is right and wrong instead of having to fallback on society's definitions/laws/rules/etc. - Umm I'm not too sure about being mostly unable to control what you find appealing. I think we're more than able to alter our brains either behaviorally or with drugs which can then let us influence what we consider to be beautiful. As an anecdote I've been able to behaviorally alter my own episodic memories and if that's doable changing how I perceive another's appearance seems trivial. Also I've noted an interesting observation that you get used to people's appearances and they end up looking better the more familiar you are with them. In terms of actual scientific research, we've got drugs and behavioral therapies that allow us to alter people's memories and certain drugs are known for altering one's view of what is appealing to them (at least I think that's a side effect of ecstasy and alcohol?) so altering what you find attractive seems entirely plausible. - Excellent point about lying! I remember CGP Grey talking about what he coined "the necessary lies of civilization" on one of his podcasts (either hello internet or cortex) and the basic message was that our society has an entire list of lies that we keep telling ourselves and others and without which our society would effectively collapse. For instance, every child gets taught that "if you work hard you'll be successful" as if it's some universal truth and yet it's an absolute lie. Many who work really hard are just barely scraping by and many are successful without having to work hard. In fact I'd almost argue that hard work is a detriment to success as many of humanity's best inventions originated thanks to laziness. Yet in order to have good workers society basically needs people that believe the lie that hard work will ultimately benefit them.
"Could you interact with machine in such a life-like manner that you could say it has a soul?" - My answer is no, because I don't think there's any evidence souls exist. Morality is subjective, both situationally and culturally, not absolute. Different places value different things, and built a different set of morality around them (In the end, good is what people agreed is good, and evil is what people agreed is evil, based on those values) The Jedi have issues with this. Even in the movies. Luke doesn't kill Palpatine, Vader does, leaving Luke's hands clean. Vader is apparently redeemed by this act of killing (because he's defending his son, sure), but Luke is narratively backed into a corner. His rejection of striking down the Emperor would be undercut by him killing the Emperor, even in self-defense, I always wonder if Vader couldn't or wouldn't kill Palpatine, what was Luke supposed to do in that situation? I also wonder the same of the Mandalorian Wars. What exactly was the Jedi Council supposed to do if Revan or someone like him didn't exist? The Jedi keep the peace, they have their code, but they also train to fight and battle, and sometimes to kill, even if they don't like it and the war was coming to them. They act like reclusive monks who train to fight but never wish to and are almost delusional in their pacifism, which is also a lie. In a world of greys, the Jedi are ill-equipped to function, and the Sith are comically, cartoonishly evil. As much as I love Kreia as a character and do find her perspective thought provoking, in many ways her condemnation of the Jedi and Sith (and by extension the Force) really stems from treating Star Wars as a real place that people have to live in and not a fantasy world where the hero swoops in and saves everyone, and it's easy to tell what's good and what's not. Finally, I know your vid is 3 years old, but I only found it now.
The idea that people do or do not have "souls" does change some moral arguments such as respecting individual agency or if pain truly affects people or not.
Why should it? Other people's opinion doesn't change someone from being human. They're the same person they were when you believed in a soul and they're the same person now when you don't believe there's a soul. Someone's opinion is the only thing that's changed, not human rights or the part of the human brain that signals pain.
The right and wrong are totally a meter of perspective or a meter of position. But speaking about humans, about our planet, we already have a position. So we are initially an interested party. This concept is strongly connected to life itself. There are very clear rights and wrongs for life, so I think that is a root of all this discussion. There is no right or wrong things for materia, stones, oxygen, asteroids etc. Because they don't have a will to survive, or to keep moving or anything. Right and wrong is a simple and applied to living things idea in my opinion
This isn't my Kreia. My kreia believed in the code of the Jedi. This is a betrayal of who Kreia was. They had no right to do this to me. #notmykreykrey
Would you ever do a breakdown of the game SOMA? I’m not sure how you’d connect it to Kreia or your own beliefs but the concept of living with cybernetics reminded me of the idea of consciousness and what it means to be human. SOMA challenges these thoughts on the soul and morality and I felt you’d have a good perspective on it.
I'm starting to dislike the light/dark dichotomy of the Force. People are plenty different in morality and ideology already without some cosmic entity butting in.
The thing is that there are some people like Kreia or Jolee Bindo who don't see in absolutes. In real world you have most of people agreeing with standart sence of morlaity and some who see it diferently.
love the series! this video kind of poses a question I've been super interested in: are Bogan and the Dark the same thing? if not, I reckon this rabbit hole has the potential to understand Revan in a much deeper way.
Thanks, man! Tell you're friends about me. As far as I know, Bogan is just the name that was associated with a certain moon of Tython. The moon was a dark side nexus.
whats hard to understand about Kreia, you're all reading to far into her cryptic words.. she wants to see the force die, becuase inherently shes a good person and realizes that balanace of the force means an always domineering light side or dark side will prevail with a diminished other rising to make "balance" . balance in the star wars universe means a constant fighting of the light side, dark side.. not one can gain more power over the other.. Krea realised this , and saw in the exhile the same wound as Darth Nihilist.. a way for the force to die. the exhile has a special power to drain the force from others/ the area she's in/ etc, her powers actually stem from the backsplash of everything shes draining at one time, her powers aren't inherently of her own. the exhile was a wound, a black hole in the force.. and krea thought true peace would come from ending both the light side and the dark side.
Revan defines Arren Kae's/Kreia' teachings. Because of Arren Kae/Kreia, Revan was what he was: powerful, both dark sided and ligh sided. Arren Kae/Kreia/Darth Traya deserves more credit, keeping in my that Revan is one of the most powerful characters in the Old Republic era. Revan is the result of Kreia's teachings. P. S. : Yes, I really believe Kreia is, in fact, Arren Kae. Her true name is Arren Kae. She first became Darth Traya, after falling to the Dark Side on Malachor towards the end of the Mandalorian Wars, then she took the name of Kreia, after being betrayed by Darth Sion and Darth Nihilus. Kreia was just a simple name she took in order for her to mask her true identity.
2:00 wow, I didn’t expect a series of ASMR comments about how beautiful (or ugly, lol) I am. Very nice. Except for the Wookie bits. Wookies don’t do ASMR it seems.
Also, I think some people tend to make WAY more of Kreia than there is. This isn't a popular opinion, but Kreia always seemed to me to be a vapid person who uses overwrought vagueness to cover up the fact that she's nowhere near the pillar of philosophical subjectivity she pretends to be. She uses vagueness and wordgames to cover the fact that she's as mundane and lost as everyone else. And I sometimes think some people latch on to Kreia and build her up more than she is because they think it makes them look intellectual and deep.
No Visas Marr at all, she has something to say, too! The main thing Kreia taught the player is: "Apathy is Death!", seems to be infantile on her part. )))
I think that how Kreia view the world is not on good and bad. It's more like what is my ideology, does what I do coincide with said ideology, and does my ideology need to be adjust. Her ideology is more or less individualistic. People should do things develop will power to do things on their own, but the force is influence everyone so she's try to free people from its influence. On the other hand she think that people that are in slavery is weak-willed and suppose to never get out of that position, even sometimes people just have no choice. When the exile point out that the force slave us all and by her logic we are all weak-willed and should not be allow to be free, she stop and reconsider position. And this is something that I think we all should consider its merit because 1) it's less abstract than good and bad 2) given that it's more concrete, if us or someone else is wrong it will be easier to make a corrections or reconsider our value.
There is one more opinion about light/dark. Human beings, fears predators. Its natural. And some features in human can also cause us fear. Some people with psychopathy, not necessarily being bad. They mind works differently. And even when rhey act normally, some people could feel fear. Light side throug these point of view makes you some kind of harmless, pleasant, because you Can't do any harm. Dark side makes you predator. Even if not interested in such things, you can do harm. Its makes people project they own fears, as uglines of a predator P.S. Wild idea. If the Force have its will, maybe force colorized force sensitive for other. Sith, are refuse will of the force. So the force kind of curse them, for refusing to obey. By manipulating perception of sapient beings.
Objective and subjective morality are a false binary. Correct morality exists. Beauty is synonymous with health, and beauty equals desire, thus, health is desirable. But health does not just apply to the physical body, the mind must also be healthy, and I judge health objectively but also judge it on how well equipped it is for reality, physically and mentally. But as a human I must refine my views to include the personality just as my would-be partner would. Because reality has added an extra layer of challenge - compatibility. Morality is not objective nor subjective, but it applies and benefits both the individual and collective if you understand the foundation of all life; survival. When we use survival - our innate motivations beyond the individual - then we have discovered correct morality, maybe not for alien species, but for humans absolutely. As a thinking individualist species, we have a greater responsibility and difficulty because morality requires one to think, to know and be aware of their nature to understand and quantify it in such a way that we know ‘good’ from ‘bad’ as reality has demanded of us. Morality is linear, it flows like water in many directions, water gives life but can also be poisoned and also sweetened. It requires that one can filter and see through multiple lenses like logic, truth and critical thinking. Does your subjectivity conform to reality? Do you see the repercussions of said action taken to survive? What is the best possible action for you to take? Being moral is difficult because it requires effort to understand it and enact it properly.
@@PapitoQinn I like that one, and we can write down the truth of history but the conquers and rulers can always try to suppress and erase anything they don't want to remain in recorded history.
Is morality and infantile delusion? Yes, if you're human-centric. Meaning you believe that only humans have souls, and you think everything revolves around only human choices. If you do, you delude yourself in thinking you have morality to begin with.
With all due respect. It could be wrong to lie and steal depending on the circumstance. But there are circumstances where people lie and steal for reasons that are not of morality, especially if they have no other choice. For example, surviving like taking food or perhaps the need equipment in order to enhance their quality of life. We think its wrong because society has instilled this ideal upon us. Its a power structure in a way. But taken to the extreme can lead to deadly consequences due to the authorities. "Any virtue taken to the extreme becomes a vice." johnathan Haidt.
Read the book: The fundamentals of Esoteric Knowledge by Jean Dubuis. It will help you understand why all media pushes the idea that there is no right and wrong.
Big Boi Cleric I have noticed this for years. I studied metaethics where the question of right and wrong is seriously discussed. The idea that right and wrong exists, the arguments for it are not discussed. We are only hear presented with the idea that good and bad do not exist. Regardless of which side of the debate is correct, the public only hears one side which is a terrible bias.
@Language and Programming Channel Money is an illusion and a tool of control. Its not the real currency of this world. The real currency is attention, and while the masses waste theirs on distractions, the "elites" further enslave them.
The biggest mistake in the entire Star Wars universe would be... not having Kotor 1, 2 and 3 movies. Why? Because all of the Star Wars fans out there should know how dark the Old Republic era was, how thousands of Jedi fought thousands of Sith, how the Dark Side corrupted so many Jedi and Republic soldiers, how they became Dark Jedi/Sith assassins, Sith soldiers ect. The Jedi and Sith philosophies would be great themes to be expressed in movies. All of us would realize how Sith philosophy reflects Nietzsche's concepts of the Ubermensch and of ''Beyond good and evil there is power''. And Kreia/Arren Kae/Darth Traya... a powerful character in the whole Star Wars universe (even more interesting than Anakin, Luke and Palpatine, I would say). Sorry, but I'm really frustrated with the Kotor games not becoming movies in cinema. These Kotor games have one of the most powerful stories and philosophies ever told in history. It's mature, it's dark; it's not childish and cartoonish how the original Star Wars movies were (during the end of the 70s and early 80s). They wouldn't be movies for young children. The movies would be fucking dark, addictive, with powerful and dramatic atmosphere, which would reflect alot of the real world battle between good and evil, light and dark and how choices and actions affect one's connection to the Force and stuff like that. Enough of the Skywalker saga. We all know what happened. Anakin turned to Dark Vader, his son redeemed him in the end, Vader died, Darth Sidious/the Emperor died, then somehow revives, then he dies again after fighting a female Jedi padawan named Rey (Daisy did a really great job). But now it is over. Now we really need some movies about the Old Republic era, those dark ages when there were thousands of Sith, where dark side teachings and philosophies were spreading across the galaxy. This would be the absolutely great, outstanding.
But they won't make them. They can't for all the reasons you just mentioned. At the end of the day it is a business. Even if they do manage to compress it all into a film and have it be as deep as the games, I don't think they'll be able to make any money off them. Like I always say, they can't have people walking out of the movie theater going: "What just happened? Apathy is what? Where am I?" Critics will probably just call it pretentious and your average movie goer is gonna fall into a coma.
@@PapitoQinn Um. No. Things can be universal without a religion. I don't see how you can say that's wrong. I think you're pretentious and full of yourself. The fact that you have a somewhat successful UA-cam channel doesn't really mean anything. You're about as intellectual and deep thinking as a college kid in his first year of basic philosophy.
@@johnroscoe2406 Woah, what's with the sudden hostility? I disagree with you. It's impossible for there to be any kind of universal morality. People disagree on what's good and bad, it's not science where you can calculate trajectory, speed, weight, and what have you. It's all opinion. You can't scientifically determine what is right and wrong and frankly, I'm not sure it'd be beneficial if we could. We're only human and every time we've tried doing that, a couple of million people end up dead.
This is not to be confused with Moral Relativism as ultimately morality is very complex. Point being, there are many things in this world that everyone would generally agree are evil. Rape being one of them. Just as there are universally accepted codes for body language and non verbal cues, there are things that are universally accepted as evil. Which then leads to the origin of what we call morals, of right and wrong. If we humans recognize that right and wrong are too abstract to fully comprehend, but k ow that they exist, then they must have e come from somewhere. The only logical explanation there would be something outside of ourselves as humans are inherently flawed, thus some higher being must have created the concept of good and evil. This logical line of reasoning is known as the Moral Lawgiver Argument. Additionally, if all morality is relative, then morality would no longer matter because there is nothing to measure yourself against, no rules to determine what is good or bad. Moral Relativism is ultimately just a way for people to justify doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want. When your morals change from moment to moment because what is right for you is not right for me, they lose all of their weight. It's the same reason we have rules in sports and games, they define the structure of the activity or world and help us understand our place in it. There is a huge difference ce between moral relativity and grey morality. Grey morality recognizes that sometimes doing a "wrong" thing can be beneficial for another person and get them where they need to be. Disciplining children could be argued to be part of this. Or cutting ties with another person because they are toxic and they need to grow up and the only way they will do that is if they can no longer rely on you (personal experience here). Sometimes the right thing to do is not always blatantly obvious and can be rather hard to see, thus a lot of it is grey
I don’t actually think hydrogen does exist in the same way if we aren’t here to perceive them. For example, physicists know that photons from stars choose their destination the moment they leave the star. When you look up at the star, that photon was heading for your eyes for 20 million years, and in a sense knew that’s where it was going for that long. If your eyes weren’t going to be there to see it, the photons wouldn’t have chosen them as a destination. How that can be is not clear currently, but seems to imply a lot about our perceptions ability to bring being into reality
The interesting thing about that is Kreia wishes people to be balanced individuals in the way of the actual self, not in the way of balancing The Force itself. If you surrendered yourself to the whim of the Force, you become withdrawn from human affairs, emotions, and intelligence. You are losing a part of yourself. Likewise, if you try to use the Force for completely selfish reasons without accounting for anything but yourself, you become a destructive beacon of chaos. Thus you are an agent of destruction that leaves nothing for anyone and you end up crumbling to dust on your own. If you do what is the most advantageous for yourself without letting yourself become too sympathetic or too malicious in your actions, you not only gain options but also obtain something the Jedi and the Sith leave behind in their wake: Your Humanity.
It’s interesting how a lot of the time the “right” thing to do will net you dark side points like for example if you help that guy being threatened by those exchange thugs on nar shaddaa most of the options from what I remember at least been a while since I played the game need to go back and play give you dark side points I mean using the force to make them jump over the side is pretty dam evil but justified and stepping in and fighting them off to me isn’t worthy of dark side points yes it’s violent probably unnecessarily so but your doing so in the defence of another if I did that in the real world I likely wouldn’t get in much trouble of course in reality u wouldn’t need to go as far as killing them but that’s not realy the point often what is morally “right” is at odds with what the force and the people touched by it see as right realy in my opinion you’d be right for getting those men to leave the guy alone regardless of how you did it apart from making them jump to their deaths any way but then that gets me thinking why do I think like that considering I’d have no problem with killing them my self so they don’t hurt the guy and also I believe Kreia to be right here as well by helping him iv just given him this idea that someone will always be there to help him and that he should just let people do what they want cause someone gonna come and save him but at the same time if I didn’t help him those thugs would likely have killed him it’s a tough one if you see someone trying to harm someone else and do nothing are you not then as bad as the guy doing the harm? I hate morality its 100% necessary but a lot of the time dose more harm then good regardless of what choice you make
The one we need to fear most is the man who knows the tight thing to do and actively not to do it. If you see something bad about to happen, and do nothing to stop it, you are complicit. Doing nothing is the same as actively participating, I believe even says as much if you choose to leave the guy alone and do nothing
having values requires someone to be able to hold values. the most common values are therefore those, tgat did not end the value holder. therefore most lifeforms instinctively value things that keep them and things they care for (like reproductive partners and offspring because otherwise the holder of value wouldn't exist, because without the reproductive instinct the current holder would not exist). this also clarifies the standard of beauty, because beauty often is often ascribed to symetry, functionality, consistency and similar attributes that describes a functional gene code in living beings, creating functional potential mates. the atribute of beauty is overinclusive, because missing a potental partner is reproductively worse than trying to hump a tree. assuming souls in entities is also an evolutionary benefitial aspect for intelligent entities, as it creates a barrier to violence due to mirror neurons. this allows for mutualy benifitial relationships. the overinclusivity factor is actice in this category too. this whole thing does not make certain values universaly true, but universaly needed for the concept of values to exist by requiring value holders and therefore life.
the question is then: why should a value holder be valuable? this can be answered with the same basis, that values can only exist if value holders exist. in addition, the process of a flow equilibrium defying entropy called life is rarer than non life and the emergent property of this process to recognize itself and the whole universe, conciousness, is a curious thing. these are weak arguments for life, but they are still stronger than the "entropy is all there should be" like arguments of anti- life enthusiasts. their own existence defies there goal and defies the belief that non existance and non caring is preferable, because they care to destroy others and prolong their existance to do so.
Morality one way or the other is a naturally occurring thing, lest we never would have conceived of it. Even if it's only human beings who can do so, we're still animals. We're still a product of nature. Our brains conceive of these things because our brains evolved (a natural process) to the point that they could do so. We may have "created" morality, but that's not an argument that morality is ultimately a false construct. Natural evolution created a brain that can create the concept of morality. Where it *does* become arguably arbitrary is in our interpretation of such post-facto. And even supposed interpretations of such can be argued to have natural foundations: many things that the majority accept as "bad" are "bad" because they threaten the security and integrity of the community, and humans are communal animals, and a threat to the human community whether on a small scale or large scale is a threat to the individual human animal, and by extension, the human race.
The argument isn't that morality doesn't exist. Of course it does. But it only exists within your mind and nowhere else. It is nothing but opinion, and in society there are opinions that the majority agree with. Emphasis on "majority". It's important for people to understand how much of our thoughts and beliefs are subjective. If we can do that then perhaps we'd be a few steps closer to understanding each other.
@@PapitoQinn There is no distinction between "in our mind" and "nowhere else." It's in our mind because it's a natural thing, therefore it exists in principle whether we put words to it or not.
@@johnroscoe2406 Of course there's a distinction. If your mind ceases to exist, for example if I kill you, all your morality goes away. Once human beings inevitably cause our own extinction, our ideas of morality wouldn't continue to exist, how could they? They live within our minds. Unless you're suggesting there is some sort of cosmic being that regulates it.
Not exactly. Morality is very complex, but it's not relative. Point being, there are many things in this world that everyone would generally agree are evil. Rape being one of them. Just as there are universally accepted codes for body language and non verbal cues, there are things that are universally accepted as evil. Which then leads to the origin of what we call morals, of right and wrong. If we humans recognize that right and wrong are too abstract to fully comprehend, but k ow that they exist, then they must have e come from somewhere. The only logical explanation there would be something outside of ourselves as humans are inherently flawed, thus some higher being must have created the concept of good and evil. This logical line of reasoning is known as the Moral Lawgiver Argument. Additionally, if all morality is relative, then morality would no longer matter because there is nothing to measure yourself against, no rules to determine what is good or bad. Moral Relativism is ultimately just a way for people to justify doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want. It's the same reason we have rules in sports and games, they define the structure of the activity or world and help us understand our place in it.
@@richardscathouse But if it's all relative then the concept of good and evil have no true definition, which would then mean that there is no way to define your morals as morality is I inherently ties to the concepts of good and evil.
@@golfer435 You define your morals by treating as you would be treated, fifty years has thought me yes, everything is relative! There is no universal good or evil! Everyone is the hero of their own story! I treat no one badly! I treat everyone appropriately 😈
That we should do whatever we want or what we think is right, makes for an AWFUL social ideology. A society full of people who never can come to an agreement is what we would have.
Is it better to all agree on everything? How do we advance unless someone disagrees and one or the other tries to prove it? This 'conflict' is what drives our evolution, without it, we would stagnate, and likely still live in caves and hunt for food that we eat raw.
So everyone does realize she is Darth Traya a Sith Lord and at the end she admits she used the exile to destroy the Jedi, destroy her betrayers, and that she doesn’t want the exiles mercy but for the exile to kill her or be killed by her right? She is manipulating the character the whole time
Yeah, unfortunately KOTOR II is probably the few times you really try and flesh out "the Force" beyond a simple morality system, and even then, the game mechanics usually don't have much nuance to them. Unfortunately, without a fixed source of what the Force is supposed to be, varying authors will give you different abilities and the associated morality with them. By and large though, the light/dark system is pretty much a black and white morality system in its portrayal though.
Natural Law is what governs human behavior It is the Law of the universe like gravity it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not, it's in operation. Study natural law and live by it. You'll thank me later.
@Language and Programming Channel no I'm sorry you're mistaken. And you will continue to suffer until you understand it and live in accordance with it. Just like you don't jump off a cliff and expect to live. Don't treat others like shit and expect your life to be butterflies and flowers.
You completely ignore a fundamental point about the substance of this discussion. First off you make the assumption that morality is the result of human abstraction, completely disregarding the possibility of either an external force or natural force that defines it. (which a lot of anti-religious people, [specifically modernist ones] including Nietzsche, actually believed the latter was likely) That aside the Star Wars has that external force that defines its morality, the Force's will outright determines moral and immoral actions in Star Wars. To the Force, both the Sith and Jedi were immoral institutions, however it held Luke's New Jedi Order as proper, it does much the same during KOTOR 2. While Kreia asks good questions and makes a lot of decent judgements, her character was designed from the perspective of a hatred to the Force, she explicitly states that she hates that the Force can will the galaxy and that's just how it is. She only poses these questions logically to convince the PC to agree with her, that's her agenda, she has no goal beyond destruction of the Force and that's why her beliefs are so reckless. (and the only reason she cares about the PC is because the PC is the only manner in which she can destroy the Force) The reason the narrative was made that way was because the lead writer actually hated the Force and wanted to find a way to contradict it. Honestly I don't see that perspective anymore valid then a radical fundamental. (for in truth that's all she represents)
L.Side appearance - You balance your body to be healthy and therefore beautiful D.Side appearance - You focus on more power and some of your body function do not work properly Dark Side is easy way to power but without restraint you pay high price. Danger of being too focused on Light side is shown in Jedi masters . They are high above everything. Just observing without taking any action that would be in any way not up to Jedi code. They stay where is safe for them and never take action that would put them at real risk.
I think it's bullXXXX that you could be punished for the actions of your community. Seems like a real dark side move on UA-cam's part. There are some black and white topics out there, but I'm not going to say that things like killing, theft, charity, and even mercy always have only positive or only negative consequences. What if you kill in self defense? Or what if you trust the wrong person? That's not to say Kreia is always correct. There are things even she does not know. Even she didnt't know Vrook was still alive. "And now the sides are as I had thought them to be; there are no more unknowns."
6:44 Technically you did help that man, but your intention was not only helping him but also to punish those who blackmailed him. Morality has 2 layers, the external and the internal. If your morality is only outwardly good, but internally you're selfish, you end up like the annoying moralizing christians who only care about their image. They virtue signal about how good and moral they are, but on the inside they are vain and egocentric. The same time, you can have bad moral results with good intentions. But these are exceptional cases. Most of the time, your external morality corresponds to your internal morality (The external flows from the internal). Another thing to consider is that the idea of Balance confuses people and make them think that evil is part of the balance, when in fact that is not the case. To include evil in the balance is like saying that HIV is an integral part of a healthy body. It is the greatest trick that evil played on humanity. To pretend that it is part of the balance and that it belongs there. In truth, the Balance itself is the Light Side. Anything that causes the upsetting of the balance is the Dark side. In fact you could say that imbalance is the Dark side.
Spoken like a true pawn of the Jedi :D and while I generally agree with you there are moments when you doing seemingly "evil" or "dark side" things can result in an overall better outcome. This is effectively one of Kreia's primary messages. That sometimes a clenched fist can hurt less than an open one even though not giving money to a beggar can be seen as cold or bad while doing so when you clearly have the means would be considered good. Thus I'd argue balance is achieved when you use actions that on their own may be considered either good or evil for an ultimately greater good.
@@beskamir5977 What you say is not at all contradictory with what I described in my post. Look at the distinction of internal and external morality. Your internal morality (intention) matters a lot.
It's nice to see Kreia's conundrums growing as a series, and that people are craving such content after all these years.
You were there at the beginning. One day you might even see how it ends.
@@PapitoQinn "Everything ends, and it's always sad. But everything begins again too, and that's always happy. Be happy."
I like how they all are self aware/care enough to warn you to to stop before you go completely off the deep end.
Well, except for HK. He likes the deep end.
And yet all of them shared the corruption of the dark side XD
@@beskamir5977 exactly. Although that was due to the exile. And ironically they don't comment about their own faces.
@Adam Thompson gotteeeem!!!~
'What do you use to keep your complexion so radiant?'
'Malakor 5 by Exile'
I love how your companions talk shit about your DS appearance when they all look the same lmao
It's funny how the others tell a dark sided exile that he/she is ugly. I mean, guys, you should look into the mirror. :D
If anything, I'd be mad that the Exile was vicariously making ME ugly through the influence system. I know Atton wouldn't take too kindly to having his handsome mug being tampered with.
The irony is not lost on me how much I learn about dealing with life, from video games and fantasy books. There are studies to show this, but that is a different conversation altogether. It is truly fascinating how much I relate to The Exile, especially as I grow older. I remember playing this as a young innocent kid and thinking that helping people is good and im good therefore lightside and getting so done with Kreia because I was really lost at how to get her approval. As a much older individual and coming upon my own few philosophies that I enjoy. I really like your ending to the statement about doing what you think is right. There is a latin term from the Roman Orator, Cicero called Summum Bonum, which means the highest good. As you age, as you grow this concept of what you may find the highest good, or virtue to change. Another saying; no man ever steps into the same river twice. It would be interesting and enjoyable to play these games again after so many years and see how I myself have changed and grown. For in everyday life, if you are set on being your best self, and you discover you are wrong, you would simply learn from that error and grow from it. So in keeping with that mindset, if you realize your pursuit of virtue is misguided or off, you would course correct, after all, we're only human. As you've stated in some videos in the past (i am bingeing all of them now hehe..) some people require religion or something at their core. Same like some of the jedi would choose to die than than give up the force, these people, were religion to be taken from them, may just as well do the same. It's funny, and I'll share a short excerpt from my life where I had a choice between walking away from the religion I grew up on, or persisting and most likely not being here to tell this story, and working on finding what strength I had within myself (sort of like the true lesson of malachor v). After this event in my life I truly do have a deeper appreciation for games like this, and videos that explore these games in depth are always enjoyed. Keep up the good work, and I hope something from this is found useful. See you in the video about skills because I just realized my best and worst one in the bounds of the game skills.
"Do I have a soul?" Geth asked.
I remember reading a book, a fantasy novel, where the protagonist had a chat with a Chimera who had sought out a sage this very question. The sage told the Chimera that merely asking the question means that the creature had one. From a secular perspective, to have a soul could mean that you are aware to even ask the question. To understand and be aware of the self is often a basic criteria for sapience. Hence why humans have souls yet chimps don't (for argument's sake).
As for the Force, I've noticed it has a rather Taoist perspective which is duelistic in nature. Light to Dark. Man and Woman. Harmony and Discord. Life and Death. Black and White. All of these are opposites and yet intimately connected, some which to the point that you cannot describe one without the other.
In Star Wars, you cannot describe the Light side without the Dark side entering the conversation. Are they the same thing? Well, yes, but actually, no. Are they completely different? Well, yes, but actually, no. Sorry for the memetic insert but my point is there is simply the Force. It is not good nor evil, neither is it Light or Dark; the Force simply is.
How one uses the Force is where morality steps in.
For instance, say a Light side user Force chokes someone that has become an obstacle. Is the Light side user good because they only the Light side? Or are they evil for using the Force to harm others.
Or how about a Dark side user uses their knowledge of the Force to heal the sick and infirm. They themselves evil for being a Dark side user? Or are they good for using the Force to help those around them?
"But that's not how the Dark side works!", "Hurting people with the Light side never happens!", and so on from nay-sayers. To these people, I can say that you are missing the point. Kreia's statement about "infantile delusions of good and evil" is at the very heart of this conundrum. Children often see the world in a very black and white outlook. The world is simple for a child in that Good is Good and Bad is Bad. And then comes a moment where this child quickly realizes that the world is not so clean cut. Even some adults never acknowledge (Whether from ignorance or willfulness) how complicated and seemingly chaotic the world is. I think Kreia is trying to instill a more pragmatic approach to the Force and the galaxy at large. Killing random strangers serves no purpose and could cause more grief for the attacker down the road.
Every choice we make has consequences, some of them good; some are bad, and others are somewhere in the middle. Our choices not only effect us but also those around us. Another way of looking beyond good and evil is asking yourself what are the potential consequences if I choose to go down this path.
I disagree about the chimp - it is enough to have a will, a capacity for suffering and awareness beyond mechanistic input-output
The fact that you went dark side then turned light just to get that dialogue from hanharr AND the fact that Obsidian included it at all is amazing.
Bao-Dur's comment that not many Jedi look like the Light Sided Exile is really telling.
"Good is a point of view Anakin"
-The senate, 19 BBY
Also this is a really good video, keep up the good work
Thank you. Tell people about it and I will.
“There is no darkness. Only an absence of light”
Landon Fanning Look too much at the sun and you shall be blinded by it's light, allow too much darkness in as you use those less than desirable methods and you shall be consumed by them, thinking too much with your own gray area may make you blinded to other people's gray areas as well as being consumed by your own
Darkness is the result of no light. Yes.
Ironically, they say you found your “center” when you choose the light-side instead of not choosing either side.
Because that's what balance is in the Star Wars universe; submission.
Chet Ubetcha submission to the Force
Yes.
It was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Chet Ubetcha George Orwell?
I’m loving your Kreia’s Conundrums videos…but I absolutely love that I’m just listening along to this one, and all of a sudden I head the Ard Skellig theme from Witcher 3 in the background…one of my favorite soundtracks in that game. On top of that, Witcher 3 and KOTOR 2 are my absolute favorite games from my favorite franchises
I love that I can hear Manaan and be put right back there to the ocean, the peaceful neutral city.
I loved the World Design in Kotors
I think kreia's perspective is nuanced in that contextually, its morality *from a force wielder's perspective*.
I think her pov is an action's morality is determined by the ultimate ripple you create, not in the emotional gut reaction.
She sees "the draw of the light" as much a temptation as the dark, and I think thats why she's compelling.
She wants you to view only the consequences of the choice, (which is interesting in the context of a force user that can forsee the future)
When she speaks on revan that's the context. Revan was a jedi natural drawn to the light, but would make himself do the "hard choice" that didn't come naturally to him....because it brought him closer to his goals.
Lying to the mercenaries would feel wrong to a jedi drawn to the light (or one afraid of earning dark side points)....but if you use that information to save dantoonie...isn't it worth the personal cost of you losing some connection to the light?
Part of the choices morality is the intent, but is the intent drawn from "ill feel good" about this choice, or "I don't like making this choice...but if I want to help this person/people I'm willing to sacrifice my personal desires."
Atton: " you have a glow about you like you are centered" WOOKI "GLARGHGGGGGRAAAGHHGHHGG"
Unlike in Star Wars, it is far more difficult to recognize darkness in individuals. You can't tell whether a person is 'normal' or Darth Sidious under disguise. Such people look just like you and me, and that's what makes them dangerous.
I think the flaw is in trying to judge people based on how they look. It's something that can be very easily manipulated. Even something as simple as wearing a suit vs wearing a bandanna has a massive effect on how others judge you.
To be fair, Palpatine had the whole Jedi Order thinking he was a pretty swell guy until he had them 66'd.
You can still tell based on their actions but it can be difficult. Especially if they're sociopaths enough to conceal their evil with genuine caring, good, decency, etc to earn the trust of those around them. Much like Palpatine before he lured Anakin to the dark side.
@@beskamir5977 Actions can be interpreted in many ways. A good enough mastermind will be able to manipulate how his/her deeds look. The truth is that there is nothing much that can be done against such people, until it is too late. A man that has no restrictions upon himself will do whatever is necessary to succeed.
@@beskamir5977 As a side note - this is why darksiders are often more successful and powerful than other people - it's because they do not restrict their movements the same way people carrying morality do. It's the same thing in the real world.
with your growth in your videos it seams you have found your center.
Agreed. A lot of worldly philosophies can be confirmed from our own experiences
The Light and the Dark Side have always struck me as different ways to draw out the abilities you already hold, ie. the Force. One draws forth the abilities through self-mastery and enlightenment, allowing you access to them consciously, hence the "light" side. The other allows releasing those abilities from he unconscious recesses of your person, hence the "Dark" side and emphasis on passions, particularly anger (although that could just be a Sith thing), as something to lower your inhibitions.
Where the "morality" plays out, is that one of the two operates on your visceral impulses, which we as social animals began to repress precisely because of the demands of community and our personal sense of morality, while the other keeps you subject to them. Thus it's not difficult to see the petty, excessive, impulsive cruelties of the various Darths as something that comes as a second nature to them due to the mental state necessary for them to draw power from the Force.
That doesn't mean you can't have villainous Lightsiders. Jorus C'Baoth from old canon springs to mind; A Jedi who'se dream galaxy was one with the Jedi Order ruling as benevolent philosopher-dictators. or the remains of the old council in KotOR II who seem to be firmly in the Light, but are led astray by their dogma. It does, however, make imagining a truly heroic darksider very difficult Such a being would need to be considered morally just by independent 3rd party observers after all.
For that they would need to rein in their source of power, and excert control over when to release it to avoid becoming an anti-hero or a straight-up villain by offending the moral sensibilities of the audience. But such control would be seemingly emblematic of the Light Side, making the Dark Side simply a label stamped on a character in an inverted case of protagonist centered morality.
"You weaken yourself by pretending that morality is important to you."
Great video dude, but I have to respectfully disagree with a few things.
I think Kreia's main "moral objective" is the preservation of life. I say this because how much she tries to fight Nihilus, how she doesn't agree with a dead galaxy Nihilus envision. She doesn't even want the Jedi Masters dead, just defeated, acknowledge her ideals. That's when lying and cheating comes from, I guess, she would kill millions, kill the force, to save billions.
Another thing is leaving Malachor V intact would be a terrible mistake. Kreia says that the teachings Nihilus learned must be erased, no one should ever learn that and that the echo must be silenced. All of that is Malachor V, leaving it intact would perhaps spawn more Nihilus and leave an empty galaxy. G0T0's opinion is bullcrap, he knows nothing of the teachings of the Sith, he's a wimp, refusing to even enter at the Korriban's Academy, he probably doesn't even know Nihilus danger, like Mical saw.
Lastly, in the conclusion you say, basically, the best we can do is do what we believe is right. I'd complement that with constantly trying to improve and correct what you believe is right. You know, to believe in an ideal is to be willing to betray it. "Betray" by constantly questioning your beliefs. There's this concept of falsifiability, which is the base of scientific hypothesis and theories, which is basically your hypothesis have to be refutable to be considered scientific. Which is KIND OF the same as "willing to betray it" thing, how could you be ever right if you run away from being proven wrong or shield yourself with unprovable ideas. It's the same about the Flying Spaghetti Space Monster in a corner of the universe, you can't prove it wrong since you can't scout every corner of the universe, thus it's very unlikely it exists.
All in all, great video, as always, Kreia's Conundrums are always a joy to watch.
And that last phrase might be the most important one; "until they can't anymore." Science is still beholden to the human perspective; limited solely to what we can observe. Over time, we may learn to observe increasingly greater and lesser magnitudes, but ultimately, what we can derive from the universe is always filtered through what we are currently capable of seeing.
armandoalcb, Kreia’s vision was based on Nietzche and Machiavelli paradigm.
It makes you absolutely correct, since Kreia’s struggle to protect the Life itself based on “life-asserting” philosophy.
Loved the philosophical standpoints that you brought in and that the game brings in. KOTOR II is a fucking gem man
I'm glad your still around Papito.
It's hard to miss Nietsches influence on the writing of this games story. One of the best out there to date
Your videos are perfectly done and executed. I love the critical look on the things.
Keep up the work! I will watch.
5:08 Bao-Dur's remote: _"Ohmysgosh she looks so scary! Protect me, master! Be my meat shield!"_
The most feelings I have about is about finding a center. About being in balance with yourself, about accepting yourself and loving yourself. Something I have issues with.
Can't underline how much I enjoy your videos, your tone and the questions you put to us. You have a very beautiful mind. Be kind to yourself!
Fuckin cracks me up when the crew is calling you ugly when they are fucked up too
"it's just that your face! it's like.. you havent been getting much sleep"
she says while her own face is fucked up by the dark side too lmao
Yes! I’ve been waiting for this!
6:00
There's a parallel to high medieval art linked to beauty of the good. The good guys, such as Julius Caesar, were shown in the up-to-date knightly armour. The bad guys, such as the turks, were depicted in outdated armour.
The exception was in underdog stories, such as David and Goliath. The latter were shown in full armour, but he often had a shield formed as an ugly monstrous face at his side.
Armour wasn't just protective, as is commonly perceived, but an aesthetic expression of your status. Status was everything. Armour was also a work of art with possibly many decorative details such as gold, precious stones, copper gilding, extravagant textiles, etching, engraving, polishing, and for the less affluent, painted armour. Sitting high atop of a destrier, clad in full polished plate, you mimicked an angelic being. An immortal being, with unparalleled protection and fighting skill beyond anything comparable to the common dirty peasant. Beauty mattered to these old knights as well.
Papito Quinn: Killing is a bad thing
Mordin Solus: Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients. Sometimes execute dangerous people. Either way helps.
Just remembered this comment not mocking you. Like your vids man...
Thanks. I remember that quote from Mordin too. He is right. But in that situation you're still doing a negative thing. But you're doing it for positive reasons.
Games can potentially provide such a profound philosophical education. It will be so great for the world when the psychological power of media on the unconscious mind and (psychology in general), particularly ROLE playing games, is appropriately appreciated. I dare say Kotor 1&2, particularly 2, was and still is without a doubt the pinnacle of this potential being utilised.
They made her look like the angel of death in the thumbnail
I remember being recommended a video on UA-cam about kreia after watching one of your videos that I liked. I decided to check that guys channel out only to find out he was an extreme misogynist. I hate and disagree with just about everything that guy held as a belief, but we both found interest in this kind of obscure star wars character and the philosophical debate around her.
I think I know who you're talking about.
Man-Made Constructs: Beauty, Time, Faith, Morality, Technology, Titles, Societal Culture, Value, Freedom of Choice, Charity, Cruelty, Judgement... I know there are more, but those are the first to come to mind (especially with the topics in this discussion). Humanity has constructed concepts and ideas that have been instrumental to the advancement of our species, but we are flawed and our ideals mirror equally. Beauty, Freedom, Morality, and Value have flaws within that cannot be taken away while keeping the original concept intact. It falls apart the second you try "perfecting" or improving upon it.
One of the greatest signs of arrogance I think humanity has ever shown is the concept of freedom. It's not that it doesn't exist, but it does not exist the way we would want it to. The illusion of freedom makes us think that not only can we make any choice we want, but that every choice we can make will matter. Both of these statements are arguable at best, false at worst. We can not do whatever we want, when we want (not even taking consequences into consideration). There are millions of things a single human wishes they could do, but they can't. That is not freedom. We cannot fly, so we must compensate. We cannot create objects from thin air, so we fool ourselves into thinking we can by utilising technology. We cannot see and know everything within the universe, the past, or future, so we make telescopes/calendars/books to describe either what happened in events we personally didn't experience or to plan for the future in a way that is futile and subject to change at any moment. Freedom isn't the biggest flaw of humanity. The hubris to believe that we are in control is hubris. There are fundamental laws, rules, and codes that forbid us true freedom.
Another thought provoking video. I always enjoy your stuff Qinn, thank you for making videos.
4:44 You're one to talk, Atton
6:13 ever since windwaker I have felt a sympathy for ganon.
Kreia's perspective on moral choices has one commonality: how will this choice strengthen your power and influence. You are not strengthened by becoming a slave to inclinations of contributing to a "greater good", like the Jedi. Contrariwise, living as a Sith not only physically corrodes you, you can hardly trust or become trusted by others which narrows the gateway to manipulation and making people dependent on you. The more people are dependent on you, and the less you are on them, the stronger your position to influence and change the world.
So in essense Kreia views morality as a tool?
@@joshuahicks7798 Just like everything and everyone else it seems. Tools to be exploited when convenient or beneficial.
Completely subverted by the fact that you can become supremely powerful (as far as the game is concerned) doing NOTHING BUT "GOOD" THINGS just as well as doing NOTHING BUT "BAD" THINGS. The game doesn't even agree with Kreia. Kreia is overdone, vapid, poor writing masquerading as deep writing, etc. She's the obnoxious dilettante everyone gets tired of hearing after they've had a few drinks and decide to get "philosophical."
@@johnroscoe2406 I must beg to differ. I agree that both the game and Kreia show evidence that she is utterly wrong, if someone has the sense to step back and look at it. But I think she's well written. She's just as much a 'wise-fool' (with some good lessons but many clever sounding self-deceiving follies) as Nietzsche was, and as a lot of other people now are (although the modern version is often less intelligent, with more mimickery).
@@benjaminblack4345 You're only conditioned to see something deeper in Kreia that isn't there because Kreia is a cult figure among fans. You're looking for excuses.
Throughout Kotor II you have Kreia badgering and belittling you for not being selfish and preaching that selfishness is the path to power. Despite this, and the fact that the game gives you poor dialogue options you can still prosper and gain strength by being altruistic. Playing the 'Light Side' option is the refutation of Traya despite everything the game stacks against you.
It's hard to make the _crazier_ "dark-side" options a fruitful endeavor in real world situations just as well. The exile is far too lacking in overall (man or political) power to make meaningful darkside decisions that are actually helpful to themselves. She's right that the player and main character can be stupid as hell when it comes to spontaneous decisions.
I think we all try to be moral by our own codes. Back in medieval times the moral codes of people were different than they are today.
Its interesting to hear the praise of lying to one or both sides in order to gain options or to benefit ones self over others. In one of my favourite self help books, 12 Rules for Life: An antidote to Chaos, rule 8 is "Tell the Truth - Or at least dont lie" . When we lie we are manipulating, creating an echo if you will, in the fabric of reality in order to, often, suit our short term needs. But as the nugget of wisdom says "The truth will set you free", we cannot continue to lie and manipulate, one person, even an entire ideology, cannot continue to uphold a bundling knot of lies in the face of the truth of reality and the situation. Eventually the truth becomes revealed, and depending on the depth of the lie, the extent of the manipulation, it will leave a traumatic crater of betrayal to the ones who you lead astray for your gain, at their voluntary whim to the unique situations extent.
For the mercenaries, the lie and their belief in it will result in a quick and absolute death. For a, hypothetical, girl who thought you loved her but you just wanted sex, just wanted to use her body, that will results in a traumatic emotional wound that may cause damage for years or decades. Is what you've gained worth the echo of betrayal left in your wake ? Depends on the situation.
In Dante's Inferno, the deepest circle of hell is reserved for betrayers and acts of treachery. Humans are social, tribal creatures. We need to trust one another or we cannot survive, a relationship lacking trust is pustulent, toxic and doomed (unless they're codependent, but that's it's own toxicity), even our economic systems are built on trust. To lie is to wrapped and damage that system of trust, the psychology professor who wrote that book, which given the nature of this channel and the demographic of UA-cam I'm sure many know who he is, claims in his clinical practice that betrayal is a wound that few people recover from. It leaves the deepest scar. Lying and the spoken word truly is a weapon more powerful than any sword, or blaster in this context.
But to add one more element that the nature of the book I'm referencing is a manual for people to recompose a degenerating and chaotic life. To impose 12 rules, chosen through psychological relevance and the Darwinian process of religious stories and the wisdom within certain ones, to walk a straight and narrow path. That is great when one is learning how to walk. Eventually we will encounter uneven ground and we will need to adapt and make a difficult choice. Eventually a lie may be our best and only option, but it's one that should be behind a piece of glass saying "break ONLY is case of emergency"
What do you think?
I think that people will do what they feel they have to. Lying is another power that human beings have. Like any other it's a power that can be used either maliciously or benevolently. It can be detrimental, mostly emotionally, for the one being lied to. But like Kreia says about betrayal. Without such things, there is no hope. Telling the truth is also a form of manipulation, and I'd argue that sometimes the bold faced, unfettered truth creates the largest echoes.
Ooh! Witcher music!
Also, the question of possession of a soul is something I cringe away from. Not necessarily because I dislike the idea of it, but rather what the question itself raises in people. Some will say yes all have a soul, others will say no only humans do, some will say no it's a tool of indoctrination and on and on it goes.
Some would call me misanthropic to look at it like that. I call myself cautious. I've voiced my opinion before and gotten burned for it.
first video of the day, thank you
You're welcome. Thanks for watching.
the game has me all wholesome when they compliment your face :D
I'm really glad you're enjoying these.
did you used to post a series of articles under this title on kinja back in the day? feel like i remember seeing them highlighted on kotaku back when i used to keep up with the site. if so, i am very happy to see your work further developed and preserved, i really enjoyed reading them and found them thought-provoking. if that wasn't you... well, this is also a great series that i find very thought provoking! this game really means a lot to me, and i think its writers intended to spark conversations just like these.
That was indeed me, my good sir. I wrote for the "Talk Amongst Yourselves" section and then started doing UA-cam. But I continued to write them for TAY because having them get featured on Kotaku's main page was a great way to get more exposure. It's a shame they took it down.
@@PapitoQinn yeah, i hate that they're no longer up. glad to see that you continued the same series on youtube though! it's great work.
@@draculactica Thanks, man! I appreciate the support. Hopefully everyone from there finds their way here.
Soul is just another word for consciousness. Ancient Hebrew belief systems included that essentially all matter was an extension of the prime consciousness (God / The Universe Itself, or the Force in SW), and this included down to plants and mineral. Essentially, all matter is conscious. That's not what sets man apart from other consciousnesses. We have the gift of voice and that by extension has allotted us language.
Random notes and thoughts I had while watching... this may be a lengthy comment:
- We (humans) tend to dish our punishment severity based on the crime severity or difficulty of preventing/catching the criminal. Which you've basically noted in the theft from store vs theft from bank example. Which is why I find it rather interesting how in the Bible, God's punishment for _all_ sin is universal and since everyone has sinned in some way during their lives the only way to save anyone from death (the punishment) was to pay everyone's crimes with Jesus. Which theoretically gives us freedom to do whatever we wish since our crimes have already been paid for and thus even if there is an absolute morality there is no punishment for ignoring it. This is somewhat touched upon in 1 Corinthians 9 which essentially end up implying that we're free to do as we please but as followers of Jesus our actions should be aimed at furthering God's kingdom and that we simply wouldn't wish to do "evil". That we'd personally know what is right and wrong instead of having to fallback on society's definitions/laws/rules/etc.
- Umm I'm not too sure about being mostly unable to control what you find appealing. I think we're more than able to alter our brains either behaviorally or with drugs which can then let us influence what we consider to be beautiful. As an anecdote I've been able to behaviorally alter my own episodic memories and if that's doable changing how I perceive another's appearance seems trivial. Also I've noted an interesting observation that you get used to people's appearances and they end up looking better the more familiar you are with them. In terms of actual scientific research, we've got drugs and behavioral therapies that allow us to alter people's memories and certain drugs are known for altering one's view of what is appealing to them (at least I think that's a side effect of ecstasy and alcohol?) so altering what you find attractive seems entirely plausible.
- Excellent point about lying! I remember CGP Grey talking about what he coined "the necessary lies of civilization" on one of his podcasts (either hello internet or cortex) and the basic message was that our society has an entire list of lies that we keep telling ourselves and others and without which our society would effectively collapse. For instance, every child gets taught that "if you work hard you'll be successful" as if it's some universal truth and yet it's an absolute lie. Many who work really hard are just barely scraping by and many are successful without having to work hard. In fact I'd almost argue that hard work is a detriment to success as many of humanity's best inventions originated thanks to laziness. Yet in order to have good workers society basically needs people that believe the lie that hard work will ultimately benefit them.
I loved the video
Hey general, are you allright?
You seem like you ve been standing too close to one of my shield generators.
LOL
"Could you interact with machine in such a life-like manner that you could say it has a soul?" - My answer is no, because I don't think there's any evidence souls exist.
Morality is subjective, both situationally and culturally, not absolute. Different places value different things, and built a different set of morality around them (In the end, good is what people agreed is good, and evil is what people agreed is evil, based on those values)
The Jedi have issues with this. Even in the movies. Luke doesn't kill Palpatine, Vader does, leaving Luke's hands clean. Vader is apparently redeemed by this act of killing (because he's defending his son, sure), but Luke is narratively backed into a corner. His rejection of striking down the Emperor would be undercut by him killing the Emperor, even in self-defense, I always wonder if Vader couldn't or wouldn't kill Palpatine, what was Luke supposed to do in that situation? I also wonder the same of the Mandalorian Wars. What exactly was the Jedi Council supposed to do if Revan or someone like him didn't exist? The Jedi keep the peace, they have their code, but they also train to fight and battle, and sometimes to kill, even if they don't like it and the war was coming to them. They act like reclusive monks who train to fight but never wish to and are almost delusional in their pacifism, which is also a lie.
In a world of greys, the Jedi are ill-equipped to function, and the Sith are comically, cartoonishly evil. As much as I love Kreia as a character and do find her perspective thought provoking, in many ways her condemnation of the Jedi and Sith (and by extension the Force) really stems from treating Star Wars as a real place that people have to live in and not a fantasy world where the hero swoops in and saves everyone, and it's easy to tell what's good and what's not.
Finally, I know your vid is 3 years old, but I only found it now.
That's okay. I'm still reading comments.
The idea that people do or do not have "souls" does change some moral arguments such as respecting individual agency or if pain truly affects people or not.
Why should it? Other people's opinion doesn't change someone from being human. They're the same person they were when you believed in a soul and they're the same person now when you don't believe there's a soul. Someone's opinion is the only thing that's changed, not human rights or the part of the human brain that signals pain.
The right and wrong are totally a meter of perspective or a meter of position. But speaking about humans, about our planet, we already have a position. So we are initially an interested party.
This concept is strongly connected to life itself. There are very clear rights and wrongs for life, so I think that is a root of all this discussion. There is no right or wrong things for materia, stones, oxygen, asteroids etc. Because they don't have a will to survive, or to keep moving or anything.
Right and wrong is a simple and applied to living things idea in my opinion
17:43 Why you got to do me like this with that music.
This isn't my Kreia. My kreia believed in the code of the Jedi. This is a betrayal of who Kreia was. They had no right to do this to me. #notmykreykrey
Would you ever do a breakdown of the game SOMA? I’m not sure how you’d connect it to Kreia or your own beliefs but the concept of living with cybernetics reminded me of the idea of consciousness and what it means to be human. SOMA challenges these thoughts on the soul and morality and I felt you’d have a good perspective on it.
I've never played SOMA. But I know about it. Maybe someday.
I'm starting to dislike the light/dark dichotomy of the Force. People are plenty different in morality and ideology already without some cosmic entity butting in.
The thing is that there are some people like Kreia or Jolee Bindo who don't see in absolutes. In real world you have most of people agreeing with standart sence of morlaity and some who see it diferently.
love the series! this video kind of poses a question I've been super interested in: are Bogan and the Dark the same thing? if not, I reckon this rabbit hole has the potential to understand Revan in a much deeper way.
Thanks, man! Tell you're friends about me. As far as I know, Bogan is just the name that was associated with a certain moon of Tython. The moon was a dark side nexus.
Beauty is most definitely NOT in the eye of the beholder though.
Turning off UA-cam red to get your ads
Wow, I didn't know you could actually do that. Thanks, man!
whats hard to understand about Kreia, you're all reading to far into her cryptic words.. she wants to see the force die, becuase inherently shes a good person and realizes that balanace of the force means an always domineering light side or dark side will prevail with a diminished other rising to make "balance" . balance in the star wars universe means a constant fighting of the light side, dark side.. not one can gain more power over the other.. Krea realised this , and saw in the exhile the same wound as Darth Nihilist.. a way for the force to die. the exhile has a special power to drain the force from others/ the area she's in/ etc, her powers actually stem from the backsplash of everything shes draining at one time, her powers aren't inherently of her own. the exhile was a wound, a black hole in the force.. and krea thought true peace would come from ending both the light side and the dark side.
I think kreia knew more about both sides of the force than anyone.only revan was close and he got alot of his knowledge from her.
Revan defines Arren Kae's/Kreia' teachings. Because of Arren Kae/Kreia, Revan was what he was: powerful, both dark sided and ligh sided.
Arren Kae/Kreia/Darth Traya deserves more credit, keeping in my that Revan is one of the most powerful characters in the Old Republic era. Revan is the result of Kreia's teachings.
P. S. : Yes, I really believe Kreia is, in fact, Arren Kae. Her true name is Arren Kae. She first became Darth Traya, after falling to the Dark Side on Malachor towards the end of the Mandalorian Wars, then she took the name of Kreia, after being betrayed by Darth Sion and Darth Nihilus. Kreia was just a simple name she took in order for her to mask her true identity.
2:00 wow, I didn’t expect a series of ASMR comments about how beautiful (or ugly, lol) I am. Very nice. Except for the Wookie bits. Wookies don’t do ASMR it seems.
Also, I think some people tend to make WAY more of Kreia than there is. This isn't a popular opinion, but Kreia always seemed to me to be a vapid person who uses overwrought vagueness to cover up the fact that she's nowhere near the pillar of philosophical subjectivity she pretends to be. She uses vagueness and wordgames to cover the fact that she's as mundane and lost as everyone else. And I sometimes think some people latch on to Kreia and build her up more than she is because they think it makes them look intellectual and deep.
Just like with your morality, you can have that opinion.
No Visas Marr at all, she has something to say, too! The main thing Kreia taught the player is: "Apathy is Death!", seems to be infantile on her part. )))
I tried but Visas says: "My life for yours" no matter your alignment.
I think that how Kreia view the world is not on good and bad. It's more like what is my ideology, does what I do coincide with said ideology, and does my ideology need to be adjust.
Her ideology is more or less individualistic. People should do things develop will power to do things on their own, but the force is influence everyone so she's try to free people from its influence.
On the other hand she think that people that are in slavery is weak-willed and suppose to never get out of that position, even sometimes people just have no choice. When the exile point out that the force slave us all and by her logic we are all weak-willed and should not be allow to be free, she stop and reconsider position.
And this is something that I think we all should consider its merit because 1) it's less abstract than good and bad 2) given that it's more concrete, if us or someone else is wrong it will be easier to make a corrections or reconsider our value.
There is one more opinion about light/dark.
Human beings, fears predators. Its natural. And some features in human can also cause us fear. Some people with psychopathy, not necessarily being bad. They mind works differently. And even when rhey act normally, some people could feel fear.
Light side throug these point of view makes you some kind of harmless, pleasant, because you Can't do any harm.
Dark side makes you predator. Even if not interested in such things, you can do harm. Its makes people project they own fears, as uglines of a predator
P.S.
Wild idea. If the Force have its will, maybe force colorized force sensitive for other.
Sith, are refuse will of the force. So the force kind of curse them, for refusing to obey. By manipulating perception of sapient beings.
Objective and subjective morality are a false binary. Correct morality exists. Beauty is synonymous with health, and beauty equals desire, thus, health is desirable. But health does not just apply to the physical body, the mind must also be healthy, and I judge health objectively but also judge it on how well equipped it is for reality, physically and mentally. But as a human I must refine my views to include the personality just as my would-be partner would. Because reality has added an extra layer of challenge - compatibility.
Morality is not objective nor subjective, but it applies and benefits both the individual and collective if you understand the foundation of all life; survival. When we use survival - our innate motivations beyond the individual - then we have discovered correct morality, maybe not for alien species, but for humans absolutely. As a thinking individualist species, we have a greater responsibility and difficulty because morality requires one to think, to know and be aware of their nature to understand and quantify it in such a way that we know ‘good’ from ‘bad’ as reality has demanded of us. Morality is linear, it flows like water in many directions, water gives life but can also be poisoned and also sweetened.
It requires that one can filter and see through multiple lenses like logic, truth and critical thinking. Does your subjectivity conform to reality? Do you see the repercussions of said action taken to survive? What is the best possible action for you to take? Being moral is difficult because it requires effort to understand it and enact it properly.
I love how everyone comments on your face being ugly cuz of the DS but they are all the same.
@18:32 : the victor writes history
Recently a heard a different quote. "History is written by anyone who cares to write it down."
@@PapitoQinn I like that one, and we can write down the truth of history but the conquers and rulers can always try to suppress and erase anything they don't want to remain in recorded history.
@@lorenzoalistaire3257 "Try"
Is the music from final fantasy 12? Sounds so familiar
No. I added all the songs in order of appearance in the description.
@@PapitoQinn Cool, it sounds so similar.
Is morality and infantile delusion?
Yes, if you're human-centric. Meaning you believe that only humans have souls, and you think everything revolves around only human choices. If you do, you delude yourself in thinking you have morality to begin with.
With all due respect. It could be wrong to lie and steal depending on the circumstance. But there are circumstances where people lie and steal for reasons that are not of morality, especially if they have no other choice. For example, surviving like taking food or perhaps the need equipment in order to enhance their quality of life. We think its wrong because society has instilled this ideal upon us. Its a power structure in a way. But taken to the extreme can lead to deadly consequences due to the authorities. "Any virtue taken to the extreme becomes a vice." johnathan Haidt.
can you please tell me what the background music is
Sorry about that. I added the information in the description box now. Thanks for reminding me.
@@PapitoQinn cool
Read the book: The fundamentals of Esoteric Knowledge by Jean Dubuis.
It will help you understand why all media pushes the idea that there is no right and wrong.
Big Boi Cleric
I have noticed this for years. I studied metaethics where the question of right and wrong is seriously discussed. The idea that right and wrong exists, the arguments for it are not discussed. We are only hear presented with the idea that good and bad do not exist. Regardless of which side of the debate is correct, the public only hears one side which is a terrible bias.
@Language and Programming Channel Money is an illusion and a tool of control. Its not the real currency of this world. The real currency is attention, and while the masses waste theirs on distractions, the "elites" further enslave them.
The biggest mistake in the entire Star Wars universe would be... not having Kotor 1, 2 and 3 movies. Why? Because all of the Star Wars fans out there should know how dark the Old Republic era was, how thousands of Jedi fought thousands of Sith, how the Dark Side corrupted so many Jedi and Republic soldiers, how they became Dark Jedi/Sith assassins, Sith soldiers ect. The Jedi and Sith philosophies would be great themes to be expressed in movies. All of us would realize how Sith philosophy reflects Nietzsche's concepts of the Ubermensch and of ''Beyond good and evil there is power''. And Kreia/Arren Kae/Darth Traya... a powerful character in the whole Star Wars universe (even more interesting than Anakin, Luke and Palpatine, I would say).
Sorry, but I'm really frustrated with the Kotor games not becoming movies in cinema. These Kotor games have one of the most powerful stories and philosophies ever told in history. It's mature, it's dark; it's not childish and cartoonish how the original Star Wars movies were (during the end of the 70s and early 80s). They wouldn't be movies for young children. The movies would be fucking dark, addictive, with powerful and dramatic atmosphere, which would reflect alot of the real world battle between good and evil, light and dark and how choices and actions affect one's connection to the Force and stuff like that.
Enough of the Skywalker saga. We all know what happened. Anakin turned to Dark Vader, his son redeemed him in the end, Vader died, Darth Sidious/the Emperor died, then somehow revives, then he dies again after fighting a female Jedi padawan named Rey (Daisy did a really great job). But now it is over. Now we really need some movies about the Old Republic era, those dark ages when there were thousands of Sith, where dark side teachings and philosophies were spreading across the galaxy. This would be the absolutely great, outstanding.
But they won't make them. They can't for all the reasons you just mentioned. At the end of the day it is a business. Even if they do manage to compress it all into a film and have it be as deep as the games, I don't think they'll be able to make any money off them. Like I always say, they can't have people walking out of the movie theater going: "What just happened? Apathy is what? Where am I?" Critics will probably just call it pretentious and your average movie goer is gonna fall into a coma.
You can have a belief in some things being universally "Right" and universally "Wrong" without ascribing such to a religion.
Sure, you can absolutely have such a belief without religion. You'd still be wrong though.
@@PapitoQinn Um. No. Things can be universal without a religion. I don't see how you can say that's wrong. I think you're pretentious and full of yourself. The fact that you have a somewhat successful UA-cam channel doesn't really mean anything. You're about as intellectual and deep thinking as a college kid in his first year of basic philosophy.
@@johnroscoe2406 Woah, what's with the sudden hostility? I disagree with you. It's impossible for there to be any kind of universal morality. People disagree on what's good and bad, it's not science where you can calculate trajectory, speed, weight, and what have you. It's all opinion. You can't scientifically determine what is right and wrong and frankly, I'm not sure it'd be beneficial if we could. We're only human and every time we've tried doing that, a couple of million people end up dead.
This is not to be confused with Moral Relativism as ultimately morality is very complex. Point being, there are many things in this world that everyone would generally agree are evil. Rape being one of them. Just as there are universally accepted codes for body language and non verbal cues, there are things that are universally accepted as evil. Which then leads to the origin of what we call morals, of right and wrong. If we humans recognize that right and wrong are too abstract to fully comprehend, but k ow that they exist, then they must have e come from somewhere. The only logical explanation there would be something outside of ourselves as humans are inherently flawed, thus some higher being must have created the concept of good and evil. This logical line of reasoning is known as the Moral Lawgiver Argument.
Additionally, if all morality is relative, then morality would no longer matter because there is nothing to measure yourself against, no rules to determine what is good or bad. Moral Relativism is ultimately just a way for people to justify doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want. When your morals change from moment to moment because what is right for you is not right for me, they lose all of their weight. It's the same reason we have rules in sports and games, they define the structure of the activity or world and help us understand our place in it.
There is a huge difference ce between moral relativity and grey morality. Grey morality recognizes that sometimes doing a "wrong" thing can be beneficial for another person and get them where they need to be. Disciplining children could be argued to be part of this. Or cutting ties with another person because they are toxic and they need to grow up and the only way they will do that is if they can no longer rely on you (personal experience here). Sometimes the right thing to do is not always blatantly obvious and can be rather hard to see, thus a lot of it is grey
The force must die.
I don’t actually think hydrogen does exist in the same way if we aren’t here to perceive them. For example, physicists know that photons from stars choose their destination the moment they leave the star. When you look up at the star, that photon was heading for your eyes for 20 million years, and in a sense knew that’s where it was going for that long. If your eyes weren’t going to be there to see it, the photons wouldn’t have chosen them as a destination. How that can be is not clear currently, but seems to imply a lot about our perceptions ability to bring being into reality
The interesting thing about that is Kreia wishes people to be balanced individuals in the way of the actual self, not in the way of balancing The Force itself.
If you surrendered yourself to the whim of the Force, you become withdrawn from human affairs, emotions, and intelligence. You are losing a part of yourself.
Likewise, if you try to use the Force for completely selfish reasons without accounting for anything but yourself, you become a destructive beacon of chaos. Thus you are an agent of destruction that leaves nothing for anyone and you end up crumbling to dust on your own.
If you do what is the most advantageous for yourself without letting yourself become too sympathetic or too malicious in your actions, you not only gain options but also obtain something the Jedi and the Sith leave behind in their wake: Your Humanity.
It’s interesting how a lot of the time the “right” thing to do will net you dark side points like for example if you help that guy being threatened by those exchange thugs on nar shaddaa most of the options from what I remember at least been a while since I played the game need to go back and play give you dark side points I mean using the force to make them jump over the side is pretty dam evil but justified and stepping in and fighting them off to me isn’t worthy of dark side points yes it’s violent probably unnecessarily so but your doing so in the defence of another if I did that in the real world I likely wouldn’t get in much trouble of course in reality u wouldn’t need to go as far as killing them but that’s not realy the point often what is morally “right” is at odds with what the force and the people touched by it see as right realy in my opinion you’d be right for getting those men to leave the guy alone regardless of how you did it apart from making them jump to their deaths any way but then that gets me thinking why do I think like that considering I’d have no problem with killing them my self so they don’t hurt the guy and also I believe Kreia to be right here as well by helping him iv just given him this idea that someone will always be there to help him and that he should just let people do what they want cause someone gonna come and save him but at the same time if I didn’t help him those thugs would likely have killed him it’s a tough one if you see someone trying to harm someone else and do nothing are you not then as bad as the guy doing the harm? I hate morality its 100% necessary but a lot of the time dose more harm then good regardless of what choice you make
The one we need to fear most is the man who knows the tight thing to do and actively not to do it. If you see something bad about to happen, and do nothing to stop it, you are complicit. Doing nothing is the same as actively participating, I believe even says as much if you choose to leave the guy alone and do nothing
having values requires someone to be able to hold values. the most common values are therefore those, tgat did not end the value holder. therefore most lifeforms instinctively value things that keep them and things they care for (like reproductive partners and offspring because otherwise the holder of value wouldn't exist, because without the reproductive instinct the current holder would not exist).
this also clarifies the standard of beauty, because beauty often is often ascribed to symetry, functionality, consistency and similar attributes that describes a functional gene code in living beings, creating functional potential mates.
the atribute of beauty is overinclusive, because missing a potental partner is reproductively worse than trying to hump a tree.
assuming souls in entities is also an evolutionary benefitial aspect for intelligent entities, as it creates a barrier to violence due to mirror neurons. this allows for mutualy benifitial relationships.
the overinclusivity factor is actice in this category too.
this whole thing does not make certain values universaly true, but universaly needed for the concept of values to exist by requiring value holders and therefore life.
the question is then: why should a value holder be valuable?
this can be answered with the same basis, that values can only exist if value holders exist. in addition, the process of a flow equilibrium defying entropy called life is rarer than non life and the emergent property of this process to recognize itself and the whole universe, conciousness, is a curious thing.
these are weak arguments for life, but they are still stronger than the "entropy is all there should be" like arguments of anti- life enthusiasts.
their own existence defies there goal and defies the belief that non existance and non caring is preferable, because they care to destroy others and prolong their existance to do so.
Fantastic video old sport but I have one problem:
*WHY MUST YOU DRAMATIZE ME WITH THE MANAAN MUSIC?!?!?*
Because you're worth it.
"Good? Evil? Why do we care for such nonsense?"
-- Illaoi
Morality one way or the other is a naturally occurring thing, lest we never would have conceived of it. Even if it's only human beings who can do so, we're still animals. We're still a product of nature. Our brains conceive of these things because our brains evolved (a natural process) to the point that they could do so. We may have "created" morality, but that's not an argument that morality is ultimately a false construct. Natural evolution created a brain that can create the concept of morality. Where it *does* become arguably arbitrary is in our interpretation of such post-facto. And even supposed interpretations of such can be argued to have natural foundations: many things that the majority accept as "bad" are "bad" because they threaten the security and integrity of the community, and humans are communal animals, and a threat to the human community whether on a small scale or large scale is a threat to the individual human animal, and by extension, the human race.
The argument isn't that morality doesn't exist. Of course it does. But it only exists within your mind and nowhere else. It is nothing but opinion, and in society there are opinions that the majority agree with. Emphasis on "majority". It's important for people to understand how much of our thoughts and beliefs are subjective. If we can do that then perhaps we'd be a few steps closer to understanding each other.
@@PapitoQinn There is no distinction between "in our mind" and "nowhere else." It's in our mind because it's a natural thing, therefore it exists in principle whether we put words to it or not.
@@johnroscoe2406 Of course there's a distinction. If your mind ceases to exist, for example if I kill you, all your morality goes away. Once human beings inevitably cause our own extinction, our ideas of morality wouldn't continue to exist, how could they? They live within our minds. Unless you're suggesting there is some sort of cosmic being that regulates it.
It's Porn Dialoge.. But PG.
The Beginning there..
Basically, all relative 🤭
Not exactly. Morality is very complex, but it's not relative. Point being, there are many things in this world that everyone would generally agree are evil. Rape being one of them. Just as there are universally accepted codes for body language and non verbal cues, there are things that are universally accepted as evil. Which then leads to the origin of what we call morals, of right and wrong. If we humans recognize that right and wrong are too abstract to fully comprehend, but k ow that they exist, then they must have e come from somewhere. The only logical explanation there would be something outside of ourselves as humans are inherently flawed, thus some higher being must have created the concept of good and evil. This logical line of reasoning is known as the Moral Lawgiver Argument.
Additionally, if all morality is relative, then morality would no longer matter because there is nothing to measure yourself against, no rules to determine what is good or bad. Moral Relativism is ultimately just a way for people to justify doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want. It's the same reason we have rules in sports and games, they define the structure of the activity or world and help us understand our place in it.
@@golfer435 You get the morality you can afford!
I treat no one badly, I treat everyone accordingly! 😈
@@richardscathouse But if it's all relative then the concept of good and evil have no true definition, which would then mean that there is no way to define your morals as morality is I inherently ties to the concepts of good and evil.
@@golfer435 You define your morals by treating as you would be treated, fifty years has thought me yes, everything is relative!
There is no universal good or evil! Everyone is the hero of their own story!
I treat no one badly! I treat everyone appropriately 😈
That we should do whatever we want or what we think is right, makes for an AWFUL social ideology.
A society full of people who never can come to an agreement is what we would have.
@Language and Programming Channel exactly.
Is it better to all agree on everything? How do we advance unless someone disagrees and one or the other tries to prove it? This 'conflict' is what drives our evolution, without it, we would stagnate, and likely still live in caves and hunt for food that we eat raw.
Do none of them have a mirror? They all look just as bad.
So everyone does realize she is Darth Traya a Sith Lord and at the end she admits she used the exile to destroy the Jedi, destroy her betrayers, and that she doesn’t want the exiles mercy but for the exile to kill her or be killed by her right? She is manipulating the character the whole time
Yeah, unfortunately KOTOR II is probably the few times you really try and flesh out "the Force" beyond a simple morality system, and even then, the game mechanics usually don't have much nuance to them. Unfortunately, without a fixed source of what the Force is supposed to be, varying authors will give you different abilities and the associated morality with them. By and large though, the light/dark system is pretty much a black and white morality system in its portrayal though.
Some have said that this game is trying to teach you to stop worrying about the light/dark scale.
Natural Law is what governs human behavior
It is the Law of the universe like gravity it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not, it's in operation. Study natural law and live by it. You'll thank me later.
@Language and Programming Channel no I'm sorry you're mistaken. And you will continue to suffer until you understand it and live in accordance with it.
Just like you don't jump off a cliff and expect to live.
Don't treat others like shit and expect your life to be butterflies and flowers.
You completely ignore a fundamental point about the substance of this discussion. First off you make the assumption that morality is the result of human abstraction, completely disregarding the possibility of either an external force or natural force that defines it. (which a lot of anti-religious people, [specifically modernist ones] including Nietzsche, actually believed the latter was likely) That aside the Star Wars has that external force that defines its morality, the Force's will outright determines moral and immoral actions in Star Wars. To the Force, both the Sith and Jedi were immoral institutions, however it held Luke's New Jedi Order as proper, it does much the same during KOTOR 2. While Kreia asks good questions and makes a lot of decent judgements, her character was designed from the perspective of a hatred to the Force, she explicitly states that she hates that the Force can will the galaxy and that's just how it is. She only poses these questions logically to convince the PC to agree with her, that's her agenda, she has no goal beyond destruction of the Force and that's why her beliefs are so reckless. (and the only reason she cares about the PC is because the PC is the only manner in which she can destroy the Force) The reason the narrative was made that way was because the lead writer actually hated the Force and wanted to find a way to contradict it. Honestly I don't see that perspective anymore valid then a radical fundamental. (for in truth that's all she represents)
Well said.
L.Side appearance - You balance your body to be healthy and therefore beautiful
D.Side appearance - You focus on more power and some of your body function do not work properly
Dark Side is easy way to power but without restraint you pay high price. Danger of being too focused on Light side is shown in Jedi masters . They are high above everything. Just observing without taking any action that would be in any way not up to Jedi code. They stay where is safe for them and never take action that would put them at real risk.
Sorry hate to be that guy by what sort of cheats are you using to give yourself impossible stats at level 28? 17+9
Just the ones built into the game.
I think it's bullXXXX that you could be punished for the actions of your community. Seems like a real dark side move on UA-cam's part. There are some black and white topics out there, but I'm not going to say that things like killing, theft, charity, and even mercy always have only positive or only negative consequences. What if you kill in self defense? Or what if you trust the wrong person? That's not to say Kreia is always correct. There are things even she does not know. Even she didnt't know Vrook was still alive.
"And now the sides are as I had thought them to be; there are no more unknowns."
6:44
Technically you did help that man, but your intention was not only helping him but also to punish those who blackmailed him.
Morality has 2 layers, the external and the internal. If your morality is only outwardly good, but internally you're selfish, you end up like the annoying moralizing christians who only care about their image. They virtue signal about how good and moral they are, but on the inside they are vain and egocentric. The same time, you can have bad moral results with good intentions. But these are exceptional cases. Most of the time, your external morality corresponds to your internal morality (The external flows from the internal).
Another thing to consider is that the idea of Balance confuses people and make them think that evil is part of the balance, when in fact that is not the case. To include evil in the balance is like saying that HIV is an integral part of a healthy body. It is the greatest trick that evil played on humanity. To pretend that it is part of the balance and that it belongs there.
In truth, the Balance itself is the Light Side. Anything that causes the upsetting of the balance is the Dark side.
In fact you could say that imbalance is the Dark side.
Spoken like a true pawn of the Jedi :D and while I generally agree with you there are moments when you doing seemingly "evil" or "dark side" things can result in an overall better outcome. This is effectively one of Kreia's primary messages. That sometimes a clenched fist can hurt less than an open one even though not giving money to a beggar can be seen as cold or bad while doing so when you clearly have the means would be considered good. Thus I'd argue balance is achieved when you use actions that on their own may be considered either good or evil for an ultimately greater good.
@@beskamir5977 What you say is not at all contradictory with what I described in my post. Look at the distinction of internal and external morality. Your internal morality (intention) matters a lot.