Of Final Fantasy and Philosophy

There is such a book, you know. I saw it in Borders Midvalley the last time I was there, but I had my hands full of books and my wallet just couldn't hold the weight. But nonetheless, I did notice over the years that two of my interests actually do go together sometimes.

Now, fans of the series would probably know that the storyline for any of the game are pretty good. I personally have played and completed Final Fantasy 2,3,4,7,9,Tactics. I couldn't finish 8 because I found it boring, and couldn't finish 10 because it was too complicated for the little time I had to play it. So I'm playing 13 now.

Thus far, one recurring theme in Final Fantasy is that of crystals. I must say, the creators have some fascination with crystals. They have been in every Final Fantasy that I have played, and there is a Final Fantasy Crystal or something.

Never mind that, the role of crystals in FF varies. Sometimes, as in FF3, it assumes the role of something like a God. Other times, it is a form of power-giver, as in FF7. The balancing act comes in most of the time, with Light and Darkness being the two components that must be balanced. And of course, the protagonists are always born in times of darkness, and must balance out with the power of light.

So what does all these have to do with philosophy? I shall take Final Fantasy 7 as my base, since I am most familiar with it (hope I am not wrong anywhere).

Thus far, the ideas behind the universe of FF7 is, in my opinion, the best developed. The world of 7 is that there is a planet, and the planet itself is alive, proven by the presence of the 'Lifestream'. What is the Lifestream? It is an immaterial river, flowing with energy that gives life to materials i.e. bringing living objects from the soil etc. When a living being dies, it returns to the lifestream and rejoins the 'One', which is sort of like a river.

The story in a nutshell, goes along the tones of an alien being and a nutcase who wants to control the planet, to further their own ambition. The protagonist fights of course, and is helped by the Lifestream when things get really thorny (yes, the antagonist brought an entire Meteor down on the planet. Thorny indeed).

The whole idea behind the Lifestream is interesting in itself. It is not unique, indeed we have the carbon cycle in our high school text book that speaks of such cycles; the difference being that it points to carbon rather than life. But since carbon is so intimately connected to life as we know it, it serves as a pretty good analogy.

And besides, anyone heard of reincarnation? No, not resurrection, reincarnation. That is, returning as a living being the next life round. The Lifestream resembles such a philosophy, of life after death; without even necessarily being the same life. I think this is a Buddhist belief, might be Hindu as well (I'm not sure, with cultural and influences being exchanged all the time). And Nietzsche himself believed in recurrence, where life is a loop.

Now, I'm playing FF13 and less than a quarter-way through, and already I'm feeling that the undertones of the story is vastly different from its predecessors. Why do I say so? For starters, the story itself began halfway, with flashbacks to explain how shit happened in the beginning. Which was confusing initially because I forgot to turn on subtitles and they were throwing fantastic jargons. So despite them speaking English, I couldn't understand shit. That has been fixed however, I think I got the general idea now. But I haven't finished the game as of yet so I can't say I understand the whole story. But from what little I've thought about it, the current FF deals more with... hmm.. how should I put it?

I wonder if God politics work. But anyway, some form of higher beings are at work, and the humans are running along listening to what they are saying. 'Our world is better, the other world is filthy'. Sounds like some elements of psychological warfare, and indeed the characters themselves question over and over again about what are they supposed to do.

Some parts are cliche'd, but overall despite the sometimes annoying dubs, I have nothing to complain about the game - yet (ok maybe the confusing part and the tad slow story development). And this is turning into a game review, I'll try to avoid that. And question they do, the whole exercise sounds a little like the romantic movement.

In case you do not know what the romantics are, its not necessarily about romance. Romantics like Rosseau believe that knowledge is unnecessary. What is of greatest virtue is the passion in you, the raw emotions that you possess. Tragedy and forbidden loves are celebrated, and passionate violence are glorified. Who doesn't love a story about a man seeking vengeance after his love is killed? Those are commonplace in our media nowadays (Punisher anyone? oops that is not too recent is it). And seeing it applied subtly in FF13, I think its for drama effects. So far so good though.

One contention I have is that many heroes of stories question morality, whether killing is justified in whatever circumstances that abound. But usually throughout the story you as the character would be running around killing wild creatures, because they are monsters. Perhaps it is for gaming purposes, the training and reward regime that most games still offer. Nonetheless, it brings a funny irony where you question about killing people but you run around on a monster/wild creature killing rampage for money, experience and body parts to upgrade your weapon.

And yes, given a chance I would buy the book. I forgot who wrote it, but I remember it is not cheap.

PS: Oh right, Borders is bankrupt.

Surprise Surprise!

My my. Hasn't it been a while? I think the whole point of this blog was to eliminate these long bouts of silence Leslie and I would have in our personal blogs. The idea was that, if I was too busy to update, then he'd take over. And vice-versa.

We never thought about the dire consequences if we would both be too busy. That would leave us with 3 inactive blogs. Lots of frustrated procrastinators. And the both of us, usig Facebook as a major mean of communication. Even so, we haven't even done that in a while. Where have you been, pal?

I've been on some form of an internet hiatus these days. I have most of my days planned out. And when I'm not out and about, I'm reading Harry Potter. Even I have to admit, it has gone a little bit out of hand. I've been calling my dog "Sirius Brown". I've went all Expelliarmus on my friends twice so far. And I've been muttering "You Muggles..." at strangers.

Me reliving my childhood exploits may seem trivial at a time where my home is being plagued by political unrest. It isn't all the petty bickering that gets to me, because honestly i cannot remember a time when that hasn't been going on.

It's insane how everybody suddenly turned into political experts. With statuses about a foot long, and tactless videos every 60 seconds. I'm all for finding your oppressed voice and letting your thoughts be heard. But seriously, your thoughts? Where were your thoughts 3 weeks ago before everybody else started talking about the same issue? People who have probably never read a book in their entire life, suddenly all passionate and radical and bold.

Political changes starts with the people, i don't deny that. But what really constitutes to the people? Your entire bandwagon of Facebook friends? It takes so much more than "Liking" something online, so much more than sharing a video. This isn't about sex tapes, making fun of the Prime Minister's weight, or picking sides.

Ultimately, it is about balance. You think everything in real life falls into right and wrong, and black and white. You think people are either villains or the innocent? Every person who has a bad intention has a dark mark and call themselves something predictably sinister like Death Eater. You want to get 100,000 people to support the resignation of your Prime Minister? Then what? Are you going to take over? Are you going to make changes to your country?

It is easy to be screaming for attention and demanding equality and transparency when you're behind the safety of your laptop. But what have you done for your country?

Are you nice to toll booth workers or waiters or security guards? Do you litter and spit and stick chewing gum under desks in the stury area? Do you scream at women in your life, or give a shit about homeless people? If you can't even handle your own personal morals, why do you harp on and on about monumental revolution that you can't even begin to comprehend?

I don't have a problem with people being aware of current issues? It's great that we're not blindfolded anymore.

But sometimes they have such skewed perspectives. Ignorance is terrible. But pair it with blind passion and internet connection and it just turns into utter mayhem.

If there are any readers at all

Do realize how hard uni life is on me (and on Aimee as well, apparently). Its draining my vitals so that I cannot update.

But I have been trying very hard to learn these past few weeks. Like, really learn stuff. Not from textbooks. Not from my lecturers.

But from public lecturers. From animals (yes, they do teach you stuff if you'd just look). From prospective employers. From children with cerebral palsy.

See, throughout my intelligent side of life I have been exposed to mostly one thing, learn what I am taught. My career will be decided by my high school results, because that determines the courses I can be qualified to take, which I can have the privilege to choose.

And in university, the cycle is repeated. You are taught what is deemed to be required of you in your professional career. I don't know about Arts papers, but the view of science people here are that they are totally unemployable.

So I sat back and contemplate, on what learning really is. Is it truly just a transfer of knowledge, or is there something more going on?

I came to a conclusion which I hope is not cliched. Learning is best when you take the initiative to learn. When you feel comfortable about a learning routine, you forget the purpose of learning and you learn what is dished to you. That, in my entire time harping about education, is perhaps the first real argument I feel I have come up with.

So I tried a different approach to my own learning, since I came all the way here to learn after all. I decided to use a bit of initiative, to talk to people and to get involved. Not trying to brag, but trying to perhaps tell people who might be in a state of education limbo as I was.

And I know how cliched it gets when people tell you to just go out and try. I heard that 123614346237 times, and of people who said they have learned heaps but obviously couldn't communicate properly what they have learned.

No, I will not try to tell you what I have learned, because it is not something tangible, nor is it explicit enough in words. Rather, I will tell you what I have been up to, and hopefully you can see the path and shaping of the way of thinking that these input will have to my mind.

 (Apparently the Department of Conservation of NZ photoshop-ed the above picture, which I grabbed)

I've been involved with RSPCA Auckland, and mostly doing menial labour of cleaning the rabbit/guinea pig cages, feeding the rabbits and essentially just taking care of them. What good can this possibly do? And what can I learn? Hard to tell, but one thing is certain, it is easy to think when you're doing something physical. That's point one, and I think that might be a conditional statement. Second thing is, you meet people who have spent 11 years volunteering at RSPCA, and having children who owns 10 ponies, and devoting their entire salaries (after personal use) to caring for these animals. Yes, you meet people like that, and you only need 5 minutes of chatter to get some idea of how different people can be.

I have also recently signed up for an engineering challenge to tackle real social issues. And the issue this year is utilizing our engineering knowledge and skills that we have supposedly learned in class (which I bet are mostly useless when it comes to actual application. One thing I have learned about practical paper is that being practical is best; the paper is useless) to help improve the learning and general living for children with cerebral palsy.

The project has just started with a visit to the school for them special children, and is currently in a state of break due to looming exams for everyone. But trust me, in the 1 hour I was there, I saw real children with cerebral palsy.

You can see pictures, you can hear stuff about them; heck you could research the whole lot about them and know more about me without having ever seen one. But the point I would like to make here is, you do not understand the emotional issue behind this. Because you have not seen them. They are intelligent people, stuck in a useless body that they cannot control. And they have no speech. You might feel empathy reading about them, but until you've actually seen them you cannot truly comprehend their plight.

Which is why I think that alone is worth as much as all the time and research you can put into understanding the condition.

And in case it was not explicit enough, I was indeed trying to grow up. I believe we are capable of proper community living, which we are not doing very well currently. The locks on your door are a testament to that.

So I hope I have managed to insert a wee bit of insight into the view on education and learning, and because it involves everyone I hope everyone can form their own opinions and not be a zombie that takes whatever the system dishes out.

I figured I should at least show that I'm alive

So, according to Bertie (I'm reading 'History of Western Philosophy' by Bertrand Russell now), 300 was an actual event. Of course, Bertie probably wouldn't know of the movie 300, since he died ages ago. In it, he wrote that 300 spartan warriors, including auxillaries held off the Persian invaders until they found a way around and hit them from both sides.

And in the same book, there was this section of Socrates. Remember when we were young, and learning history, Socrates was declared by the Oracle of Delphi to be the wisest of all? Socrates insisted he was not, and set out to find one wiser than he, but in the process he could find none wise and exposed a lot of frauds. Oh he made a lot of enemies this way. In the end, he concluded, that he is wisest because he knows he knows nothing, and if this makes him the wisest among humies then God must think wisdom in us humies are non existent.

This, and that some earlier-than-that Greek philosophers have something against beans.

Its pretty interesting stuff, especially more so when Bertie writes it. Bertie inserts a lot of wit and humor in his writing, and you can't help but feel amused.

Oh, and the origin of the word 'enthusiasm' was linked to a trance like state when performing some godly ritual. Go figure.

Moderation

Apologies for the lack of update. I was busy enjoying my break, and before that busy trying to hand in the assignments in time.

Anyway, recently stuff has been...... interesting. I read an article about the brain drain issue, where people take extreme stands (such as saying people are ingrates, the country is shit etc). I have also read an article recently that says the Americans are removing the contents in their education textbooks that 'Intelligent Design' is wrong. In case you're not aware of this, the debate between 'Intelligent Design' (i.e. God created you as you are) vs the evolution theory has been raging on for ages. And they have ruled that Darwin is right, God did not create you.

Now I realize there are a lot of details left out from these two issues from that paragraph, and I'm assuming you know them.

But look, both articles I read point at the same thing. Why are we taking extreme stands everytime? In the first article about brain drain, the author wrote that why focus on people who are out of the country and no effort is made to keep people in? In our globalized world, knowledge passes around without any visible boundaries. Much less your customs boundaries. In the second article, the author (my head of department no less) argues that it is perverse to think that we are omitting God from the credits for our existence.

The main point here being, we like to think in straight lines. Our logic works like a one way street (most of the time). 1+1=2, but 2 is not necessarily from 1+1 alone.

In the first article, I fully agree with the author. Why harp about people who have decided to move, and ignore people who are still with you? In the second, why can't we believe that God created the Universe and let it progress, which subsequently led to us? In the argument for existential purpose why must be stick with 'God created us for' and 'Genes have no other purpose other than to reproduce and maintain existence'?

I'm sure we're all extremists in some fields. We just won't admit it, because we believe our logic is flawless. Well surprise, the world doesn't make sense most of the time.

And I can go on about laws of thermodynamics and stuff, but those are exciting only to me. (If it tickles you, the laws of thermodynamics are about heat and work mostly. It can be summarized as 'You can't win, you can only break even at best, and you can't get out of the game').

Why does the world not make sense? My thoughts are that its not the world. Its our perception. We are unable to make sense of the world, hence it does not appear to make sense. If it felt weird, think about it this way. Whoever created the Universe knows exactly what laws govern what and why. We don't. Why can't we ever achieve the speed of light. Why time moves in a linear fashion (or does it?).

It is exactly this stand of mine that I find people who believe they understand God to be fallacious. Particularly some bunch of terrorists who say their God demands your life.

We are primitive at best. I think most of our ways of thinking require improvement, including mine (which ironically renders what I just wrote moot)

What's Your Philosophy?

It's hard juggling two blogs. Kind of like how people have 2 wives, or lead double lives.

I've never had more than one boyfriend at any one time, so this takes a little getting used to.

It's all about time management.




But i've been spending all my free time playing futsal these days. I have time for neither blog.

So in the end i'm not unlike that hypothetical man with two wives.

Today i am going to talk about something i stumbled upon on Facebook. Because i am just so whimsical that way.



Did you know there's a little section in your Facebook profile called Philosophy? There's a column where you get to tell the world "People who inspire you," I don't know what's so philosophical about that.

Maybe it's because you have to ponder about what gives you inspiration and whatnot.

But being the curious bird that i am, i typed in random alphabets to see who are the most inspirational people on Facebook. By popularity.




That new Adam Sandler movie was hilarious. But seriously?
And All my life I've been good. But now ohhhhhhhh I'm thinking what the hell?!


What the hell!?

Plus all i can remember about Ashley Tisdale is that she did some poultry throat exercises in that monstrosity of a movie.




Lady Gaga as the first suggestion when you type L, and also when you type G.



If The Annoying Orange inspires you, you should see a doctor.





You must be kidding me. I thought that maybe someone generic like "Mom" would be one of the top inspirational people.

But i have officially lost hope for humanity.