Quote:
Originally Posted by drobertbaker
(Post 3269181)
So then Yuki indeed committed a terrible criminal act against her people by taking that potential out of the universe. Oh and also by wiping them out of existence. But she has also solved their problem by demonstrating how they can use this power, so that any of them can do it at any time. Or do they insist on having the power personally and not being content just to use it?
|
Does it matter? Their evolution has occurred before our own and independently of our own, and their reasons and uses for further evolution shouldn't even be relevant. The problem here is Yuki. She's like a spy stealing nuclear secrets from a foreign country, only instead of relaying that information back to her superiors, she launches a bunch of ICBMs at them instead. And furthermore, the only alternative to that is no change at all, leaving everything the way it is. Out of Yuki's three options (keeping the secrets to herself, using the secrets against her people, or actually freaking doing her job), she narrows it down to the two harmful ones. That's a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobertbaker
(Post 3269181)
As I implied before, to destroy something is to create something else and to create something is to destroy something else. Shiva is both the destroyer and creator of worlds. Koizumi also has expressed his doubt in stopping Haruhi's destruction of the existing world because in reshaping things, she may be improving them. He admits that in stopping her, he is really only acting selfishly in preserving himself and his world and thus possibly preventing something better from being born.
|
I would say that Koizumi's argument invalidates itself. If a god is really rewriting the world, yes, our opinions shouldn't matter one bit. We're inferiors, and we have no right to argue against our superior. On the other hand, if it really is possible to influence that entity's decisions, then how can you call them a god? To me, omnipotence is kind of a requirement for a deity. Add to that the fact that Koizumi doesn't even understand the anthropic principle, and I'd say there are serious doubts that what he says is anywhere close to true. Sure, changes to the world might result in a better one. But you know what? They might also result in a worse one, and you'd be right for opposing those changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobertbaker
(Post 3269181)
So really, we are all constantly making this decision. Do we create change, thus annihilating the existing situation and bringing into existence something new and unknown? Or do we struggle to preserve the comfortable status quo that we are familiar with and stave off (destroy) the new that would otherwise come into being? Kyon actually had the advantage of us in that he clearly knew what the alternatives were. When we opt for change, we don't have the luxury of knowing the outcome. We DON'T understand just how monumental our decisions are.
|
Yes, we all make choices, and even the absence of action is a choice. But there's a world of difference between forcing change, especially drastic change, and letting events change the world naturally; it's the same difference between someone catching a cold and someone being intentionally injected with a virus. We might be repairing the Ship of Theseus every day, but Yuki sank it outright and built a new one. That's why it's a problem.
I agree that not all change is bad, and that resisting change can have poor results (not eating, for example). But it's BECAUSE we can't prevent change that makes the motivation behind it and the consequences that result from it so crucial. I can say Yuki was wrong for the same reasons I can say a criminal is wrong.
And I'm not blaming Kyon here; he was little more than a puppet in all of this. He was given two terrible choices and he picked the one that, to him, was best. What more can you do than that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobertbaker
(Post 3269181)
In the end, Kyon opted for the familiar. He had more fun in the old world and was frightened, bored, and alone in the new one. The selfish choice, just like we all ultimately make.
|
I would argue both that the choice wasn't necessarily selfish, and that we don't all necessarily make selfish choices either. Kyon was right to revert the world just as an engineer would be right to reroute an accidentally (or intentionally) diverted train. Sure, the train may still be intact, it may still be going the right speed, and it may still drop off its cargo at the end. But it's going to the wrong place. There was a right path for the train, and it's not on that right path.