[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Granted, but the general statement is a rebuttal to how "the truth is the only thing that matters." He's strawmaning the opposite point here.

No one said that the truth is the "only" thing that matters. Erika was just making a point of how knowing the truth is the most important thing for her. And personally I can't see anything wrong with that. People have different priorities, if one's priority is knowledge over happiness who is Battler or anyone else to judge that?
In this case we are talking about one person trying to know something not pushing the truth onto others.

That being said Battler's answer was questionable in its core in my opinion, regardless of the situation.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Erika's not TOTALLY the bad guy in EP8, but putting that aside, she also came to an understanding of Battler's and Beatrice's worldview and didn't seem to be as critical of it as she should be. Erika is right in this situation, though.

The point is that Ange has the right to choose. Even Will acknowledged that and no one's getting on his ass. WTF?

Well I'm really not sure she wasn't depicted as the bad guy in this episode. Granted that I acknowledge that she was the one in the right in that situation, that's just my opinion. In the end Erika was depicted as a ravager who destroyed the golden land and killed all of its inhabitants. This story didn't depict that as a good thing.

I can acknowledge that that Erika represents one side of Ange, and specifically her side that wants to know the truth at all costs. But that was still depicted as evil, especially in the "bad end" when that side transforms her into a cold blooded killer.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Bear in mind that this is a Battler who knows things we do not. While I see your point, we can't fully judge his actions without knowing what he's hiding. This is an issue all on it's own, but putting that aside, Battler's final game isn't like...the slightest bit believable. It was so egregiously just a show to put Ange's heart at rest that I don't think we can really accuse him of trying to DECEIVE Ange.

Yes, it was wrong of Battler to not respect Ange's decision, but this is nowhere near comparable to maliciously hiding government secrets to dupe the sheeple and shit; come on now.

You need to understand that I'm making a meta analysis here. Most stories aren't just stories, they have a message that the author tries to convey. That usually is being achieved by presenting a certain situation and by making the characters acting in a certain way.

Which brings us to the next point:

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

PS In fairness, if EP8 is being written by Ange as suspected, then Meta-Battler in this context would be the personification of the part of her that wants to believe in the golden "everyone is nice" scenario.

I acknowledge that, and I'm glad to see you also reached that conclusion, except I don't think that Ange actually wrote that, she simply thought it in my opinion.

What I don't agree with is the idea this is just some stuff a character made in a story. The themes of "learning the truth is meaningless" and of "there are things more important than the truth" are too pervasive and too much widespread. In my opinion this is a clear message from Ryuukishi, this is what he wanted to convey in the final chapter of Umineko, especially considering how in the end he creates the situation where the reader is made to choose between "truth" and "magic".

Originally Posted by haguruma

But like Aura Twilight already explained there is a big difference between political and social philosophies...you are comparing pears with apples here.

Where is the similarity between a dictator hiding terrible government secrets about weapons of massdestruction and death facilities and a brother who just wants his sister to remember the good points of her family instead of their terrible last moments.

In knowing that a dictator is hiding weapons of massdestruction and kills everyone opposing his reign there is a very positive gain, because you can give that information to the world and help overthrow that reign of terror.

In knowing that a family turned into selfcentred jerks over a bunch of gold and basically killed each other in the process because an abandoned child didn't know how to be loved and accidently opened up that chance, ending in the death or madness of everybody except a single teenage girl....what's the gain in knowing that?!

Of course people can hold different personal opinions about the second, but there is no definite GAIN in that truth.
That truth is not about gaining something useful, it's just about knowing and gaining power through that. It's like we regain some power over celebrities by depriving them of their privacy.

You don't seem to understand the fact that Battler isn't talking about a particular truth, but truths in general, I think I made a point on that, and proved it with facts.

In the world there are many things that have no use nor any worth even if you know them.

I think that more than the statement that "there are truths that you're better not knowing", this is a statement that ticks me off the most.
That kind of reasoning is absolutely worthless because it treats knowledge from a mere materialistic standpoint.

What kind of logic is that? If it doesn't provide some kind of use in your everyday life then it's worthless? It's meaningless? What kind of use playing Umineko has in my everyday life? Would my life be totally different if I didn't play it? And I could say the same for music, books, movies.

So does that mean that all of those things are worthless just because they have no practical use in my everyday life?

This kind of logic is absolutely abhorrent.