[Game] Umineko - Spoilers, Theories, Interpretations

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Renall

What if I'm morally opposed to making my own golden truths? I've never much cared for the unpleasant implications of that.

Isn't morals basically a golden truth?

[Renall]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Isn't morals basically a golden truth?

That's going to depend in a lot of ways on how you approach the foundations of moral philosophy, what you think morality is, and how you think people come to understand and adopt it. Some people might think so, certainly.

[Cao Ni Ma]

Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura

Isn't morals basically a golden truth?

Dont think so unless there is something moral about what Rosa did in EP2 first twilight.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by Renall

That's going to depend in a lot of ways on how you approach the foundations of moral philosophy, what you think morality is, and how you think people come to understand and adopt it. Some people might think so, certainly.

Well look at it that way.

Many animals kills others in order to survive
Many humans kills others in order to survive
However For a human to kill another, is amoral

The gold I used is accepted by most people and thus is "very strong", to the point it can be stronger then the red in some case.

Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma

Dont think so unless there is something moral about what Rosa did in EP2 first twilight.

I'm not saying that gold truth = morals, the other way around.

Edit: Generally speaking isn't that what the world is tho? You can never be certain of anything but you have to accept some things as close to that or else you're just in endless doubt. The kind of red that we can gather in our world is the kind that not everyone accepts as red anyway. Religion would have a hard time existing without that. Conclusion based on "red" is also the most a human being who decides to seriously tackle on a problem can achieve. Conclusions does not exist in "red".

To go in a Umineko like logic, I'm proposing that the accident theory is the most logical conclusion that the authorities could come up with considering the "red" they managed to get.
However since the witch-hunters weren't there to investigate themselves, they'd rather trust things like the forgeries then that.

[Renall]

It's more the intent behind the Golden Truth that bothers me rather than its potential underlying rules of application. When you look at what it's generally used for it begins to take on kind of a sinister air.

[UsagiTenpura]

I think I get what you mean but that should only apply to resident of "that world".
When it concerns our relation as readers to Umineko, I do think it's Ryuukishi's goal to make us accept the "gold" we want, rather then him having to tell us "the one interpretation".

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Ironically until EP7 I was stating that on Rokkenjima Prime there was no murder and that it was just an unfortunate incident as everyone was saying.

So I'm one of the few people her who couldn't identify to any of the various goats shown in EP8.

The probem is that... I was wrong!

????? Do you refer to the tea party?
Because when I think of arc 7 and Rokkenjima prime, what comes to mind instantly is that Will said something like "who knows" concerning it. The one model detective to us.

[AuraTwilight]

The problem with making up the Gold Truth is that two times out of three it's used to speak something that is demonstrably, factually not true, and the way Will talks about it, he seems to treat Gold Truth and Illusions as effectively synonymous.

Based purely off what the text gives us, "Make your own Gold Truth" basically means "Lie to yourself." Renall and I are both morally opposed to that because it HURTS PEOPLE.

If you're walking on the train tracks and you plug your ears so that you don't hear a train coming, IT'S STILL COMING.

If a priest murders his wife and you insist that the police are wrong, it doesn't change the fact that he murdered his wife.

If your mother beats and abuses you and abandons you for weeks at a time, pretending she's possessed by a witch isn't going to change what your mother does to you.

The only way to fix a problem is to face the Truth of that problem, and the only way to deal with the past in a way that will prevent the past from reoccuring is to face the Truth of that past. The people in the world of Umineko are being taught a lesson that if you commit a mass murder, YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT and no one will blame you if you do it right. And Ryukishi is treating it as undesirable or even WRONG to even try and find out.

Those who don't learn from it will be run over by a train just like the last guy.

Those who don't cope with it give the priest a chance to murder again.

Those who don't deal with the problem of an abusive parent will continue to be abused.

Gold Truth is fucking worthless and it hurts people.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Renall

Again though, where do any of us get off in saying we have the right to withhold the truth?

I understand what you are saying, but you are forgetting that my standpoint is that there is no intrinsic value to truth. Thus, I can equally ask you: Where do we get off in revealing the truth?

It's a judgment call, to be made by those who have the power and thus the responsibility to make it.

Originally Posted by Renall

You can't patronize the whole world just because you believe that some or even most people will behave badly with the information they're given. You believe that things would be worse for Ange, or for Nanjo's son, or for any number of other people you're too short-sighted to identify. But your feelings are not reason, and your capacity to judge is not justified.

Of course it's not reason; I thought I made that clear. Your belief in the intrinsic value of truth is not reason, either.

[AuraTwilight]

I understand what you are saying, but you are forgetting that my standpoint is that there is no intrinsic value to truth. Thus, I can equally ask you: Where do we get off in revealing the truth?

Truth has the intrinsic value of being factual, regardless of anything else we can attribute to it ethically, morally, or philosophically. From there, you just have to decide when it's morally appropriate to deny the facts from people, not just CONVENIENT.

Your belief in the intrinsic value of truth is not reason, either.

Except it is. Only with Truth can you properly understand an event, good or bad, and thus deal with it properly. If one has "incomplete information" about Subject X, you can make incorrect assumptions about Subject X, and end up making decisions that are actually erroneous and thus end up harming Person Y. Only with complete information about Subject X can you prevent making an erroneous assumption.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

~size

What you call Gold, is basically what I think nearly all blue are.
Beside if you read what I've said in earlier posts you'll realize what I'm saying is pretty much what you say.
The cops said it was an accident, witch-hunters believes it was murder. Think that was Gold? Nah it was Blue. I'm not going to repeat the arguments I said concerning this tho.

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Except it is. Only with Truth can you properly understand an event, good or bad, and thus deal with it properly. If one has "incomplete information" about Subject X, you can make incorrect assumptions about Subject X, and end up making decisions that are actually erroneous and thus end up harming Person Y. Only with complete information about Subject X can you prevent making an erroneous assumption.

That's not how truth works, that seems to rely on the assumption that humans can attain god-level of truth, which is very wrong.
Even if you attain "the right truth", you need to have an objective way to double check it, which you can only do with objective truth. But since from the starting point you are not given any such objective truth to compare it with (reality is not a quiz question with the answers written on the back), truth does not have an absolute value. At least not for humans.

And there has been cases where the ones who used a proper means to seek a truth ended up having a "more wrong truth" then the ones who didn't. Religion claimed the "universe began at point x" while scientists for a while claimed the universe had no beginning. Then the big bang theory appeared and became accepted, ironically giving a point to the religious notion of beginning of the universe.

[AuraTwilight]

What you call Gold, is basically what I think nearly all blue are.
Beside if you read what I've said in earlier posts you'll realize what I'm saying is pretty much what you say.
The cops said it was an accident, witch-hunters believes it was murder. Think that was Gold? Nah it was Blue. I'm not going to repeat the arguments I said concerning this tho.

I simplified the arguments for the sake of example, but it's honestly all the same. This is magic. Everyone is alive. The chapel door was locked. These are all lies, no matter how you slice it. And these lies are propped up as the truth. That's wrong. Merely arguing that the examples I brought up are Blues doesn't change jack squat, it's a semantic argument against a moral and philosophical problem, and it's not going to get you anywhere.

That's not how truth works, that seems to rely on the assumption that humans can attain god-level of truth, which is very wrong.

That's not what the assumption is at all. The assumption is that the more facts you have, the better off you are, ultimately. Whether or not it is comfortable, the truth is ALWAYS liberating. We don't have to be omniscient, we merely have to be non-delusional.

Even if you attain "the right truth", you need to have an objective way to double check it, which you can only do with objective truth. But since from the starting point you are not given any such objective truth to compare it with (reality is not a quiz question with the answers written on the back), truth does not have an absolute value. At least not for humans.

So basically you're taking the coward's way out of solipsism. "No one can ever objectively know anything so fuck it." That's not useful to anyone, and it's definitely HARMFUL to lots of people.

[Renall]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I understand what you are saying, but you are forgetting that my standpoint is that there is no intrinsic value to truth. Thus, I can equally ask you: Where do we get off in revealing the truth?

It's a judgment call, to be made by those who have the power and thus the responsibility to make it.

I don't "get off" anywhere. The revelation of truth is the natural, default state. Information's fundamental purpose is to be distributed and comprehended. Only a special argument can be raised in favor of preventing that distribution. I am not on the side that has that burden. I don't need to demonstrate any reason why information should be made available. I have, in earlier posts, but that's just gravy.

The thing is, you're just assuming that there exist the right people to make judgment calls like this, that the people who are making the calls are those people, and that they're making the call correctly. If there exists a character in the Uminekoverse with the proper authority and intellect to make that decision, I do not believe they were given that authority. I certainly don't trust the characters who did decide to take on that role. And I don't believe they made the correct decision with respect to it. Given this, it would appear that such a system is probably unworkable. Ergo, we should publish the information, as we lack the actor, the authority, and the rationale to withhold it.

To say that anyone who happens to be in a position of responsibility, regardless of character or motivation, has the right or duty to censor information treads the path of paternalistic absolutism.

Of course it's not reason; I thought I made that clear. Your belief in the intrinsic value of truth is not reason, either.

Except that I approached it through reason, so yes it is. I admit I probably shouldn't assume that you haven't done the same, but I'm pretty jaded to it these days and tend to just assume most people do not sit down and take a rational accounting of their own moral philosophy.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

Except it is. Only with Truth can you properly understand an event, good or bad, and thus deal with it properly. If one has "incomplete information" about Subject X, you can make incorrect assumptions about Subject X, and end up making decisions that are actually erroneous and thus end up harming Person Y. Only with complete information about Subject X can you prevent making an erroneous assumption.

That's not intrinsic; that's truth's value as a tool.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

So basically you're taking the coward's way out of solipsism. "No one can ever objectively know anything so fuck it." That's not useful to anyone, and it's definitely HARMFUL to lots of people.

No that's not what Im doing at all, it wouldn't hurt if you read my previous posts.
Please do make me say things I am not saying.

I made the point about how truth works, I didn't draw any conclusions from it in the post I said and if you read my earlier ones you'd understand the conclusion I reach from it.

The conclusion that without objective absolute truth "so fuck it" is one you just made yourself from the point I did, I didn't do such a thing.

[AuraTwilight]

That's not intrinsic; that's truth's value as a tool.

It is intrinsically true that the Truth is that which is true, so the Truth has an intrinsic value of factuality. This is true regardless of HOW the truth is used as a tool.

But if you're going to be a butt, then nothing is intrinsic because the universe has no intrinsic value to anything in human experience and blah blah blah moral relativism why bother. This position isn't useful.

No that's not what Im doing at all, it wouldn't hurt if you read my previous posts.
Please do make me say things I am not saying.

I made the point about how truth works, I didn't draw any conclusions from it in the post I said and if you read my earlier ones you'd understand the conclusion I reach from it.

The conclusion that without objective absolute truth "so fuck it" is one you just made yourself from the point I did, I didn't do such a thing.

The argument you're effectively making, whether you realize it or not, is that it is objectively impossible to deduce the truth. You are using this idea to rationalize why it might be okay to withhold the truth from some people in some circumstances. An unfortunate result of this line of reasoning is that you are using solipsistic arguments to make the pursuit of knowledge worthless, whether or not that was your intentions.

EDIT:

And there has been cases where the ones who used a proper means to seek a truth ended up having a "more wrong truth" then the ones who didn't. Religion claimed the "universe began at point x" while scientists for a while claimed the universe had no beginning. Then the big bang theory appeared and became accepted, ironically giving a point to the religious notion of beginning of the universe.

The science nerd in me is speaking up. That's not how the Big Bang actually works. It's merely the beginning of the current shape of the universe via the expansion of matter and energy; The matter and energy was condensed before the Big Bang, and in this model, has ALWAYS existed; and since scientists have never claimed that the universe as we know it has ALWAYS existed, there is no contradiction here; the Big Bang was not a "Something from nothing" event, it's a gross misconception that's proliferated the collective consciousness.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

there is no intrinsic value to truth.

Knowledge.

By definition knowledge is the knowledge of what is true. If it's knowledge of false, then it's "false knowledge".

The value of truth is the same value of knowledge. And noone should despute the value of knowledge.

Knowledge is power. By depriving someone of the truth, and by extenstion the knowledge of that truth, you deprive them of power. Depriving someone of power is inherently evil unless you have a reason to think that someone is going to use that power for evil ends, or unless you're doing it to reestablish equity.

[UsagiTenpura]

Originally Posted by AuraTwilight

The argument you're effectively making, whether you realize it or not, is that it is objectively impossible to deduce the truth. You are using this idea to rationalize why it might be okay to withhold the truth from some people in some circumstances. An unfortunate result of this line of reasoning is that you are using solipsistic arguments to make the pursuit of knowledge worthless, whether or not that was your intentions.

Read my posts before drawing any conclusion you want from them, seriously this is ridiculous. It seems I'll have to re-explain them tho.

I am saying that truth is not absolute, thus this is why even tho the people who used objective means to deduce what happened on Rokkenjima concluded it was only an accident, some people still can work around it and endlessly make murder theories around it.

It's not "fuck it at all", it's accepting that there is no withheld truth, that the accident theory is what the people who don't draw into conspiracy theory nonsense concluded long ago, and that it's the most likely answer considering I have to doubt the results of the ones who has the most objective means to find "some truth".

From my view, by not accepting that you are the ones using the uncertainty of truth to make these theories.
And atop of it, you believe that there is some information that would make that debate reach an absolute conclusive truth that no one could deny or reject. Obviously, as in this is a story, Ryuukishi could do such a thing, but that wouldn't be realistic logic at all.

When cops says an accidental explosion killed a bunch of people, do you tend to doubt them? I do not, even if it's not certain, it's a lot more certain then internet gossip from the same kind of people who believe in 2012 nonsense and conspiracy theories, which is what I present the witch-hunters to be.

The science nerd in me is speaking up. That's not how the Big Bang actually works. It's merely the beginning of the current shape of the universe via the expansion of matter and energy; The matter and energy was condensed before the Big Bang, and in this model, has ALWAYS existed; and since scientists have never claimed that the universe as we know it has ALWAYS existed, there is no contradiction here; the Big Bang was not a "Something from nothing" event, it's a gross misconception that's proliferated the collective consciousness.

It's hard to listen to you when you talk about "before the big bang" as this is when time began to flow into motion. But that's not really a discussion for this board.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Wanderer

That's not intrinsic; that's truth's value as a tool.

By that logic then money has no intrinsci value either. And that's correct in a way. But who cares? If you dig down enough you'll end up realizing that nothing has an intrinsic value. So who cares about anything?

That's not an healthy approach to life. Things have the value that people attach to them. That is however nothing to belittle.

[AuraTwilight]

Read my posts before drawing any conclusion you want from them, seriously this is ridiculous. It seems I'll have to re-explain them tho.

Words have power greater than what people give them when they speak, and emergent meanings can emerge them from the arrangement of those sentences. If I misunderstood, then yes, please explain better.

I am saying that truth is not absolute, thus this is why even tho the people who used objective means to deduce what happened on Rokkenjima concluded it was only an accident, some people still can work around it and endlessly make murder theories around it.

Fallacy Number One: These people more often than not are not interested in the truth, due to how Ryukishi has decided to characterize them. Still, this is pretty distant from the problem of it being better to have MORE information than LESS. We should be able to know what Eva thought about the incident, for instance, even if she was completely wrong or totally crazy; atleast we would know that she wasn't a reliable source of information.

It's not "fuck it at all", it's accepting that there is no withheld truth, that the accident theory is what the people who don't draw into conspiracy theory nonsense concluded long ago, and that it's the most likely answer considering I have to doubt the results of the ones who has the most objective means to find "some truth".

I'm not sure what this has to do with the problem at hand (that some people are trying to morally justify the withholding of information from people).

From my view, by not accepting that you are the ones using the uncertainty of truth to make these theories.
And atop of it, you believe that there is some information that would make that debate reach an absolute conclusive truth that no one could deny or reject. Obviously, as in this is a story, Ryuukishi could do such a thing, but that wouldn't be realistic logic at all.

The part I bolded is something I've never claimed at any point, ever, not even by mild implication of my wording. Please do not accuse me of making assumptions about your points of view if you're going to do the same thing right back at me. Even if we entertain your line of reasoning, it doesn't change the fact that having MORE information CAN reduce uncertainty in MOST people. So why withhold information from ANYONE?

[cronnoponno]

Can someone sum up to me what this talk is about? It's sounding like some people are actually defending the concealment of truth because ''Your average person is too stupid to have it'' or ''Anyone who wants to learn the truth is an asshole only out to hurt the ones affected by the incident'', or something to that extent.