And sure, animancy can create real monsters in the game itself, but I don't really see how that changes much in terms of its representational value.
how could it not? real monsters. real souls. doesn't matter how many parallels there is to real world sciences and scientists when there is such fundamental and salient differences as we discussed already. unfortunate, previous experience tells us the inability (feigned?) to recognize how real monsters and real souls changes the basic discussion is making progress impossible.
HA! Good Fun!
I've given you the example of a real monster: the atom bomb. You'll argue that it's not a monster, it's a weapon, but it's a device designed with the deliberate intent of mass destruction and I see its use as monstrous (and it has been used before). It's real, and it's more frightening than any wicht or construct or Frankenstein's monster. But I do not use its existence to argue that the entirety of nuclear physics or technology is wrong, and so when I see animancers in the game itself using animancy positively and with the intentions of the betterment of kith, I do not assume animancy to be bad in and of itself either.
'course the a bomb is not a monster. the a-bomb were the result o' rational and predictable design. the weapon worked exact as planned. in fact, your politics aside, the one use o' the weapon in history arguable saved many lives. "we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. this might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including [between] 400,000 and 800,000 killed."-- based on estimates by nobel laureate, dr. shockley. were no science run amok resulting in soulless babies or rampaging undead. were no amok at all. has been all kinda mass killings in history. the scope o' human atrocities is not circumscribed by science. genocides, slave cullings, atrocities (great and small) occurred long before tech more complex than anything save the plow. the a-bomb itself is functional a large bomb, and resulted in fewer deaths than the firebombing o' tokyo btw. were a tool and, more important, the science behind the tool cannot result in monsters and soulless children.... save in comics and video games.
some folks will no doubt rage at the suggestion the a-bomb saved lives, but fact is there were no amok. the tool worked exact as intended and it didn't require souls to be powered... and no claims souls were destroyed in the blasts at nagasaki or hiroshima. now if the a-bomb were created by forcibly ripping the souls o' ten thousand orphans from their infant bodies and forcing 'em into some kinda alchemical device, then we would see parallels. mere creation o' the weapon, use or not, would be monstrous.
a-bomb is actual a terrible example. sure, science and animancy both result in moral questions. just because science can achieve ______ doesn't mean science should be used to create _________. same for animancy. unfortunate, one can say the same 'bout many human endeavours. law. journalism. politics, etc. the simple fact moral questions exist for both don't erase fundamental differences.
animancy is different. the fundamental question o' the morality o' using human souls to power and the capacity to create genuine monsters makes different. am suspecting you know such makes different but you don't see the differences as significant... which is baffling. is perhaps understandable as you has convinced self o' the parallel o' animancy and science, so you is willing to ignore said differences, but such embracing o' three wise monkey routine is gonna yet again prove insurmountable.
HA! Good Fun!
I'll leave the justification of Japan's bombing for another thread because as far as I've read I don't agree that it was necessary, and really it's neither here nor there; yet all the same, it is a real-world monster, it is a source of genuine fear and lends a madman with enough power the abilty to do truly monstrous deeds.
And again, the problem here is that you only see animancy as the ability to create monsters, when it isn't. The game makes it clear that it isn't, many counter-examples are provided in the game and have been provided in this thread. That you wish to only see animancy as far as this point makes me think it's you who's playing the Three Wise Monkeys game.
And again, this all ignores the fact that, in a game in which the birth of humanism, the transition into an age of Enlightenment and the clash between religion and science are all *central* themes to the story, the fact that animancy is the *only* science explored in detail throughout the game is thoroughly indicative that, as far as the game, the story and the development of these themes are all concerned, animancy is the game's stand-in for science. Whether it is responsible for creating monsters or else is really irrelevant, this is still the role it fulfills within the game.
Edited by algroth, 13 September 2017 - 10:25 AM.