Questioning Iovara

[Ben No.3]

"A question is a journey and a journey is what makes us who we are, it's true. But if one journey leads only to the next, then where might find rest?"

-Iovara

 

I am always unhappy that I can not respond to this. I really which I had the option to say something like "the rest is finding out that there is no point to the journey in the first place".

Here is my case:

Iovara implies that we find ourselves through journey. Let's not discuss that (although we could), we'll take it as given. Now, later she says the journey must lead to something, an ultimate end. She implies that an endless journey where one question only leads to another one is a senseless one, and thus we need an end that is a goal we can reach, a sense to the journey to say so.

Now, wouldn't it be wiser to accept that there truly is no end as in an ultimate goal (not as in death) to the journey? Iovara says herself we find ourselves through the journey, so isn't the journey and its self-finding itself the sense of the journey? If that is so, then the journey does not only not need a end (/goal), it actually should lead into another journey, so we can further discover ourselves rather than put an end to that process? Because, in the end, self-finding is not a sudden realisation but a slow and constant process.

[AndreaColombo]

If there's no point to the journey, why journey? Just because such is life and everyone else is doing it? Personally I wouldn't qualify either of those as a compelling reason

[Ben No.3]

If there's no point to the journey, why journey? Just because such is life and everyone else is doing it? Personally I wouldn't qualify either of those as a compelling reason

There is no "definite point" to journey, but it enhances your life. You could spend your life as a sheer mater of existing, or you could start thinking. And we all do that... To me, it seems like thinking is the only difference between survival and life. But there is no reason as in a necessity to why we should think. It's completely optional to do so, but since I do not believe in any form of afterlife, to me it seems like a waste not to.

 

But I'd love to hear different opinions. If neither seems attractive to you, what do you think?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Ben No.3

[AndreaColombo]

But I'd love to hear different opinions. If neither seems attractive to you, what do you think?

 

I want there to be a meaning to our lives, but I've failed to find it so far.

If all there is is a meaningless journey, I'm not interested; who wants to walk a thousand miles just for the sake of walking them?

[Ben No.3]

Well the alternative is to either not walk at all or stray around in pointlessness... Let me explain what I mean, I just need some time to write it down so that it is understandable I tend to think graphically... So...

Edited November 1, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

 

But I'd love to hear different opinions. If neither seems attractive to you, what do you think?

I want there to be a meaning to our lives, but I've failed to find it so far.

If all there is is a meaningless journey, I'm not interested; who wants to walk a thousand miles just for the sake of walking them?

Okay, here is how I see the matter of life, and the sense of life.

 

Try to envision your own death. What do you see? Black, maybe? Darkness? Or maybe you see your funeral? Your beloved, grieving at your coffin?

I can assure you, you do not see what will actually be the case: Your own non existance. No, not blackness. There will be no blackness. There will be nothing, because you yourself won't be. But our minds are limited. They are not capable to envision their own non-existance. So, we conclude that that simply cannot be the case. That there will be no end.

But everywhere we look, we see death. That is in great contrast to what our mind has concluded. But rather than questioning it's conclusion, it tries to combine the two. We want there to be a reason. A reason why all of this happened. Why we can not live forever. Why we live in the first place if it all has an end.

 

In our search for a meaning we create our own meanings. Most notably, we create religions. And with it, we create the idea of an afterlife. We create the idea of being chosen by a god or gods. We create the idea of having a greater purpose, a greater task, something else than sheer survival and procreation. In conclusion, we create the idea of a meaning of life.

 

And that thought stuck with us. The idea of being meant for some greater purpose is extremly encouraging. The idea of being chosen by a higher power is extremly uplifting. The idea of having a protective good we can relate to in desperate times is extremly comforting. So resenting these ideas is hard for us, especially wince we have been brought up with them.

 

But I think that happyness lies in acceptance of the fact that there is no greater purpose. That life has no meaning. That it will all end, that end is unavoidable, that there is no higher power or afterlife to reward us for what we have done in our lifetime. And while this may at first seem very decouraging, there lies beauty in senselessness and the randomness of life. Because if there is no greater meaning to everything, if our very existance is a short spike of randomness in an universe where everything must come to an end and nothing lasts forever, then that means that we have no greater meaning to pursuit in life other than that what we choose to pursuit.

 

We create our own meaning. And by doing so, by taking controll over who we are, by giving meaning to the meaningless. And I find it extremly uplifting and encouraging that who I am lies in no hands but my own. We have the ability to think. So why should we waste what little time we have following false ideas? Why not start thinking on your own?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

Thanks Andrea... you got my wheels spinning 

[JerekKruger]

Your conclusions are remarkably similar to my own Ben No.3, though you express them much more eloquently than I myself could have done.

[Ben No.3]

Your conclusions are remarkably similar to my own Ben No.3, though you express them much more eloquently than I myself could have done.

 thank you for that compliment  ...

And hello fellow mind

[algroth]

Eh... I might be treading off-topic with this but I think Iovara's the weakest part of Pillars of Eternity greatly because of what is suggested in the problem on the OP. She speaks in absolutes, and the game does everything in its power to reaffirm every word she says as universal truths (what with her martyrdom, with the way the protagonist then states that she was right, and everything is a lie, and so on). It's a shame because the game cares a lot in proposing several points of view, shades of grey and interesting observations throughout the story, only to then simplify the whole journey in one direct, unquestionable set of answers. Or so it felt to me anyhow (which is kinda painful since I have a bit of a Waelian way of thinking, so to speak).

 

Makes me all the gladder that on my reply I could reply in my memories that she came off as haughty and self-righteous. :devil:

[Ben No.3]

Maybe you can answwr her more with the philosopher BG? Don't know... never played one that far. 

 

Waelian thinking is certainly awesome

[algroth]

You can imagine which companion always stuck around in my party.

[Ben No.3]

I've always found the wael priests to be the most fun to roleplay... so many fun things to say