The following quote by Jordan Peterson on the nature of evil and evil acts struck me queer:
QuoteJordan Peterson:
And you have to think about it from an aesthetic perspective, in a sense, because it's a celebration of horror, and it's a conscious attempt to violate the conditions that make life itself tolerable, and it's aimed at dehumanization, destruction of the ideal and, at an even deeper level, revenge against the conditions of existence itself. I'm trying to understand the developmental pathway that leads to acts like that.
This sounds a lot like what the Cthulhu Mythos are, and what a game revolving around them is doing, and what Lovecraftian weird fiction in general is doing. Their premise is that Finite human confrontation with the Infinite leads to a realization of the prosaicness, chaos, amorality, and hostility of Being. The opposite of these things might be wonder, order, morality, and love, but these latter all seem to be excluded from any realistic human view of the world in the Mythos' own terms.
One might object that the Mythos, if nothing else is granted, still contain wonder (and, for the Dreamlands this might hold, as a special case), but, the wonder of the Mythos proper is always uneasily tinged with horror, which might make it a parallel to the way woe and joy coexist in the artistic category of the Sublime. It might be argued that any hypothetical wonder in the human perspective in the Mythos is always ultimately corrupted by the underlying horror, such that the corrupted but otherwise functional human personality ceases to find wonder in anything, but, rather, attends, like any wizard worth his salts, to problems of the pleasures of power.
Setting that aside, it looks as though the Mythos consumed as entertainment embodies a kind of "recreational epistemological evil" on an infinite scale. Prima facie, it glorifies and celebrates horror, engaging its consumers and participants in conscious attempts to construct mental maps of the violation of the conditions that make life tolerable while dehumanizing its characters and destroying all human ideals. Given Lovecraft's "functional dysfunctionality," the possibility arises that this scientific atheist was mythologically mapping out something like his "revenge against the conditions of existence itself."
Let's say we exonerate Lovecraft of any conscious such intentionality. If he did enact such desires in his work, they were unconscious, but no less potent for that. That many (if not yet multitudes of) people respond avidly to this color out of Lovecraft's psychic space indicates that he drilled down deep into what Peterson might call the archetypal substrate of the human imagination. We have yet to realize the full manifestation and power of such a psychic contact.
The wider appreciation the Mythos gains, the more it touches a human desire for human meaning beyond just the recreational epistemological evil, which I submit are Comedy and Tragedy. Both feel like a kind of betrayal of the Mythos' intent, even while in popular imagination they snuggle comfortably into the same boat. Do bobble-heads and plush toys insult Cthulhu as much as the "woke" insinuation increasingly surfacing in games like Call of Cthulhu? The former is like an innocent mouse traipsing on the head of a hungry python. The latter decorates the darkness with noble sentiment ("democracy," "freedom," "fairness," etc.). Both try to "tame" the Mythos by wrestling it back into a frame of human meaningfulness.
As others have observed, these gaming taming efforts water down the Mythos. They're not "hard core" no matter how fun or dynamically intricate they may be. To become a person deeply colored by the Mythos is to confront the experience of cosmic fear. To turn that into a game is to dance on the knife's edge of what has been called the "ecstasy of horror". Too far to one side and one encounters meaningless cosmic dread; too far to the other and one encounters the banal. It's there, dancing to the tunes of the celestial flutes, that the meaning of the Mythos is located.
If we want to avoid the Mythos becoming nothing but recreational epistemological evil, what this begs is a way to expand that meaning in a way that justifies mankind's existence. This would mean living in such a way that the universe is better for one's having lived, even if one lives out a tragedy, comedy, or tragi-comedy. Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them. In other words, out of the struggle for meaning, the thoughtful play tends to proceed as if the category of the Sublime were attainable.
The Finite confronting the Infinite is to realize one's profound vulnerability. This is seen most compellingly and dauntingly in the Crucifixion of Christ, the idea of the Infinite assuming that which it lacks—finitude—in order to confront itself on behalf of the vulnerable, in a Sublime manner. This is why we can apprise that the corrupted wizard has made a spiritual error, as has Cthulhu himself, for both of them remain vulnerable in the face of the Infinite that dwarfs them immeasurably.
Recognizing this plants something unspeakable at the heart of the Mythos, and, so, defines the Mythos in terms of a psychological substrate of humanity that recaptures the wonder from the jaws of the horror. Even in the face of the unendingness of the madness of the Mythos, a "higher level" persists—in the reality of the participants in the real world of which the Lovecraftian Secondary World (Tolkien) is a warped shadow—accessible to the characters therein only through an element of faith which elevates Tragedy to Sublimity.
In the end, the spell is broken. The residue of plush Elder Things and tragic color remains, alongside fond memories of a foolish foray into a fun and fruitful preternatural phantasy.
I respect Peterson, but he still pines for a return to an understanding of the world and meaning that's not coming back. Not because it's $CURRENT_YEAR, but because it isn't true and didn't work. The universe really isn't about us, and really isn't entirely comprehensible to us. Like the 19th century rationalists, Peterson seems to want a totally logical system resting atop one free miracle. But it's closer to the truth to say everything is a miracle. It's just that some of those miracles are more amenable to rational approaches than others.
The central conceits of the Cthulhu Mythos are (a) the universe does not care about us, and (b) the universe is not actually orderly and rational, at least not in any way we can understand. Or to put these two points together, the universe is not about us. It will not go out of its way to protect us or give us happy endings just because we want or need them.
This was a disturbing idea in Lovecraft's day, but less so these days. Hence the cute Cthulhu plushies: the fundamental conceit of cosmic indifference is no longer horrifying to us.
Is that indifference a form of evil? Certainly that's how Lovecraft experienced it, and how his audience experienced it at the time. And it's how the genre presents it for dramatic purposes. But I think it mostly reflects the transitional state we're in: we've lost the old certainties, the old worldviews in which God or the Universe are here for our benefit, but we haven't yet managed to fully deal with that. Whether it's celebrating or acknowledging that fact probably depends on who/what/how.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 01:58:30 AM
I respect Peterson, but he still pines for a return to an understanding of the world and meaning that's not coming back. Not because it's $CURRENT_YEAR, but because it isn't true and didn't work. The universe really isn't about us, and really isn't entirely comprehensible to us. Like the 19th century rationalists, Peterson seems to want a totally logical system resting atop one free miracle. But it's closer to the truth to say everything is a miracle. It's just that some of those miracles are more amenable to rational approaches than others.
If the universe was not all about us then can you explain why we humans are literally in the middle of the observable universe?
Its no coincidence.
>>Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them<<
Yes. The Mythos universe is meaningless, which was a horrific thought within a Christian context, and Peterson seems to find it horrific still - he does have a charmingly 1920s view of existence, an agnostic wrestling with the terrors of scientific discovery. But humans are as much a part of the universe as the Great Old Ones or the Great Race of Yith, who don't seem to suffer too much from cosmic ennui. The universe can't make humanity not care about ourselves. Existence is a struggle for existence; humans are a young species and relatively weak compared to many outsider species, but hardly helpless.
I deal with/play with these concepts a lot in my Primeval Thule campaign, where sundry Great Old Ones tend to be the main BBEGs. I mix a lot of science and pseudoscience in there with a Zoroastrian* type set up. IMC the beliefs of the terrestrial races create a kind of combined psychic shield against the alien menaces of the Outer Dark. Just as worship appears to give power to Cthulu or Hastur, the beliefs of the Serpentmen 'created' their god Set (worshipped as Set by the humans), the beliefs of the humans et al 'create' Mitra Azura et al; these psychic entities battle the parasitic infestations of the Extraterrene. Mortals see the Northern Lights as a manifestation or reflection of this great battle, conceived in religious terms as a struggle between the human gods & the demons of the Outer Dark for mastery of the Earth.
*TL;DR: Nietzsche FTW ;D
Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2022, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 01:58:30 AM
I respect Peterson, but he still pines for a return to an understanding of the world and meaning that's not coming back. Not because it's $CURRENT_YEAR, but because it isn't true and didn't work. The universe really isn't about us, and really isn't entirely comprehensible to us. Like the 19th century rationalists, Peterson seems to want a totally logical system resting atop one free miracle. But it's closer to the truth to say everything is a miracle. It's just that some of those miracles are more amenable to rational approaches than others.
If the universe was not all about us then can you explain why we humans are literally in the middle of the observable universe?
Its no coincidence.
As both a Christian and a logical man yes I can:
Wherever we found ourselves at would be the center of the observable universe, it's a POV and perspective thing. Thatis why we call it "the center of the observable universe".
Lets postulate an inteligent alien species in proxima centaury 4.246 light years away from us. For them the edge of the buble is exactly 4.246 light years closer to us in one direction and 4.246 light years farther in the opposite direction.
And this in no way negates God.
Bringing it back to gaming CoC is just a fucking game, nothing else. It's not going to bring about the end of civilization.
Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
>>Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them<<
Yes. The Mythos universe is meaningless, which was a horrific thought within a Christian context, and Peterson seems to find it horrific still - he does have a charmingly 1920s view of existence, an agnostic wrestling with the terrors of scientific discovery. But humans are as much a part of the universe as the Great Old Ones or the Great Race of Yith, who don't seem to suffer too much from cosmic ennui. The universe can't make humanity not care about ourselves. Existence is a struggle for existence; humans are a young species and relatively weak compared to many outsider species, but hardly helpless.
I deal with/play with these concepts a lot in my Primeval Thule campaign, where sundry Great Old Ones tend to be the main BBEGs. I mix a lot of science and pseudoscience in there with a Zoroastrian* type set up. IMC the beliefs of the terrestrial races create a kind of combined psychic shield against the alien menaces of the Outer Dark. Just as worship appears give power to Cthulu or Hastur, the beliefs of the Serpentmen 'created' their god Set (worshipped as Set by the humans), the beliefs of the humans et al 'create' Mitra Azura et al; these psychic entities battle the parasitic infestations of the Extraterrene. Mortals see the Northern Lights as a manifestation or reflection of this great battle, conceived in religious terms as a struggle between the human gods & the demons of the Outer Dark for mastery of the Earth.
*TL;DR: Nietzsche FTW ;D
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
Anthropocentrism is a modernist heresy in pretty much every religion that has given in to it. From the standpoint of pretty much any traditional religion out there, the universe isn't about us, it's about God or the gods, who care about us for their own reasons.
I don't see the Mythos in Peterson's quote, because Peterson is writing from a human perspective. The Mythos is simply amoral. It's something other, something beyond. The terror it instills is not the fear of a corruption of the human form or human nature, as in most traditional horrors, from vampires or werewolves to devils. Instead, it's the fear of insignificance, of irrelevance.
But that fear itself is the human reaction. So is characterizing it as dehumanizing, which makes no sense outside the human framework. So is the idea that it's a celebration of anything, or a corruption, or a violation. Because those are meaningless from the Mythos' perspective; they only have meaning from the context of humans reacting to it. It's not about revenge, any more than a human shoe rushing down toward an ant embodies revenge.
Humans may react and interpret the Mythos in that way, but that's because humans try to impose meaning on everything. But that meaning is the human lens, and means nothing from the perspective of anything outside the small scope of human experience.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:43:31 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2022, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 01:58:30 AM
I respect Peterson, but he still pines for a return to an understanding of the world and meaning that's not coming back. Not because it's $CURRENT_YEAR, but because it isn't true and didn't work. The universe really isn't about us, and really isn't entirely comprehensible to us. Like the 19th century rationalists, Peterson seems to want a totally logical system resting atop one free miracle. But it's closer to the truth to say everything is a miracle. It's just that some of those miracles are more amenable to rational approaches than others.
If the universe was not all about us then can you explain why we humans are literally in the middle of the observable universe?
Its no coincidence.
As both a Christian and a logical man yes I can:
Wherever we found ourselves at would be the center of the observable universe, it's a POV and perspective thing. Thatis why we call it "the center of the observable universe".
Lets postulate an inteligent alien species in proxima centaury 4.246 light years away from us. For them the edge of the buble is exactly 4.246 light years closer to us in one direction and 4.246 light years farther in the opposite direction.
And this in no way negates God.
Bringing it back to gaming CoC is just a fucking game, nothing else. It's not going to bring about the end of civilization.
The existance of any other intelligent species just proves our superiority as they are 4.246 light years away from the center of the observable universe and therefore that much less important.
Lovecraft is just mirroring the reality of our own unpalatable facts.
There is no god.
We are not important.
The universe doesn't care if we exist or not (and it wouldn't matter if we were annihilated).
Most humans are selfish or just evil.
If this segues into another 'RPGs lead people into satanism' line of bullshit, someone is getting punched in the throat.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
This is the terrible paradox that atheists like me must contend with - HPL thought of it as comforting falsehoods, IMC I reframe it as a kind of psychic planetary defence shield within a weak Jungian version of the Gaia Hypothesis... our gods, our morality, are not literally 'true', but without them we have no defence against the Outer Dark. The God Emperor of WH40K is not literally a god, but belief in his divinity is still Man's best defence against the creatures of the Warp. Who represent existential nihilism and despair just as does Nyarlathotep, or madness as does Hastur.
The people who know The Truth are not only ineffectual as defenders of Humanity, they can be positively dangerous to Humanity. The ignorant, devoted Priest of Mithra is a far better defender of the Earth & Mankind than the Atlantean Scholar who has uncovered the real truths of existence.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:43:31 AM
Bringing it back to gaming CoC is just a fucking game, nothing else. It's not going to bring about the end of civilization.
I'm a Peterson fan and an atheist, and his talks have given me a new perspective on God and appreciation of religion.
But CoC, to me, is as "evil" as something like Friday the 13th. It's a book. I don't think it's evil any more than a world full of monsters and demons makes D&D a gateway to devil worship.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
>>Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them<<
Yes. The Mythos universe is meaningless, which was a horrific thought within a Christian context, and Peterson seems to find it horrific still - he does have a charmingly 1920s view of existence, an agnostic wrestling with the terrors of scientific discovery. But humans are as much a part of the universe as the Great Old Ones or the Great Race of Yith, who don't seem to suffer too much from cosmic ennui. The universe can't make humanity not care about ourselves. Existence is a struggle for existence; humans are a young species and relatively weak compared to many outsider species, but hardly helpless.
I deal with/play with these concepts a lot in my Primeval Thule campaign, where sundry Great Old Ones tend to be the main BBEGs. I mix a lot of science and pseudoscience in there with a Zoroastrian* type set up. IMC the beliefs of the terrestrial races create a kind of combined psychic shield against the alien menaces of the Outer Dark. Just as worship appears give power to Cthulu or Hastur, the beliefs of the Serpentmen 'created' their god Set (worshipped as Set by the humans), the beliefs of the humans et al 'create' Mitra Azura et al; these psychic entities battle the parasitic infestations of the Extraterrene. Mortals see the Northern Lights as a manifestation or reflection of this great battle, conceived in religious terms as a struggle between the human gods & the demons of the Outer Dark for mastery of the Earth.
*TL;DR: Nietzsche FTW ;D
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
Not so much.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/december/southern-baptist-critical-race-theory-debate-crt-seminary-s.html
Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
>>Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them<<
Yes. The Mythos universe is meaningless, which was a horrific thought within a Christian context, and Peterson seems to find it horrific still - he does have a charmingly 1920s view of existence, an agnostic wrestling with the terrors of scientific discovery. But humans are as much a part of the universe as the Great Old Ones or the Great Race of Yith, who don't seem to suffer too much from cosmic ennui. The universe can't make humanity not care about ourselves. Existence is a struggle for existence; humans are a young species and relatively weak compared to many outsider species, but hardly helpless.
I like it. All the other independent races had to start somewhere, didn't they? It's just that the process of fighting and winning a "war of independence"--which might be an endless war--seems to involve a transvaluation of all values such that the men of the future might possess a necessary ethic of that future which pre-independence humans would find cold, ruthless, and reprehensible. What becomes of agape in such a future?
QuoteI deal with/play with these concepts a lot in my Primeval Thule campaign, where sundry Great Old Ones tend to be the main BBEGs. I mix a lot of science and pseudoscience in there with a Zoroastrian* type set up. IMC the beliefs of the terrestrial races create a kind of combined psychic shield against the alien menaces of the Outer Dark. Just as worship appears to give power to Cthulu or Hastur, the beliefs of the Serpentmen 'created' their god Set (worshipped as Set by the humans), the beliefs of the humans et al 'create' Mitra Azura et al; these psychic entities battle the parasitic infestations of the Extraterrene. Mortals see the Northern Lights as a manifestation or reflection of this great battle, conceived in religious terms as a struggle between the human gods & the demons of the Outer Dark for mastery of the Earth.
*TL;DR: Nietzsche FTW ;D
A word for your concept is egregore (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/egregore)
Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2022, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 01:58:30 AM
I respect Peterson, but he still pines for a return to an understanding of the world and meaning that's not coming back. Not because it's $CURRENT_YEAR, but because it isn't true and didn't work. The universe really isn't about us, and really isn't entirely comprehensible to us. Like the 19th century rationalists, Peterson seems to want a totally logical system resting atop one free miracle. But it's closer to the truth to say everything is a miracle. It's just that some of those miracles are more amenable to rational approaches than others.
If the universe was not all about us then can you explain why we humans are literally in the middle of the observable universe?
Its no coincidence.
Nope, you got me on that one. I've seen the error of my ways.
Clearly we're the most important beings in existence. How else can you explain the facts that:
* Only we see out of our own eyeballs?
* Only we think with our brains?
* Only we inhabit our bodies?
* That the above are all logically necessary statements?
Please forgive my earlier ignorance.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 24, 2022, 07:54:05 AM
If this segues into another 'RPGs lead people into satanism' line of bullshit, someone is getting punched in the throat.
No, but the OSR does lead people to Satanis.
I'm not going to say it's fundamentally evil, but the Lovecraftian conviction of the irrationality and Godlessness of the universe are why I've always been somewhat cool to Yog-Sothery as more than an occasional spice to a game, and I am thoroughly sick of the general hobby's need to "Lovecraftize" everything. I think the breaking point for me was a thread on TBP a couple years back where they tried to do "Lovecraftian Tolkien" by shoehorning Middle-Earth into a Mythos cosmology.
Or as I've often said, "I enjoy and admire the imaginative furniture, but I deplore the intellectual architecture of Lovecraft's work."
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 24, 2022, 10:19:45 AM
Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
>>Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them<<
Yes. The Mythos universe is meaningless, which was a horrific thought within a Christian context, and Peterson seems to find it horrific still - he does have a charmingly 1920s view of existence, an agnostic wrestling with the terrors of scientific discovery. But humans are as much a part of the universe as the Great Old Ones or the Great Race of Yith, who don't seem to suffer too much from cosmic ennui. The universe can't make humanity not care about ourselves. Existence is a struggle for existence; humans are a young species and relatively weak compared to many outsider species, but hardly helpless.
I like it. All the other independent races had to start somewhere, didn't they? It's just that the process of fighting and winning a "war of independence"--which might be an endless war--seems to involve a transvaluation of all values such that the men of the future might possess a necessary ethic of that future which pre-independence humans would find cold, ruthless, and reprehensible. What becomes of agape in such a future?
QuoteI deal with/play with these concepts a lot in my Primeval Thule campaign, where sundry Great Old Ones tend to be the main BBEGs. I mix a lot of science and pseudoscience in there with a Zoroastrian* type set up. IMC the beliefs of the terrestrial races create a kind of combined psychic shield against the alien menaces of the Outer Dark. Just as worship appears to give power to Cthulu or Hastur, the beliefs of the Serpentmen 'created' their god Set (worshipped as Set by the humans), the beliefs of the humans et al 'create' Mitra Azura et al; these psychic entities battle the parasitic infestations of the Extraterrene. Mortals see the Northern Lights as a manifestation or reflection of this great battle, conceived in religious terms as a struggle between the human gods & the demons of the Outer Dark for mastery of the Earth.
*TL;DR: Nietzsche FTW ;D
A word for your concept is egregore (https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/egregore)
That's cool, thanks.
Yes, from a Mythos perspective humans are just another minor Independent Race. The challenge is to avoid both extinction, and becoming just another minor Servitor race. ;D
It seems like an open question whether this necessitates humans becoming "cold, ruthless, and reprehensible", but my provisional answer is that an egregore with agape is likely better than one without, even instrumentally.
Edit:
transvaluation of all values sounds like the kind of thing Nyarlathotep suggests when he wants to lead us down the garden path to ruin...
Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2022, 05:06:04 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:43:31 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 24, 2022, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 01:58:30 AM
I respect Peterson, but he still pines for a return to an understanding of the world and meaning that's not coming back. Not because it's $CURRENT_YEAR, but because it isn't true and didn't work. The universe really isn't about us, and really isn't entirely comprehensible to us. Like the 19th century rationalists, Peterson seems to want a totally logical system resting atop one free miracle. But it's closer to the truth to say everything is a miracle. It's just that some of those miracles are more amenable to rational approaches than others.
If the universe was not all about us then can you explain why we humans are literally in the middle of the observable universe?
Its no coincidence.
As both a Christian and a logical man yes I can:
Wherever we found ourselves at would be the center of the observable universe, it's a POV and perspective thing. Thatis why we call it "the center of the observable universe".
Lets postulate an inteligent alien species in proxima centaury 4.246 light years away from us. For them the edge of the buble is exactly 4.246 light years closer to us in one direction and 4.246 light years farther in the opposite direction.
And this in no way negates God.
Bringing it back to gaming CoC is just a fucking game, nothing else. It's not going to bring about the end of civilization.
The existance of any other intelligent species just proves our superiority as they are 4.246 light years away from the center of the observable universe and therefore that much less important.
LOL, I forgot who I was talking wit.
Well played good sir.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2022, 09:49:33 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Quote from: S'mon on February 24, 2022, 02:37:51 AM
>>Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them<<
Yes. The Mythos universe is meaningless, which was a horrific thought within a Christian context, and Peterson seems to find it horrific still - he does have a charmingly 1920s view of existence, an agnostic wrestling with the terrors of scientific discovery. But humans are as much a part of the universe as the Great Old Ones or the Great Race of Yith, who don't seem to suffer too much from cosmic ennui. The universe can't make humanity not care about ourselves. Existence is a struggle for existence; humans are a young species and relatively weak compared to many outsider species, but hardly helpless.
I deal with/play with these concepts a lot in my Primeval Thule campaign, where sundry Great Old Ones tend to be the main BBEGs. I mix a lot of science and pseudoscience in there with a Zoroastrian* type set up. IMC the beliefs of the terrestrial races create a kind of combined psychic shield against the alien menaces of the Outer Dark. Just as worship appears give power to Cthulu or Hastur, the beliefs of the Serpentmen 'created' their god Set (worshipped as Set by the humans), the beliefs of the humans et al 'create' Mitra Azura et al; these psychic entities battle the parasitic infestations of the Extraterrene. Mortals see the Northern Lights as a manifestation or reflection of this great battle, conceived in religious terms as a struggle between the human gods & the demons of the Outer Dark for mastery of the Earth.
*TL;DR: Nietzsche FTW ;D
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
Not so much.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/december/southern-baptist-critical-race-theory-debate-crt-seminary-s.html
I would postulate that those in power in every church aren't believers but politicians.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:43:31 AM
Bringing it back to gaming CoC is just a fucking game, nothing else. It's not going to bring about the end of civilization.
Abolutely...
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 24, 2022, 10:56:05 AM
I'm not going to say it's fundamentally evil, but the Lovecraftian conviction of the irrationality and Godlessness of the universe are why I've always been somewhat cool to Yog-Sothery as more than an occasional spice to a game, and I am thoroughly sick of the general hobby's need to "Lovecraftize" everything. I think the breaking point for me was a thread on TBP a couple years back where they tried to do "Lovecraftian Tolkien" by shoehorning Middle-Earth into a Mythos cosmology.
Yeah, that sounds like mixing oil and water. One thing or the other would have to 'give'.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2022, 11:26:15 AM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 24, 2022, 10:56:05 AM
I'm not going to say it's fundamentally evil, but the Lovecraftian conviction of the irrationality and Godlessness of the universe are why I've always been somewhat cool to Yog-Sothery as more than an occasional spice to a game, and I am thoroughly sick of the general hobby's need to "Lovecraftize" everything. I think the breaking point for me was a thread on TBP a couple years back where they tried to do "Lovecraftian Tolkien" by shoehorning Middle-Earth into a Mythos cosmology.
Yeah, that sounds like mixing oil and water. One thing or the other would have to 'give'.
I've not seen the thread in question, but you can make anything superficially Lovecraftian by throwing in a bunch of tentacles and having characters become aureately unhinged.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2022, 11:26:15 AM
Yeah, that sounds like mixing oil and water. One thing or the other would have to 'give'.
And given the presuppositions of the current chattering classes, it's almost always the stuff that isn't compatible with Lovecraft's nihilism that gives.
I don't know that it is fundamentally evil. I liken it to the setting in Conan. There is most certainly the existence of evil, and evil supernatural forces that act in the material world. There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself. This does not mean there is no supernatural good, simply that it has not revealed itself as a counter to the most definite evil. Even in Christianity, there are not really calls for looking to direct intervention or material proof of the divine. It calls for faith, as the time a person spends on earth is to show faith and express their faith. After death is the concern of the Christian God, not intervening on behalf of followers while they are alive.
Mythos suggest there is no meaning and no point, as the Elder gods do exist, but we only know that because they have left the means to allow humans (or others) to know this. Their existence does not completely remove the chance there are other powers, it simply proves their existence, and willingness to interact with the material world of humans. So I guess it is more what perspective you take.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:00:00 PM
There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself.
Mitra, in
Black Colossus.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 12:03:40 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:00:00 PM
There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself.
Mitra, in Black Colossus.
Mitra is not truly good. Shows some loyalty to followers with signs and so forth. Neutral sure, but good? No. I think Mitra seems good because all the other choices involve human sacrifice and demons.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:00:00 PM
I don't know that it is fundamentally evil. I liken it to the setting in Conan. There is most certainly the existence of evil, and evil supernatural forces that act in the material world. There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself. This does not mean there is no supernatural good, simply that it has not revealed itself as a counter to the most definite evil. Even in Christianity, there are not really calls for looking to direct intervention or material proof of the divine. It calls for faith, as the time a person spends on earth is to show faith and express their faith. After death is the concern of the Christian God, not intervening on behalf of followers while they are alive.
Mythos suggest there is no meaning and no point, as the Elder gods do exist, but we only know that because they have left the means to allow humans (or others) to know this. Their existence does not completely remove the chance there are other powers, it simply proves their existence, and willingness to interact with the material world of humans. So I guess it is more what perspective you take.
Define Good. Seriously.
Christians would argue that our God does intervene, signs, whispering in your ear and ocasionally miracles.
I would say the same holds true for Mithra in Conan.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:21:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:00:00 PM
I don't know that it is fundamentally evil. I liken it to the setting in Conan. There is most certainly the existence of evil, and evil supernatural forces that act in the material world. There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself. This does not mean there is no supernatural good, simply that it has not revealed itself as a counter to the most definite evil. Even in Christianity, there are not really calls for looking to direct intervention or material proof of the divine. It calls for faith, as the time a person spends on earth is to show faith and express their faith. After death is the concern of the Christian God, not intervening on behalf of followers while they are alive.
Mythos suggest there is no meaning and no point, as the Elder gods do exist, but we only know that because they have left the means to allow humans (or others) to know this. Their existence does not completely remove the chance there are other powers, it simply proves their existence, and willingness to interact with the material world of humans. So I guess it is more what perspective you take.
Define Good. Seriously.
Christians would argue that our God does intervene, signs, whispering in your ear and ocasionally miracles.
I would say the same holds true for Mithra in Conan.
And neither of those expose their reality anywhere near the level the forces of evil do throughout Conan stories (REH) and Mitra being good is arguable. Now, if the Archangel Gabriel drops down tomorrow and holds a press conference, I will change this. But as it stands, no definitive force of good takes a direct hand in Conan, whereas is fighting some monstrosity spawned from the outer dark every 4th story.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 24, 2022, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 24, 2022, 11:26:15 AM
Yeah, that sounds like mixing oil and water. One thing or the other would have to 'give'.
And given the presuppositions of the current chattering classes, it's almost always the stuff that isn't compatible with Lovecraft's nihilism that gives.
Yeah... nihilism is much more compatible with the elitist's preferred neo-Gnosticism* than the democratized salvation of Christianity. The "courage" to acknowledge a cold and unfeeling universe marking one as special feeds right into their elitist hearts.
Even a dualistic universe where evil is as strong as the good is preferred by them to the Christian universe found in Tolkein (or as the foundation for much of Western civilization) where evil is just a defect in the good and evil spirits are lesser created beings in rebellion against reality.
Nothing stirs up hatred from the Woke like a game setting based on a Christian cosmos.
* I could go into it in detail, but it's off-topic for this forum.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:28:06 PM
And neither of those expose their reality anywhere near the level the forces of evil do throughout Conan stories (REH) and Mitra being good is arguable. Now, if the Archangel Gabriel drops down tomorrow and holds a press conference, I will change this. But as it stands, no definitive force of good takes a direct hand in Conan, whereas is fighting some monstrosity spawned from the outer dark every 4th story.
monstrosity spawned from the outer dark isn't evil. He's just hangry.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:21:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:00:00 PM
I don't know that it is fundamentally evil. I liken it to the setting in Conan. There is most certainly the existence of evil, and evil supernatural forces that act in the material world. There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself. This does not mean there is no supernatural good, simply that it has not revealed itself as a counter to the most definite evil. Even in Christianity, there are not really calls for looking to direct intervention or material proof of the divine. It calls for faith, as the time a person spends on earth is to show faith and express their faith. After death is the concern of the Christian God, not intervening on behalf of followers while they are alive.
Mythos suggest there is no meaning and no point, as the Elder gods do exist, but we only know that because they have left the means to allow humans (or others) to know this. Their existence does not completely remove the chance there are other powers, it simply proves their existence, and willingness to interact with the material world of humans. So I guess it is more what perspective you take.
Define Good. Seriously.
Christians would argue that our God does intervene, signs, whispering in your ear and ocasionally miracles.
I would say the same holds true for Mithra in Conan.
And neither of those expose their reality anywhere near the level the forces of evil do throughout Conan stories (REH) and Mitra being good is arguable. Now, if the Archangel Gabriel drops down tomorrow and holds a press conference, I will change this. But as it stands, no definitive force of good takes a direct hand in Conan, whereas is fighting some monstrosity spawned from the outer dark every 4th story.
How is a mere mortal, no matter how mighty his muscles and will, able to defeat those monstrosities spawned from the outer dark?
The Phoenix in the Sword is but one time where direct divine intervention is seen.
Of course since the stories center on Conan he's the hero, but how can he be? From where does his flesh draw the endurance/strenght to overcome evil? Could it be that he IS the sword wielded by the forces of good?
You need to also remember that REH wrote it as low fantasy, you're not going to see the type of interventions you'd find on a high fantasy setting.
But that you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
So, instead of the Archangel Gabriel you get Conan, who does the impossible time and again.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:41:33 PM
How is a mere mortal, no matter how mighty his muscles and will, able to defeat those monstrosities spawned from the outer dark?
The Phoenix in the Sword is but one time where direct divine intervention is seen.
Of course since the stories center on Conan he's the hero, but how can he be? From where does his flesh draw the endurance/strenght to overcome evil? Could it be that he IS the sword wielded by the forces of good?
You need to also remember that REH wrote it as low fantasy, you're not going to see the type of interventions you'd find on a high fantasy setting.
But that you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
So, instead of the Archangel Gabriel you get Conan, who does the impossible time and again.
Because they're just things. They're not some incarnation of abstract evil.
That's the core of the Cthulhu Mythos. Some entities might be incredibly powerful to the point that even the furthest limit of human ability can't conceive of a way to defeat them, but that's because they possess great power, not because they possess transcendent or divine nature. And their lesser servitors die... well, not necessarily like anything else we know. They may die a different way, and be remarkably persistent. But they have concrete limits, even if we can't grok them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:41:33 PM
How is a mere mortal, no matter how mighty his muscles and will, able to defeat those monstrosities spawned from the outer dark?
The Phoenix in the Sword is but one time where direct divine intervention is seen.
Of course since the stories center on Conan he's the hero, but how can he be? From where does his flesh draw the endurance/strenght to overcome evil? Could it be that he IS the sword wielded by the forces of good?
You need to also remember that REH wrote it as low fantasy, you're not going to see the type of interventions you'd find on a high fantasy setting.
But that you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
So, instead of the Archangel Gabriel you get Conan, who does the impossible time and again.
In the case of Conan, we know that no fewer than two gods are involved: Crom, who gave him his strength at birth, and Mitra, who used him at least the once. (And let's please ignore
The Return of Conan.)
I count Mitra as good, and I think he's clearly presented that way. IIRC, a passage in Black Colossus implies that he used to be a lot more prominent but humanity turned to other gods, the suggestion being that humanity had abandoned the good gods, rather than vice versa.
Crom is more complicated. His MO is that he gives his worshipers strength and charges them to go forth and be badasses. In D&D terms, he'd be neutral, but his is the sort of ethics you see in the Volsunga saga.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:21:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:00:00 PM
I don't know that it is fundamentally evil. I liken it to the setting in Conan. There is most certainly the existence of evil, and evil supernatural forces that act in the material world. There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself. This does not mean there is no supernatural good, simply that it has not revealed itself as a counter to the most definite evil. Even in Christianity, there are not really calls for looking to direct intervention or material proof of the divine. It calls for faith, as the time a person spends on earth is to show faith and express their faith. After death is the concern of the Christian God, not intervening on behalf of followers while they are alive.
Mythos suggest there is no meaning and no point, as the Elder gods do exist, but we only know that because they have left the means to allow humans (or others) to know this. Their existence does not completely remove the chance there are other powers, it simply proves their existence, and willingness to interact with the material world of humans. So I guess it is more what perspective you take.
Define Good. Seriously.
Christians would argue that our God does intervene, signs, whispering in your ear and ocasionally miracles.
I would say the same holds true for Mithra in Conan.
And neither of those expose their reality anywhere near the level the forces of evil do throughout Conan stories (REH) and Mitra being good is arguable. Now, if the Archangel Gabriel drops down tomorrow and holds a press conference, I will change this. But as it stands, no definitive force of good takes a direct hand in Conan, whereas is fighting some monstrosity spawned from the outer dark every 4th story.
How is a mere mortal, no matter how mighty his muscles and will, able to defeat those monstrosities spawned from the outer dark?
The Phoenix in the Sword is but one time where direct divine intervention is seen.
Of course since the stories center on Conan he's the hero, but how can he be? From where does his flesh draw the endurance/strenght to overcome evil? Could it be that he IS the sword wielded by the forces of good?
You need to also remember that REH wrote it as low fantasy, you're not going to see the type of interventions you'd find on a high fantasy setting.
But that you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
So, instead of the Archangel Gabriel you get Conan, who does the impossible time and again.
Phoenix on the Sword was a ghost who scribed a blessed sigil, not exactly Divine intervention, but again also not direct or explicit in that intervention. Still left it up to Conan to do the work. No REH did not write it as low fantasy, there are numerous examples of world shaking magic being used, and explicit magic. The theme was a savage man trying to make sense of a civilized world and relying on his own mettle and traits above outside forces (these being magic and evil gods). He gets a nudge a few times, and does have allies connected to the supernatural (one at least of which is himself a pretty wretched sorceror) but the theme was always of the Barbarian is the natural state of man, civilization is an illusion.
I also said the good forces do not reveal themselves explicitly, not that they do not exist. So you are arguing a point I have not made if you are suggesting I said the good does not exist. Conan does the impossible because of luck, and plot armor (because the first story published is Phoenix on the Sword where he is already a king).
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 01:04:20 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:41:33 PM
How is a mere mortal, no matter how mighty his muscles and will, able to defeat those monstrosities spawned from the outer dark?
The Phoenix in the Sword is but one time where direct divine intervention is seen.
Of course since the stories center on Conan he's the hero, but how can he be? From where does his flesh draw the endurance/strenght to overcome evil? Could it be that he IS the sword wielded by the forces of good?
You need to also remember that REH wrote it as low fantasy, you're not going to see the type of interventions you'd find on a high fantasy setting.
But that you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
So, instead of the Archangel Gabriel you get Conan, who does the impossible time and again.
In the case of Conan, we know that no fewer than two gods are involved: Crom, who gave him his strength at birth, and Mitra, who used him at least the once. (And let's please ignore The Return of Conan.)
I count Mitra as good, and I think he's clearly presented that way. IIRC, a passage in Black Colossus implies that he used to be a lot more prominent but humanity turned to other gods, the suggestion being that humanity had abandoned the good gods, rather than vice versa.
Crom is more complicated. His MO is that he gives his worshipers strength and charges them to go forth and be badasses. In D&D terms, he'd be neutral, but his is the sort of ethics you see in the Volsunga saga.
From Conan's perception though, he does not know if Mitra is good, only that he benefits him. Crom is never actually shown to exist, but Conan believes he does. I can accept that Mitra can be considered good, but the perspective of the stories is any action from supernatural good is not clearly defined as good, and never anywhere near as explicit or clear compared to the existence of definite supernatural evil.
Which in these events, taken as a whole, Conan's world is dark grey. The instances of bright good compared to blackest evil demonstrated throughout are not even close. Conan himself is a very grey character. He tries to rape a woman. He slaughters innocent people as a bandit and a pirate. He sells all sorts of people into slavery as a pirate. He constantly double crosses bandit leaders or pirate captains who took him in and trusted him.
I can wiggle on if pure good is represented (Mitra is a reach, but his propaganda paints him as a great good) explicitly, but many of the people in the world have certainly seen what could be called darkest evil, and very, very, very, very few have seen bright good.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
He tries to rape a woman.
If you're talking about "The Frost Giant's Daughter," he wasn't in his right mind. After she disappears and her enchantment fades, he initially doesn't believe any of it happened.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
Which in these events, taken as a whole, Conan's world is dark grey. The instances of bright good compared to blackest evil demonstrated throughout are not even close. Conan himself is a very grey character. He tries to rape a woman. He slaughters innocent people as a bandit and a pirate. He sells all sorts of people into slavery as a pirate. He constantly double crosses bandit leaders or pirate captains who took him in and trusted him.
I can wiggle on if pure good is represented (Mitra is a reach, but his propaganda paints him as a great good) explicitly, but many of the people in the world have certainly seen what could be called darkest evil, and very, very, very, very few have seen bright good.
I think a problem with characterizing many worlds as "gray" is it implies there is objective black and white, which isn't really the case in those worlds. Having true good or true good requires an omniscient point of view, because human assessments of good and evil are fallible. Instead, I think a better description of Conan's world is that it's a world seen solely through a
human lens. Mitra may or may not be good, but there's no narrator telling us it is so. There may be in-setting perspectives and opinions, but ultimately it's up to each character to figure that out, and up to the reader to decide how to interpret that.
Quote from: Pat on February 24, 2022, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
Which in these events, taken as a whole, Conan's world is dark grey. The instances of bright good compared to blackest evil demonstrated throughout are not even close. Conan himself is a very grey character. He tries to rape a woman. He slaughters innocent people as a bandit and a pirate. He sells all sorts of people into slavery as a pirate. He constantly double crosses bandit leaders or pirate captains who took him in and trusted him.
I can wiggle on if pure good is represented (Mitra is a reach, but his propaganda paints him as a great good) explicitly, but many of the people in the world have certainly seen what could be called darkest evil, and very, very, very, very few have seen bright good.
I think a problem with characterizing many worlds as "gray" is it implies there is objective black and white, which isn't really the case in those worlds. Having true good or true good requires an omniscient point of view, because human assessments of good and evil are fallible. Instead, I think a better description of Conan's world is that it's a world seen solely through a human lens. Mitra may or may not be good, but there's no narrator telling us it is so. There may be in-setting perspectives and opinions, but ultimately it's up to each character to figure that out, and up to the reader to decide how to interpret that.
I do not disagree, but I do think objective black is demonstrated a few times.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 01:39:51 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
He tries to rape a woman.
If you're talking about "The Frost Giant's Daughter," he wasn't in his right mind. After she disappears and her enchantment fades, he initially doesn't believe any of it happened.
I think he was, I think he wanted to punish her for trying to murder him. He collapsed after and had a hard knock on the head, so if we choose to excuse his rape due to TBI I can go along with it. He never forces himself on a woman at any other time, but he also knew she was not in fact a human woman. We can also take on the moral question of whether her attempted murder has the reciprocity of an assault (instead of him just killing her), but we do feel he is justified to kill her at that point had he chosen to do so. Again, pretty gray.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:17:00 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:41:33 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:28:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 12:21:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 12:00:00 PM
I don't know that it is fundamentally evil. I liken it to the setting in Conan. There is most certainly the existence of evil, and evil supernatural forces that act in the material world. There is never a truly good supernatural force that reveals itself. This does not mean there is no supernatural good, simply that it has not revealed itself as a counter to the most definite evil. Even in Christianity, there are not really calls for looking to direct intervention or material proof of the divine. It calls for faith, as the time a person spends on earth is to show faith and express their faith. After death is the concern of the Christian God, not intervening on behalf of followers while they are alive.
Mythos suggest there is no meaning and no point, as the Elder gods do exist, but we only know that because they have left the means to allow humans (or others) to know this. Their existence does not completely remove the chance there are other powers, it simply proves their existence, and willingness to interact with the material world of humans. So I guess it is more what perspective you take.
Define Good. Seriously.
Christians would argue that our God does intervene, signs, whispering in your ear and ocasionally miracles.
I would say the same holds true for Mithra in Conan.
And neither of those expose their reality anywhere near the level the forces of evil do throughout Conan stories (REH) and Mitra being good is arguable. Now, if the Archangel Gabriel drops down tomorrow and holds a press conference, I will change this. But as it stands, no definitive force of good takes a direct hand in Conan, whereas is fighting some monstrosity spawned from the outer dark every 4th story.
How is a mere mortal, no matter how mighty his muscles and will, able to defeat those monstrosities spawned from the outer dark?
The Phoenix in the Sword is but one time where direct divine intervention is seen.
Of course since the stories center on Conan he's the hero, but how can he be? From where does his flesh draw the endurance/strenght to overcome evil? Could it be that he IS the sword wielded by the forces of good?
You need to also remember that REH wrote it as low fantasy, you're not going to see the type of interventions you'd find on a high fantasy setting.
But that you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
So, instead of the Archangel Gabriel you get Conan, who does the impossible time and again.
Phoenix on the Sword was a ghost who scribed a blessed sigil, not exactly Divine intervention, but again also not direct or explicit in that intervention. Still left it up to Conan to do the work. No REH did not write it as low fantasy, there are numerous examples of world shaking magic being used, and explicit magic. The theme was a savage man trying to make sense of a civilized world and relying on his own mettle and traits above outside forces (these being magic and evil gods). He gets a nudge a few times, and does have allies connected to the supernatural (one at least of which is himself a pretty wretched sorceror) but the theme was always of the Barbarian is the natural state of man, civilization is an illusion.
I also said the good forces do not reveal themselves explicitly, not that they do not exist. So you are arguing a point I have not made if you are suggesting I said the good does not exist. Conan does the impossible because of luck, and plot armor (because the first story published is Phoenix on the Sword where he is already a king).
Aye, the ghost of Epimetreus the Sage long dead priest of who?
A sigil blessed by who?
Who fought with Set and banished him?
As for plot armor well DUH! But were talking In-World not IRL. And In-World Conan is an unwitting and often unwilling pawn on the perpetual battle of Mitra against Set and the forces of darkness.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
He tries to rape a woman.
You mean the witch that enchanted him to make him follow her to his death? I don't remember him TRYING to rape her, but wanting to. And all of this while under her spell, which was meant to make men follow her to their deaths by making them desire her.
But sure, Conan is the bad guy somehow.
Quote from: Pat on February 24, 2022, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
Which in these events, taken as a whole, Conan's world is dark grey. The instances of bright good compared to blackest evil demonstrated throughout are not even close. Conan himself is a very grey character. He tries to rape a woman. He slaughters innocent people as a bandit and a pirate. He sells all sorts of people into slavery as a pirate. He constantly double crosses bandit leaders or pirate captains who took him in and trusted him.
I can wiggle on if pure good is represented (Mitra is a reach, but his propaganda paints him as a great good) explicitly, but many of the people in the world have certainly seen what could be called darkest evil, and very, very, very, very few have seen bright good.
I think a problem with characterizing many worlds as "gray" is it implies there is objective black and white, which isn't really the case in those worlds. Having true good or true good requires an omniscient point of view, because human assessments of good and evil are fallible. Instead, I think a better description of Conan's world is that it's a world seen solely through a human lens. Mitra may or may not be good, but there's no narrator telling us it is so. There may be in-setting perspectives and opinions, but ultimately it's up to each character to figure that out, and up to the reader to decide how to interpret that.
"When the world was young and men were weak, and the fiends of the night walked free,
I strove with Set by fire and steel and the juice of the upas-tree;
Now that I sleep in the mount's black heart, and the ages take their toll,
Forget ye him who fought with the Snake to save the human soul?"
Epimetreus priest of ? You guessed it, Mitra.
While I'm definitely on the "Conan was hexed" side of the argument, the story does leave it somewhat ambiguous.
I suppose "Conan isn't responsible for his actions in 'The Frost Giant's Daughter'" is a scissor statement.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:11:10 PM
"When the world was young and men were weak, and the fiends of the night walked free,
I strove with Set by fire and steel and the juice of the upas-tree;
Now that I sleep in the mount's black heart, and the ages take their toll,
Forget ye him who fought with the Snake to save the human soul?"
Epimetreus priest of ? You guessed it, Mitra.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Howard intended his world to be interpreted as one in which humanity had turned its back on the true gods in favor of demons -- not because evil is more powerful than good, but because it's, to quote Yoda, "quicker, easier, more seductive." Of course we aren't the first species to make this mistake, as the ancient ruins attest.
As additional evidence, consider that some of the gods of the Hyborean age are villains in their real-world pantheons: Asura (actually a class of wrathful deities in Hinduism), Set (not originally evil but demonized toward the end of Ancient Egyptian culture; one can't expect Howard to have known or cared about that distinction), and Ymir (the progenitor of giants, slayed by Odin and his brothers in order to make the world).
This probably ties in with the influence Theosophy had on Howard and Lovecraft. I'm not really up on Theosophy, but I know it had cycles of ages in which the dominant races by turns embraced and rejected the divine.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
He tries to rape a woman. ... He sells all sorts of people into slavery as a pirate.
My first post here.
As others have pointed out, Conan wasn't in control of himself in the Frost Giant's Daughter. Howard makes note of his "madness". And it was no woman - she was a non-human monster who enchanted the dying and took them to their deaths. Sure, she takes the form of a woman, but that was all part of how she worked her evil.
And in what stories does Conan sell people into slavery? I don't remember that ever happening.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 02:14:18 PM
While I'm definitely on the "Conan was hexed" side of the argument, the story does leave it somewhat ambiguous.
I suppose "Conan isn't responsible for his actions in 'The Frost Giant's Daughter'" is a scissor statement.
I think it could be a case of her hexing him backfired, since all the men before Conan were dead long before they got close to actually touching her. But as you say, it is presented as if Conan is making a conscious decision about continuing to chase her as well as his intent. The narration seems to imply he is not so bewitched anymore and just pit bull determined to catch her and have his way with her. But I could accept that is all on Atali for the enchantment she used. It just does not seem to be the case from the way it is written.
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 02:34:47 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
He tries to rape a woman. ... He sells all sorts of people into slavery as a pirate.
My first post here.
As others have pointed out, Conan wasn't in control of himself in the Frost Giant's Daughter. Howard makes note of his "madness". And it was no woman - she was a non-human monster who enchanted the dying and took them to their deaths. Sure, she takes the form of a woman, but that was all part of how she worked her evil.
And in what stories does Conan sell people into slavery? I don't remember that ever happening.
Again, I am not making Conan out to be a huge monster here, but he is intent on raping her, now if its okay because she is not human, I can accept that. As for not in control of himself, I think that is somewhat ambiguous after he kills the two frost giants.
Regarding slavery, while he was pirating the ivory coast he burned and looted many coastal villages. He sold many of the survivors into slavery. One of these slaves runs into him again later (I think it was the Scarlet Tower, but I do not remember, nor do I remember the guy's name) who was a chieftain in a village he razed. The fellow ends up accidentally saving Conan by entering the dungeon to kill him, but is instead killed by the giant snake that is also in the dungeon, and as he falls Conan gets his sword and frees himself from his chains.
I am also pretty sure Conan outlawed Slavery once he was king, so redemption arc there.
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 02:34:47 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 01:27:50 PM
He tries to rape a woman. ... He sells all sorts of people into slavery as a pirate.
My first post here.
As others have pointed out, Conan wasn't in control of himself in the Frost Giant's Daughter. Howard makes note of his "madness". And it was no woman - she was a non-human monster who enchanted the dying and took them to their deaths. Sure, she takes the form of a woman, but that was all part of how she worked her evil.
And in what stories does Conan sell people into slavery? I don't remember that ever happening.
You know what? I might be wrong about him actively selling them, the guy just mentions Conan slaying his brother and then the Stygians taking him into slavery... So maybe just murderous pirate and not a slaver, though those people from the broken villages ended up as slaves in some cases.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:11:42 PM
Again, I am not making Conan out to be a huge monster here, but he is intent on raping her, now if its okay because she is not human, I can accept that. As for not in control of himself, I think that is somewhat ambiguous after he kills the two frost giants.
I'm not saying that it's OK to rape non-humans, I'm saying the statement that Conan tried to rape a woman can't be true if the person in question isn't a woman. That's of course independent of whether it was attempted rape. There's no mention of him coming to his senses after he kills the giants, and given how protective of women he is in the other stories, I find it hard to believe that Howard meant for us to read between the lines that he was intentionally out to commit rape.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:20:59 PM
You know what? I might be wrong about him actively selling them, the guy just mentions Conan slaying his brother and then the Stygians taking him into slavery... So maybe just murderous pirate and not a slaver?
Yes, Conan was no paladin. To quote Howard, he was "a thief, a reaver, a slayer". Shades of grey indeed, but Howard avoided assigning some of the worst of human nature to Conan, giving him a rough chivalry which often leaves him looking better than some of his civilised foes.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 23, 2022, 11:46:43 PM
The following quote by Jordan Peterson on the nature of evil and evil acts struck me queer:
QuoteJordan Peterson:
And you have to think about it from an aesthetic perspective, in a sense, because it's a celebration of horror, and it's a conscious attempt to violate the conditions that make life itself tolerable, and it's aimed at dehumanization, destruction of the ideal and, at an even deeper level, revenge against the conditions of existence itself. I'm trying to understand the developmental pathway that leads to acts like that.
This sounds a lot like what the Cthulhu Mythos are, and what a game revolving around them is doing, and what Lovecraftian weird fiction in general is doing. Their premise is that Finite human confrontation with the Infinite leads to a realization of the prosaicness, chaos, amorality, and hostility of Being. The opposite of these things might be wonder, order, morality, and love, but these latter all seem to be excluded from any realistic human view of the world in the Mythos' own terms.
One might object that the Mythos, if nothing else is granted, still contain wonder (and, for the Dreamlands this might hold, as a special case), but, the wonder of the Mythos proper is always uneasily tinged with horror, which might make it a parallel to the way woe and joy coexist in the artistic category of the Sublime. It might be argued that any hypothetical wonder in the human perspective in the Mythos is always ultimately corrupted by the underlying horror, such that the corrupted but otherwise functional human personality ceases to find wonder in anything, but, rather, attends, like any wizard worth his salts, to problems of the pleasures of power.
Setting that aside, it looks as though the Mythos consumed as entertainment embodies a kind of "recreational epistemological evil" on an infinite scale. Prima facie, it glorifies and celebrates horror, engaging its consumers and participants in conscious attempts to construct mental maps of the violation of the conditions that make life tolerable while dehumanizing its characters and destroying all human ideals. Given Lovecraft's "functional dysfunctionality," the possibility arises that this scientific atheist was mythologically mapping out something like his "revenge against the conditions of existence itself."
Let's say we exonerate Lovecraft of any conscious such intentionality. If he did enact such desires in his work, they were unconscious, but no less potent for that. That many (if not yet multitudes of) people respond avidly to this color out of Lovecraft's psychic space indicates that he drilled down deep into what Peterson might call the archetypal substrate of the human imagination. We have yet to realize the full manifestation and power of such a psychic contact.
The wider appreciation the Mythos gains, the more it touches a human desire for human meaning beyond just the recreational epistemological evil, which I submit are Comedy and Tragedy. Both feel like a kind of betrayal of the Mythos' intent, even while in popular imagination they snuggle comfortably into the same boat. Do bobble-heads and plush toys insult Cthulhu as much as the "woke" insinuation increasingly surfacing in games like Call of Cthulhu? The former is like an innocent mouse traipsing on the head of a hungry python. The latter decorates the darkness with noble sentiment ("democracy," "freedom," "fairness," etc.). Both try to "tame" the Mythos by wrestling it back into a frame of human meaningfulness.
As others have observed, these gaming taming efforts water down the Mythos. They're not "hard core" no matter how fun or dynamically intricate they may be. To become a person deeply colored by the Mythos is to confront the experience of cosmic fear. To turn that into a game is to dance on the knife's edge of what has been called the "ecstasy of horror". Too far to one side and one encounters meaningless cosmic dread; too far to the other and one encounters the banal. It's there, dancing to the tunes of the celestial flutes, that the meaning of the Mythos is located.
If we want to avoid the Mythos becoming nothing but recreational epistemological evil, what this begs is a way to expand that meaning in a way that justifies mankind's existence. This would mean living in such a way that the universe is better for one's having lived, even if one lives out a tragedy, comedy, or tragi-comedy. Anthroponormativity is the only escape both for the characters in the game, and for the participants controlling them. In other words, out of the struggle for meaning, the thoughtful play tends to proceed as if the category of the Sublime were attainable.
The Finite confronting the Infinite is to realize one's profound vulnerability. This is seen most compellingly and dauntingly in the Crucifixion of Christ, the idea of the Infinite assuming that which it lacks—finitude—in order to confront itself on behalf of the vulnerable, in a Sublime manner. This is why we can apprise that the corrupted wizard has made a spiritual error, as has Cthulhu himself, for both of them remain vulnerable in the face of the Infinite that dwarfs them immeasurably.
Recognizing this plants something unspeakable at the heart of the Mythos, and, so, defines the Mythos in terms of a psychological substrate of humanity that recaptures the wonder from the jaws of the horror. Even in the face of the unendingness of the madness of the Mythos, a "higher level" persists—in the reality of the participants in the real world of which the Lovecraftian Secondary World (Tolkien) is a warped shadow—accessible to the characters therein only through an element of faith which elevates Tragedy to Sublimity.
In the end, the spell is broken. The residue of plush Elder Things and tragic color remains, alongside fond memories of a foolish foray into a fun and fruitful preternatural phantasy.
"Is Call of Cthulhu a fundamentally evil premise for a game?"
Wrong question.
"Is Call of Cthulhu an entertaining and financially viable premise for a game?"
Right question. Answered by history.
And what the fuck does Conan the fictional character have to do with Call of Cthulhu the game?
Quote from: jeff37923 on February 24, 2022, 03:43:49 PM
And what the fuck does Conan the fictional character have to do with Call of Cthulhu the game?
Howard and Lovecraft borrowed heavily from each other, to the point you can (almost) treat the stories as set in the same universe.
Almost because in Howard's universe there are good gods like Mitra while in Lovecraft's universe there's nothing looking out for us.
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:11:42 PM
Again, I am not making Conan out to be a huge monster here, but he is intent on raping her, now if its okay because she is not human, I can accept that. As for not in control of himself, I think that is somewhat ambiguous after he kills the two frost giants.
I'm not saying that it's OK to rape non-humans, I'm saying the statement that Conan tried to rape a woman can't be true if the person in question isn't a woman. That's of course independent of whether it was attempted rape. There's no mention of him coming to his senses after he kills the giants, and given how protective of women he is in the other stories, I find it hard to believe that Howard meant for us to read between the lines that he was intentionally out to commit rape.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:20:59 PM
You know what? I might be wrong about him actively selling them, the guy just mentions Conan slaying his brother and then the Stygians taking him into slavery... So maybe just murderous pirate and not a slaver?
Yes, Conan was no paladin. To quote Howard, he was "a thief, a reaver, a slayer". Shades of grey indeed, but Howard avoided assigning some of the worst of human nature to Conan, giving him a rough chivalry which often leaves him looking better than some of his civilised foes.
I do not see it as between the lines. Atali is clearly in absolute terror as he chases her after killing her brothers. And when he catches her and hugs her and tries to give her unwanted kisses...This is described and Conan obviously sees this. He was around 17 in this story, and maybe he has not yet learned no means no. Is it your position that her enchantment has caused him to be a rapist? I could actually accept that as a case, but it is ambiguous given Conan's remarks throughout the chase and killing of her brothers certainly seem to be Conan being Conan.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 24, 2022, 03:45:43 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on February 24, 2022, 03:43:49 PM
And what the fuck does Conan the fictional character have to do with Call of Cthulhu the game?
Howard and Lovecraft borrowed heavily from each other, to the point you can (almost) treat the stories as set in the same universe.
Almost because in Howard's universe there are good gods like Mitra while in Lovecraft's universe there's nothing looking out for us.
Or the same universe with another 10,000 years of humans turning their backs on any beacons of light, in getting to Lovecraft.
Quote from: jeff37923 on February 24, 2022, 03:43:49 PM
And what the fuck does Conan the fictional character have to do with Call of Cthulhu the game?
I used it as a parallel example of whether the setting is inherently evil and used a bit less dour of a setting to make the point, just because abject good is not overtly represented in the mythos, does not mean it does not exist. It just means the elder creatures are much more overt in their influence and presence in the universe (at least from the perspective of humans getting a taste of the "gods" and minions).
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:11:42 PM
Again, I am not making Conan out to be a huge monster here, but he is intent on raping her, now if its okay because she is not human, I can accept that. As for not in control of himself, I think that is somewhat ambiguous after he kills the two frost giants.
I'm not saying that it's OK to rape non-humans, I'm saying the statement that Conan tried to rape a woman can't be true if the person in question isn't a woman. That's of course independent of whether it was attempted rape. There's no mention of him coming to his senses after he kills the giants, and given how protective of women he is in the other stories, I find it hard to believe that Howard meant for us to read between the lines that he was intentionally out to commit rape.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:20:59 PM
You know what? I might be wrong about him actively selling them, the guy just mentions Conan slaying his brother and then the Stygians taking him into slavery... So maybe just murderous pirate and not a slaver?
Yes, Conan was no paladin. To quote Howard, he was "a thief, a reaver, a slayer". Shades of grey indeed, but Howard avoided assigning some of the worst of human nature to Conan, giving him a rough chivalry which often leaves him looking better than some of his civilised foes.
I do not know about that. Wanton murder is the worst crime you can commit, and Conan is willing do so at the drop of a hat. He also betrays several people to take their ship/bandit gang/etc. So though I agree he does come off better than most of (honestly all of them) his civilized foes, it is simply because we the reader like Conan more, because he is a bad ass, he takes no shit, and the reader sometimes wishes they could just break all the rules. He has a rough code, but it seems malleable regarding the mood he is in. If he makes a deal and gives his word specifically, he does not break it and sticks to the deal even when it is better for him to break it. He is charismatic, and he does change his perspective on wanton slaughter and stealing as he goes through his years (by the time he is a King he feels responsibility and loyalty to a lot of people) but he at some point has displayed pretty much every characteristic of behavior that would get you a life sentence or a death sentence in most places at any time in history. We excuse Conan because he is brave to the point of insanity, is built like a super Chad, pulls women easier than James Bond, slays his foes (and it turns out a good number of them are terrible people or monsters) in dramatic fashion, and gives zero F#$ks. It is not because he lacks the worst of human natures, it is because we overlook the bad because everyone loves a winner.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on February 24, 2022, 03:43:49 PM
And what the fuck does Conan the fictional character have to do with Call of Cthulhu the game?
I used it as a parallel example of whether the setting is inherently evil and used a bit less dour of a setting to make the point, just because abject good is not overtly represented in the mythos, does not mean it does not exist. It just means the elder creatures are much more overt in their influence and presence in the universe (at least from the perspective of humans getting a taste of the "gods" and minions).
But wasn't you who said there was no Good Gods in Conan? Where you do have evidence of their existence yet you say they're neutral.
On Lovecraft where there's ZERO evidence of any Good God you revert to: Abscence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence...
Dude choose a position and stick to it, I can't follow.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 04:02:41 PM
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:11:42 PM
Again, I am not making Conan out to be a huge monster here, but he is intent on raping her, now if its okay because she is not human, I can accept that. As for not in control of himself, I think that is somewhat ambiguous after he kills the two frost giants.
I'm not saying that it's OK to rape non-humans, I'm saying the statement that Conan tried to rape a woman can't be true if the person in question isn't a woman. That's of course independent of whether it was attempted rape. There's no mention of him coming to his senses after he kills the giants, and given how protective of women he is in the other stories, I find it hard to believe that Howard meant for us to read between the lines that he was intentionally out to commit rape.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:20:59 PM
You know what? I might be wrong about him actively selling them, the guy just mentions Conan slaying his brother and then the Stygians taking him into slavery... So maybe just murderous pirate and not a slaver?
Yes, Conan was no paladin. To quote Howard, he was "a thief, a reaver, a slayer". Shades of grey indeed, but Howard avoided assigning some of the worst of human nature to Conan, giving him a rough chivalry which often leaves him looking better than some of his civilised foes.
I do not know about that. Wanton murder is the worst crime you can commit, and Conan is willing do so at the drop of a hat. He also betrays several people to take their ship/bandit gang/etc. So though I agree he does come off better than most of (honestly all of them) his civilized foes, it is simply because we the reader like Conan more, because he is a bad ass, he takes no shit, and the reader sometimes wishes they could just break all the rules. He has a rough code, but it seems malleable regarding the mood he is in. If he makes a deal and gives his word specifically, he does not break it and sticks to the deal even when it is better for him to break it. He is charismatic, and he does change his perspective on wanton slaughter and stealing as he goes through his years (by the time he is a King he feels responsibility and loyalty to a lot of people) but he at some point has displayed pretty much every characteristic of behavior that would get you a life sentence or a death sentence in most places at any time in history. We excuse Conan because he is brave to the point of insanity, is built like a super Chad, pulls women easier than James Bond, slays his foes (and it turns out a good number of them are terrible people or monsters) in dramatic fashion, and gives zero F#$ks. It is not because he lacks the worst of human natures, it is because we overlook the bad because everyone loves a winner.
Wanton murder?Murder:
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
I don't remember a single instance where Conan just up's and kills someone for no reason. Now my memory isn't what it used to so I might be wrong.
IIRC Conan kills in battle (a lot), in duels, in self defense and even when he's been wronged and vengeance is what drives him he doesn't kill you in your sleep but allows you to defend yourself.
Killing in battle can hardly be called murder.
A duel could be unlawful IF the law decdlared it so, thus making it murder by the strict definition (not that I would agree).
And of course only a TDS Dem would call self defense murder.
But again, I might be wrong, if evidence is provided I'm ready to eat crow.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:49:26 PM
I do not see it as between the lines. Atali is clearly in absolute terror as he chases her after killing her brothers. And when he catches her and hugs her and tries to give her unwanted kisses...This is described and Conan obviously sees this. He was around 17 in this story, and maybe he has not yet learned no means no. Is it your position that her enchantment has caused him to be a rapist? I could actually accept that as a case, but it is ambiguous given Conan's remarks throughout the chase and killing of her brothers certainly seem to be Conan being Conan.
There's no doubt that Atali is in fear of being raped. I'm saying that Conan is no more in charge of his actions than the reader is. He's enchanted, and that enchantment is backfiring on Atali.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 04:16:33 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 04:02:41 PM
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:11:42 PM
Again, I am not making Conan out to be a huge monster here, but he is intent on raping her, now if its okay because she is not human, I can accept that. As for not in control of himself, I think that is somewhat ambiguous after he kills the two frost giants.
I'm not saying that it's OK to rape non-humans, I'm saying the statement that Conan tried to rape a woman can't be true if the person in question isn't a woman. That's of course independent of whether it was attempted rape. There's no mention of him coming to his senses after he kills the giants, and given how protective of women he is in the other stories, I find it hard to believe that Howard meant for us to read between the lines that he was intentionally out to commit rape.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:20:59 PM
You know what? I might be wrong about him actively selling them, the guy just mentions Conan slaying his brother and then the Stygians taking him into slavery... So maybe just murderous pirate and not a slaver?
Yes, Conan was no paladin. To quote Howard, he was "a thief, a reaver, a slayer". Shades of grey indeed, but Howard avoided assigning some of the worst of human nature to Conan, giving him a rough chivalry which often leaves him looking better than some of his civilised foes.
I do not know about that. Wanton murder is the worst crime you can commit, and Conan is willing do so at the drop of a hat. He also betrays several people to take their ship/bandit gang/etc. So though I agree he does come off better than most of (honestly all of them) his civilized foes, it is simply because we the reader like Conan more, because he is a bad ass, he takes no shit, and the reader sometimes wishes they could just break all the rules. He has a rough code, but it seems malleable regarding the mood he is in. If he makes a deal and gives his word specifically, he does not break it and sticks to the deal even when it is better for him to break it. He is charismatic, and he does change his perspective on wanton slaughter and stealing as he goes through his years (by the time he is a King he feels responsibility and loyalty to a lot of people) but he at some point has displayed pretty much every characteristic of behavior that would get you a life sentence or a death sentence in most places at any time in history. We excuse Conan because he is brave to the point of insanity, is built like a super Chad, pulls women easier than James Bond, slays his foes (and it turns out a good number of them are terrible people or monsters) in dramatic fashion, and gives zero F#$ks. It is not because he lacks the worst of human natures, it is because we overlook the bad because everyone loves a winner.
Wanton murder?
Murder:
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
I don't remember a single instance where Conan just up's and kills someone for no reason. Now my memory isn't what it used to so I might be wrong.
IIRC Conan kills in battle (a lot), in duels, in self defense and even when he's been wronged and vengeance is what drives him he doesn't kill you in your sleep but allows you to defend yourself.
Killing in battle can hardly be called murder.
A duel could be unlawful IF the law decdlared it so, thus making it murder by the strict definition (not that I would agree).
And of course only a TDS Dem would call self defense murder.
But again, I might be wrong, if evidence is provided I'm ready to eat crow.
Is it battle to raid a village on the coast with old people, women and children in it? Belit and her crew were absolutely merciless, but they were not the only pirate ship Conan sailed on. Conan was hired to murder the red priest, so he takes that job as an assassin...ie premeditated murder. Conan pirates innumerable ships...it is not battle if you are attacking merchant ships, it is piracy and if you kill the people...its murder, unless you want to call it self defense because the people you were going to kill and take their stuff fought back. He is also a leader of numerous bands of brigands and bandits, who...rob and murder...again if you attack a caravan and the people fight back after you attack, it is a reach to call it a battle and it is a bigger reach to claim self defense.
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:49:26 PM
I do not see it as between the lines. Atali is clearly in absolute terror as he chases her after killing her brothers. And when he catches her and hugs her and tries to give her unwanted kisses...This is described and Conan obviously sees this. He was around 17 in this story, and maybe he has not yet learned no means no. Is it your position that her enchantment has caused him to be a rapist? I could actually accept that as a case, but it is ambiguous given Conan's remarks throughout the chase and killing of her brothers certainly seem to be Conan being Conan.
There's no doubt that Atali is in fear of being raped. I'm saying that Conan is no more in charge of his actions than the reader is. He's enchanted, and that enchantment is backfiring on Atali.
and I am inclined to say that case has strong merit (in the sense she brought it upon herself with her magic). I framed Conan's "crimes" from a perspective of modern sensibilities though, and his actions in that story would get him me too'd for sure. I was harsh on him to call him a would be rapist, but the reality is he was almost a rapist.
The odd thing is, I would not have batted an eye had he just caught her and cut her head off. But because he is about to have his way with her, against her will, it worried me that he was going to do something "wrong". Which is odd, since wouldn't killing her be worse?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 04:16:33 PM
I don't remember a single instance where Conan just up's and kills someone for no reason. Now my memory isn't what it used to so I might be wrong.
There's a borderline case at the beginning of
Queen of the Black Coast: Conan begins the story on the run from the law because he had killed I think a judge because he didn't agree with the punishment he was going to receive for a crime he didn't think should be a crime -- if memory serves, someone had insulted his honor, so he killed him.
I say borderline because the incident highlighted the difference between civilized and barbarian conceptions of honor and justice. Conan is clearly in the wrong by the former and in the right by the latter.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:49:26 PM
Is it your position that her enchantment has caused him to be a rapist?
That's certainly how I read it. First, it seems she's employing a magical glamour:
Quote
He gazed spell-bound. Her hair was like elfin-gold; the sun struck it so dazzlingly that he could scarcely bear to look upon it. Her eyes were likewise neither wholly blue nor wholly grey, but of shifting colors and dancing lights and clouds of colors he could not define. Her full red lips smiled, and from her slender feet to the blinding crown of her billowy hair, her ivory body was as perfect as the dream of a god. Conan's pulse hammered in his temples."
Which she uses to intentionally incite him:
Quote
"Am I not beautiful, oh man? ... Then why do you not rise and follow me? Who is the strong warrior who falls down before me?" she chanted in maddening mockery. "Lie down and die in the snow with the other fools, Conan of the black hair. You can not follow where I would lead."
He almost kills himself
chasing her (which is a bit more extreme than "feeling rapey"), when she reveals her intent:
Quote
"Brothers!" cried the girl, dancing between them. "Look who follows! I have brought you a man to slay! Take his heart that we may lay it smoking on our father's board!"
He doesn't come to his sense after slaying the frost giants, because he's still mad at that point. He does come to his sense later after Ymir intervenes:
Quote
"I saw a woman, Conan answered hazily. "We met Bragi's men in the plains. I know knot how long we fought. I alone lived. I was dizzy and faint. The land lay like a dream before me. Only now do all things seem natural and familiar. The woman came and taunted me. She was beautiful as a frozen flame from hell. A strange madness fell upon me when I looked at her, so I forgot all else in the world."
And an old man confirms:
Quote
"I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board."
Doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.
Quote from: Zalman on February 24, 2022, 05:33:03 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:49:26 PM
Is it your position that her enchantment has caused him to be a rapist?
That's certainly how I read it. First, it seems she's employing a magical glamour:
Quote
He gazed spell-bound. Her hair was like elfin-gold; the sun struck it so dazzlingly that he could scarcely bear to look upon it. Her eyes were likewise neither wholly blue nor wholly grey, but of shifting colors and dancing lights and clouds of colors he could not define. Her full red lips smiled, and from her slender feet to the blinding crown of her billowy hair, her ivory body was as perfect as the dream of a god. Conan's pulse hammered in his temples."
Which she uses to intentionally incite him:
Quote
"Am I not beautiful, oh man? ... Then why do you not rise and follow me? Who is the strong warrior who falls down before me?" she chanted in maddening mockery. "Lie down and die in the snow with the other fools, Conan of the black hair. You can not follow where I would lead."
He almost kills himself chasing her (which is a bit more extreme than "feeling rapey"), when she reveals her intent:
Quote
"Brothers!" cried the girl, dancing between them. "Look who follows! I have brought you a man to slay! Take his heart that we may lay it smoking on our father's board!"
He doesn't come to his sense after slaying the frost giants, because he's still mad at that point. He does come to his sense later after Ymir intervenes:
Quote
"I saw a woman, Conan answered hazily. "We met Bragi's men in the plains. I know knot how long we fought. I alone lived. I was dizzy and faint. The land lay like a dream before me. Only now do all things seem natural and familiar. The woman came and taunted me. She was beautiful as a frozen flame from hell. A strange madness fell upon me when I looked at her, so I forgot all else in the world."
And an old man confirms:
Quote
"I lay and howled like a dying dog because I could not crawl after her. She lures men from stricken fields into the wastelands to be slain by her brothers, the ice-giants, who lay men's red hearts smoking on Ymir's board."
Doesn't seem very ambiguous to me.
His consistent remarks as he chases her and after slaying her brothers makes me wonder just how strong the enchantment is. It was ambiguous to me, especially since Conan has shrugged off mind control (made his save) in other stories. In this case he also had been bashed in the head too, so not sure on which end that drove him (unable to resist her charm, or still in a rapine mood after she is now in terror). The old guy's testimony does not mean as much to me as to effects, just evidence she must be real. Maybe it is not supposed to provoke thought that a 17 year old Conan could be led to think that the most beautiful woman he has ever seen deserves some mistreatment after trying to murder him, I just never had the idea he was completely out of his mind. I thought it was more the actions of an uncivilized barbarian ruled by his passions, letting them get the best of him in a moment of weakness (bashed in head, almost murdered, and enchanted at the beginning of this encounter to be led into a trap). It would be contrary to his behavior in his later years....but...all the women he encounters also throw themselves at him.
I think Jordan Peterson was talking about "celebrating horror" in the sense that people might celebrate hanging of an innocent man because he was of the wrong race or political activates celebrating that they've just murdered someone that they don't like.
Jordan Peterson also said that creating things is a wonderful thing, and although being creative won't pay the bills they should continue to create if they can. Since Call of Cthulhu is a game in a medium that's entirely based on creating, I wouldn't call the premise "Evil" because it's meant to emulate something without necessarily celebrating it.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 05:44:18 PM
His consistent remarks as he chases her and after slaying her brothers makes me wonder just how strong the enchantment is. It was ambiguous to me, especially since Conan has shrugged off mind control (made his save) in other stories. In this case he also had been bashed in the head too, so not sure on which end that drove him (unable to resist her charm, or still in a rapine mood after she is now in terror). The old guy's testimony does not mean as much to me as to effects, just evidence she must be real.
So your contention is that he is a rapist because he could have shaken off the mind-control if he'd really wanted to? And that his ability to talk proves the enchantment wasn't strong? OK!
(for the record, he speaks -- quite briefly -- only 3 times during the entire chase: once before the brothers show up, once after he slays them, and once when catches her.)
Quote from: Zalman on February 24, 2022, 05:59:19 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 05:44:18 PM
His consistent remarks as he chases her and after slaying her brothers makes me wonder just how strong the enchantment is. It was ambiguous to me, especially since Conan has shrugged off mind control (made his save) in other stories. In this case he also had been bashed in the head too, so not sure on which end that drove him (unable to resist her charm, or still in a rapine mood after she is now in terror). The old guy's testimony does not mean as much to me as to effects, just evidence she must be real.
So your contention is that he is a rapist because he could have shaken off the mind-control if he'd really wanted to? And that his ability to talk proves the enchantment wasn't strong? OK!
(for the record, he speaks -- quite briefly -- only 3 times during the entire chase: once before the brothers show up, once after he slays them, and once when catches her.)
That seemed like a lot to me for a guy who has no control of himself. I agree she could have done this to herself. I can also say reading it, Conan has a case for being justified if he is not under her spell (in his barbaric code, not mine) as she did try to murder him, and if he were to kill her, that is worse than what he intends to do. I think Conan has to commit the crime before we can call him a rapist. He sure tries very hard though. Like I said, it was ambiguous to me.
Is Call of Cthulhu a fundamentally evil premise for a game?
The premise is fighting against evil cultists and thwarting their plans.
How is that an evil premise, because of the mere existence of the Mythos?
Edit: Answered upthread as a derailing of the conversation.
Cosmic horror is all subjective and aesthetic. If you enjoy the feels from postulating a meaningless universe with big squid gods sitting around at the bottom of the ocean, then great. I find it all much less scary than a good ghost or vampire story. But at this point, it's cosy, nostalgic fun to traipse around the 1920s and prod the odd shoggoth.
Cosmic horror?
Try surviving as a species for a million years where everything wants to eat you and then get back to me about Cosmic horror.
Creatures with tentacles for a head better make their shot count when they come for the King.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2022, 05:16:02 PM
Cosmic horror?
Try surviving as a species for a million years where everything wants to eat you and then get back to me about Cosmic horror.
Creatures with tentacles for a head better make their shot count when they come for the King.
Just unleash all the grievance studies profesors and graduates on Cthulhu, I bet he goes running under a rock to escape the screeching madness.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 25, 2022, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2022, 05:16:02 PM
Cosmic horror?
Try surviving as a species for a million years where everything wants to eat you and then get back to me about Cosmic horror.
Creatures with tentacles for a head better make their shot count when they come for the King.
Just unleash all the grievance studies profesors and graduates on Cthulhu, I bet he goes running under a rock to escape the screeching madness.
I always assumed they had already seen into the Abyss.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2022, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 25, 2022, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2022, 05:16:02 PM
Cosmic horror?
Try surviving as a species for a million years where everything wants to eat you and then get back to me about Cosmic horror.
Creatures with tentacles for a head better make their shot count when they come for the King.
Just unleash all the grievance studies profesors and graduates on Cthulhu, I bet he goes running under a rock to escape the screeching madness.
I always assumed they had already seen into the Abyss.
They are The Abyss, it's why there's no bottom to the crazy.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:49:26 PM
Quote from: Krazz on February 24, 2022, 03:38:14 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:11:42 PM
Again, I am not making Conan out to be a huge monster here, but he is intent on raping her, now if its okay because she is not human, I can accept that. As for not in control of himself, I think that is somewhat ambiguous after he kills the two frost giants.
I'm not saying that it's OK to rape non-humans, I'm saying the statement that Conan tried to rape a woman can't be true if the person in question isn't a woman. That's of course independent of whether it was attempted rape. There's no mention of him coming to his senses after he kills the giants, and given how protective of women he is in the other stories, I find it hard to believe that Howard meant for us to read between the lines that he was intentionally out to commit rape.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 24, 2022, 03:20:59 PM
You know what? I might be wrong about him actively selling them, the guy just mentions Conan slaying his brother and then the Stygians taking him into slavery... So maybe just murderous pirate and not a slaver?
Yes, Conan was no paladin. To quote Howard, he was "a thief, a reaver, a slayer". Shades of grey indeed, but Howard avoided assigning some of the worst of human nature to Conan, giving him a rough chivalry which often leaves him looking better than some of his civilised foes.
I do not see it as between the lines. Atali is clearly in absolute terror as he chases her after killing her brothers. And when he catches her and hugs her and tries to give her unwanted kisses...This is described and Conan obviously sees this. He was around 17 in this story, and maybe he has not yet learned no means no. Is it your position that her enchantment has caused him to be a rapist? I could actually accept that as a case, but it is ambiguous given Conan's remarks throughout the chase and killing of her brothers certainly seem to be Conan being Conan.
In the Vale of Lost Women (i think thats the name) Conan explicitly says he'd never take a woman against her will, even in a quid pro quo like the woman set up in that story cause he felt she wasnt really attracted to him and just wanted to be free of her captors.
I see this tread has gone in interesting directions. I'll have to politely pass on discussing Conan because I have virtually no familiarity with that IP. Lovecraft I do know.
I know Peterson's work well enough to make an educated guess that the quote in OP is leaving something out. He's said both mind-blowing reductions of truth and a number of things which I disagree with, but the TL;DR is he's a smart and articulate guy. That said, the entire point of play is preparation, both physical and emotional. Horror as a genre exists because it is a form of play intended to prepare people for encountering horrific life events. A sadly real and disturbingly common phenomenon.
I seriously doubt Peterson would miss something so fundamental. It's possible--to my knowledge, he's not into tabletop games as a hobby and I am, so I may genuinely know more about gaming--but that seems unlikely and out of character.
WARNING: PHILOSOPHICAL TIRADE!
In my opinion, you can't really understand Lovecraft without understanding the philosophical problems mathematics was struggling with back in the early 1900s. Early in the 1900s,Whitehead and Russel tried to formally prove "1+1=2" only for an Austrian mathematician named Godel to use a liar's paradox to prove that couldn't be proven. It was a mathematical proof that math is broken.
This spawned many things. In Christianity, it is the ancestor of the transcendental argument for God's existence. In popular culture, it's the original reason for Postmodernism to exist. In this context, it makes perfect sense for Lovecraft to write about Elder God horrors who drive people insane because in a sense, that's what these mathematicians were doing to themselves by staring into set of all sets theory. The interesting thing is that Lovecraft likely sensed this without even being told; At the Mountains of Madness first rejection and Godel's Theorems' publication were both in 1931. The fact this was also the time period quantum mechanics was formally described is the cherry on the top.
This is why I don't think it's fair to describe Lovecraft's writing as having any notion of Evil, or even ascribing to such a label at the table. It's a scream of agony at how brain-meltingly unintelligible a seemingly intelligible universe can be if you give it more than a cursory glance. (And I would say that the universe is intelligible, although reaching a high level understanding of it is much harder than we once thought, and certain philosophies fail outright when trying to adventure too deep.)
Haven't read the thread, but my take is that "Lovecraftian" Call of Cthulhu has an inherently nihilist tone. And a nihilist would probably argue that such a tone isn't "good" or "evil," it simply is. Others might characterize the nihilist tone as "evil" according to their own worldview.
But I'd also note that Call of Cthulhu doesn't *have* to be played with a nihilist approach to the cosmos. You can take a more "pulp" good vs. evil approach to the game and that can work, too.
Quote from: Shasarak on February 25, 2022, 05:49:02 PM
I always assumed they had already seen into the Abyss.
I think that's almost literally true. Social Justice, like the other totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century, is a reaction to the perceived meaningless of a Godless universe.
I don't understand why people like Cthulhu or anything Lovecraftian. The idea of playing characters that slowly go insane and mental is something I don't grok.
Quote from: RebelSky on February 26, 2022, 03:18:12 AM
I don't understand why people like Cthulhu or anything Lovecraftian. The idea of playing characters that slowly go insane and mental is something I don't grok.
It's a particular flavor of horror. It plays on our discomforts with uncertainty and insecurity (the world is so much weirder and more dangerous than we thought) and with no-win situations. As the protagonists learn the truth about reality, it destroys them from the inside out, but they have to press onward to accomplish what little they can. And anyway, there's no going back to the safe illusions.
In a sense, it's the same theme as Robert Browning's "Childe Roland To the Dark Tower Came" (https://allpoetry.com/Childe-Roland-To-The-Dark-Tower-Came) but with more tentacles and florid hallucinations:
Quote
For mark! no sooner was I fairly found
Pledged to the plain, after a pace or two,
Than, pausing to throw backward a last view
O'er the safe road, 'twas gone; grey plain all round:
Nothing but plain to the horizon's bound.
I might go on; nought else remained to do.
I don't think you can place the Cthulhu Mythos in a religious context, without destroying what makes the Mythos effective. The ultimate nature of reality must be uncaring and indifferent, and religion is about imposing meaning.
But I do think you can get rid of, or at least bound, the sanity-breaking nature of the Mythos. One way to conceive of it is that humanity is a sheltered child, unaware of the harshness of the greater world, or cosmos in this case. It's a dangerous cosmos, and the path to adulthood is narrow and any missteps can result in destruction. The loss of sanity is the result of trying to grow up too quickly, or letting a foot stray from the path. The path from lesser servitor race to transcendent being is long and difficult, not something that can be completed in a single generation. But over time, humanity can become inured to the new way of thinking, learn to exceed its own mental limits, and become something else. Thematically, this is similar to Clarke's Childhood's End.
Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 04:21:14 AM
I don't think you can place the Cthulhu Mythos in a religious context, without destroying what makes the Mythos effective. The ultimate nature of reality must be uncaring and indifferent, and religion is about imposing meaning.
Ah, but those aren't contradictory things! The fact that something's meaningless one some grand scale doesn't make it meaningless on smaller scales, and not all religions posit ultimate meanings. (What's the ultimate meaning of the Norse cosmology?) Also, the Greek god Hypnos is a canonical entity in the Mythos, isn't he?
Quote
But I do think you can get rid of, or at least bound, the sanity-breaking nature of the Mythos. One way to conceive of it is that humanity is a sheltered child, unaware of the harshness of the greater world, or cosmos in this case. It's a dangerous cosmos, and the path to adulthood is narrow and any missteps can result in destruction. The loss of sanity is the result of trying to grow up too quickly, or letting a foot stray from the path. The path from lesser servitor race to transcendent being is long and difficult, not something that can be completed in a single generation. But over time, humanity can become inured to the new way of thinking, learn to exceed its own mental limits, and become something else. Thematically, this is similar to Clarke's Childhood's End.
Another idea I've seen discussed is that our inability to withstand the truth about reality is something we did to ourselves: we shut our eyes to reality and created religious and rationalistic models to believe in instead.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 26, 2022, 04:37:04 AM
Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 04:21:14 AM
I don't think you can place the Cthulhu Mythos in a religious context, without destroying what makes the Mythos effective. The ultimate nature of reality must be uncaring and indifferent, and religion is about imposing meaning.
Ah, but those aren't contradictory things! The fact that something's meaningless one some grand scale doesn't make it meaningless on smaller scales, and not all religions posit ultimate meanings. (What's the ultimate meaning of the Norse cosmology?) Also, the Greek god Hypnos is a canonical entity in the Mythos, isn't he?
The Norse and Greek religions are long dead. I think it's a safe generalization for all major modern religions. Though you're correct, the cosmology of the Mythos would get along fine with certain types of shamanism or animism, or gods as powerful but not omniscient beings that need to be appeased.
Smaller scale is an interesting take on religions. The Mythos is the big scale, and religions are just little things that give us comfort?
Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 05:17:54 AM
Smaller scale is an interesting take on religions. The Mythos is the big scale, and religions are just little things that give us comfort?
Yes - and in my book that's just as true of a Great Old One or even Outer God* cultist, as a follower of an Abrahamic religion. They all seek meaning within meaninglessness.
*What actually are the Outer Gods? If they are actually transcendent (evil) beings, you do have an actual evil universe, and what I'd call an evil premise, like Midnight (which I played & disliked). I tend to think of them as pan-dimensional entities, like Star Trek's Q Continuum. They may even be far older than our young 13.8 billion year old universe. Maybe they routinely devour whole universes. But ultimately they're still just 'creatures', that originated 'somewhere' and 'somewhen'.
Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 05:17:54 AM
The Norse and Greek religions are long dead. I think it's a safe generalization for all major modern religions.
I think it's clear that humans don't always and necessarily need Ultimate Meaning to exist, any more than a cat or orang-utan does.
Quote from: S'mon on February 26, 2022, 07:48:45 AM
Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 05:17:54 AM
The Norse and Greek religions are long dead. I think it's a safe generalization for all major modern religions.
I think it's clear that humans don't always and necessarily need Ultimate Meaning to exist, any more than a cat or orang-utan does.
The single most developed trait in humans is the ability to consider abstractions beyond ourselves, which has led not just to science, art, and culture, but to religious thinking. Comparing humans to cats and orangutans in this area is like comparing a virus to a whale.
It's true that ultimate meaning isn't necessarily a requirement for humans. But meaning is; and ultimate meaning has been a driving force that's transformed the religious landscape in the last few millennia, until it's the near-universal paradigm today.
Quote from: Fheredin on February 25, 2022, 10:40:24 PM
At the Mountains of Madness first rejection and Godel's Theorems' publication were both in 1931.
Interesting correlation!
Sincerely,
A Philosophy Major
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 26, 2022, 04:37:04 AM
What's the ultimate meaning of the Norse cosmology?
The correct answer is "we don't know" because the only real source we have on Norse mythology (the Prose Edda) which was "assembled" by a Christian in the 13th century as part of propaganda campaign and there's evidence that Ragnarok may have been tacked on by the author as a "end of paganism/rise of Christianity" element.
A lot of what we think of ancient religions are little more than pop-culture assemblages of bits and pieces with sensibilities of the era of assemblage layered on it. A prime example is the "Egyptian mythology" which people keep trying to make a singular entity instead of it actually being essentially multiple religions spanning thousands of years that just happened to have originated in the same geographic area.
That's about as sensible as trying to mash Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Roman and Christian religions into a single entity and calling it "British religion" because all of them happened to be present in the British Isles at various points in the last 2000 years.
It's actually a pretty good analogy to the Mythos in the sense that the reality is so much more complex, spread across vast extra dimensions (time with the "Egyptians") and poorly documented (Norse mythology) and the only people trying to gain a real understanding of it come off as rather odd compared to just riffing off pop-culture interpretations.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 26, 2022, 10:23:25 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 26, 2022, 04:37:04 AM
What's the ultimate meaning of the Norse cosmology?
The correct answer is "we don't know" because the only real source we have on Norse mythology (the Prose Edda) which was "assembled" by a Christian in the 13th century as part of propaganda campaign and there's evidence that Ragnarok may have been tacked on by the author as a "end of paganism/rise of Christianity" element.
When you call the Prose Edda the only real source we have, are you dismissing the Poetic Eddas and the sagas? Because Ragnarok is part of the Voluspa, which is in the Poetic Eddas.
Of course we can never know exactly what ancient religions believed, for the reasons you mentioned. But consider that most polytheistic mythologies do not start with One God who creates or emanates everything else, or have a final end state that they're striving toward, and in those which have it like (Neo)Platonism and Hinduism, it's a development coming after philosophy takes off. More commonly, the eschatology points toward the eventual corruption and destruction of the world, with possibly nothing afterwards -- not just Ragnarok, but the Greek myths by Hesiod.
Even if you disregard Ragnarok, Norse mythology still provides a good example because there is no First Being; Audhumbla is the closest thing, but she is just one being in a cosmology that already existed. She finds, but does not create, Buri, and Ymir suckles on her but also wasn't born from or created by her. Furthermore in the Voluspa version of the Norse creation myth, Odin doesn't even create Midgard, it's raised out of the Ginnungagap where it had already existed.
So no, I doubt there was any ultimate meaning in Norse religion. "Ultimate meaning" is something only an intellectual culture would even think of.
Quote from: S'mon on February 26, 2022, 07:48:45 AM
Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 05:17:54 AM
The Norse and Greek religions are long dead. I think it's a safe generalization for all major modern religions.
I think it's clear that humans don't always and necessarily need Ultimate Meaning to exist, any more than a cat or orang-utan does.
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
Depending on what we mean by "ultimate meaning," it may not even be a coherent notion.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 26, 2022, 07:48:45 AM
Quote from: Pat on February 26, 2022, 05:17:54 AM
The Norse and Greek religions are long dead. I think it's a safe generalization for all major modern religions.
I think it's clear that humans don't always and necessarily need Ultimate Meaning to exist, any more than a cat or orang-utan does.
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
I think the Ultimate Meaning tends to create a common cultural bond to stick together. Without that, I am not sure it is the lack of moral fitness that did them in, it seems having weak, or non existent cultural bonds did them in. Usually from being conquered, killed, scattered by a culture that had extreme connections in cultural bonds.
Quote from: oggsmash on February 26, 2022, 07:23:21 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
I think the Ultimate Meaning tends to create a common cultural bond to stick together. Without that, I am not sure it is the lack of moral fitness that did them in, it seems having weak, or non existent cultural bonds did them in. Usually from being conquered, killed, scattered by a culture that had extreme connections in cultural bonds.
In that case Ultimate Meaning--or, properly, truthfulness about human nature and humanity's relationship to the universe--is the basis for moral fitness. How is the West losing, or did lose, this basis?
Christianity destroys the horror of the Cthulhu Mythos--God is omnipotent and cares about us, and is more powerful than Azathoth, so theoretically at least the Mythos takes place in a non-Christian universe. (There are some Robert Price stories that go in a really scary direction with that.) Lovecraft was an atheist, and at least part of the horror for him was the uncaring nature of the universe. A lot of the atmosphere of the original stories has to do with the decline of Christianity in the 20s.
Now Sandy Petersen, who created the game, is, as far as I know, a believing Mormon, and had no problem designing the game, part of the idea being to flip D&D on its head by making characters get less rather than more capable with time. He also worked on the original Doom (so those Cthulhu faces at the Tower of Babel may not be a coincidence), and his statement about the satanic elements was, "I have no problems with the demons in the game. They're just cartoons. And, anyway, they're the bad guys."
Quite a few people may not feel it's worth engaging with the larger philosophical issues raised by the game universe--it's a diversion and nothing more.
If I wanted to be fancy I could argue Call of Cthulhu characters sacrifice themselves to save humanity in a very Christlike fashion, but I have no evidence that's what Petersen had in mind. I'd guess he just liked horror and monsters and, like many a creative person throughout history, had a great idea and got lucky.
Alice Cooper is another example of a Christian with an interest in horror.
Quote from: Null42 on February 27, 2022, 11:34:25 AM
so theoretically at least the Mythos takes place in a non-Christian universe. (There are some Robert Price stories that go in a really scary direction with that.)
Which stories would you suggest?
The Grey Rite of Azathoth and Acute Spiritual Fear have the most anti-Christian content--Price is an ex-Baptist minister and has all the zeal of the deconvert, spending quite a bit of time arguing Jesus didn't exist. (He later became a Trump supporter and had people pull stories from his attempt at resurrecting the Flashing Swords anthology over a politically incorrect intro, so I think there is plenty to both like and hate about him for people here.)
The Horror in the Genizah has an an anti-Muslim slant.
The world of the Mythos essentially has a Devil (lots of them in fact), but no God.
The premise of Lovecraft's fiction is neither good nor evil, because concepts like good and evil do not exist. To Lovecraft, those are subjective and man-made concepts, as is the very concept of God. The fact that we live in a cold, uncaring universe is not the scary part. Lovecraft, like any atheist, would have accepted that and been fine with it, taking the attitude "it is what it is." (I don't even think that most religious people find it "scary," just harsh and depressing maybe). The scary part is that there is no God on our side, but there are indeed powerful alien and extra-dimensional entities (which are so powerful and unknowable that they might as well be called "gods") out there opposed to us. For a capsule picture of this worldview you need look no further than John Carpenter's movie Prince of Darkness. It's not a Lovecraft movie, but it is a very Lovecraftian movie.
I don't find the Call of Cthulhu game to be an exercise in futility on the part of players, though. The characters can fight to delay the advent of the Great Old Ones, can fight the human cults which serve them, etc. Everybody -- atheists and religious people alike -- know the world will end some day. If the Great Old Ones' return can keep being delayed until humanity naturally dies out or somehow evolves to the point that it can fight these alien things on better terms, is that not a victory of sorts?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
Quote from: I on February 27, 2022, 01:59:03 PM
The scary part is that there is no God on our side, but there are indeed powerful alien and extra-dimensional entities (which are so powerful and unknowable that they might as well be called "gods") out there opposed to us.
Almost all of them though are a lot more akin to a giant meteor or a supervolcano or a supernova, than to Satan. A lot of people aren't that worried about natural threats. I get the impression people would struggle to find 'climate change' threatening if told they were going to be hit by a natural temperature increase, even a very big one.
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
Well they seem to go through many of the same life cycles actual people do. Age, weaken, get sick, and die. Get replaced by younger, stronger, more motivated successor.
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
Rome falls but those pesky people calling themselves "Romans" go on.
Quote from: Fheredin on February 25, 2022, 10:40:24 PM
In my opinion, you can't really understand Lovecraft without understanding the philosophical problems mathematics was struggling with back in the early 1900s. Early in the 1900s,Whitehead and Russel tried to formally prove "1+1=2" only for an Austrian mathematician named Godel to use a liar's paradox to prove that couldn't be proven. It was a mathematical proof that math is broken.
.....
The fact this was also the time period quantum mechanics was formally described is the cherry on the top.
This is possibly true, but it would require Lovecraft being inspired by a mistaken idea of Godel's theorem.
Godel's theorem doesn't affect Russell and Whitehead's proof of 1+1=2, which remains intact. As does basically all math used even by mathematicians. It more exposes problems with their general program called "Logicism".
Added to this is that Quantum Theory is less inhuman/cold you could say than the preceeding Classical Physics, I'd say Lovecraft was more coming off ideas common to late 19th century science, such as the focus on "Non-Euclidean spaces" than the science of his own day which I doubt he knew well at all.
When I think of things that celebrate evil, I think of the Shape of the Water (or whatever the fuck that was) that turned a Lovecraftian (In nature) story into a love story. I think that sort of thing celebrates evil. This childish notion that 'Everybody just wants love maaaaaaaaaaaan'.
Embrace the borderline feral beast man because he is hot and his powers are totally sweet. Anybody that says otherwise is just a authoritarian fascist.
You are also a fish man and thats actually a GOOD thing.
It borderline feels like Deep One propaganda from an alternate universe.
Vampires can at the very least form a fucking sentance. This is just one mans scaley fetish porn.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 06:23:03 PM
When I think of things that celebrate evil, I think of the Shape of the Water (or whatever the fuck that was) that turned a Lovecraftian (In nature) story into a love story. I think that sort of thing celebrates evil. This childish notion that 'Everybody just wants love maaaaaaaaaaaan'.
Embrace the borderline feral beast man because he is hot and his powers are totally sweet. Anybody that says otherwise is just a authoritarian fascist.
You are also a fish man and thats actually a GOOD thing.
It borderline feels like Deep One propaganda from an alternate universe.
Vampires can at the very least form a fucking sentance. This is just one mans scaley fetish porn.
I though the Shape of Water was bizarre nonsense that got a bizarre amount of attention for no apparent reason, but I never got much of a deep one vibe from Mr. Fishdick. It seemed more like weird fetishism combined with a complete failure explore the alien, than anything else. Which, except for the fishsex, wasn't really that unusual. It's a romance, after all, and most romantic stories tend to be at least a little fetishistic and all the aliens or weird beings are really just human bad boys, with extra powers or slight anatomical changes. Romance isn't about exploring the alien, but exploring human relationships. And with a heavy focus on a very specific subset of those human relationships, which is basically the exotic boyfriend. Giving the boyfriend pointy ears or gills instead of making them Persian or something is a cosmetic change.
Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 09:47:29 PMI though the Shape of Water was bizarre nonsense that got a bizarre amount of attention for no apparent reason, but I never got much of a deep one vibe from Mr. Fishdick.
Hes modelled after Black Lagoon creature, which was a fish that wanted to abduct a woman to his cave because its lonely, and the director on seeing said creature thought 'Man, I wish they fucked'. The original was more 'Be ecologically concious' in minor thematic elements, rather then 'Its hip to fuck fish'.
Its not a literal Deep One, but with the worship and magical healing powers, he becomes more Deep One like.
Its taking the alien and saying 'If you don't have sex with it, you can only be a monster'.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 27, 2022, 10:25:18 PM
Quote from: Pat on February 27, 2022, 09:47:29 PMI though the Shape of Water was bizarre nonsense that got a bizarre amount of attention for no apparent reason, but I never got much of a deep one vibe from Mr. Fishdick.
Hes modelled after Black Lagoon creature, which was a fish that wanted to abduct a woman to his cave because its lonely, and the director on seeing said creature thought 'Man, I wish they fucked'. The original was more 'Be ecologically concious' in minor thematic elements, rather then 'Its hip to fuck fish'.
Its not a literal Deep One, but with the worship and magical healing powers, he becomes more Deep One like.
Its taking the alien and saying 'If you don't have sex with it, you can only be a monster'.
It's not really exploring the concept of the alien, though. It's just a form of anthropomorphization, or projecting the human onto things that aren't. Though since this is fiction, that's inverted. Since the writer defines the world, there's no underlying reality that's being projected on. Instead, the projection becomes the in-fiction reality, and the alien becomes the gloss. The fish-with-benefits is a just a human, with some exotic visual elements and minor quirks.
Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 08:36:39 AMIt's not really exploring the concept of the alien, though.
...Well its denying it as a concept. Not really exploring it.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 09:53:40 AM
Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 08:36:39 AMIt's not really exploring the concept of the alien, though.
...Well its denying it as a concept. Not really exploring it.
Agreed.
I have to admit I skipped out on that movie because I knew the lady was going to bang the monster. Maybe I am scarred from "Humanoids from the Deep", but that being in the movie was a hard pass for me. It seemed to be trying to push something that honestly, is just out right creepy.
You have to consider what was happening when Lovecraft wrote those stories. It was a crazy time with "old stuff" being trashed in favor of things we don't think twice about now.
In Lovecraft's world everything was big, cold, and just plain nasty. Humans were bits of spit in a cosmic toilet, ready to be flushed down any moment. Oh sometimes humans won small victories sure, but if those gods and demons from his world ever REALLY came back we'd be screwed a billion times over.
So if I ran a Cthulhu type dungeon the heroes would only stall evil. That's it. Buying us some more time.
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
There's no discovered principle indicating that they can't. The United States is an example of part of a civilization that seems on the brink of destruction or dissolution periodically and yet manages to pull it out of the fire, in combination with adherence to proper principles of economics. Leaders and the people who support them have the free will needed to adjust the system as needed to respond to marginal resource depletion; I don't know if there are any political-economic structures strong enough to wholly prevent those needed adjustments.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 28, 2022, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
There's no discovered principle indicating that they can't.
The second law of thermodynamics seems pretty clear on the subject! :P
ETA: Actually, that's not just a throwaway line. The implications of the 2nd law for the fate of the cosmos shook the intellectual world back in the day. In some sense Lovecraft is one of the reverberations of that quake.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 28, 2022, 10:24:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 28, 2022, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
There's no discovered principle indicating that they can't.
The second law of thermodynamics seems pretty clear on the subject! :P
ETA: Actually, that's not just a throwaway line. The implications of the 2nd law for the fate of the cosmos shook the intellectual world back in the day. In some sense Lovecraft is one of the reverberations of that quake.
Newton said that the necessity for a divine clockwinder was an absurdity resulting from his choice of mathematics. I wouldn't put the second law down as anything other than a description of how ideal gasses interact in a closed system. It may be that the universe is controlled by a principle of creativity or negentropy that overcomes that of entropy, making the latter a hoax. After all, where did the low-entropy state of the hypothesized beginning of the universe come from?
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 10:22:47 AM
Newton said that the necessity for a divine clockwinder was an absurdity resulting from his choice of mathematics. I wouldn't put the second law down as anything other than a description of how ideal gasses interact in a closed system. It may be that the universe is controlled by a principle of creativity or negentropy that overcomes that of entropy, making the latter a hoax. After all, where did the low-entropy state of the hypothesized beginning of the universe come from?
"Fiat lux." :D
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 28, 2022, 10:24:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 28, 2022, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
There's no discovered principle indicating that they can't.
The second law of thermodynamics seems pretty clear on the subject! :P
ETA: Actually, that's not just a throwaway line. The implications of the 2nd law for the fate of the cosmos shook the intellectual world back in the day. In some sense Lovecraft is one of the reverberations of that quake.
Newton said that the necessity for a divine clockwinder was an absurdity resulting from his choice of mathematics. I wouldn't put the second law down as anything other than a description of how ideal gasses interact in a closed system. It may be that the universe is controlled by a principle of creativity or negentropy that overcomes that of entropy, making the latter a hoax. After all, where did the low-entropy state of the hypothesized beginning of the universe come from?
I mean, there could be, but note that you countered S'mon by saying "there's no discovered principle" that says civilizations can't last indefinitely, I pointed out that "well, ackshually, there is," and now you're appealing to a principle that might exist but that have we haven't discovered yet!
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on March 01, 2022, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 10:22:47 AM
Newton said that the necessity for a divine clockwinder was an absurdity resulting from his choice of mathematics. I wouldn't put the second law down as anything other than a description of how ideal gasses interact in a closed system. It may be that the universe is controlled by a principle of creativity or negentropy that overcomes that of entropy, making the latter a hoax. After all, where did the low-entropy state of the hypothesized beginning of the universe come from?
"Fiat lux." :D
"Fiat lux" and even within cause and effect you eventually run into an unmoved mover or first cause that set everything in motion. How did we get that massive point of energy that exploded into our universe? If it was just a massive vacuum fluctuation in the quantum field (with the negative energy component exploding out in the opposite direction in spacetime accounting for its relative absence in our universe) then where did the quantum field come from? Et cetera.
The Mythos actually makes more sense Pre-Einstein when it was believed our universe was a steady-state that had always existed and always would. The Big Bang made Fiat Lux a far more plausible answer for the meaning behind the universe than the random happenstance of an unthinking universe (for those who don't know, the scientist who first proposed The Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was also a Catholic priest).
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2022, 01:09:37 PM
The Mythos actually makes more sense Pre-Einstein when it was believed our universe was a steady-state that had always existed and always would. The Big Bang made Fiat Lux a far more plausible answer for the meaning behind the universe than the random happenstance of an unthinking universe (for those who don't know, the scientist who first proposed The Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was also a Catholic priest).
I keep saying that the Mythos is a product of its time--too much earlier, and the atheism it presupposes is absent; too much later, and you don't have the faith in an ordered and rational universe that it spends so much time undercutting to produce the horrific effect.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 28, 2022, 10:24:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 28, 2022, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
There's no discovered principle indicating that they can't.
The second law of thermodynamics seems pretty clear on the subject! :P
ETA: Actually, that's not just a throwaway line. The implications of the 2nd law for the fate of the cosmos shook the intellectual world back in the day. In some sense Lovecraft is one of the reverberations of that quake.
Newton said that the necessity for a divine clockwinder was an absurdity resulting from his choice of mathematics. I wouldn't put the second law down as anything other than a description of how ideal gasses interact in a closed system. It may be that the universe is controlled by a principle of creativity or negentropy that overcomes that of entropy, making the latter a hoax. After all, where did the low-entropy state of the hypothesized beginning of the universe come from?
I mean, there could be, but note that you countered S'mon by saying "there's no discovered principle" that says civilizations can't last indefinitely, I pointed out that "well, ackshually, there is," and now you're appealing to a principle that might exist but that have we haven't discovered yet!
The so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't necessarily apply to civilizations, which are not closed systems. There is always more energy to be had, as far as we know, up to the limit of how much Helium-3 we can extract from Jupiter, say.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 02:30:23 PM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 01:00:37 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on February 28, 2022, 10:24:50 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 28, 2022, 10:06:34 PM
Quote from: S'mon on February 27, 2022, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:31 PM
It's not clear that civilizations don't need Ultimate Meaning to exist indefinitely. One could view history as littered with civilizations that lacked the moral fitness to survive and, so, were extinguished.
It's not clear that civilisations can exist indefinitely. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
Of course civilisations tend to wrongly conflate their own extinction with universal/species extinction. Rome falls, but life goes on. We don't reach the stars; we don't all die off either.
There's no discovered principle indicating that they can't.
The second law of thermodynamics seems pretty clear on the subject! :P
ETA: Actually, that's not just a throwaway line. The implications of the 2nd law for the fate of the cosmos shook the intellectual world back in the day. In some sense Lovecraft is one of the reverberations of that quake.
Newton said that the necessity for a divine clockwinder was an absurdity resulting from his choice of mathematics. I wouldn't put the second law down as anything other than a description of how ideal gasses interact in a closed system. It may be that the universe is controlled by a principle of creativity or negentropy that overcomes that of entropy, making the latter a hoax. After all, where did the low-entropy state of the hypothesized beginning of the universe come from?
I mean, there could be, but note that you countered S'mon by saying "there's no discovered principle" that says civilizations can't last indefinitely, I pointed out that "well, ackshually, there is," and now you're appealing to a principle that might exist but that have we haven't discovered yet!
The so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't necessarily apply to civilizations, which are not closed systems. There is always more energy to be had, as far as we know, up to the limit of how much Helium-3 we can extract from Jupiter, say.
"So-called?" Err...
As for "always more energy," let me quote some Asimov to you, from "The Last Question" (https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_Series_v04n05_1956-11_slpn/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater), since he says it better than I can:
Quote
You're thinking we'll switch to an- other sun when ours is done, aren't you?"
"I'm not thinking."
"Sure you are. You're weak on logic; that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower, and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried. You see, he figured that when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was; and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last twenty billion years, and maybe the dwarfs will last a hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 02:30:23 PM
The so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't necessarily apply to civilizations, which are not closed systems. There is always more energy to be had, as far as we know, up to the limit of how much Helium-3 we can extract from Jupiter, say.
"So-called?" Err...
As for "always more energy," let me quote some Asimov to you, from "The Last Question" (https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_Series_v04n05_1956-11_slpn/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater), since he says it better than I can:
Quote
You're thinking we'll switch to an- other sun when ours is done, aren't you?"
"I'm not thinking."
"Sure you are. You're weak on logic; that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower, and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried. You see, he figured that when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was; and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last twenty billion years, and maybe the dwarfs will last a hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."
Human civilization has lasted less than 10,000 years, and you're talking about 1,000,000,000,000 years. You're technically correct about the ultimate fate of the universe, but a civilization lasting even 100,000 years would qualify as lasting "indefinitely" based on all current and past examples.
Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 02:30:23 PM
The so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't necessarily apply to civilizations, which are not closed systems. There is always more energy to be had, as far as we know, up to the limit of how much Helium-3 we can extract from Jupiter, say.
"So-called?" Err...
As for "always more energy," let me quote some Asimov to you, from "The Last Question" (https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_Series_v04n05_1956-11_slpn/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater), since he says it better than I can:
Quote
You're thinking we'll switch to an- other sun when ours is done, aren't you?"
"I'm not thinking."
"Sure you are. You're weak on logic; that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower, and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried. You see, he figured that when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was; and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last twenty billion years, and maybe the dwarfs will last a hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."
Human civilization has lasted less than 10,000 years, and you're talking about 1,000,000,000,000 years. You're technically correct about the ultimate fate of the universe, but a civilization lasting even 100,000 years would qualify as lasting "indefinitely" based on all current and past examples.
Oh, sure, and that was the response I was expecting. Hence the smiley in my post on the subject. It's just that Neoplatonist1 responded by challenging the scope of 2nd law itself and contradicted themselves in the process, so I decided to have a little fun with them.
Quote from: Pat on March 01, 2022, 05:31:45 PM
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 01, 2022, 02:30:23 PM
The so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't necessarily apply to civilizations, which are not closed systems. There is always more energy to be had, as far as we know, up to the limit of how much Helium-3 we can extract from Jupiter, say.
"So-called?" Err...
As for "always more energy," let me quote some Asimov to you, from "The Last Question" (https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_Series_v04n05_1956-11_slpn/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater), since he says it better than I can:
Quote
You're thinking we'll switch to an- other sun when ours is done, aren't you?"
"I'm not thinking."
"Sure you are. You're weak on logic; that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower, and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried. You see, he figured that when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was; and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last twenty billion years, and maybe the dwarfs will last a hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."
Human civilization has lasted less than 10,000 years, and you're talking about 1,000,000,000,000 years. You're technically correct about the ultimate fate of the universe, but a civilization lasting even 100,000 years would qualify as lasting "indefinitely" based on all current and past examples.
This. If there is a principle limiting civilizations' lifespan, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of civilizations, instead requiring people introduce heroic spans of universal time, based on an assumption that the universe is a closed entropic system, in order to delimit them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
If only that were true.
QuoteThis. If there is a principle limiting civilizations' lifespan, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of civilizations, instead requiring people introduce heroic spans of universal time, based on an assumption that the universe is a closed entropic system, in order to delimit them.
Intrisic nature of civilisations is physical - they are emergent social structures of biological organisms. Therefore ultimately they are INTRINSICALLY dependent of physics underlying whole biology. They hold no independent nature removed from human nature. Therefore they are dependent of human survival. No human, no cry... I mean no civilisation.
Quote"Fiat lux" and even within cause and effect you eventually run into an unmoved mover or first cause that set everything in motion. How did we get that massive point of energy that exploded into our universe? If it was just a massive vacuum fluctuation in the quantum field (with the negative energy component exploding out in the opposite direction in spacetime accounting for its relative absence in our universe) then where did the quantum field come from? Et cetera.
The Mythos actually makes more sense Pre-Einstein when it was believed our universe was a steady-state that had always existed and always would. The Big Bang made Fiat Lux a far more plausible answer for the meaning behind the universe than the random happenstance of an unthinking universe (for those who don't know, the scientist who first proposed The Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was also a Catholic priest).
I'd argue it ultimately does not matter because Time is not some absolute metaphysical constant the universe flow within but internal physical dimension twisting and turning, crushed by gravity and speed. So ultimately shape of this dimension within Universe watched from BEYOND tells us nothing... It does not solve pantheism - theism dispute like at all. External Creator can easily created infinite static time dimension, while Autothelic Universe-God can still has limited dimension within his BEING (because it's autothelic and therefore there are literally no rules to it's existence).
Quote from: Wrath of God on March 27, 2022, 05:43:47 PM
QuoteThis. If there is a principle limiting civilizations' lifespan, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of civilizations, instead requiring people introduce heroic spans of universal time, based on an assumption that the universe is a closed entropic system, in order to delimit them.
Intrisic nature of civilisations is physical - they are emergent social structures of biological organisms. Therefore ultimately they are INTRINSICALLY dependent of physics underlying whole biology. They hold no independent nature removed from human nature. Therefore they are dependent of human survival. No human, no cry... I mean no civilisation.
Quote"Fiat lux" and even within cause and effect you eventually run into an unmoved mover or first cause that set everything in motion. How did we get that massive point of energy that exploded into our universe? If it was just a massive vacuum fluctuation in the quantum field (with the negative energy component exploding out in the opposite direction in spacetime accounting for its relative absence in our universe) then where did the quantum field come from? Et cetera.
The Mythos actually makes more sense Pre-Einstein when it was believed our universe was a steady-state that had always existed and always would. The Big Bang made Fiat Lux a far more plausible answer for the meaning behind the universe than the random happenstance of an unthinking universe (for those who don't know, the scientist who first proposed The Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was also a Catholic priest).
I'd argue it ultimately does not matter because Time is not some absolute metaphysical constant the universe flow within but internal physical dimension twisting and turning, crushed by gravity and speed. So ultimately shape of this dimension within Universe watched from BEYOND tells us nothing... It does not solve pantheism - theism dispute like at all. External Creator can easily created infinite static time dimension, while Autothelic Universe-God can still has limited dimension within his BEING (because it's autothelic and therefore there are literally no rules to it's existence).
So you're saying that Doctor Who was right and that it's a timey-wimey ball? :D
Quote from: Wrath of God on March 27, 2022, 05:43:47 PM
QuoteThis. If there is a principle limiting civilizations' lifespan, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of civilizations, instead requiring people introduce heroic spans of universal time, based on an assumption that the universe is a closed entropic system, in order to delimit them.
Intrisic nature of civilisations is physical - they are emergent social structures of biological organisms. Therefore ultimately they are INTRINSICALLY dependent of physics underlying whole biology. They hold no independent nature removed from human nature. Therefore they are dependent of human survival. No human, no cry... I mean no civilisation.
Quote"Fiat lux" and even within cause and effect you eventually run into an unmoved mover or first cause that set everything in motion. How did we get that massive point of energy that exploded into our universe? If it was just a massive vacuum fluctuation in the quantum field (with the negative energy component exploding out in the opposite direction in spacetime accounting for its relative absence in our universe) then where did the quantum field come from? Et cetera.
The Mythos actually makes more sense Pre-Einstein when it was believed our universe was a steady-state that had always existed and always would. The Big Bang made Fiat Lux a far more plausible answer for the meaning behind the universe than the random happenstance of an unthinking universe (for those who don't know, the scientist who first proposed The Big Bang, Georges Lemaitre, was also a Catholic priest).
I'd argue it ultimately does not matter because Time is not some absolute metaphysical constant the universe flow within but internal physical dimension twisting and turning, crushed by gravity and speed. So ultimately shape of this dimension within Universe watched from BEYOND tells us nothing... It does not solve pantheism - theism dispute like at all. External Creator can easily created infinite static time dimension, while Autothelic Universe-God can still has limited dimension within his BEING (because it's autothelic and therefore there are literally no rules to it's existence).
Gravity doesn't exist, it's a function of mass. Speed is a function of distance/time therefore wich one is the fundamental one?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
I know devout christians who are totally SJW. It might make it less likely for you to embrace it, but it's no sure protection against it.
Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on February 23, 2022, 11:46:43 PM
The following quote by Jordan Peterson on the nature of evil and evil acts struck me queer:
QuoteJordan Peterson:
And you have to think about it from an aesthetic perspective, in a sense, because it's a celebration of horror, and it's a conscious attempt to violate the conditions that make life itself tolerable, and it's aimed at dehumanization, destruction of the ideal and, at an even deeper level, revenge against the conditions of existence itself. I'm trying to understand the developmental pathway that leads to acts like that.
This sounds a lot like what the Cthulhu Mythos are, and what a game revolving around them is doing, and what Lovecraftian weird fiction in general is doing.
Call of Cthulhu is fantasy. It's not horrific or scary at all. Some filmmakers have tried their best to make HPL-like monsters look terrifying on the big screen. Mostly, it just frightens small children though. And may gross out some older adults. ALIEN was best at such creepiness. But that movie went nowhere near what slasher movies were doing at the time. Go after stories like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, if you're looking for issues Peterson has.
Quote from: migo on March 28, 2022, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 24, 2022, 02:45:34 AM
Well IRL belief in God does shield you from falling into the SJW cult.
I know devout christians who are totally SJW. It might make it less likely for you to embrace it, but it's no sure protection against it.
You're a riot. Hitler was Catholic. So therefore...
What nonsense. Anyway, you're either Christian or you're not. You can't be raging xenophobe and be Christian. Pick only one.
There's nothing about being Christian that precludes being a huge asshole. You don't get to change the definition of Christian each time a Christian does something bad any more than Muslims get to change the definition of Muslim each time one of them does anything bad.
Quote from: migo on March 28, 2022, 03:12:18 PM
There's nothing about being Christian that precludes being a huge asshole. You don't get to change the definition of Christian each time a Christian does something bad any more than Muslims get to change the definition of Muslim each time one of them does anything bad.
I would say it depends on whether you try to use Christianity to justify your xenophobia, in which case it's at minimum a heresy. But Hitler in particular was neither a Christian nor an atheist. He something like a deist or a pantheist. Sources: 1 (https://www.historyonthenet.com/hitlers-religion), 2 (https://historyforatheists.com/2021/07/hitler-atheist-pagan-or-christian/)
Church is for sinners, not for saints.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 28, 2022, 04:15:05 PM
Quote from: migo on March 28, 2022, 03:12:18 PM
There's nothing about being Christian that precludes being a huge asshole. You don't get to change the definition of Christian each time a Christian does something bad any more than Muslims get to change the definition of Muslim each time one of them does anything bad.
I would say it depends on whether you try to use Christianity to justify your xenophobia, in which case it's at minimum a heresy. But Hitler in particular was neither a Christian nor an atheist. He something like a deist or a pantheist. Sources: 1 (https://www.historyonthenet.com/hitlers-religion), 2 (https://historyforatheists.com/2021/07/hitler-atheist-pagan-or-christian/)
Hitler was Catholic on paper, and Catholics were similar to Muslims in doing sneaky conversions - baptising a Jewish kid to make him Catholic, and they believed the baptism is what counts. So Hitler was baptised, he was a Catholic. Catholics don't get to change the rules on that. As for his actions, he was far more Lutheran than anything else, and appeared to be directly inspired by Martin Luther with his hatred of Jews. Luther's anti-Jewish sentiment was also directly based in scripture, and wasn't something that was unheard of in Christianity before him. Technically being anti-semitic isn't necessarily being xenophobic, but I'm assuming you meant to justify bigotry, and there's certainly plenty of precedent from mainline Christian bigotry.
But Hitler wasn't the only bad Christian (nor was Luther) - the more you study history, the more of them you find (Ulrich Zwingli just off the top of my head). So a discussion about him in particular is a red herring. Christians can be assholes - very much so - and SJWs are assholes, so Christians can be SJWs. An honest belief in God doesn't prevent you from being an asshole, so an honest belief in God doesn't prevent you from being an SJW.
This can be expanded even further. It's a simple concept: Being X doesn't mean you can't be a bad person. There's no group of people, no identity, under which you won't find some bad people. A white-supremacist SJW? A fascist anti-fascist? It's more likely than you think. You can have a rationally thinking atheist who unquestioningly follows dogma, and you can have brilliant idiots (Neil deGrasse Tyson and Elon Musk as examples).
Apologies for the necropost, but this is something I've been thinking about lately too. I figured it's better to bring back the same topic than make a duplicate.
I think the answer might lie in whether you think Lovecraft was endorsing the themes of the Cthulhu Mythos or warning against them. There are people who argue Nietzsche's philosophy was a warning against nihilism, not an endorsement of it, but just like with him, it's not very clear where Lovecraft stood. He clearly agreed with some of the themes of the Mythos in relation to reality, but clearly opposed others.
There are certainly many SJWs and similar types enamored with Lovecraft's work, and certainly many seem to hold the themes of the Mythos, especially the concepts of an uncaring, disorderly universe, the lack of a God or Gods and the invalidity of religion, and materialist philosophy as being true. Lovecraft's disdain of religion seems to especially be a common thing such fans will talk about smugly, "In the Cthulhu universe there is no God, just like real life." Etc.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Cthulhu Mythos as far as morality goes. I certainly disagree with most of Lovecraft's ideas. That said, the Mythos has just never interested me much to begin with. I've always found the cosmic nihilism more annoying than frightening or engaging, and too much of it feels more like a genre of alien or science fiction horror, which I'm also not really into.
I like Call of Cthulhu the game well enough, but I've never used the Cthulhu Mythos for it and don't have any interest ever doing so.
Quote from: Validin on April 12, 2023, 05:55:43 PMThere are people who argue Nietzsche's philosophy was a warning against nihilism, not an endorsement of it, but just like with him, it's not very clear where Lovecraft stood.
Connecting Nietzsche to Nihilism is nonsensical. The guy writes about a rise of Nihilism, and how everyone has to become the best version of themselves in order to combat it, and people call him a Nihilist. It's like saying Gandhi was a bloodthirsty warrior.
Quote
Connecting Nietzsche to Nihilism is nonsensical. The guy writes about a rise of Nihilism, and how everyone has to become the best version of themselves in order to combat it, and people call him a Nihilist.
The problem is Good Old Fritz basically give no good reason to fight nihilism aside of his own - utterly contradictory to own nature ironically - aesthetic preferences of ancient pagan heroism.
There is no any underlying metaphysics that would really go anti-nihilism, merely emotional drive to do so. Sort of like heroic existentialism - putting human heroic delusion about uncaring reality, and applying to pathos and poetry rather than actual rational reality-scrutiny.
Quote from: Wrath of God on April 16, 2023, 08:04:16 AM
Quote
Connecting Nietzsche to Nihilism is nonsensical. The guy writes about a rise of Nihilism, and how everyone has to become the best version of themselves in order to combat it, and people call him a Nihilist.
The problem is Good Old Fritz basically give no good reason to fight nihilism aside of his own - utterly contradictory to own nature ironically - aesthetic preferences of ancient pagan heroism.
There is no any underlying metaphysics that would really go anti-nihilism, merely emotional drive to do so. Sort of like heroic existentialism - putting human heroic delusion about uncaring reality, and applying to pathos and poetry rather than actual rational reality-scrutiny.
I don't see why it needs to be spoon-fed. It's like the Meaning Of Life, we actually make our own meaning.
Why be your best self, and fight nihilism? Because being a wretch that lives surrounded by misery isn't very pleasant. As simple a thing as enlightened self-interest.
Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 01, 2022, 03:06:06 PM
As for "always more energy," let me quote some Asimov to you, from "The Last Question" (https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_Series_v04n05_1956-11_slpn/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater), since he says it better than I can:
Quote
You're thinking we'll switch to an- other sun when ours is done, aren't you?"
"I'm not thinking."
"Sure you are. You're weak on logic; that's the trouble with you. You're like the guy in the story who was caught in a sudden shower, and who ran to a grove of trees and got under one. He wasn't worried. You see, he figured that when one tree got wet through, he would just get under another one."
"I get it," said Adell. "Don't shout. When the sun is done, the other stars will be gone, too."
"Darn right they will," muttered Lupov. "It all had a beginning in the original cosmic explosion, whatever that was; and it'll all have an end when all the stars run down. Some run down faster than others. Hell, the giants won't last a hundred million years. The sun will last twenty billion years, and maybe the dwarfs will last a hundred billion for all the good they are. But just give us a trillion years and everything will be dark. Entropy has to increase to maximum, that's all."
Except that this has a Gross Conceptual Error in it.
Star formation and then destruction is a cyclic process where one feeds into the other.
Plus, we can colonize Black Holes in the far far future.....Of course, by the time we will be able to do this, humanity itself may be the Lovecraftian Horrors.
Quote from: Grognard GM on April 16, 2023, 12:12:45 PMI don't see why it needs to be spoon-fed.
"I am filled with existential dread"
"Don't be."
"Wow what brilliant philosophical insights"
The man is distasteful enough for me for other reasons, and his works are mostly just disconnected rambling, but "Just shut up" is not an example of deep insight. I mean it works well enough for his worldview (a sick one in my opinion), but its not gonna get anybody to sign up who wasn't already basically a believer in the first place.
Let me roll it back to point out all I said was Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist, or a promoter of nihilism. I have no desire to enter in to a pissing contest with people who take issue with the man or anything he did say or promote.
Quote from: Grognard GM on April 16, 2023, 02:12:27 PM
Let me roll it back to point out all I said was Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist, or a promoter of nihilism. I have no desire to enter in to a pissing contest with people who take issue with the man or anything he did say or promote.
Agreed on both fronts.
QuoteI don't see why it needs to be spoon-fed. It's like the Meaning Of Life, we actually make our own meaning.
Why be your best self, and fight nihilism? Because being a wretch that lives surrounded by misery isn't very pleasant. As simple a thing as enlightened self-interest.
That changes nothing - metaphysics always trump ethics. If nothing actually matters, then nothing matters.
So like heroic existentialism it's kinda school of glorious delusion.
Like you can hate ontological nihilism - but still profess it. That sounds precisely like FN to me, maybe that's why he get insane.
QuoteExcept that this has a Gross Conceptual Error in it.
Star formation and then destruction is a cyclic process where one feeds into the other.
Plus, we can colonize Black Holes in the far far future.....Of course, by the time we will be able to do this, humanity itself may be the Lovecraftian Horrors.
It is correct, though it does not change general doom coming from Second Rule of Thermondynamic. With each cycle entropy keeps growing. Finally cycles shall stop (if our understanding of physics is correct).
QuoteIt is correct, though it does not change general doom coming from Second Rule of Thermondynamic. With each cycle entropy keeps growing. Finally cycles shall stop (if our understanding of physics is correct).
Reading the summaries of some recent physics papers it sounds like we may not quite have as a clear an understanding of physics as we think we do. Lots of observations from the newer telescopes are returning results that just don't fit what the models say they should... which means those models have some errors or might even be entirely wrong (the science was settled on the sun orbiting the Earth... until it wasn't).
For all we know we'll discover some whackiness we've never even considered that throws all our presumptions into the dustbin.
Like, what happens if another Big Bang-ish vacuum fluctuation happens within our spacetime introducing a whole new slew of energy and lighter elements into the universe such that the nature of the universe just keeps throwing more logs onto the fire every time it starts to dim?
And if you're Christian you've got the whole New Heavens and New Earth deal implying entry into a whole new dimension of spacetime.
We just don't know and it's practically ludicrous that we pretend we're anywhere close to figuring out how the cosmos actually functions given how poorly reality seems interest in agreeing with the standard models.