User:RD/9k/Deltarune is history Idealism (Q60,69)
Main entry
Deltarune is history Idealism
/ Deltarune demonstrates historical existentialism / Deltarune is an example of historical existentialism [1] -> the claim that Deltarune broadly (not necessarily super literally) embodies the concept of treating history as something that can always be defied; this claim is blue because an Existentialist also could and would make this claim. to be precise, Deltarune only talks about prophecies and narratives, but whether in reality or fiction history is a narrative, so the claim would be that Deltarune throwing around tropes about prophecies and narratives is significant because these tropes resonate with the way players intuitively want to understand history. you can see a similar thing going on in Wings of Fire: wars in a Europe-like "fantasy World War I" setting should be a matter of history, but again history is being spun solely as a matter of Free Will, especially in the Pantala arc which is literally covering the history of where the earliest wars came from. back to Deltarune: there is a really really common motif people have when talking about it: the only kind of story there can ever possibly be is the story of an individual life, therefore, all discussions about prophecy tropes are appropriate to relate back to a single human life cycle and the fact they all end in death, the "one ending" to life. only.... that is not true. that is not even true. you'd know this if you live in the United States, where some people died slaves and some people died free. that's not the same ending! people genuinely have different endings to their lives because of the fact history exists. it's flat out beneficial to racists to pretend that everyone has the same life cycle and the same ending, because if everybody's life begins and ends the same way they can then act like the era of slavery is totally irrelevant and can be left out of history books just because it's not happening any more. the really sad thing is that progressive Existentialism will put this lesson into the meat grinder too, by claiming that slavery is a deviation from history rather than being part of history, because the only real history is the history created by Free Will, and everything else is fake history, essentially. fake history that bad people concocted the contents of and then enacted but which overall taught people nothing and got in the way of real correct history unfolding that would actually teach people something. but, again, if bad history isn't real history there's a terrifyingly good argument to leave it out of textbooks, because if only Free Will matters in writing the future, wouldn't it be better to leave out everything White supremacists ever did and fill textbooks only with progressive incidents that taught people how to build the future? I hate that idea but I'm just a dumb Communist, I'm not an expert, intelligent postcolonial anarchist Lacanian. so you know, I've gotta stop being such a freedom-hating dictator for just a moment and give the actual "good" ideas a try.
"In life..."
Life revolves around you
/ All events that occur while a particular person exists occur within that person, as part of "life" / in life... (motif) / in our lives... (motif) / You are the main character of reality / (9k) -> I find it incredibly strange that psychologists can both try to tell you your life "isn't a story" and then speak of our lives like your existence is uniquely yours and you are in fact the main character of reality just by existing and being able to perceive it."In life" fixes overgeneralizations
/ Add "in life" to make overgeneralizations profound / When you add "in life" to an overgeneralization, and sometimes an additional "should" (ought to, must, is good to, is advisable to), it will not be dismissed as an overgeneralization and sounds falsely profound ->
False statement: all friends stay together. Deepity: In life, friends are crucial because friends stick together. False statement: it's always useful to have a towel. Deepity: In life, a towel comes in handy wherever you go. False statement: you can always know your allies from your enemies. Deepity: In life, it's good to know your friends from your enemies. False statement: nothing is worth fear. Deepity: In life, nothing is to be feared. False statement: everything can be understood. Deepity: In life, everything is to be understood.
I think most of the time it's the "should" that actually does the heavy lifting- Biographies only have one ending -> this is one of the falsest things I have ever heard that people still keep saying. literally using biographies as the example the whole point of reading them is that different things happen in them, meaning they have different endings. this is a very important distinction because this difference in "endings" provides a material difference which can become a pattern that can be studied and in some cases broadly repeated.
- Because all biographies have one ending, we can only reinterpret them -> no. is that how people created the underground railroad and slipped out of slavery? reinterpreting how bad they think their situation is and how bad it is or isn't to inevitably die? this is one of the only things worse than saying Free Will explains all history.
- The life of a bisexual has at least two endings / The biography of a bisexual has at least two possible endings -> this seems pretty self-evident, yet somehow nobody thinks of it. bisexuals break psychoanalysis. and they break Existentialism because there isn't necessarily an inherently better individual choice, but there are still multiple outcomes.
- An ending amid slavery is a different outcome / An ending amid slavery is different from an ending amid none / A book that ends within a time of slavery is a different ending than a book which ends in a time of no slavery -> apparently ordinary people are too stupid for this proposition to be blue, and that's a shame.
- An ending amid monarchy is a different outcome -> the charcoal swatch manages this one because Wings of Fire was able to figure out this much, although the ultimate implications of the books are... odd. it's left, like Warriors, implying that monarchy is bad but endless brutality and death between nationalities is almost better and needs no real apologies.
- Biographies have many different endings -> I don't have an example text right now but I swear the Bolshevik party knew this. look at what happened afterward. before 1900 people in Russia and China had one kind of ending. after 1930 their stories had new kinds of endings. this is almost the definition of what history is. if people didn't have different endings, we'd all live in an episodic sitcom and nothing would build on anything else.
Defying history
- non-narrative thinking / (9k)
- undialectical idealism, historical non-materialism, and class non-analysis / undialectical idealism, historical existentialism, & class non-analysis / (9k)
- Linear time prevents individuals from realizing fictions / (9k)
- Being a waiter is an arbitrary narrative / Being a waiter is a culturally-fabricated Game that prevents an individual having an understanding of self and an ownership of Life (Sartre, Being and Nothingness) / (9k)
- The only explanation of history is the defiance of history (poststructuralism onto postmodernism [?]) / The only explanation of historical patterns is the defiance of historical patterns -> this claim is inherently contradictory because it proposes an explanation of history, which is forbidden by the claim; the claim forbids itself. there is one way to fix it: cross out the word "defiance" and propose that Free Will and The Subject are material phenomena which can themselves be studied by historical materialism and reduced down to a number of partly-predictable patterns. this produces existential materialism.
- The only explanation of defying history is history / The only explanation of the defiance of historical patterns is historical patterns -> fixed it. funny how if you say almost the exact opposite of what Existentialists say it actually begins to make sense again.
Narratives and will
- monomyth (generic) -> the general concept of a monomyth, which ironically enough will basically always exist in plurality in several different forms.
- Fictional futures come from characters' free will / Fictional futures come from the free will of fictional individuals / (9k)
- A story containing multiple biographies violates monomyths -> sounds like such a stupidly simple idea you wonder why people don't talk about it, but look at it seriously. let's examine Dragon Ball. Goku has a biography. Gohan has a biography. Yamcha has a biography. if you want to keep previous characters relevant even if not necessarily focusing on them heavily for many episodes, you have to see things beyond a simple adventure narrative or "hero's journey" because they are usually about one person and not truly about multiple characters with different trajectories successfully coming back together again.
Related
Ideology codes
- (none)