|
You people spelling it Evrarte are making me insane
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Omg how did I miss that goddamn eye was Sartre reference Mr. Sartre is helping me find my existence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 07:05
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Tell me more about Bill Gates’ charity. Mr Gates is helping me fund my malaria vaccine
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 08:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 08:29
|
|
|
Mr. Evrart is helping me find my dignity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
Mr. Evrart is helping me undermine teacher's unions
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 09:48
|
|
|
Heath posted:You people spelling it Evrarte are making me insane Mr. Everest is helping me find my fun
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 09:52
|
|
|
Mr. Poptart
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 10:11
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:wanna pick up on this one because I feel this might be important to contrast with an anglocentric view of the world This was a good post and I appreciate it quote:the question that should be asked is: how bad things had to be so that guys like the Claires enjoy so much support. This is dealing with historical circumstances, the world as it is. The previous union leader getting offed is no big deal because she was a class traitor (the deserter and a couple of skills comment about that), having the in-game equivalent of a Hermés bag that no longshorewoman could ever be able to afford. The people of Martinaise couldn't give less of a poo poo about it because they knew that. If she actually had the support of the debardeurs, the Claires would never get away with it. I think you overreach a bit here. If previous union leader did not have real support then the Claires would not have had her assassinated. The Claires are doing the classic authoritarian move of offering people security and an improvement in living conditions in exchange for not noticing that they've given up their right to have any say over how they are governed. The improvement in living conditions is selective (if you get in the way of the Claire's plans then life will be made unbearable for you) and anyone who openly expresses discontent gets intimidated into silence. Everything about their power is illegitimate, from how they gained it to how they maintain it to how they exercise it (compelling signatures for the development). They're riding on having an external enemy that's worse than them (a situation they've deliberately cultivated) and the situation in Martinaise being just okay enough and the cost of opposing them being just great enough that nobody wants to do it. Note that none of the Union members you meet actually believe what Evrart believes, the closest is the guy on the stairs who straight up tells you that he and everyone else knows about all the corruption and nastiness but are going along with it for a chance to grab a greater piece of the pie. e: in other words, the Claires rule through the maintenance of a fascade that means most of the Union can tell themselves they are happy with how things are, while doing everything possible to ensure that risks of questioning that fascade are so high that nobody is willing to do it. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Apr 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 10:24
|
|
|
God this game IS good, isn't it? I do find it interesting that the skills that introduce Moralism and Communism don't actually belong to the skill groups associated with those political movements. I wonder if there was a reason for that. Edit: Or maybe I'm wrong, and Int and Phy are Communism/Moralism associated respectfully. Samovar fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Apr 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 11:31
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This was a good post and I appreciate it It's funny that you mention the illegitimacy of the Claire's/the union's authority. One of the main themes of DE (and, analogously, Western society viewed through ZA/UM's lens) concerns the empty, obscured nature of legitimacy. Who can be considered to be the 'legitimate authority in Revachol? The Moralintern and their Zone of Control obviously present themselves as legitimate, yet they came into power through a violent invasion and the only reason their authority still stands is the implicit threat posed by their heavily armed air ships (a conscious reference to Derrida's Force de la Loi? Not entirely impossible considering the many other philosophical references). The Militia, the last remnant of revolutionary Revachol, has purely formal authority and lacks the force necessary to coerce obligation. The Union, perhaps more than any other socio-political force, tries to represent the interests of 'the people', but does so through means directly opposed to the standards of legitimacy. Revachol is divided, and the Moralintern's technocratic moralism appears equally as empty (perhaps more so! More than anyone else, it is the the Sunday Friend who is described in the most loathsome, empty manner. Korty and the other mercs are hateful sadists, but at least they are still human. The Sunday Friend is 'unideological' technocratic rationalism made flesh. It should not come as a surprise that half of his dialogue is essentially EU bureaucrat speak quoted verbatim) as the Union's apparent dedication to socialism. What DE makes clear is that describing legitimacy and authority in the moral terms so common in Anglo-American (legal) philosophy is essentially meaningless. Legitimacy is not as self-evident, and immediately clear, as so often expected, and is instead something that derives from political possibility and a mutual relation to the subject. It might come as some surprise, but besides ZA/UM obvious preference for critical theory and other radical left wing philosophy, their interpretation of politics also has a strong Schmittian bend. Communism was a huge mistake, but at least it tried to do ^nvent a new future. The Moralintern obscures their disintegration of Revachol under a sheen of morality, but the Claires want to build a new future, and that imbues them with more legitimacy than the Saturday's Friend empty suit. oscarthewilde fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Apr 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 11:42
|
|
|
a bit of rant that might not mean a lot to anyone not well-versed in (legal) philosophy, but hey that's pretty much all my posts in this thread. it's really quite something that DE is the first and only game that actually makes very clever use of philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 11:45
|
|
|
There's also the problem that if violence and intimidation delegitimizes power then there has never been a legitimate power since the end of tribal society (for as much as it has ended for the majority of people) -- which imo is a fine stance to have but one that is ultimately unhelpful. Relatedly, there does seem to be a curious omission in the political landscape of Disco Elysium: anarchy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
Aren't the skulls a pretty anarchic organization? There are plenty of political ideologies the game only light touches on or doesn't mention at all just because they aren't relevant to Harry or his story. His only political options are the ones that can mirror his personal struggles - Harry would never come to anarchism, because anarchism offers no solutions to the hosed up situation that is his life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
I think arguments that defer to abstract ideals are going to stall out in attempting to explain much here, as vague notions of freedom and self-actualization or whatever probably don't hold as much sway with someone living in a ramshackle hut in the middle of deepest winter or in a half blown up apartment building through decades of neglect by the nice liberal freedom government, which even now can't muster any response to said neglect than sending in death squads. In the end, there is exactly 1 faction in the game that is actually trying to make things better there, for any reason.Cpt_Obvious posted:There's also the problem that if violence and intimidation delegitimizes power then there has never been a legitimate power since the end of tribal society (for as much as it has ended for the majority of people) -- which imo is a fine stance to have but one that is ultimately unhelpful. Anarchists are mentioned once or twice, apparently the few that did anything sided with the Moralintern or at least against the revolution and were swiftly wiped out for their thanks, which is how it usually happened in our own world. I think probably anarchy's lack of real world examples to draw from and its proud lack of a theory of power meant there just wasn't much to work with. The ultraliberals believe pretty much the same stuff but have both a theory of power and played an interesting role in the revolution by siding with the commies so they get the spotlight instead I guess maybe the Skulls, but if they have any structure at all it's almost certainly not much different than a bread and butter organized crime setup GlyphGryph posted:Aren't the skulls a pretty anarchic organization? Also this
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:There's also the problem that if violence and intimidation delegitimizes power then there has never been a legitimate power since the end of tribal society (for as much as it has ended for the majority of people) -- which imo is a fine stance to have but one that is ultimately unhelpful. I mean you can hold that there has been no legitimate power/authority since the end of tribal society, such as it is. But imo you then must continue by asking the most important question in philosophy: so what? There's obviously still power and authority and its legitimacy or lack thereof is of no concern to its continued existence. So what does the status of its legitimacy actually matter? I think the most interesting conclusion this reasoning can lead you down is that if no power nor authority that actually exists in todays world is legitimate, then you should equally not concern yourself with legitimacy when you oppose said power or authority and try to replace it with something better. It's a waste of time as it will bring you nothing, focus on material reality instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
The only real legitimacy for any organization in the game is found at the tribunal. When Harry puts himself between the mercs and the Revachol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Alternatively:
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The only real legitimacy for any organization in the game is found at the tribunal. When Harry puts himself between the mercs and the Revachol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Interesting then that the only way of enacting that legitimacy is through violence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 16:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yeah, in that moment you and Kim gained legitimacie. You might go so far as to say that in that moment, you were the law. Vagabong posted:Interesting then that the only way of enacting that legitimacy is through violence. A alternate interpretation is that it is the becoming the object of violence, participating in suffering. Harry was the Λόγος. There is tension in the western canon between two understanding of that and both are at the tribunal simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 16:34
|
|
|
And Λόγος is where the law (as we think of it) comes from. To clarify here there were codes of laws before the stoics, but the idea that the law was universal not just to a group or a people, or the people on the bottom was Stoic. But Harry can’t be the Stoic λογικός. Harry’s a goddamn mess. Flannel O’Conner throughout her works has the idea that any character might make the Christ sacrifice even the one you’ve been calling a rat turd the whole book. So in comes the Christian critique of the law and it’s fulfillment “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” But the Christian λογικός doesn’t kill, at least that’s generally not in the Christ myths. Harry can’t be the Christian Λόγος . But for the stoics that’s uh not a problem there. So Harry is the synthesis Λόγος, and also materialy and ideally within the story. Revachol’s concrete universal. This is all a new thing. I’m not sure there is another work in literature that has done this. They really need to get Zizek to play this game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:A alternate interpretation is that it is the becoming the object of violence, participating in suffering. Yeah, this. Kim and Harry attain moral legitimacy because they put their lives on the line when they could be very well justified in not doing so for so many reasons, yet they do it anyway. (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why firefighters tend to enjoy far more respect as authorities than police and others)
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Aren't the skulls a pretty anarchic organization? Just as Kim is the guiding moral voice of the state, Harry is the state. He is the coercive power armed with violence acting on behalf of the ruling class. When the Moral Intern has a problem, they send Harry to fix it. As Evrarte and Joyce vie for Harry's support they are metaphorically fighting for control of the state. Each of them is using coercion to fight each other in their struggle for power. Joyce employs Harry to get rid of rival businesses, specifically the drug trade -- classic billionaire move. The legal system is used this way all the time, whether it's fights over intellectual property or marijuana possession, that's one way billionaires use the law. Another is union busting, something that Harry is also tasked with -- Joyce's hope is that the drug bust leads to the arrest of Evrarte and his crew. Meanwhile, Evrarte uses the state to spread his power through intimidation. Both of his quests are extremely curious on their face: open a door and get some signatures. But it is less the what and more the who: The door is opened by a violent state enforcer, the signatures are gathered by a man with a gun. In a way, cashing Evrarte's check is its own quest, one that continues the pattern of making sure everyone knows that the coercive power of the state is on his side. Eventually this leads to a tribunal where it is clear that despite Joyce's team of heavily armed and highly trained baby-killers, Evrarte runs Revachol. Harry sides with him. So why is there no anarchist thought cabinet? Because it is Harry's antithesis. Anarchism focuses solely on the dissolution of the state, the end of violent coercion. So, in a way, there is an anarchist thought: an old headbanger from your teenage years and your wedding ballad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
imo, the anarchists got killed so well (like Joyce puts it) that essentially made it a vestigial ideology, too meagre for Harry to build anything of himself on top of it (which is also the joke they were going for I guess lol).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
After a great deal of coaxing I managed to get my sister-in-law, who I really like but who has never played any video game aside from Tetris, to play this game. I gave her some information before she starts as followsquote:
Did I do a good job preparing her for The Experience? Edit: oscarthewilde posted:It's funny that you mention the illegitimacy of the Claire's/the union's authority. One of the main themes of DE (and, analogously, Western society viewed through ZA/UM's lens) concerns the empty, obscured nature of legitimacy. Who can be considered to be the 'legitimate authority in Revachol? The Moralintern and their Zone of Control obviously present themselves as legitimate, yet they came into power through a violent invasion and the only reason their authority still stands is the implicit threat posed by their heavily armed air ships (a conscious reference to Derrida's Force de la Loi? Not entirely impossible considering the many other philosophical references). The Militia, the last remnant of revolutionary Revachol, has purely formal authority and lacks the force necessary to coerce obligation. The Union, perhaps more than any other socio-political force, tries to represent the interests of 'the people', but does so through means directly opposed to the standards of legitimacy. Revachol is divided, and the Moralintern's technocratic moralism appears equally as empty (perhaps more so! More than anyone else, it is the the Sunday Friend who is described in the most loathsome, empty manner. Korty and the other mercs are hateful sadists, but at least they are still human. The Sunday Friend is 'unideological' technocratic rationalism made flesh. It should not come as a surprise that half of his dialogue is essentially EU bureaucrat speak quoted verbatim) as the Union's apparent dedication to socialism. And posts like this are why I came back to SA for the first time in almost a decade. InequalityGodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Apr 29, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
The anarchist thought is "hobocop" and as it says, if Harry started to take this thought seriously he would have to actually quit being a cop.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:It feels very much like they took the worst person on the planet and made him the head of a union and took the best person on the planet and made them a billionaire. TBH Claire didn't stick out to me as all that implausibly awful. He openly revels in his gangster persona a lot more than any actually successful political figure I've seen, which makes for a more entertaining character you don't have to spend hours unpacking, but if you're doing much of anything substantial involving people you didn't get to carefully handpick you're gonna run into someone you need who is just as crooked, alongside with sex creeps and racists and a million flavors of variously obnoxious crazy. There's been a real tension in every community organization I've ever been a part of on where exactly you draw the line of who's too lovely to deal with, even if it'd advance what you're trying to do. And of course Evrart isn't legitimate, the only legitimizing bodies around are the Moralintern and Wild Pines, and they have total control over all 'legitimate' paths to power. Conversely when faced with established power structures and rich assholes like Joyce it's not terribly surprising that many can be personally charming and minimize or cast reasonable doubt on their personal involvement in all the evil poo poo they're up to; that's kinda their job and they have endless resources to devote to it. If your ethical guiding stars are personal niceness and legitimacy, you'll end up siding with the Moralists every time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I mean you can hold that there has been no legitimate power/authority since the end of tribal society, such as it is. But imo you then must continue by asking the most important question in philosophy: so what? A pertinent question and answer, but one that might be a bit too cynical. When you look at Derrida's political and legal theory, and his interpretation of Schmitt, he questions the very foundations of the Western constitutional order. Instead of binding law and politics to some abstract conception of justice, he uncovers a much more contingent, violent foundational element within the not-so-moral law. Yet, if law is not so strictly bound by morality and justice, that does not make morality and justice meaningless concepts. Justice is moved from something entirely within law, to a useful measure outside of law, realisable in extra- and intraparliamentary practice and theory: justice becomes possible through deconstructing the law. Legitimacy, in that sense, becomes something much more contingent and conditional than assumed in legal philosophy (is it any wonder that the society described as legitimate by legal philosophers always resembles the theory behind Western liberal democracy. The fact that political practice so often fails to resemble political theory, and the rule of law might be much less strong than expected in those 'necessarily good' Western democracies, is ignored) but is still useful. A legitimate authority becomes a possibility worth fighting for, instead of a meaningless factum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
InequalityGodzilla posted:And posts like this are why I came back to SA for the first time in almost a decade. And thank you! More than any other game, I think DE is an extraordinary work of art exposing fundamental philosophical and theoretical conflicts in an incredibly interesting manner. The fact that some extraordinary novels, movies and TV series are philosophically interesting is hardly surprising (one need only take stock of the many, many Dickens, Dostoeyevsky and Sophocles references in philosophy), but DE might well be the first philosophically interesting game. I'm actually really interested in finding out some cynical, internet-poisoned Estonians managed to produce such a unique work. Truly extraordinary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:And thank you! More than any other game, I think DE is an extraordinary work of art exposing fundamental philosophical and theoretical conflicts in an incredibly interesting manner. The fact that some extraordinary novels, movies and TV series are philosophically interesting is hardly surprising (one need only take stock of the many, many Dickens, Dostoeyevsky and Sophocles references in philosophy), but DE might well be the first philosophically interesting game. I'm actually really interested in finding out some cynical, internet-poisoned Estonians managed to produce such a unique work. Truly extraordinary. They did exceptional work. I’m a loving nerd who plays a lot of video games but Disco Elysium and Fallout: New Vegas are the only games I have ever, ever, played where even 6-8 months after the last time I even touched them I’m still thinking about them. ZA/UM were doing gods work here. And although I haven’t read the rest of the thread (like I said I logged back on to SA for the first time in probably 8 or 9 years) I did enjoy your Analysis. Edit: I’ve got a lot of poo poo going on but I do intent to catch up on this thread and the other older one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:I'm actually really interested in finding out some cynical, internet-poisoned Estonians managed to produce such a unique work. Truly extraordinary. We have failed at everything else, so let us fail at making a game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:And thank you! More than any other game, I think DE is an extraordinary work of art exposing fundamental philosophical and theoretical conflicts in an incredibly interesting manner. The fact that some extraordinary novels, movies and TV series are philosophically interesting is hardly surprising (one need only take stock of the many, many Dickens, Dostoeyevsky and Sophocles references in philosophy), but DE might well be the first philosophically interesting game. I'm actually really interested in finding out some cynical, internet-poisoned Estonians managed to produce such a unique work. Truly extraordinary. estonian communists that got to the point of doing some squatting to live wrote this setting for a decade or so on that note, release the translated book perfidious bob kurvitz
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
The fact that so many people can have so many differing opinions on Disco Elysium and all still really enjoy it is proof that it is a very good game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
it is a *towering achievement*
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
has anyone said "Deleuze and Atari" yet
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Mr. Deleuze is helping me find my Atari.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Harry would never come to anarchism, because anarchism offers no solutions to the hosed up situation that is his life. I don't know, the Skulls have some pretty cool jackets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 00:06
|
|
|
InequalityGodzilla posted:After a great deal of coaxing I managed to get my sister-in-law, who I really like but who has never played any video game aside from Tetris, to play this game. I gave her some information before she starts as follows If you want someone to actually enjoy the game I would recommend not trying to micromanage their experience like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Yeah, also she probably going to hate it given you crowbarred her into playing it, and she seems to have zero interest in playing games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 00:13
|
|
