humanity...what is it after all?

[Danteredgrave]

I could have posted it on the devil may cry general discussion section but since I think the issue is really very blatantly present in DMC1 I've written it here.

Nowadays, science can explain everything: you are made of flesh and bones, nothing is supernatural, everything can be medically explained: the feelings are just caused by chemical products flowing through the veins, our perception of the world is only due to electrical impulses that go to our brain.....

Then how can we say that human flesh is really superior to something that we regard as artificial, like the iron that makes up a robot...it's just a different material. Trish is a full demon, she is a pure 100% artificial creature created by Mundus and still she shows that she can behave like a human... I find it fascinating, what do you think about it?

 

[Angel]

Science can explain everything?

Absolutely everything without question?

Did not get that memo.

 

[Danteredgrave]

Science can explain everything?

Absolutely everything without question?

Did not get that memo.

It seems it can rationalize most aspect of human reactions, and will eventually cover them all up...
and I really don't like that thought by the way! xD

 

[Zilla]

Science will never be able to fully explain every little thing on our planet, or on other planets for that matter. The reason being that Science is still very young in comparison to religion, but not only that, Science is a practice created, promoted and utilised by Human beings; a species which We all know is far from perfect. And with that in mind, how can anything practiced by something imperfect ever produce perfect results?

It can't.

 

[Dante47]

In my opinion, humans are inferior. We are all so close minded, so hateful and full of rage to the point where we wage war on our fellow man. Whether it's because they have different skin, a different god, for money, and other corrupt reasons we will should never be allowed to even label ourselves superior to any other species.

Science won't be able to explain everything, that is correct. But religion never will either. So what's the point of wondering? What's the point in arguing? Science has done great things, but it's stupid to wonder about our beginning. We need to look toward the future.

I will take this time to say I am agnostic. I'm not a fan of religion as of now, or any religion for that matter.

 

[V]

When I was in science - the 'holy tenet' is that nothing - even scientific 'fact' - is "truth". Even a theory that is apparently proven, such as the structure of DNA, or the function of genes, or the fact that oxygen is necessary for human life, is only a theory that appears to be confirmed. Nobody truly profits from considering something absolutely explained, beyond all further study or doubt. Therefore, we don't. We call it 'fact' if it appears to be so, but all that really means is that it appears to be so, and in experimental terms, that is enough to be able to conduct further experiments based on that understanding. But theories can be expanded, even made defunct by subsequent studies. Quantum mechanics was the spanner in the works for all those people who thought that Newtonian Physics had explained the Universe and everything in it.

So then, it's the best course to acknowledge what seems to be so, but not to the point of cultivating ignorance of other possibilities. There will always be more to learn for the non-omnipotent being.

Anyhow... what is it you are asking exactly? whether Trish is inferior because she is a demon? That we automatically consider Dante and humans superior? Do we? Since the game's audience is human I'd expect a certain human bias there, but it's not like the fact that (within the game's Universe) demons aren't superior in other ways. They are superior in strength apparently, for example.

Like with any notion of 'inferior' and 'superior' what really matters is context. Survival of the fittest means "survival of the best adapted for a very particular environment/context". If what you want is power, or a world based on acquisition by strength, then demons are superior beings, because they have greater physical prowess and are probably selfish enough not to let anything stand in their way of getting it. If what you want is compassion, and believe that would make for a better world, they are (generally) inferior, because they don't appear to have feelings for others. I can't consider demons inferior to humans generally because in the natural order of things a balance between selfishness and compassion is necessary. For humans there are times when we have to be selfish, and times when we shouldn't be, and when altruism and co-operation actually makes us stronger. So I guess otherwise it depends on your own sensibilities whether one is better than another. From Mundus' perspective, Trish was inferior, she didn't complete the purpose he created her for, and was weak-minded in that respect... but from the perspective of Dante, and humans, she's not inferior because despite being a demon, she mirrors him in his ability to care about things other than herself. As a result, she and Dante became a combined stronger force and defeated Mundus. But again, what she is or isn't is determined by which side you are on and what you are trying to achieve.

It's all context, IMO. In the real world humans have their values and their morals, and within our society, compassion and altruism is a good thing, it makes our living conditions better. But also, outside the human experience is the dog-eat-dog world of nature, where only the strongest survive. I would say it would be foolish to disregard either of them, or consider one more disposable than another because we live in both worlds.

Ultimately, I think what Dante does (protect the weak) is a very human perspective, and I prefer it to the idea of humans at the mercy of oppressive demons, as DMC1's intro implies it was. Because compassion is... pleasant. It's good to live in a world where people aren't at each other's throats and there's some semblance of decency, even if it might only be semblance sometimes. So I'll go ahead and say that Dante and Trish are superior beings because the world they want is preferable (to me) to the world a demon would create. Nature created the selfish world, humans have created a world that works within it, but that doesn't have to be violent and ruthless all the time. I believe that what mankind has tried/is trying to create is in that way 'superior' - it has required conscious and constant effort by humans to maintain and progress, rather than the automatic, logical selection process that Nature employs to survive the changing environment. I say that simply because I like a challenge, and I do everything the 'hard way' too.

 

[Sieghart]

This is my personal definition of science.
Science is a tool.It is the foremost usage of the scientific method to learn about nature.

1.Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it.Looking for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2.Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or your notebook.
3.Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4.Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.It is logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2.This error is affirming the consequent.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Introduction_to_scientific_method

This method is intuitive, it is logical.Science itself is neither "good or bad"; it doesn't opposite anything by itself, rather things oppose science.

Now, that method has a pretty annoying restriction, which is inductive thinking.Whatever we may ever experiment, we will always be limited by the fact that we cannot ever know 100% what the results of an experiment will be.Indeed , say you lift an apple and let it go. You will expect it to fall,why? Because every time you have dropped an object, it has fallen. That is induction, it happens many times you make a common trend stating that is is very likely to happen, you can even stretch it and make a law/theory. Regardless of the observations and conclusions made for your experiments, you cannot affirm that it will fall because it has fallen the other times, but more that is is very likely.

That being said, it is in the nature of science to be wrong.Scientific thinking can always be wrong, but will always point towards the most plausible conclusion.So yes. it is right to say "SCIENCE doesn't know everything.

What about it?

On-TOPIC: Victory is the natural objective of every living creature in this world.(See what i did there?)
Conflict was always every being and humanity's nature.
We humans have gone this far by ourselves using the tools that nature gave to us.But does humanity needs anything?Do we have a purpose?In my opinion,none.
As if humanity had a purpose.Needing something means you have a goal.To do something you need something.
If you do not have something to do,you do not need anything.

In other words,if we need it or not depends on the purpose of humanity, which doesn't have one. We came about as an accident,not as means to fulfill a need.
Bottom line: We do not need anything.We are humans, we do not adapt the landscape, we shape the landscape, because we're cool like that.That is what i think about our race.

 

[V]

Science and logic says that people are pieces of meat. They probably are and little more... but, there is something irreconcilable to me with the idea of a bunch of chemicals equalling consciousness and all its creative/destructive potential, when things like rocks and water that are made up of the same elements are utterly 'lifeless' and without potential of action or choice.

I suppose as a mere fleshling myself I just lack the ability to fully accept that my existence, my memory, my thoughts, my potential and my feelings are nothing special at all. Just the product of the reaction of life and the impression left on it of the world around it. Or perhaps I'm just not giving simple molecules enough credit.

 

[KtWtWiS43]

When I was in science - the 'holy tenet' is that nothing - even scientific 'fact' - is "truth". Even a theory that is apparently proven, such as the structure of DNA, or the function of genes, or the fact that oxygen is necessary for human life, is only a theory that appears to be confirmed. Nobody truly profits from considering something absolutely explained, beyond all further study or doubt. Therefore, we don't. We call it 'fact' if it appears to be so, but all that really means is that it appears to be so, and in experimental terms, that is enough to be able to conduct further experiments based on that understanding. But theories can be expanded, even made defunct by subsequent studies. Quantum mechanics was the spanner in the works for all those people who thought that Newtonian Physics had explained the Universe and everything in it.

So then, it's the best course to acknowledge what seems to be so, but not to the point of cultivating ignorance of other possibilities. There will always be more to learn for the non-omnipotent being.

Anyhow... what is it you are asking exactly? whether Trish is inferior because she is a demon? That we automatically consider Dante and humans superior? Do we? Since the game's audience is human I'd expect a certain human bias there, but it's not like the fact that (within the game's Universe) demons aren't superior in other ways. They are superior in strength apparently, for example.

Like with any notion of 'inferior' and 'superior' what really matters is context. Survival of the fittest means "survival of the best adapted for a very particular environment/context". If what you want is power, or a world based on acquisition by strength, then demons are superior beings, because they have greater physical prowess and are probably selfish enough not to let anything stand in their way of getting it. If what you want is compassion, and believe that would make for a better world, they are (generally) inferior, because they don't appear to have feelings for others. I can't consider demons inferior to humans generally because in the natural order of things a balance between selfishness and compassion is necessary. For humans there are times when we have to be selfish, and times when we shouldn't be, and when altruism and co-operation actually makes us stronger. So I guess otherwise it depends on your own sensibilities whether one is better than another. From Mundus' perspective, Trish was inferior, she didn't complete the purpose he created her for, and was weak-minded in that respect... but from the perspective of Dante, and humans, she's not inferior because despite being a demon, she mirrors him in his ability to care about things other than herself. As a result, she and Dante became a combined stronger force and defeated Mundus. But again, what she is or isn't is determined by which side you are on and what you are trying to achieve.

It's all context, IMO. In the real world humans have their values and their morals, and within our society, compassion and altruism is a good thing, it makes our living conditions better. But also, outside the human experience is the dog-eat-dog world of nature, where only the strongest survive. I would say it would be foolish to disregard either of them, or consider one more disposable than another because we live in both worlds.

Ultimately, I think what Dante does (protect the weak) is a very human perspective, and I prefer it to the idea of humans at the mercy of oppressive demons, as DMC1's intro implies it was. Because compassion is... pleasant. It's good to live in a world where people aren't at each other's throats and there's some semblance of decency, even if it might only be semblance sometimes. So I'll go ahead and say that Dante and Trish are superior beings because the world they want is preferable (to me) to the world a demon would create. Nature created the selfish world, humans have created a world that works within it, but that doesn't have to be violent and ruthless all the time. I believe that what mankind has tried/is trying to create is in that way 'superior' - it has required conscious and constant effort by humans to maintain and progress, rather than the automatic, logical selection process that Nature employs to survive the changing environment. I say that simply because I like a challenge, and I do everything the 'hard way' too.

I really appreciate your perspective Lexy, well said. I agree that Dante and Trish are greater, in that they seek to create a superior world. Borrowing the term "superior" to mean, compassionate or good. This in itself is a very human concept then: wanting the world to reflect our own ideas of goodness and equality. But it's also what makes the characters mean so much to us, that they themselves, as well as their ideals, are human. You bring up an interesting idea then, that a simple change of perspective can radically change who the characters are, and what their intentions appear to be.

"But again, what she is or isn't is determined by which side you are on and what you are trying to achieve."

They only appear to be good by our definition of "good," which is the only reason why we relate to them. But do you think their characters reflect true goodness, or just good by our standards? What about the Demon World? Dante and Trish murdering their kind on a daily basis really shows them as evil from that perspective. What do you think a true unbiased perspective would be able to come from then? God probably? A truly unbiased being who is able to determine what is truly right or truly wrong? The idea is undeniably why religion was made in the first place, to govern an absolute set of laws that were undeniable and unbiased for all creatures. I like your idea about where different ways of thought can lead us. And to similarly, to answer the thread topic, I would agree to say that it's all just a matter of perspective

 

[V]

I really appreciate your perspective Lexy, well said. I agree that Dante and Trish are greater, in that they seek to create a superior world. Borrowing the term "superior" to mean, compassionate or good. This in itself is a very human concept then: wanting the world to reflect our own ideas of goodness and equality. But it's also what makes the characters mean so much to us, that they themselves, as well as their ideals, are human. You bring up an interesting idea then, that a simple change of perspective can radically change who the characters are, and what their intentions appear to be.

Thanks. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It is very much like what Obi-Wan says in ROTJ: "many of the 'truths' we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." I always thought that was a weird-ass thing for him to say when I was little, it was either too obvious or not obvious enough, but now it's just obvious.

They only appear to be good by our definition of "good," which is the only reason why we relate to them. But do you think their characters reflect true goodness, or just good by our standards?

Just by our own standards. As much as I'd love for there to be an absolute all-pervading definition of goodness to go by, I don't think there really is in that sense - not outside of ourselves and our own minds. Like - are cats evil when they kill birds and don't eat them, or play with helpless mice? I can't agree that they are. They're just being cats, doing things that cats have done forever, and living by cat perspective, or obeying millions of years of killer instinct that is what enables them to survive when they need it. Some people say cats are 'cruel', but to me they are just cats. And every type of animal would be cruel in its own way then, because it looks after itself, humans included. The world doesn't seem consciously, deliberately cruel or evil to me... so I guess I have to regard it as simply its own thing, neither good nor bad.

But I also see it all from a multi-layered perspective. There's the natural physical world, in which there is no goodness and badness, there's the human sphere, where we have developed ideas of good and bad, because it helps us to live among ourselves and exist within the world at large... and there is the personal sphere, which is what any one of us will and will not allow ourselves to do within our own lives, the human sphere, and the natural one. In that case there could be multiple layers of truth - a truth and belief in what is good for and by oneself, what is good for the majority of our kind, and what is the way of the natural world, in which our lives and our species are only a small part of a whole. I think that's the only way I can view it that manages to appreciate both a need to define and do 'good' and also the lack of it in the natural world.

What about the Demon World? Dante and Trish murdering their kind on a daily basis really shows them as evil from that perspective.

Yeah. I think if we were demons who were playing this game, then Dante and Trish could be seen as the bad guys, as selfish or self-righteous, just another couple of enemies that believe themselves superior and therefore justified. But the demons of the DMC universe appear to be rather self-contained in perspective too, rather than things that simply worship 'evil' or do evil for evil's sake. Mundus seems to operate much like any emperor trying to cling to his power and his throne, rather than being ultimately undefeatable because he is personification of all evil, appointed by a god (like Satan). Other demons like Beowulf have grudges against Sparda apparently not because he chose to do 'good' but because he betrayed an ally (and so revere loyalty and dislike traitors - a concept understood by humans as 'good' as well). And then there are demons like those in DMC4 who are humans that have been imbued with demonic power, and believe themselves to be 'angels'. I think in the world of DMC, good and bad are somewhat arbitrary concepts too, the demons don't act so much as though they want to do evil, or to torture human souls but rather as though they are just one species and humans are another, and that both species are locked in a struggle to control the world, or to determine which is the most worthy of supremacy. Because the series is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian stuff there are things in there that still imply demons exist to torture human souls and all that, but for the most part it really does seem like a unmoral struggle of factions to me.

What do you think a true unbiased perspective would be able to come from then? God probably? A truly unbiased being who is able to determine what is truly right or truly wrong? The idea is undeniably why religion was made in the first place, to govern an absolute set of laws that were undeniable and unbiased for all creatures. I like your idea about where different ways of thought can lead us. And to similarly, to answer the thread topic, I would agree to say that it's all just a matter of perspective

Hmm. The DMCverse has (until now) been noticeably without a concept of God, or of true 'goodness' - I think deliberately, to emphasize the human aspects of Dante and the gravity of his choices. If a god was unbiased, then, would there be concepts of good and evil? But if a god comes down and says A is good and B is evil, then that *is* bias? The world as it is now - the outside world and world of nature - is a truly unbiased world, I think, without sentiments or scruples, and if we have a god come into it, then it becomes biased toward that god's agenda. Others will probably disagree but it seems that way to my thinking. When you bring good and evil into things then you must colour everything with it - and the DMC series hitherto has avoided doing that and allowed for a more 'natural world struggle' within the series between humans and demons, and between demons and demons.

If you see what they've done with DmC and brought angels/god into the equation - unless we're going down some sort of holy war route like in the move "Constantine", and maintaining that one side is as bad as another, then it implies to me that evil is the underdog trying to rebel, and that good will prevail, tyrannically, because it always wins. Which I think is... not quite so impressive or interesting as the idea of Sparda (and indeed humans themselves) waking up to a concept of justice all by themselves and with their own brains. Creating justice, rather than being handed it and asked to dispense it, as it were.

 

[KtWtWiS43]

H

Thanks. Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It is very much like what Obi-Wan says in ROTJ: "many of the 'truths' we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." I always thought that was a weird-ass thing for him to say when I was little, it was either too obvious or not obvious enough, but now it's just obvious.



Just by our own standards. As much as I'd love for there to be an absolute all-pervading definition of goodness to go by, I don't think there really is in that sense - not outside of ourselves and our own minds. Like - are cats evil when they kill birds and don't eat them, or play with helpless mice? I can't agree that they are. They're just being cats, doing things that cats have done forever, and living by cat perspective, or obeying millions of years of killer instinct that is what enables them to survive when they need it. Some people say cats are 'cruel', but to me they are just cats. And every type of animal would be cruel in its own way then, because it looks after itself, humans included. The world doesn't seem consciously, deliberately cruel or evil to me... so I guess I have to regard it as simply its own thing, neither good nor bad.

But I also see it all from a multi-layered perspective. There's the natural physical world, in which there is no goodness and badness, there's the human sphere, where we have developed ideas of good and bad, because it helps us to live among ourselves and exist within the world at large... and there is the personal sphere, which is what any one of us will and will not allow ourselves to do within our own lives, the human sphere, and the natural one. In that case there could be multiple layers of truth - a truth and belief in what is good for and by oneself, what is good for the majority of our kind, and what is the way of the natural world, in which our lives and our species are only a small part of a whole. I think that's the only way I can view it that manages to appreciate both a need to define and do 'good' and also the lack of it in the natural world.



Yeah. I think if we were demons who were playing this game, then Dante and Trish could be seen as the bad guys, as selfish or self-righteous, just another couple of enemies that believe themselves superior and therefore justified. But the demons of the DMC universe appear to be rather self-contained in perspective too, rather than things that simply worship 'evil' or do evil for evil's sake. Mundus seems to operate much like any emperor trying to cling to his power and his throne, rather than being ultimately undefeatable because he is personification of all evil, appointed by a god (like Satan). Other demons like Beowulf have grudges against Sparda apparently not because he chose to do 'good' but because he betrayed an ally (and so revere loyalty and dislike traitors - a concept understood by humans as 'good' as well). And then there are demons like those in DMC4 who are humans that have been imbued with demonic power, and believe themselves to be 'angels'. I think in the world of DMC, good and bad are somewhat arbitrary concepts too, the demons don't act so much as though they want to do evil, or to torture human souls but rather as though they are just one species and humans are another, and that both species are locked in a struggle to control the world, or to determine which is the most worthy of supremacy. Because the series is heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian stuff there are things in there that still imply demons exist to torture human souls and all that, but for the most part it really does seem like a unmoral struggle of factions to me.



Hmm. The DMCverse has (until now) been noticeably without a concept of God, or of true 'goodness' - I think deliberately, to emphasize the human aspects of Dante and the gravity of his choices. If a god was unbiased, then, would there be concepts of good and evil? But if a god comes down and says A is good and B is evil, then that *is* bias? The world as it is now - the outside world and world of nature - is a truly unbiased world, I think, without sentiments or scruples, and if we have a god come into it, then it becomes biased toward that god's agenda. Others will probably disagree but it seems that way to my thinking. When you bring good and evil into things then you must colour everything with it - and the DMC series hitherto has avoided doing that and allowed for a more 'natural world struggle' within the series between humans and demons, and between demons and demons.

If you see what they've done with DmC and brought angels/god into the equation - unless we're going down some sort of holy war route like in the move "Constantine", and maintaining that one side is as bad as another, then it implies to me that evil is the underdog trying to rebel, and that good will prevail, tyrannically, because it always wins. Which I think is... not quite so impressive or interesting as the idea of Sparda (and indeed humans themselves) waking up to a concept of justice all by themselves and with their own brains. Creating justice, rather than being handed it and asked to dispense it, as it were.

Holy ****, I think I'm in love with you. I'm sleepy, but I'm planning on responding in full to what you wrote. It's people like you that make me feel like I'm not alone in liking Devil May Cry. So few people see the underlying context and the parallels to humanity and the way we choose to lead our lives. Your post is definitely worth my time, I'll be sure to get back to you

 

[V]

Anytime. Looking forward to your thoughts/counter stroke.

 

[Danteredgrave]

Hey, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed ready all your answers

Now that Lexy points it out, I realize that my question/theory was unclear.
A human person is expected to behave with humanity while...a machine is not.
Because we assume that one's biological state naturally endows him with humanity (even the most cold hearted people).
Trish doesn't have that initial biological state ( she could be compared with a machine), she is a pure artificial creation, but still very human.
We can explain this absence of humanity among the machines because we know how they have been created, with which materials (steel, electric wires, ...), and we can explain that they act the way they do because when they were created we put this wire there and that wire here to cause a reaction or another.
If we assume that a human is 100% made of components that we can chemically define and lives/works only thanks to them then the humans are as logical as the machines, then they are only more complex machines which claim to be different (capable of humanity)...why? because they are made of different components? If we can eventually find an chemical answer for every human psychological reaction, then how dare people say that they have something machines don't?
Dante is human like all of us even though he has a demonic part.
Trish has absolutely no reason to have human feelings, she has been created by Mundus with very different purposes.
but she acquires humanity, which means...humanity doesn't confine to human beings!
Then is humanity not rather only an attitude? Is it so valuable if we assume that we are only doing what we were designed to like complex robots?

 

[V]

Well... Dante treats Trish like another human in the end, he doesn't seem to have any grudge against her for what she is (despite his ranting after the Nightmare battle).

If you're talking about... popular culture, and the usual situation in films or comics or manga or whatever, where a cyborg or a robot/android is considered 'different' or inferior... well, that's pure fantasy really, because nobody has yet created an A.I. sufficiently 'compatible' with our own intelligence for us to know exactly how it would be treated IRL. But it's assumed - astutely, I expect - that since human beings generally can't even seem to get over discriminating against/amongst themselves on the basis of things like sex, age, race, class, etc. that a machine doesn't have much of a chance of getting equal treatment, nor does any other being considered by humans to be lesser, such as an animal.

Why do humans do it? Could be fear, ignorance, or a desire for dominance over other things, or perhaps just a willingness to acknowledge something is acceptable only if it appears 'closer' to us in design and function. Take animal testing for instance - why are animals like gorillas and chimps more exempt from being tested on than rabbits and mice? Humans regard them as 'closer' to human because they look, behave and appear in intelligence more like us than rodents do. No other reason. Because you can't really say that under a painful test that a chimp would suffer "more" than a mouse. Mentally, a chimp is likely to 'suffer' more, because their brains demand more stable environments to function (like ours) or they go a bit crazy. But at the end of the day, pain is pain and suffering is suffering. But you see that sort of bias all the time - I'm guilty of it myself, when I kill bugs I find in the house, because I think of bugs as 'inferior' and destructive, or life-forms of lesser worth than humans. But it's still pure bias toward creatures that are more like us.

If a sentient machine were created, I think people would immediately be wary of it because machines can do certain things much better and faster than we can. I've asked people what they think of self-driving cars or military drones, or the idea of a supercomputer deciding who a country should go to war with, and how... and every time people say that a machine is too different, too inhuman and incapable of understanding what it is to be human to be allowed that kind of power over human life. So with machines, I think it would be fear mostly, that would prevent them being considered equal. Machines don't use chemicals to create emotions, feelings or pain... so how could they understand what it is to be a creature made of chemicals, like us? It's a fair point.

I agree that the concept of 'humanity' and 'human' is rather an attitude that could apply to anything willing to demonstrate that attitude, which was why Trish might as well be human by the end of DMC1 (even though she's largely considered a demon by fans, as if nothing changed); and also why Dante is considered 'more' human than devil, despite being half and half.

 

[Sparda's rejected son]

I could have posted it on the devil may cry general discussion section but since I think the issue is really very blatantly present in DMC1 I've written it here.

Nowadays, science can explain everything: you are made of flesh and bones, nothing is supernatural, everything can be medically explained: the feelings are just caused by chemical products flowing through the veins, our perception of the world is only due to electrical impulses that go to our brain.....

Then how can we say that human flesh is really superior to something that we regard as artificial, like the iron that makes up a robot...it's just a different material. Trish is a full demon, she is a pure 100% artificial creature created by Mundus and still she shows that she can behave like a human... I find it fascinating, what do you think about it?

I think your #$%$%$ crazy! That's what I think! lol jk. (I'm JK, lol, also I used the symbols for comedy not that I really cursed)

But Trish isn't a robot she is all womanish??????

 

[Meg]

What is humanity? It's those little black and gray objects you'd hate to run out of right when you need to kindle in Dark Souls.

 

[Lionheart]

Humans. The masters of irrationality and delusions.

 

[darkslayer13]

Humans. The masters of irrationality and delusions.

We may not be very good at being rational but we are better at it than anything else on this planet (after all we did come up with it.) Also try not to sound so pessimistic it's depressing.

 

[Lionheart]

We may not be very good at being rational but we are better at it than anything else on this planet (after all we did come up with it.) Also try not to sound so pessimistic it's depressing.

True, but we did come up with religion. I wonder if any other being will ever think of anything like that.

 

[darkslayer13]

True, but we did come up with religion. I wonder if any other being will ever think of anything like that.

Definitely. Religion provides answers to the way the world works (not accurate ones but science is a concept that takes a while to develop and no one wants to wait for answers.) It provides a moral code to live by and it provides something to believe in and give people hope when there is none.

There is nothing else in existence that provides all of those things. Science provides answers, philosophy and law provide a moral code and without religion people are left to find hope on their own (which is the reason religion is still around).

oh and religion also provides some very interesting stories to tell long after people stop believing them (unfortunately religion hasn't quite figured out good music yet. )