tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post1599823483366054837..comments2023-05-08T04:26:41.949-04:00Comments on My Little Po-Mo: I have a feeling this'll be one of the more controversial posts...Froborrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08782366056731381450noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-84705586699881645102014-07-20T02:35:15.885-04:002014-07-20T02:35:15.885-04:00"I just wish fans weren't so quick to tak..."I just wish fans weren't so quick to take Vulcans at their word."<br /><br />That was my point - I'm not. I'm not disagreeing with your point, I just think it is a more important part of the Vulcan portrayal than you suggest. I guess it's a death-of-the-author thing - I think the Vulcans ARE depicted in the show as emotional despite their efforts. It's rarely acknowledged, except with Spock (which is part of what makes him the archetypal Vulcan), but it is there.Jennifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-9576444866219877672014-07-19T11:54:22.945-04:002014-07-19T11:54:22.945-04:00Precisely, yes. Preference is itself an emotional ...Precisely, yes. Preference is itself an emotional state.Froborrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08782366056731381450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-17522956276812509272014-07-19T09:46:30.980-04:002014-07-19T09:46:30.980-04:00I see what you mean, but if you don't mind my ...I see what you mean, but if you don't mind my asking for a clarification: you define a "rational being" as "one which acts--to the best of its abilities according to its current knowledge--to maximize the probability of attaining preferred states of being and minimize dispreferred states." Would you argue that there is no way to categorize some states as preferable without emotion? I need to brush up on my Bentham...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01543133662906033247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-91416520401792168532014-07-19T06:09:20.546-04:002014-07-19T06:09:20.546-04:00Hm, okay. Two points I'd address.
First, Spoc...Hm, okay. Two points I'd address.<br /><br />First, Spock's aphorism (I'm calling it Spock's Aphorism from now on, it just rolls off the tongue/keyboard) doesn't actually say anything about the preferences of the many. It addresses specifically needs, and makes no statement about how those needs are to be assessed - but presumably, Spock has some reasonably clear idea of what constitutes a need, starting with 'not dying horribly of radiation poisoning' and working out through shelter and food and so on. What he considers a need isn't really important to this discussion - the key point is that, presumably, it is his preference to address the needs of the many over the needs of the few. There's no tautology or recursion here. 'Need' is a very different word to 'preference'.<br /><br />Second, your last paragraph paints the slope as slightly more slippery than it is. One can paint a clear divide between taking the action one prefers to take and arriving at a state (or more properly a series of states - rationality ought to consider more than immediate gratification) one prefers over others. Humans act in a way that they prefer to act despite having the knowledge that it's not optimal all the time, largely, I think, for the three reasons of an inadequate intuitive assessment of probabilities, an inadequate intuitive sense of scale, and a prioritization of present preferences over easily-predicted future preferences. The tautology is easily avoided, and if we avoid it, we can see that Spock's Aphorism does not describe a decision metric between actions, but between states - precisely the metric which rationality must have from an outside source.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-82133044154247608102014-07-18T21:57:28.995-04:002014-07-18T21:57:28.995-04:00A rational being is one which acts--to the best of...A rational being is one which acts--to the best of its abilities according to its current knowledge--to maximize the probability of attaining preferred states of being and minimize dispreferred states. Spock's aphorism, however, necessitates sometimes privileging the preferences of others over one's own preferences. Adopting that aphorism as a principle therefore reduces the probability of attaining preferred states and is therefore an irrational act.<br /><br />More broadly, moral behavior requires acknowledging that there is something higher than purely rational behavior. Consider the distinction I drew (mostly in the Madoka posts) between saving and helping. One might have a (likely very strong) preference for one's loved ones to be safe and happy, but one has a moral obligation to respect their autonomy and consent. As such, it is perfectly rational to force safety and happiness on them, say by locking them up and drugging them to the gills, but as a violation of their autonomy it is an abhorrent act.<br /><br />I mean, yes, ultimately morality itself proceeds from one's preferences, but if we're willing to stretch out that far then we quickly reach the tautological, where every action taken by everyone is rational and the word loses any useful meaning.Froborrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08782366056731381450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-30698880919601936832014-07-18T21:45:36.241-04:002014-07-18T21:45:36.241-04:00I addressed that in the first paragraph: I know Vu...I addressed that in the first paragraph: I know Vulcan culture is all about suppressing emotion, my point is that they're *not*, they're just privileging one set of emotions over another. Which is fine, except it makes them colossal hypocrites. That in turn wouldn't be a problem if Vulcans weren't so often depicted as the Wise Elders and moral guides of the Federation.<br /><br />Then again, the Federation is a spectacularly corrupt and hypocritical organization, so I guess it does kind of fit. I just wish fans weren't so quick to take Vulcans at their word.Froborrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08782366056731381450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-10592348188033647492014-07-18T21:42:46.283-04:002014-07-18T21:42:46.283-04:00I think the problem is that "emotionless char...I think the problem is that "emotionless character" is a contradiction in terms. If a character truly has no emotions then they don't have motivations, they have programming, and at that point they're not a character, they're a prop or plot device.Froborrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08782366056731381450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-23918262140672989472014-07-18T19:03:56.141-04:002014-07-18T19:03:56.141-04:00I take issue with your position that a rational be...I take issue with your position that a rational being is necessarily amoral. Rationality is perpendicular to morality - a perfectly rational being is precisely so moral as their preferences. In the case of Spock, his statement on the needs of the many and the few is in fact not irrational, but protorational - it is a necessary value judgement on which rational action can be built, but in no way does it conflict with an attempt to act rationally, except in the very narrow sense of a purely selfish being (and even then, 'selfish' becomes hazy when one admits of a preference for certain rules or states outside oneself - particularly empathy of any stripe).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-39590807310991804292014-07-18T17:57:01.661-04:002014-07-18T17:57:01.661-04:00I was always under the impression that the Vulcans...I was always under the impression that the Vulcans were perfectly aware that they were emotional (indeed, too emotional). They aren't emotionless, and aren't trying to be so. They're just trying to *suppress* it -- which is (and is acknowledged to be, in-universe) harmful in and of itself. It's true that Spock insists he's being logical - the fact that he really *isn't* is an integral part of his character. I don't think the writers were being unsubtle about this; they're aware that decisions are emotional. What makes Vulcans interesting is that they're full of contradictions. Jennifernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5106243389695628804.post-12772479238004615632014-07-18T13:36:56.497-04:002014-07-18T13:36:56.497-04:00I think this comes from the same problem as with K...I think this comes from the same problem as with Kyubey in Madoka - people have a really hard time writing emotionless characters, and often don't have a good idea of what a truly emotionless character might actually act like.<br /><br />I've observed that, as Star Trek went on, the writers began retconning Vulcan society to move away from "emotions are bad" to "seeking balance between rationality and passion," and retconning Spock as putting himself at one extreme of that constructed dichotomy because of his shame in his mixed heritage - like in the first film, where you see him applying and being rejected from a severe monastic Vulcan order that claims to eschew emotion entirely.<br /><br />Of course, as you point out, the fandom gets it wrong, because, as you've also pointed out elsewhere, that's kind of what fandoms do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01543133662906033247noreply@blogger.com