Tag Archives: civilization

blog

Maximal limits of civilizations

Leave a comment

Any civilization has an amount of goodness/kindness and evil/malice. They are not quite opposite quantities in that a single society can have an abundance of both-they don’t negate each other, but an absence of kindness can have much the same effect as an abundance of malice. Goodness is best thought of as a positive quantity

There is an upper limit on goodness in a society which, if exceeded, the people of the civilization will reorder their civilization into a new civil structure. I think a good name for this process would be regeneration. There is also a limit on malice, below which a civilization will degenerate. While passing the limit of goodness is a deliberate process of reorganizing and people deciding (even intuitively) to make the lives of others better, degeneration is much less likely to be deliberate overall and is better characterized as implosion or self-cannibalism as the society consumes itself.

A regenerated society will have higher limits in terms of malice and and kindness. The actual changes will be influenced by the cleverness of its people: they might focus on building a society that enables incredible levels of kindness but is vulnerable to malice, or they might focus on preventing malice and degeneration. Greater cleverness will see those goals better met. A degenerating society can be benefited by cleverness, but it is also more likely that cleverness will worsen its decay. Cleverness often loses value before and during degeneration and may be held in the hands of increasingly narrow factions (some factions may seek to control it while disinterest will prevent other factions from spreading understanding). Now, a regenerated or degenerated society might be more or less sophisticated, complex, ordered, intuitive, or otherwise than its predecessor. For instance, fascism is a degenerate mode of civilization, but is highly structured in many aspects. There is almost always a seductive force to degeneration that drives many people to simultaneously make choices that drive degeneration forward. Structure, superficial peace, and lack of restraint are some of the appeals of low-kindness/high-malice societies.

Signs of degeneration manifest when more and more people’s lives are consumed. Consumption is when a person is objectified, used as a tool, or otherwise eaten up and lose contact with kindness. People who want to do good cannot and suffer moral distress. Excessive social demands, overcomplexity, power structures insensitive to human emotion, trauma and suffering, exhaustion, addictions, illness, perversity, hypersexuality, and the like are both symptoms and causes of degeneration. Degeneration can only be combatted by choosing to use energy for kindness, so degeneration will push for decreasing the free energy and the willpower to do good. It needs to be a self-sustaining cycle for degeneration to complete, so stripping people of discretion to do what is right is essential (e.g., requiring judges to rule according to law rather than what is good [noting that precedent influences what is right, but cannot be morally conclusive]).

It becomes very important to distribute the burdens of governing society between many people. If rulers degenerate, they will degenerate those under their rule and, famously, monarchs have the greatest access to addiction and excesses, they are subject to burdens far beyond what any human can carry, and so on. In civilization design, it’s good to watch for any positions that have these traits-it’s not just monarchs. I would suggest doctors, lawyers, and presidents are examples of people with excessive burdens in our society-which often burns them out and turns these professions that should be about helping people into cold, unfeeling industries.

When we look to falls of past civilizations, we look to disease, climate change, warfare, and other environmental causes. What these phenomena represent is a pressure that consumes people’s lives and makes it harder for individuals to recognize what is kind and choose it for themselves and others. When kindness abounds, the effects of any of these are mitigated and do not destroy a civilization. To blame the environment is to miss the point. These things happen to people and make their lives harder, but they ultimately choose whether they are kind, cruel, or unfeeling.

Regeneration comes when people are not consumed and choose to be kind with the energy that is free. Where degeneration drains people of the capacity to resist, regeneration is most likely to happen as kindness becomes more and more intuitive. Being kind takes energy, so a rich understanding of kindness makes doing good easier and more effective. That requires education, benevolence, and good faith discussion of virtue and good. The goodness that results from isolated individuals reasoning for themselves what is good is too costly. Regeneration only happens when many people choose to be interested in moral discussion and are willing to correct and be corrected. Without cleverness within kindness and systems to help people understand kindness on a deeper, more functional level, the upper limit of good will not be reached. It is not enough to say, I am kind or I wish to be kind. It is necessary to ask: what is kindness, and what does kindness look like within my life, what is the kindness that my neighbor needs.

Some notes: empathy is related to kindness but is not it. Empathy is also quite capable of cruelty. Empathy must be tempered by goodwill and must be extended to all people. Selective empathy aids factionalism instead. I think our society is full of degenerative signs, in particular, an unwillingness to discuss morality and religion (religion being one of the only institutions seriously concerned with questions of kindness). Amorality is not real: it is callousness and disinterest in the welfare of others, which is a degenerative impulse. We need more doctors, lawyers, engineers and the like-any profession where the risks are big, we need more people so that caseloads are kept small. We don’t need people losing their sense of self under the pressure that people will die because they don’t have the resources to do everything they need to.

essays

A Historical Perspective on Edelgard and Political Nonviolence

Leave a comment

Edelgard’s declaration of war is often criticized by appeals for using nonviolent methods of change. This criticism most often looks like the argument that Edelgard should’ve just talked it out with Rhea and/or Dimitri. It may also manifest as the claim that Edelgard’s cause is not urgent enough to justify violence, so only nonviolent means are permissible. Now, before we get into this, I should note that I am a prima facie pacifist for the sake of disclosure.[1]

Historical Significance of Political Nonviolence

I’m not going to say it would have been impossible for nonviolent strategies to work. Everything that follows refers to probabilities, viability, and limitations, not unconditional truths. However, the nonviolent argument is ahistorical. While the philosophy of personal nonviolence is old, the philosophy of political nonviolence is modern. Here, I refer to political nonviolence as the belief that nonviolence is an effective means to effect political change. Political nonviolence could not exist until human rights, rule of law, and (to a lesser extent) democracy had become reality. It is only because these conditions are common that we can contemplate nonviolence as a political option. As George Orwell observed:

It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary.[2]

Freedom of speech, press, and assembly are prerequisite to the formation of a nonviolent movement. Rule of law is necessary so that violent opponents of nonviolent protesters cannot act with impunity – paramilitary groups, members of the government, and lone actors must all be held responsible or expected to be held responsible for attacks on nonviolent protesters. Democracy aids nonviolence since nonviolence relies on popular support, but is neither essential nor sufficient (after all, Socrates was democratically executed). Before these conditions existed, nonviolence was a philosophy of individual conduct – it was not considered a method to effect political change. Striking, protesting, and the like are not effective against someone who is willing to kill innocents in the name of preserving their power. (Just as Peasant Revolts were wildly unsuccessful, a Peasant Picket Line is a laughable concept.) It just is not possible to develop a serious philosophy of political nonviolence in the medieval political environment.

On the subject of monarchy, violence is nearly the only form of regime change. Since the monarch controls policy, policy change can only come by changing the monarch’s beliefs (usually only possible as an adviser) or by changing the monarch (assassination, coup, invasion, kidnapping, etc). For an outsider to change the monarch’s beliefs, the outsider must do more than convince the monarch. The outsider must overcome the (probably hostile) influence of the monarchy’s staff. The staff may be advisers, guards, bureaucrats, or messengers. Whatever their station, officials are unlikely to aid anti-establishment causes and are likely to resort to censorship or false reporting. Monarchs are powerful forces for the establishment, but are generally less effective vehicles of reform.

As a corollary, even if the monarch is sympathetic to an anti-establishment message, the monarch must change the moods of all their enforcers. That is an enormous challenge logistically, legally, and politically, even for a monarch. Monarchy is not prone to dramatic ideological change unless the people themselves are readied to make the same change.[3] The renaissances and ideological revolutions of the medieval era were organic. A monarch, or an aspiring agitator, could not have willed them into existence.

Nonviolence in Fodlan’s Political Environment

Now, let’s look at Edelgard’s options for peaceful change. First off, diplomacy with Rhea is a nonoption. Rhea is dogmatic, totalitarian, and does not recognize freedom of discourse. Rhea is the only single figure that could bring about change across Fodlan, but she is not in a position where she is willing to listen to a political opposition. Centuries of hegemony warp the mind and it is no wonder that she has a hard time taking any vision but hers seriously, for all other ideologues die without damaging her position. The other lords aren’t particularly promising either. Dimitri is highly unstable, even pre-timeskip, prone to blinding emotion during disagreements, and pro-establishment (though not radically so). His refusal to recognize that it is impossible for Edelgard to be behind the tragedy of Duscur is demonstrative. As for Claude, there is no particular advantage to diplomacy. Edelgard considers Rhea her adversary and Dimitri considers Edelgard her enemy. Claude being on Edelgard’s side would not move us closer to a Golden Route. Further, his own desire to conquer Fodlan, coupled with his manipulative and secretive nature make him a poor partner for Edelgard. In short, the personalities of Edelgard’s counterparts leave me with little trust in the diplomatic process.

It is also reasonable to suppose that Edelgard would be a nonparty to the political scene without a war. Edelgard’s rise to power was likely contingent on starting a war. Her main benefactors are House Hevring and House Bergliez, both of which benefit from a war. House Hevring’s main source of revenue is mining and its main duty is administration. Thus, their best method for accruing power is land, the primary form of wealth prior to industrialization. More land -> more mines/exploitable resources and more land -> more need for Hevring’s administrative role. Wartime also increases demand for mining (stone and ore for armor, weapons, and fortifications) and heightens their influence over domestic policy as competitors shift focus to external affairs. As for House Bergliez, they command the army. They have more power during wartime. They stand to benefit from the boost to attention and prestige. Even if they aren’t warhawks in particular, they are unlikely to oppose war on ideological grounds. We do not know Count Bergliez or Count Hevring to be idealistic in any sense (Count Hevring participated in the Insurrection of the Seven, after all). Since they do not care for Edelgard’s vision, the war remains as the biggest factor distinguishing her and PM Aegir. For his part, PM Aegir has shown no hawkish inclinations over the course of his rule. Therefore, if Hevring and Bergliez want a war, Edelgard is their only option.

Without the title of Emperor, Edelgard would have little political influence, especially in foreign affairs. Even with the title, nonviolence is especially impotent on the international scale: “Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement.”[2] As a puppet or figurehead, Edelgard would have no leverage and no means beyond her own charisma. Rhea and Dimitri, her primary adversaries, are violently unstable – “the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics.”[2] Even without the violence, they are still dogmatic and closed off to Edelgard’s influence. This all combines to make diplomacy unviable.

Summary

Political nonviolence would be an anachronism in FETH.[4] Even in theory, it is out of place. Considering the particulars of Fodlan, the case for nonviolence gets even worse. The promise of a war was probably necessary for Edelgard to retake power in the Empire.

I’ve written this because <3 Edelgard, but also because it really is important to understand the history, limits, and nature of our ideals. This is a bit personal, but I’ve been troubled by the rise of ideologues throughout modern society and how they call dogma “idealism” or “faith to their principles.” And I think it’s something to watch out for/keep in mind.

[1] Prima facie pacifism “presumes that war is wrong but allows for exceptions [and] places the burden of proof upon the proponent of war: it is up to the proponent of war to prove, in a given circumstance, that war is in fact morally necessary” (Standord Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Pacifism).

[2] Reflections on Gandhi, George Orwell, 1949

[3] The Adrestian people seem readier to accept ideological change than the others. For one part, Adrestia seems to suffer from more extreme examples of the abuses that exist throughout Fodlan. For another, the Adrestian people have no common ideology that shores up these abuses. By contrast, Faerghus seems the least ready for change. Even though Faerghus’ culture is full of severe abuse, the Faerghus culture shores up these abuses. A normal participant of Faerghus culture (esp. the knightly ideal) is discouraged from criticizing the aristocracy, the religious ideologues, and the dogmatic cultural norms. Faerghus culture is self-preserving and shifts attention from itself: every character from Faerghus (excluding Felix and Jeralt to some degree) criticizes those around them or themselves for their suffering, not the systems, laws, and beliefs that cause suffering. This being the case, Faerghus may well resent many of Edelgard’s reforms in Crimson Flower, but reform is more likely to come by conquest than from within. Funnily enough, there is a real-life novel that would be perfect for the people of Faerghus, especially literary folk like Ingrid and Ashe: Don Quixote, or my preferred title, El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha (The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha). Don Quixote was written specifically as a criticism of the chivalric ideal and as a parody of chivalric novels, the same ideal that plagues Faerghus. Miguel de Cervantes’ genius would probably strike a chord with many Faerghus readers.

[4] Another anachronistic idea that I see a lot is new players’ preference for the Leicester Alliance. They see Adrestia and Faerghus and, based on the fact that monarchy is bad, decide that the Alliance is preferable. Some may even mistake the Leicester Alliance as being close-ish to democracy, which, as moderns, we are supposed to prefer in all circumstances. However, the Alliance is an aristocratic oligarchy, which is one of the worst forms of government. In fact, Plato’s Republic goes out and calls it the absolute worst form of government, out of all forms it considers. It inherits almost all the foibles of monarchy and the weaknesses of democracy: indecision, corruption, excessive concentration of power, an elite class formed by blood, etc.

[Originally written 04 May 2021 for r/Edelgard]

blog

FETH: Abyss & the State of Exception

Leave a comment

I see people wonder why the Church of Seiros would tolerate Abyss, especially the presence of criminals and religious dissidents. The answer to this one is relatively simple: Abyss is what is called a State of Exception.

A state of exception exists when a government deliberately creates an area of lawlessness, or more exactly, a place where the law is not applied in the same way as it has been historically/elsewhere. The people living within a state of exception live within exceptions to the law. Governments may have any number of motives to establish a state of exception. Bad motives include how a state of exception allows the government to violate its own laws/use more violence than normal. Lawlessness can also be useful if members of the government have black market or other unethical interests (one of Aelfric’s motivations). Better reasons for a state of exception may be to respond to a crisis (states of emergency are sometimes states of exception) or to establish a refuge for people who cannot exist in normal society (Aelfric’s initial motivation and a reason to allow Abyss to survive post-Aelfric).

The theory of states of exception is largely developed by Giorgio Agamben. He points to Nazi Germany and Guantanamo Bay as real-life examples. I was exposed to the concept by Jason de León’s book The Land of Open Graves, where he argues that the US-Mexico border is a state of exception.

The key to a state of exception is that the condition of lawlessness is a deliberate creation of the state itself. This makes it different from a region where the law is absent or has lost control (as often occurs in border regions, colonies, and the like). Looking at Abyss, the specific principles in suspense are: the supremacy of the aristocracy, the supremacy of the church, and general penal law. The aristocracy and church do not assert their power over the Abyssians (the aristocracy cannot assert its power, while the church can assert its power if it so desires, but generally does not).

Other examples in Fire Emblem include the various nations seized by cults (Nohr under Iago, Plegia, Rigel under the Duma cult). Nonexamples include western and southwestern Zofia (overrun by pirates and bandits, not government-created), the Ylisse side of the Ylisse-Plegia border before the Shepherds stabilize the region (the instability is created by an enemy state, not the state itself), and Ylisse in Lucina’s timeline (assuming Grima did not somehow become the head of state and legally enforce his destruction). Valla strikes me more as a failed state rather than a state of exception (it definitely has some state of exception kind of stuff going on, but we don’t really see if Vallan law has survived in any way past whatever Anankos orders in the moment).

[Originally for r/fireemblem]

blog

Fates: Ethnic and Ideological Conflict

Leave a comment

As things stand, Fire Emblem Fates (FEF hereafter, because saying FEF aloud is cute) is the ugly duckling of modern Fire Emblem. In the wake of Three Houses, it is easy to see it as an aberration whose main value is making FETH possible (and I would definitely say we should appreciate how FETH would not be near so beautiful if not for FEF). It is true that FEF is, in many ways, incomplete and the writing… we can still mourn those poor souls who chose Corrin X Azura before Revelations revelated certain revelations. But, as Borges observed, even though every writer judges each other for what is accomplished, every writer wishes to be judged according to what they hinted at (Como todo escritor, medía las virtudes de los otros por lo ejecutado por ellos y pedía que los otros lo midieran por lo que vislumbraba. – The Secret Miracle). FEF is deeply flawed, yes, but you can really get a sense of some brilliant ideas that the writers did not have the chance to explain or develop, whether or not they intended to do so.

I submit that FEF puts forward themes largely absent in its counterparts. FEF depicts meaningful ethnic conflict and ideological schisms as they are experienced by the participants. By contrast, Fodlán’s diversity exists mostly by implication. FETH’s cast is a cross-section of the elite, who are nearly ethnically homogenous, with token representation of the different minorities. The key countries all share their history. The wars within Fodlán are not particularly ethnic, besides the Agarthan perspective. Awakening’s cast draws from 2 continents and many ethnicities, but Awakening generally does not focus on characters’ or regions’ pasts. Shadows of Valentia has a similar setup to FEF, but is all-around simpler.

Ethnicity is a conjunction of history, nationality, race, religion, ideology, and culture. Ethnicities form however people choose to group themselves together. FEF is focused on two ethnicities: Nohrians and Hoshidans. These ethnicities are historically, politically, culturally, religiously, and ideologically in conflict (race, sadly, is underexplored, although there is racial differentiation between the two parties). Hoshidans see themselves as productive, successful beneficiaries of bountiful land, with a hospitable culture and benevolent approach to foreigners. Nohrian self-image is less pleasant; their identity is permeated with desperation for resources and the closeness to conflict and death that comes from living in an infertile, hostile environment. Nohrians experience more violence and poverty than Hoshidans, but they are also quicker to help and forgive people on the wrong side of life (evidenced by how Hoshidan retainers are largely hereditary, while the Nohrian retainers are often people rescued from desperate circumstances or pardoned and converted to productive activity). These two groups are merely centralizers in a broader swirl of interacting races and ethnicities, fighting to maintain their identities against the influence of their neighbors. These smaller groups take positions of neutrality, appeasement, revolt, and alliance to survive, with varying success.

The different histories, identities, and values of FEF’s nameless continent are in a constant clash. Consider how the members of the different tribes (Rinkah, Felicia, Flora <3, Hayato) present themselves while living in Hoshido or Nohr. They tend to affix themselves to their cultures’ values, more so than they would if they were among their own people, perhaps. When members of an ethnicity are isolated, they often seek to represent their peoples and values well. This can make them play into stereotypes and is especially difficult when they try to follow cultural norms that weren’t designed for life among foreigners (e.g., Rinkah and the law of isolation).

Speaking broadly, both Hoshidan and Nohrian perspectives have their merits. Hoshidans are conflict-averse and do well in those circumstances. However, much of their value system survives only in fair weather. In battle, they struggle to empathize with the enemy or behave magnanimously (worst exemplified when Ryoma denies safe passage to the Nohrians for a medical mission to save Elise. It is true he had no duty to aid the enemy, but being a good person in wartime is not a question of one’s duty). Hoshidans do not take the needs of Nohrians seriously. Even in peacetime, Hoshidans are content to ignore international conditions as they prosper. In contrast, Nohrian culture isn’t very aspirational, in good times or in bad. They are good at coexisting with people of different beliefs and behaviors, but they are too cautious in rebuking and combating corruption (this reaching a boiling point at the time of Fates).

Nohr’s internal ethnic struggle merits extra study. Nohr’s historical religion reveres the Dusk Dragon, but Nohr’s current crisis is based in a radical new religion taking root. The religious component is underplayed in the game, but the brilliant manga Nibelung’s Crown emphasizes this point (https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/86wgz0/fe14_fire_emblem_fates_nibelungs_crown_volume_i/?ref=share&ref_source=link). It’s important to remember that the primary method to effect change in monarchies is violence, to force a regime change, or control the monarch. Iago, the ideological leader and prime beneficiary of the Anankos Cult’s rise, provokes a violent, internal struggle for the religious and political control of the kingdom. (Radicalization could have been a sufficient explanation for Garon’s change in behavior from negligent but benign to corrupt and exploitative. Alas, Revelations decided to make him secretly an undead puppet instead.) A heretic, in medieval society, is a social contagion and unredeemable. They were considered to be a form of terrorist who brought destruction through ideas, rather than violence. This is the circumstances Nohrian society faces: the acceptable social behaviors become narrower and narrower and tolerance for disagreement disappears as a new, radical orthodoxy replaces the old semiliberal order.

Throughout all these conflicts, Fates does something interesting: we almost never take a step back. The characters are active participants, without the benefits of hindsight. They are too proximate to the issues to analyze themselves in an archaeological sense. They have to make decisions and justify their decisions in the moment. They do not understand what is happening as it happens. Objectively, many of the heroes are bigots, rash, cruel, intolerant. Subjectively, there’s almost nothing that would make them realize that. And so, they continue in their errors. And while games like FETH, where the characters understand better what they are doing, are brilliant, there is value and shades of reality in how FEF’s cast is so much more caught up in the moment, in their histories, identities, and ethnicities.

This is about all I have to say on the subject for now, but I wrote this because I want to talk about Fates in a positive light. Even if the games are imperfect, they are hated more than they deserve. The story, for all its faults, does things that the other modern FE games do not. And, on account of the hate, there’s beautiful analysis that remains undone. Fates is not just a steppingstone towards better, later games. When it comes to FEF, there’s a lot to love.

[Originally for r/fireemblem]