- 3,904
- 684
I agree with it not being conceptual yeah, too much of a stretch.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bob said that they will be 2C after revisions but it will be discussed in a different threadYeah. People I spoke to agree it's wrong.
That's even worse.Bob said that they will be 2C after revisions but it will be discussed in a different thread
bruh. You haven’t even seen the thread yetThat's even worse.
I know why he wants 2-C he's brought it up for years. It's wrong.bruh. You haven’t even seen the thread yet
Hum no, the body is the vessel then. The soul is what gives life to it and the heart is what create someone's personnality and identity.It's what's identified as a vessel:
Definition of VESSEL
a container (such as a cask, bottle, kettle, cup, or bowl) for holding something; a person into whom some quality (such as grace) is infused; a watercraft bigger than a rowboat; especially : ship… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
Vessel =/= Life Force vessel is merely a container.
Just to say, I don't agree with 2-C either. Even if we go by 3-A, it's established KH will allow Xehanort to create a new universe but nothing suggessts KH was gonna affect the RoD, wich is something entirely different, or other realms than the RoL for that matter. Though I still want to see the thread Bob will probably post here anyway, just to see what he will say.I know why he wants 2-C he's brought it up for years. It's wrong.
yeah I mean at least hear what he has to sayJust to say, I don't agree with 2-C either. Even if we go by 3-A, it's established KH will allow Xehanort to create a new universe but nothing suggessts KH was gonna affect the RoD, wich is something entirely different, or other realms than the RoL for that matter. Though I still want to see the thread Bob will probably post here anyway, just to see what he will say.
Yep.yeah I mean at least hear what he has to say
I'm fine with that set up just saying that nothing in Ansem's report is saying the soul is what gives life it actually calls the soul the vessel in its case. Irregardless, this doesn't make the heart conceptual.Hum no, the body is the vessel then. The soul is what gives life to it and the heart is what create someone's personnality and identity.
Read that report again. The words "its vessel" comes directly after "the body" and refers to it.I'm fine with that set up just saying that nothing in Ansem's report is saying the soul is what gives life it actually calls the soul the vessel in its case. Irregardless, this doesn't make the heart conceptual.
Well, if someone comes back as a Nobody, they are obviously not dead. The discovery of Nobodies coming later is kind of part of my point since his wondering about what happens when the heart leaves the body and the soul behind is a rather obvious allusion to Nobodies as a speculative possibility from his point of view. What is the soul supposedly serving as a vessel for anyway?Why does it not count as perishing? You're making this claim without elaboration. His discovery of nobodies is mentioned in secret report 7, a far later report then 4. He's not clearly doing anything he mentioned the soul works as a vessel, not as life. The vessel leaving the body gives way to the death of a body, it never once mentions the soul is lifeforce.
"Read that report again. The words "its vessel" comes directly after "the body" and refers to it."
The way it's listed says when it leaves the body and then goes into it's vessel talking about life after death, again though this entire part is irrelevant since this doesn't prove the heart is conceptual, if anything it further shows it isn't.
"Well, if someone comes back as a Nobody, they are obviously not dead."
>But in your very post you guys are trying to argue them beings that don't exist, thus they would fall under the dead category, if not then it goes back to my original point that them losing their heart doesn't erase every memory and existence of them.
"The discovery of Nobodies coming later is kind of part of my point since his wondering about what happens when the heart leaves the body and the soul behind is a rather obvious allusion to Nobodies as a speculative possibility from his point of view. For what is the soul supposedly serving as vessel for anyway?"
>I don't see how that's an obvious allusion when the discussion of nobodies is brought up later. You'd have a point if it was brought up prior to this report but it's not.
Also idk why we're using Ansem as a source for hearts when he directly says this here:
"I've spent years studying the workings of the heart. Yet it seems I still haven't learned a single thing!"
"You have surpassed nothing- only proved how little we both know. We may profess to know the heart, but its essence is beyond our reach."
He basically confirms he's learned truly nothing about the hearts.
Life after death was me wording life gives way to death so that was just moreso weird wording from me. Even then what you described isn't even the soul being life force just that one dies upon it leaving.
"still in existence, force, or operation"Definition of ALIVE
having life : not dead or inanimate; still in existence, force, or operation : active; still active in competition with a chance of victory… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
"knowing or realizing the existence of something"
There's also various scenes of the cast or the scene itself treating something as a death when one loses their heart:
That's not what he says or is saying at all in that context what he's saying is he's truly a fool cause he was trying to study something he can't hope to comprehend. At best he understands the 3 separate pieces but not enough about them. Your "if Ansem truly knew nothing" argument ignores the fact that you can actually very well conduct research about something you don't understand, scientist unironically do that irl a lot. Emblem Heartless was done by Ansem by use of the hearts they had in vats and it's stated in the same line of dialogue describing Emblem heartless that he cast aside his body and soul in order to become one:
"Not only did they generate "pureblood" Heartless from living hearts, but they then used those Heartless to synthesize artificial versions of the creatures as well.These synthetic Heartless bore insignias and were called "Emblems."Pureblood or Emblem, these Heartless act only to fulfill their instinctive needs. They single-mindedly detect hearts and swarm around them.A human's commands would be ineffective: the Heartless would easily steal the human's heart and use it to increase their own ranks.But what if an even stronger Heartless was giving the orders?If he cast aside his own soul and body and became a Heartless, wouldn't he be able to control the otherwise intractable Heartless?"
Again they're not an end all be all source to hearts nor should they be treated as such.
Also once again, this is irrelevant to the subject matter cause even accepting this argument as correct still does not prove hearts are conceptual.
This is something they didn't know about yet in KHII and Nobodies are formed by someone losing their heart which in this case was strong enough for their body and soul to remain, as such the allusion still aplies since it was Ansem specifically wondering about what happens when the heart leaves."It's an obvious allusion in my opinion because it talks about the possibility of a body and a soul without a heart which is basically how Nobodies were defined in KHII."
>So the very thing that got revealed to be a lie in DDD, making the report even less trustworthy.
I don't think that the rest that you decided not to respond to is pointless derail since I was directly responding to points you've made but it is alright to me if you don't want to respond to it.I'm only going to respond to two specific parts because the rest is irrelevant as I've explained above and pointless derail.
"A scientist wouldn't be able to research something if they didn't have at least some vague idea what said something is in the first place. They wouldn't be able to recognize the object of their research when presented with it and Ansem is quite certainly not that level of clueless when it comes to hearts and if he was, he wouldn't have been able to get hearts in vats in the first place."
>Ok that's neat, quote where in my argument I said he knows absolutely nothing, I specifically fixed my comment into saying Ansem is not an end all be all source for the hearts. Also he views himself as such since he directly says he hasn't learned a single thing during his studies.
"This is something they didn't know about yet in KHII and Nobodies are formed by someone losing their heart which in this case was strong enough for their body and soul to remain, as such the allusion still aplies since it was Ansem specifically wondering about what happens when the heart leaves."
>Ok, and? Why is it relevant if they didn't know about it yet in KH 2, the fact of the matter is it's a direct lie as revealed in DDD, so again the report should not be used as an end all be all when it's very contents are revealed to be a lie in a later game, them not knowing about that yet is the same as saying we can use older scientific theories because at that specific time they didn't know about certain concepts that later theories come in and debunk, and this is something you're greatly not understanding about the reports. The reports are theories, not facts.
I was simply responding to points that you've made. For now I'm preferring to leave the debating about hearts being conceptual or not to others. If someone writes something about the topic that piques my interest, I'll respond to that.It'd be better for you right now to comment on the main point of this thread which is hearts being conceptual or not then one of the few side arguments that already got confirmed it doesn't help support conceptual hearts.
There weren't exactly many people that explicitly agreed and I'm pretty sure that Bobsican isn't agreeing so saying that everyone agrees is an incorrect generalisation.It responded to the part of my argument that loosely came into the rest of it, and even then it went into pointless derail as everyone in the thread thusfar agreed that even it correct does not prove conceptual, so no it is irrelevant and pointless derail.
If you're saying he isn't completely clueless you are thus implying I'm saying that or you're bringing up a useless point since that wasn't even what I was arguing. Sure he can have some credence, cool, I said he shouldn't be an end all be all.
A hypothetical possibility is irrelevant to the fact that it's revealed that the entire idea of nobodies in KH 2 was a lie fabricated by Xemnas. It does change that since what Xemnas said about nobodies to the organization is the theories Ansem and others followed.
I'm talking about people that fall under knowledgeable members of KH agreeing with the core point and your refutes didn't really show any backing into going against their statement.There weren't exactly many people that explicitly agreed and I'm pretty sure that Bobsican isn't agreeing so saying that everyone agrees is an incorrect generalisation.
Me saying that Ansem has at least some credence isn't pointless since I was the one who linked his reports. At least that's how I'm seeing it.
Ansem having alluded to the idea of a body and soul left behind by a heart which is how Nobodies are formed isn't changed by Xemnas' lie. Xemnas' lie also doesn't change the way Nobodies are created which is at least part of the idea of Nobodies in KHII which means that not the entirety of it was a lie.
Okay, if that's how it is, then it's alright for you to say that. That being said whether other people agreed with you or not was never a relevant part of what I was telling you.I'm talking about people that fall under knowledgeable members of KH agreeing with the core point and your refutes didn't really show any backing into going against their statement.
I legit don't see how just because you linked a source makes it so it's relevant.
Yes it is since Xemnas literally lied and said that's how it is they lack a heart, and it's revealed that they have a heart.
I simply responded to points you've made. It's not like as if I've brought up random topics from out of nowhere.It not being a relevant part of what you're telling me is exactly why it's derailing.
Idk why something being relevant to you matters frankly, it's legitimately irrelevant to the discussion matter of the thread. I never said either you can completely dismiss but Ansem's saying and even then I can alternatively say you can't completely agree with what Ansem is saying either. Also if you're admitting it's not relevant for everyone then that's irrelevant to the thread in question.
He was wondering about the scenario from false information he and the rest have been under the impression of from Xemnas. Which got confirmed to all be a lie. Idk why we're grasping at straws and trying to find to say he didn't claim an absolute when I can again, say the alternative that he didn't claim it wasn't that case either.
The point I responded to was indeed one of the arguments you used for your position of hearts not being conceptual but If I remember right, there were people in this thread that agreed with hearts not being conceptual but not people that specifically agreed to the one point I adressed.The point you responded to was one of the supporting points of what the heart is described as that doesn't prove conceptual which again, got accepted on this thread as not being enough evidence. Thus this is derail.
It mattering to you does not matter to the discussion at hand, so again, I don't see why you viewing it as relevant matters. Which as shown by how they treat the heart leaving your body in KH is wrong and again it's coming from a man that admits he truly doesn't know much about the heart. I don't know why we'd consider this line to have credence when nothing backs it up since it's a belief followed by someone who only supported something revealed to be a lie and a lack of lifeforce by definition would be the lack of a soul. Even then there's no reason to even argue this roundabout since Xehanort confirms the heart is his essence which is attributed to such things. What? Yes it does depend on the person linking it if you're going into a thread debating on a topic required to be relevant to the thread. This topic is not relevant to the thread.
Ok let me remove the Xemnas' lie part, this still doesn't support your point since his theory was only supported by something that got revealed to be a lie. And yes that is a part Xemnas fabricated since he directly said that it was all a reason to see if they were willing to be Xehanort copies. Him lying to them about them having hearts is a direct contributor to him lying to them about how nobodies are made since the entire explanation of how they're made is due to the removal of the heart and one with a strong will.
I'm referring to arguments that I've made earlier since you've replied with points that you've made earlier so I'm not the only one who is repeating himself.Not gonna reply to this cause this is just a blatant repetition of an argument with unnecessarily longer text.
I said replace the lie point and it changes nothing in my statement.
"It's not a theory since he didn't come to any conclusions"
Theories are based on coming to a hypothetical scenario, you come to a conclusion once you test out a theory.Definition of THEORY
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena; a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
What in context Xemnas is saying is that the way they're formed, which is lack of hearts is incorrect because they do indeed have hearts that's what I'm talking about, yes they are formed from hearts leaving them but they are not formed from body and soul like Ansem assumed, they're formed from one's heart, look at Roxas and Namine as the core examples of that.