• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Philosophers' God Profiles

Status
Not open for further replies.
MasterOfArda said:
Well, wouldn't blogs at the least be fine? We have them for other characters.
Click to expand...
Of course blogs would be fine; we already have some ridiculous stuff in blogs.

That said I would prefer this not be relegated to blogs unless necessary. I feel like these could be good and interesting additions to take Wiki that may inspire some users to do some digging into philosophy.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, my point is that we should preferably feature profiles of fully developed characters with personalities, backstories, etcetera, rather than real world ideas.
Click to expand...


I mean The Unmoved Mover has something of a character and back story, just a not very detailed one. Many of these beings are beyond conciousness or beyond time, so I don't think that would apply
 
Well, all fictional characters are a subsection of the realm of ideas, but they are distinctive from ideas without humanised or antropomorphic personality serving a function within a story.

I mean, let's say that we continued down this path, and tried to fit any type of insubstantial idea into our tiering system, such as the philosophies or ideologies of Friedrich Nietzsche, Carl Jung, or John Stuart Mill. Would that really be appropriate for a power ranking wiki?
 
As far as I am aware, Friedrich has no supreme being or force in his ideology, given his coining of the term "God is dead."

If I am wrong and he does indeed have a supreme force, I don't see a problem with it. There is a difference between a "philosophical ideology" and a "philosophical interpretation of a creator/God."
 
I don't see your point here

Would those be hypothetically combat applicable? No. Could they have a set power? likely not. Thus that is what makes them different from The Unmoved Mover of the other representations of 'God' mentioned previously in this thread. Zarathustra (Nietzsche's version) as apposed to 'the golden mean,' see what I mean?
 
Again, the notions presented by those such as leibniz are well found within exclusive worlds, it's like contradicting the foundation of most popular verses seen in litterature, since all of these notions were already expose way before leibniz and them existed.

For example : Xenosaga was founded side-by-side with the Carl Jung's system of unus mundus.

It's contradictory, to not accept them.
 
Martin Heidegger, Heraclius of Ephesus, Jacques Lacan, Authur Schopenhauer, Aldous Huxley, and F.H. Bradley all have interperetations of God. Such things would be good for reference (like we used Ein Sof to describe an archetypal Tier 0), rather than characters with personalities and defining traits, powers or abilities. I know for a fact Platonism and Pythagoreanism should be fine, they are akin to mythologies. So should they be blog posts or pages? I presume blogs would be the best choice but above all else, it's not because this is a matter of being "controversial", but rather how such pages would stand out from the rest.
 
Again, I am not well versed in philosophy, so it is pointless to turn the discussion in that direction.

All that I am saying is that this is a wiki for organising statistics of fictional characters, not philosophical or ideological concepts. That is all.

We have made exceptions for easily defined physical real world animals, weapons and events, but it is wholly inappropriate to start to let our regular pages feature insubstantial concepts and ideas, especially ones far beyond what Assaltwaffle originally proposed.

If you want to write personal blog posts, feel free to do so, as long as they are within the confines of what our rules allow, but this is primarily an entertainment wiki for fictional statistics, not a university lecture about mostly unrelated abstract subjects.
 
yeah, so why not allow a being such as The Unmoved Mover. It is a being, not simply a concept

What specifcaly stepped beyond the bounds of what he proposed?

I think you missed the point of some of these. Some are not simply abstract concepts, some are actual beings and most would call fictional
 
Does The Unmoved Maker have a defined personality? Is it featured in a narrative/story? Is it part of a fully realised fictional setting? If yes, I suppose that we could use it, but philosophical dissertations or musings about insubstantial concepts and ideas are better left for personal blog posts.

Anyway, I am going to bed soon, so I hope that this thread does not turn unmanageable in my absense.

Somebody might want to ask Azathoth to help out with evaluating this thread. He is usually very sensible.
 
Just saying our "composite" and "combined" profiles are just ideas generated by us, not even a notable figure/author.

I'll go message Azzy.
 
Okay. We have to try to draw the line somewhere though, or it will be increasingly harder to argue for not allowing almost anything, until the purpose of our wiki significantly loses clear direction and substance.

Going by the likes to my posts, DontTalk seems to agree with me, and he is one of our most intelligent and experienced members.
 
I do agree a line should be drawn; question is where. Maybe we can use this thread, initial proposal accepted or not, to determine a more strict set of rules as to what is allowed.
 
Well, given that DontTalk significantly helped to define the schematics for the standards of this wiki, I would appreciate if he would be willing to help with this task by commenting again.
 
We should still preferably avoid that part of the discussion.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I am quite confused on this thread's direction.
Click to expand...
Before it randomly got derailed we were discussing if the proposed profiles break any rules, and if the rules need to become more hard-and-fast to prevent slippery slopes or even this, if it doesn't directly break rules but isn't acceptable.

Just saying if this gets rejected all the Composite and Combined profiles need to be deleted, as they match even less of the reasoning to be viable characters.
 
Thus Spoke Zarathustra can be regarded as fiction as well... maybe not commercially mass consumed if that is what we really mean
 
The composite profiles are based on real world beings though, which makes them more tangible than abstract ideas.

Still, I suppose that you do have a point. I would appreciate DontTalk's and Azathoth's input here, especially if they have suggestions for how we should word a modification of our regulations.
 
Antvasima said:
The composite profiles are based on real world beings though, which makes them more tangible than abstract ideas.

Still, I suppose that you do have a point. I would appreciate DontTalk's and Azathoth's input here, especially if they have suggestions for how we should word a modification of our regulations.
Click to expand...
But they aren't real beings. They are thought experiments with less "defined character" or "story" than anything in philosophy.
 
As I mentioned, I suppose that you have a point, but they have grown rather popular, so we would likely receive a backlash if we removed them.
 
@Antvasima

I know. It is hard; this does test our boundaries and limits though. Just saying that if my proposal gets rejected they shouldn't be here, since they violate everything my proposal does and more.

Maybe we need to start a new thread for determining such rules as Staff Only and highlight it?
 
It is probably best if we wait for Azathoth and DontTalk here first. I am exhausted as it is of this discussion, and do not want to be forced to argue about and defend our standards and practices for another 200 posts or more.
 
You can message DontTalk a reminder of this discussion if you wish.
 
Well, I am uncertain how to properly word them, but am open to suggestions.
 
Yes, blogs are obviously fine, but I am uncertain about anything more.

The crucial issue is whether or not it is appropriate for a wiki mainly featuring fictional characters, and some real world animals, machines, and events, to expand into philosophical concepts.

As Azathoth said, it may be safest to start with blogs to see how they work out, before taking any further steps.
 
@Assaltwaffle

uh, iirc Chief Monad was 'High 1-B'... or is my memory just failing me? High 1-A justification sounds kinda underwhelming though. (or maybe I just don't fully understand what a Monad is yet)

Matthew Schroeder said:
Platonism and neoplatonism have Tier 0 god. Most of judeo Christian philosophy elevated god to Tier 0, Kaballah requires no introduction.
Click to expand...
I would like to see Plato's God too... I got the gist of it on this page. and that page also seems to has a very high dose of Tier 0ness...

of course if many of those are in the same verse then all of them would be just High 1-A.

a shame if we can only make blogs because Philosophers' depiction of Gods may not have any backstory or character/personality to speak of.
 
Well, I think that the High 1-A statistic seems very exaggerated, even though 1-A alone is likely warranted.

However, creating blogs of this nature should probably be fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Agnaa
  • Locked
Proposal for Off-Site Links Revision
Replies
11
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Antvasima
  • Sticky
Wiki Vandalism Reports
11 12 13
Replies
512
Views
35K
Antvasima
Antvasima
PrinceofPein
Minor Overgeared Revision (Naming Rule)
Replies
15
Views
913
Suigetsuhyugs
Suigetsuhyugs
Regarding Page Names (Semantics)
Replies
21
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mr. Bambu
Slight Adjustment to Rules Regarding Original Works
Replies
37
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top