• 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.

Should Souls be default and also Medaka Box and Spirituality

Ajimu also implied it would be gone with her iirc. When he died he was like, damn guess there is nothing. Him saying there is no class room this time would imply it is finally gone

Yeah, i know. Pictures exist, and we know how she acts only from how people have described which is the same as medaka. Making use of a dream in Medaka's heart, yes. A dream. "Lost Soul" is a common phrase for someone who has fallen from grace, or something along those lines, which is clearly what she was referring to in that context.
 
She never implied it, just the case of Kumagawa prove the opposite. Zenkichi doesn't say that there is no classroom anymore, he was wondering why he wasn't in a classroom, reasons: he was resurrected.

Since she use all things link to death as words (in the context, it's quite litteral, since she said that she will became a soul because she will die) "soul", "even after death", and that Medaka know near-nothing of her, how can she know the true feeling of her mother that no one known? Saying that she's a dream still make no sense.
 
Regardless, the place is a dream world, and does not function as any afterlife. Being resurrected doesn't stop you from going to the class room, see every single time Kumagawa died while Ajimu was still alive.

What do you mean by "all things link to death as words"? Lost soul was referring to someone who has fallen from grace, such as her, who tried to save people but she turned into a monster from her sheer work ethic, or Iihiko and just about everything he did. Medaka was told stories of her mom like we were to a likely even greater degree. You are implying that what was said were truly the thoughts of her mother, or more likely it was like Zenkichi experiencing the will of his dead friends. Besides, given that she is a dream, it may not even be the case that she actually felt that way. I would take it as authors intent that it was tho, but that is my own interpretations of Medaka's mothers will
 
"being resurrected doesn't stop you from going to the classroom", because before being resurrected, you're dead. It's like, another proof of this being a sort of afterlife.

Zenkichi = various memories that he had. Hato = litteraly a ghost who said that she go in the classroom because it was empty. I don't see how these two are related. Also, she talk even after Medaka go outside of the room, why she would keep talking since Medaka was awake at the end of her sentence?
 
Explaining what? All Fiction already has an explanation blog, and the style users are the only other usable profiles that have complicated enough abilities to warrant an explanation.
 
I'm not really sold on the "skills have materialist explanations" thing in general, when a lot of them can affect abstract and immaterial things, such as Encounter redirecting mental trauma into others, Hanten being able to create any skill, Ajimu being able to teleport anywhere and being able to see through other's eyes, and Zenkichi being able to nullify the metafictional property of being a main character. It's a real reach to come up with materialistic explanations for these, unless you count "it's basically magic" as materialistic.
 
I don't know who did, but probably it's being argued that Medaka Box characters be considered "soulless", and whoever called you just wants more eyes on the thread?
 
I don't think every character in fiction should be assumed to have a soul when there is zero evidence they do. However even if we doassume so, someone who explicitly does not have a soul most certainly shouldn't be assumed to have a soul. If someone doesn't have a soul, you can't manipulate their soul because there is no soul of theirs to manipulate. It's literally that simple.

Now since I'm not knowledgeable in the series, I can't make the call on whether or not characters do or do not have souls.
 
Ryukama said:
I don't think every character in fiction should be assumed to have a soul when there is zero evidence they do. However even if we doassume so, someone who explicitly does not have a soul most certainly shouldn't be assumed to have a soul. If someone doesn't have a soul, you can't manipulate their soul because there is no soul of theirs to manipulate. It's literally that simple.

Now since I'm not knowledgeable in the series, I can't make the call on whether or not characters do or do not have souls.
Click to expand...
They're never stated to lack a soul.

Lapitus laid out evidence for Medaka Box lacking spirituality and generally being materialistic, and is then saying that "Since Medaka Box is materialistic, characters wouldn't have souls", is a train of thought like this viable to conclude that characters don't have souls?
 
Agnaa said:
They're never stated to lack a soul.
Click to expand...
I'd rather go with providing actual evidence they have souls, not having to disprove that they have souls.
 
I don't think this thread's the place for the "Should we assume that characters have souls or not" discussion. I'd rather get your opinion when working within the current assumptions that we make.
 
Btw, sorry I have been neglecting this thread. Its finals for the rest of the week and the following week, so I am really only on here to unwind and not do much serious stuff
 
The God Of Procrastination said:
About the "skills all have materialist explanations" thing, what about Irreversible Destruction?
Click to expand...
Irreversible destruction is most similar to a style, but it is it's own distinct thing
 
Like I already said, I can't make the call for whether or not characters are stated or not stated to have souls, but I do think if there is no actual evidence for a character possessing a soul they shouldn't be assumed to be. Why is it that souls are suddenly some special thing that burden of proof doesn't apply to? Why does everything else require evidence before we can assert its existence besides this?

And frankly I don't care about "working with the current assumptions that we make" because I think the current assumptions we make are silly.
 
So wait, are we going to give a bunch of profiles immunity to soul manipulation? Does this new standard mean you have to prove you have a soul, not the other way around?
 
I'm not sure if anything is going to change, but I personally do not think burden of proof should be suddenly twisted around just for souls. Why not just assume every verse in fiction has an afterlife or has a god/gods while we're at it? Many characters do demonstrably have souls however.
 
Ryukama said:
Like I already said, I can't make the call for whether or not characters are stated or not stated to have souls, but I do think if there is no actual evidence for a character possessing a soul they shouldn't be assumed to be. Why is it that souls are suddenly some special thing that burden of proof doesn't apply to? Why does everything else require evidence before we can assert its existence besides this?

And frankly I don't care about "working with the current assumptions that we make" because I think the current assumptions we make are silly.
Click to expand...
I want to discuss this further but this thread is already huge and it would derail it big-time.

Feel free to make a thread about these standards and we can discuss it there.
 
Ryukama said:
Like I already said, I can't make the call for whether or not characters are stated or not stated to have souls, but I do think if there is no actual evidence for a character possessing a soul they shouldn't be assumed to be. Why is it that souls are suddenly some special thing that burden of proof doesn't apply to? Why does everything else require evidence before we can assert its existence besides this?

And frankly I don't care about "working with the current assumptions that we make" because I think the current assumptions we make are silly.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of standard battle assumptions. Having a soul is the default in the same way having a brain is the default. Not just for SBA but for anything fiction. From Romeo & Juliet to That's So Raven to Teletubbies. You don't assume every non-Earth based character doesn't have a brain for the same reason. And that's because the majority of the world believes in the concept of the soul. It's not even a religious based thing, but numbers. Someone's bound to take this in a different way than I mean, but we don't have to prove that the Earth isn't flat in every fiction even though a vocal minority honestly doesn't believe in a round Earth.
 
The existence of brains and the earth being round are things that are provably and objectively true within our real world. The existence of souls is not. And most religions and people who believe in souls can't even agree on an exact way they actually work and function.

"It's not even a religious based thing, but numbers"

Okay so appeal to popularity even when there's zero evidence for it.

I don't get how with anything else like the existence of chi, magic or even God and the afterlife people agree they can't be asserted to exist in every work of fiction ever written without evidence, yet with souls we just have to assume they exist everywhere for some reason. What reason is there to be content in not assuming verses have gods and afterlives (concepts that are almost universally tied with the existence of souls) unless proven otherwise but souls must exist in every work of fiction?
 
The default of having a soul if a verse is agnostic in nature seems fine, but if a verse calls it into question or favors a world view that does not support it, then a verse having souls by default should no longer apply.

To use your flat earth metaphor, if a verse calls into question that the earth is round then the default should no longer be that.
 
Brains and the earth being round are things that are provably and objectively true within our real world. The existence of souls is not. And most religions and people who believe in souls can't even agree on an exact way they actually work and function.

That doesn't change the fact that most people still believe they exist, whether or not they agree it works the same or not. Whether or not a verse has reincarnation or has an afterlife, it doesn't change the fact that both'd have souls. And on the first point, during heliocentric times, most people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. If say, Dragon Ball was made back then, it wouldn't have to prove that the sun revolved around the earth because that was the popular belief.

So appeal to popularity.

Argument from fallacy. Appeal to popularity would be if I said something like "Most people say the Patriots will win the Super Bowl so they're gonna win the Super Bowl". Saying the default is what the majority believes isn't a question. For one, see the heliocentric argument. And two...yes, popularity does have to do with it, because general consensus actually matters. On a related note, we're not certain that the universe is the size that it is for example, but it's the popular belief so it's what we roll with.

And yes, it's also generally assumed that there is some sort of afterlife in a fictional work post-mortem too. God is...iffier.
 
Cal, the difference is that if an author or verse calls something into question, then it should no longer be taken as a given. When the author of death note says that souls or afterlifes aren't a thing or at least calls that into question, then we should no longer take the popular belief of our world and push it on theirs

also, I don't think that an afterlife is a default assumption either. If a verse has christian or religious themes that is fine, but that actually does come into question especially since what even qualifies as an afterlife is another issue
 
No it absolutely matters. Most religions have different and even contradictory ideas on how souls work, how they function and even what they exactly are. A soul in one religion and a soul in another religion fundamentally aren't even the same thing at times. Why do we choose 1 interpretation of a soul and just baselessly assume it applies to the entirety of all fiction over all the others? Especially when every interpretation has the same amount of supporting evidence for its existence in the real world?

And again, brains and the earth being round are objectively, provably true. You cannot somehow use these as examples as to why we should assume something with zero proof for their existence.

You claim that we should assume that souls exist in all works of fiction just because most people believe in souls IRL. That is textbook appeal to popularity fallacy.

And again no reason given as to why we don't assume every verse has afterlife or has a god yet we just have to assume every verse has souls.

"Most people on earth IRL believe in an afterlife and believe in a god. It doesn't matter which form of afterlife or which god in particular. The fact that most IRL people believe in any afterlife or any god means we have to assume every work of fiction has one unless proven otherwise. But then we're only going to go with one particular interpretation of afterlife and god. Perhaps even a composite one that no religion actually believes in".

^ This is the logic being used for souls here. Also this is especially faulty when you consider that almost every person IRL who does believe in souls also believes in a god and afterlife. Most peoples' beliefs even require the existence of a god and afterlife for the existence of souls to work.
 
No it absolutely matters. Most religions have different and even contradictory ideas on how souls work, how they function and even what they exactly are. A soul in one religion and a soul in another religion fundamentally aren't even the same thing at times. Why do we choose 1 interpretation of a soul and just baselessly assume it applies to the entirety of all fiction over all the others?

So if I could rip a soul out of a body, it would work on a Christian verse but not on a Buddhist verse, even though they both have souls. How they function is absolutely meaningless in this scenario.

And again, brains and the earth being round are objectively, provably true. You cannot somehow use these as examples as to why we should assume something with zero proof for their existence.

Completely missed the point of the Heliocentric analogy. Also, why do you think that most of these verses have to point out that God doesn't exist and there is no afterlife? Because it's common knowledge that it's the default. Same reason why the default character is a straight white male. A majority of this type of culture dates back to verses with souls in Greek tales. That was something that actually did continue with time. Because a minority believes otherwise doesn't result in a conformity of the default assumption of many. If something changes in the popular culture in that atheism is the majority, then sure. That's the default.

No. You claim that we should assume that souls exist in all works of fiction just because most people believe in souls IRL. That is textbook appeal to popularity fallacy.

Alright. Take a male character who's never called male and looks a bit androgynous. Most people believe he's male, as that's the default. Prove to me he's not female and until then, he's female.

And again, still no reason given as to why we don't assume every verse has afterlives or has a god yet just requires the assumption of souls existing.

I've said that having an afterlife is the default of most verses.
 
I personally agree more with ryu's pov here, but it should be it's own thread.
 
Holy **** can you guys take it to another thread? You're both staff, how can you two keep derailing so much after I've asked multiple times for you to take it to a relevant thread?
 
I am with Ryu's POV here. For one, I can point to Parahumans as a verse where souls conclusively don't exist.
 
It's not only how they function but even that a soul in certain religions isn't even the same thing in others. Also the idea is "most people believe in souls so we have to assume all fiction has souls" but then why are we favoring one interpretation over all others? The idea is we're assuming all souls exist because most people IRL believe in them but then we're not even assuming the type of soul most people IRL believe in. Heck it almost seems like some "composite soul" that no one IRL believes in is being used.

And again, brains and round earth are things that objectively, undeniably exist IRL. Souls are not. So we can't assume souls to each verse on the same basis we assume brains and round earth. So then where are we left with? Assuming they all do based off this idea of "most people IRL believe in them". But again, does this really matter when we're going with an interpretation that defies what most if not all IRL people believe in?

Which afterlife? And again why don't we assume every verse in fiction has a god or the same god unless proven otherwise?
 
Agnaa said:
Holy **** can you guys take it to another thread? You're both staff, how can you two keep derailing so much after I've asked multiple times for you to take it to a relevant thread?
Click to expand...
this thread is supposed to be about the policy aswell, so it is technically still fine
 
Agnaa said:
Holy **** can you guys take it to another thread? You're both staff, how can you two keep derailing so much after I've asked multiple times for you to take it to a relevant thread?
Click to expand...
You clearly don't understand that this is actually relevant to the topic. Whether or not we accept Medaka having souls is going to rely on how we handle these standards. Also as such this conversation is going to happen in this Medaka discussion regardless. I don't see how moving to a new thread for a while then coming back here makes any difference.
 
The standard of all living things having or not having souls should at least be in an aporporiately titled thread. As is, this title drives away those who could contribute but don't want to deal with a medaka thread, and this would be a pretty huge change if we went with it. The medaka spirituality issue dealt with other things than this as well.
 
Also why is it like a taboo to deal with multiple subjects or discussions in the same thread? If all subjects and discussions are relevant to each other they should be brought up. Separating each and every one of them into their own thread isn't an organized way of discussing ideas. If anything it's even less organized than handling it all in one thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FoxySonicMaster108
Medaka Box Revisions Part 1 (Key Additions, Attack Potency and minor Speed revisions)
Replies
29
Views
1K
FoxySonicMaster108
FoxySonicMaster108
Planck69
Demon's Souls CRT: Nature of Souls
Replies
10
Views
453
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Random_Bill_Cipher_tard
  • Locked
Ajimu 8-C is somewhat iffy
2 3
Replies
108
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Ajimu Upgrade Undo
Replies
28
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
deonment
I give my mind and SOUL (Hollow Knight SOUL CRT part 2)
Replies
23
Views
2K
deonment
deonment
Back
Top