Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Default vault dweller

Didn't delete it. It's in spoiler tags because it was off-topic. I made a post agreeing with someone that this post was off-topic and put the previous post in spoiler tags, clearly mentioning that I put the post in spoiler tags, because this post and my post was off-topic and Composer is probably going to close it whenever he/she/they wakes up. If you want to talk about Baldur's Gate III and how we can help to improve it, I'm game. Otherwise, a debate on the consistency of social issues in varied media through the historical ages really doesn't have a place here. It's all just begging for the thread to be closed... which it should be, anyway.

But, if you want me to humor you, and I mean this with no ill will:
I don't buy that all literature has served the purpose of speaking out for the weak and against the strong. The earliest forms of literature exalted the strong. If you've ever read Nietzsche's "On the Genealogy of Morals," you know that a lot of ancient literature was drafted by the strong, by the rich, by the elites, and that they saw themselves as strong and righteous simply by virtue of being the elite. Indeed, the term for aristocracy comes from the Greek word "Aristos" (A=alpha, r=rho, i=iota, s=sigma, t=tau, o=omicron), meaning "Best, superior, or excellent," as in the name of the philosopher "Aristotle." The Epic of Gilgamesh is perhaps the oldest example of literature, and it tells the story of a cruel king who is only calmed through a hunting brotherhood with a wild man, and who, in an apparent crisis, seeks out immortality. I would argue the only time Gilgamesh is altruistic is when he ponders handing the means of immortality to the elders of his city (who are still ELITES, not plebeians). BUT, one will note that the ancient and classical conception of duty has much less to do with protecting the weak, and much more to do with appeasing the Gods, or the city, or destiny. I also think we are exhibiting a heavy degree of selection bias when we look at Lysistrata and think, "Oh, gender norms were an issue in Ancient Greece, and gender norms are an issue today; therefore, all social issues today are the same social issues through history." I think that's a faulty line of thinking that attempts to extrapolate a few historical points to a host of contemporary issues.

Edit: If you haven't read the Genealogy, I should warn you that there is some mildly antisemitic language. Nietzsche wasn't an antisemite himself (in my opinion, and most academics' opinions), but he lived in a somewhat antisemitic period in history, and was fond of using coded language. For a non-antisemitic example of coded language, he opens the work talking about "English Psychologists," but the context of the work suggests that he's referring to the philosopher David Hume's account of the "Good," which was a social/natural account of goodness being based on what is praiseworthy, which is based on what is useful. It's either that or German is a really funny language. Or he's talking about Ree. That's possible too.

Edit 2: An argument can be made that the Gods send Enkidu to Gilgamesh on account of the prayers of his people, who suffer under him, but it never actually resolves Gilgamesh's cruelty in the long-term, and Gilgamesh remains the protagonist of the story. I would argue that while the story is sympathetic to the people of Uruk, it is not sympathetic to the weak and the poor in general.

Edit 3: If Composer doesn't close this thread, I'm turning it into a philosophy-shitposting ground.