Final Fantasy and Philosophy essay 4

R

Rydrum2112

Methodologist
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
494
Age
42
Location
PA
Gil
0
In this essay, Jay Foster introduces the idea of conceptual analysis. This is the process of comparing and contrasting a concept with another one to get a better understanding of the first.

Foster compares 2 concepts of the lifestream in ff7 & AC. In ff7 universe there are 2 views on the lifestream one taken by Avalanche and the other by Shinra. After a lot of philosophy BS (holism, organism, reductionism, mechanism...) he ends up with the explination of the first main conflict in FF7.

Avalanche takes the approach that the lifestream is literally the life of the planet, and that it has properties over and above its physical manifestation (mako). Shinra takes the approach that mako is more of a fossil fuel, it is just energy to be used.

He then discuss the Gaia Hypothesis with the idea of Gaia from spirits within. GH suggest the earth is an active agent, maintaining homeostasis or that the earth is creating an environment that is optimal for life.

I think the most interesting part of the chapter is the discussion of the GH. (Personally, I doubt its scientific veracity but I think it can be used to help illustrate why we should be taking better care of the environment.)

What do you guys think? How important is the gaia hypothesis to ff7?

Personally- do you believe in the GH?

Can also think of the lifestream and the planet gaia from ff7 as living? It does call forth the weapons.
 
I really liked how the conflict in FF7 was portrayed in this essay. He did a good job of explaining how two different viewpoints of mako lead to the shinra-avalanche conflict. it was interesting to see how simply the conflict could be explained.

I think the Gaia hypothesis is truly at the core of the conflicts experienced in FF7. What's interesting is that after the shinra conflict takes a backseat to the sephiroth issue, you have both parties on the same side of the GH. Both cloud's team and sephiroth acknowledge that the planet has a "life" but not in the classical sense. They both agree that there is a life force, etc. Strange. Does the GH have a role in this conflict?

I personally do believe that there is a certain amount of vitality associated with the earth. This is part of what makes the complexity of our ecosystem work, imo.

I like the point that it calls forth weapons. That totally makes me think of it as a living entity. (living without consciousness of course...living in the sense that the gaia hypothesis describes). I kinda view the calling forth of the weapons as being similar to how a porcupine makes its quills erect when its scared. It's not like it is consciously thinking "ok, time to stick out my quills"....its more like a knee-jerk reaction.
 
Rydrum2112 said:
Personally- do you believe in the GH?
Click to expand...
The problem with GH is that it downplays the horror of humans. In essence, humans shape the world, and the idea of GH downplays it. Some level of GH might exist, but I wouldn't say I believe in GH.

Of course, if the world was a Final Fantasy game, perhaps it would be true.
 
Rydrum2112 said:
What exactly do you mean?
Click to expand...
That humans control the world in a sense, because they have the power to either cause havoc to the world or to keep the world safe. Anyone who has played a Final Fantasy game should understand such an idea, I think.

I was basically saying that GH being true would downplay, say Kefka for example. "Oh, but the world is a living force all its own, and you're just a person/god." The problem of GH is that it gets in the way of believing that people, fiction or however you want to believe, are destructive... concepts in human nature usually say that they are. So you have to be creative with your storytelling if you plan on having a story with GH, or GH might weaken the story instead of adding to it.
 
Last edited:
FinalCzen said:
That humans control the world in a sense, because they have the power to either cause havoc to the world or to keep the world safe. Anyone who has played a Final Fantasy game should understand such an idea, I think.

I was basically saying that GH being true would downplay, say Kefka for example. "Oh, but the world is a living force all its own, and you're just a person/god." The problem of GH is that it gets in the way of believing that people, fiction or however you want to believe, aren't that destructive... when concepts in human nature usually say that they are. So you have to be creative with your storytelling if you plan on having a story with GH, or GH might weaken the story instead of adding to it.
Click to expand...

I totally get what you're saying about the human effect on the Gaia Hypothesis, but I think the way in which GH is used in final fantasy is almost like an NPC. It makes certain choices and events happen that parallel the effects of the characters'. I definitely don't think it downplays the role of the player. if anything it's simply used as a plot device.
 
also, if anyone is super confident on the gaia hypothesis, I could use a summary/recap/detailed description of what it is. I just want to make sure my interpretation of the GH is the same as everyone else's.
 
strifehart said:
I totally get what you're saying about the human effect on the Gaia Hypothesis, but I think the way in which GH is used in final fantasy is almost like an NPC. It makes certain choices and events happen that parallel the effects of the characters'. I definitely don't think it downplays the role of the player. if anything it's simply used as a plot device.
Click to expand...
I was going to eventually go this way myself, saying that Final Fantasy games can be subjectivly anti-GH (wouldn't put it past them to have characters who wish to destroy the world and might think they can do it) but objectively GH (good ends up coming, the world ends up being restored).

However to me, there are varying degrees of GH. For example, I wouldn't say I believe in GH, but if you or I believe anything of GH... if you look at it in black and white we both believe in GH, even if you or I don't support (m)any of the overall ideas. So if Final Fantasy has varying degrees of GH, does it have GH or not? To me it's somewhere in between, and hard to say if simply presenting a theory of it.
 
Last edited:
Final- It is clear that GH is in Spirits Within, but as for 7 and Advent Children it is def. like a quasi-GH.

Strife- in brief GH (in its original form, Lovelock's hypothesis) says that "the earth" "acts" to keep itself in homeostasis. The earth being defined as all biomass, and acting being defined as trying to maintain the condition of earth's environment.


I am 99% sure in the book the authors talk about it only in its original form. This original form has been pretty much panned by scientists but I know that there have been modifications and the like to make the theory more viable to reality. I can't really speak to that because I haven't spent much time looking into the changes.

I do know that I find it hard to believe the biomass of earth will actively (and cooperatively) try and maintain the environment for the purposes of life, so in its strongest form I know its not right but there are weaker versions that could have some support.

From Wiki:

"This theory is based on the idea that the biomass self-regulates the conditions on the planet to make its physical environment (in particular temperature and chemistry of the atmosphere) on the planet more hospitable to the species that constitute its 'life.' The Gaia Hypothesis properly defined this "hospitality" as a full homeostasis."

Mod edit: Posts merged. Please do not double post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess my biggest confusion with this theory is regarding its original form. Does it include the idea that the earth is "conscious"? As in, does it consciously make decisions/ choose to create a hospitable environment for its inhabitants? Or is it an unconscious being...like the homeostasis it achieves is sort of inevitable and naturally occurring? Homeostasis in humans isn't consciously maintained...
 
The life-stream of the planet in FFVII to me has always been used as a parallel for the ever-increasing and wanton depletion of our natural resources that we hubristically destroy and consume seemingly ignorant to the long-term and possibly irrevocable damage we may be causing. FFVII portrayed this message in such a way that wasn't condescending, it reminds us that we need to act sympathetically towards the environment. As for the GH hypothesis, I don't personally think it has any scientific grounding, although I agree with the notion that the planet is a homeostasis system. Negative feedbacks in nature must intrinsically predominate positive feedbacks otherwise stability cannot be maintained, thus the planet and everything on it is essentially a self-correcting mechanism. Whether we can dispute the planet's natural equilibrium enough to cause long-lasting damage is debatable, but I doubt it, simply due to the fact that any disruption would be arrested automatically by negative feedback.
 
CHIP, it's interesting that you bring up positive and negative feedback systems...are you a bio or maybe a biochem major?

While I agree that there are several feedback systems found in nature that help keep its balance, I disagree in the sense that nature is constantly degrading, whether it be by us or by itself. I think of it as an energy issue. The way nature is constructed, especially with respect to the homeostasis of the environment, requires a considerable amount of energy. It's almost as if, in order to have a sustainable environment and maintain it, Gaia has to spend a considerable amount of energy to keep everything in such a highly ordered state. This complexity includes feedback systems you're talking about. So, the natural conclusion would be that the environment is always prone to degrade itself and end up barren, because being barren is the lowest energy state. Of course, I'm sure the effects of humans (ironically a product of this environment) have accelerated this degradation...
 
Chip,

By saying,
dispute the planet's natural equilibrium enough to cause long-lasting damage is debatable, but I doubt it, simply due to the fact that any disruption would be arrested automatically by negative feedback.
Click to expand...

I think you mean distrupt(right)?

The interesting thing is that even if we don't disrupt it fully, just altering it a bit can cause huge changes and then as it corrects itself we as a species will be gone.

Also- not everything in nature is a negative feedback loop. There are lots of examples of postive feedback loops in nature, run-away evolution (often in sexual selection) for instance or greenhouse effect, as snow melts the earth absorbs more light and becomes hotter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top