To push this metaphor even further, Zenos LITERALLY CARRIES YOU TO THE FAR EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE ON HIS BACK LIKE SISYPHUS PUSHING A BOULDER UP A HILL. In absurdist metaphor, YOU are his boulder that he finds endless satisfaction in struggling against even though he can never win. Zenos finds meaning in his struggle against the WoL even though he knows you have beaten him once before and are his better. Zenos LITERALLY dropkicks his way into the final boss room with the Nihilism-bird and says "Why isn't this bitch dead yet so we can have our kino rival fight?" >Camus concludes that "all is well," indeed, that "one must imagine Sisyphus happy."Įndwalker is literally a Camus-style Absurdist rejection of Nihilism.
Camus claims that when Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his task and the certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the absurdity of his situation and to reach a state of contented acceptance. > Sisyphus, just like the absurd man, continues pushing. Here Camus states that "even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate". Included in the translated version is a preface written by Camus while in Paris in 1955. >The English translation by Justin O'Brien was first published in 1955. It isn't "No reason", the reason is literally "Because I love combat and find ultimate joy and meaning in the life and death struggle against a worthy foe" Because Ishikawa simply didn't give a shit to make this make any sense. It's sort of what I meant when I originally mentioned trying to explain Venat's action only leads you further down the "Venat is fucking insane" path. It actually leading to the current story of XIV was purely accidental/because plot required it to happen. The "perfect outcome" leading to the "timeline WoL came from" might as well have required her to do a headstand for a year after escaping from Elpis and she'd have no clue about it. Meaning Venat by choosing to do nothing again doesn't make sense because there's a blank space in the time period leading up to the end of the world.
Except there's one major problem with this assumption: WoL had no perspective on what happens prior to final days other than the not all that in depth explanation provided by Emet's recreation of Amaurot. You'd think so if you just take what happens at face value. >but I don't think that her maximum-resolution plan (trust that the person who put her on this path is also going to save her ass at the other end so don't fuck with anything) is fundamentally unreasonable. How she gets from there to splitting all of humanity into 14 is another matter. She does a lot of unreasonable shit, but I don't think that her maximum-resolution plan (trust that the person who put her on this path is also going to save her ass at the other end so don't fuck with anything) is fundamentally unreasonable. Given that she wants shit to play out in a straight fucking line, so that the WoL who told her shit is fucked is the same WoL who can return to the future/present and fix shit for her. Venat also believes that no future is possible without the WoL, her "plan" (she doesn't really have a plan) hinges on the WoL fixing shit for her after the WoL returns to the future. So G'raha intervened because the alternative was the end of the world - he doesn't believe any future is possible without the WoL.
This is different from G'raha, where in his history shit playing out from the WoL's perspective ended in the WoL being fucking dead. But from Venat's perspective in past-Elpis, success was reliant on the WoL, and the WoL doing anything was reliant on history playing out the way it had already Sure, G'raha did, and that worked out swell. I agree that Venat is mostly retarded, but from her perspective I can understand not acting on future knowledge.
0 kommentar(er)
