(Untitled)

[superiorityx]

The experiment I conducted in my quarters was a complete waste of time and effort. I had never counted on the trustworthiness of my partner to be a variable, but I suppose it was foolish of me to believe otherwise

Comments

[antisoleil]

My trustworthiness wasn't the issue so much as your narrow-mindedness.

[superiorityx]

Are you implying that something as ridiculous as what you proposed was fact, then? Do you take me for a fool?

[antisoleil]

I take you for nothing but what you are, Sir, and if you are this unwilling to accept that what I had said was fact, then you are indeed a fool.

[superiorityx]

Must I explain this to you as if you were naught but a child, VII? We are Nobodies. A Nobody, by definition, is one who has lost his heart. And yet you, nothing more than a mere reflection of true life, claim that you are able to experience an emotion that even those with hearts are lucky to grasp! It is you who is the fool, VII.

[antisoleil]

There are many technicalities missing in your definition and those technicalities happen to be the keys to understanding that, yes, it is possible for those like us to feel. We have base emotions, you know this, for without them we would be devoid of personality. Those base emotions, coupled with the willingness to expand on them and learn is what gives a few of us the ability to feel more complex feelings. I am not the fool for being open-minded and unafraid, Sir.

[superiorityx]

Base emotions that are merely the shadow of our former selves! Memories, not true emotions! You have absolutely no right to question me on this matter - or are you forgetting who is the subordinate here, VII?

[antisoleil]

They may be shadows of our former selves, but those base emotions still belong to us. If you perceive them to be real, then they are, and no one else, not even you yourself, can tell anyone else otherwise as long as that belief is sincere. You may be my superior in ranking, but I will not sit by and let you continue to wallow in your own ignorance.

[superiorityx]

Are you attempting to imply that perceiving is the same as existing? Then, if I am convinced that Kingdom Hearts is whole once again, will that make it true?

No.

I had never pegged you to be an idealist, VII. Then again - there is much that I had not pegged you to be, disrespectful at the foremost position of that list.

[antisoleil]

The wholeness of Kingdom Hearts is not subjective. Its status can be proven and it has a definate state. Our memories, our personalities and feelings, even our existences are subjective and be proven and disproven. We are such anomalies individually, I doubt there is anything stable or concrete about us.

Perhaps I am being disrespectful, but it is a subordinate's job to ensure his superior gets the job accomplished and if my stepping out of line is what it will take for you to understand the concept of our being able to feel, then so be it.

[superiorityx]

If subjectivity lies in matters of the heart, then Kingdom Hearts should be solely subjective as well. This, again, is not at all true.

A definite state should apply to emotions, then, as well. When it snows, we are cold - this is a definite state of being, is it not? Is it not too much to draw a parallel from that - when a child is struck, he cries - a physical stimulant eliciting an emotional response. The difference is that we do not have that connection inbred in us. We are struck and we feel only the physicality of it. That is why your argument is flawed. Whether you lie to yourself and build castles in the sky, the fact remains that the bridge between physical being and emotional awareness does not exist in us.

We are creatures of flesh and blood, if nothing else. There is nothing subjective about our existence.

[antisoleil]

Subjectivity does not lie in the matter of the heart, but rather, in the mind of the individual. If the individual chooses to believe the fragments of feelings and memories are their own then it is such, because on a certain level, the emotions, incomplete as they are, do belong to them. By refusing to admit having feelings does not deny you ownership of them, but rather, only means you refuse to acknowledge them as real

[superiorityx]

That statement completely refutes what you said earlier. Earlier you said that in the perceiving of the emotion, the emotion itself is born. Now you say that the emotions exists whether on admits to perceiving them or not. Which one is it?

If it is in the perceiving that emotions exist, does that not mean that if one does not perceive them, they do not exist? This is but a simple deception, VII. If I say I perceive the emotion, then yes, I am perceiving an emotion - however, biologically it is one that we cannot feel. The whole basis of your argument is completely moot - you are arguing for the continuation of simple deception and nothing more

[i_luv_sitarz]

Excuse me, Sir, but I think Saïx might have a point. I've got a little trouble following what you two are ranting about but, don't you think there's a chance that he might be right?

I don't want to be rude, but your answers won't always be correct.

[greyscalegarden]

As odd as this may sound, I cannot help but agree with you. While they are both making generally zero sense and are twisting each other's words, thus avoiding the main point of their conflict entirely, I agree with VII. Though, I must admit, Sir is making a few critical points as well.

Ahh, well~ Let us simply say they both fail at logic and call it a day. Mm, IX?

[superiorityx]

Nor does this have anything to do with you.

[greyscalegarden]

Oh, but this has more to do with me than you think. Of coarse, that is what this entire arguement is about, isn't it?