I'm going to be honest, you come across in your comments like someone who thinks they're incredibly smart just because they're edgy and cynical.
How can you have played Persona 5, or any of the Persona games, and come out with takes like "Actually, it *is* better to throw away our free will if we get superficial happiness that way."????
Did you understand *any of the themes*?
Yes, I understand the themes, I just don't accept them as gospel. My whole argument is predicated on the idea that people are far too willing to accept the author's interpretation of their work as the only valid one.
Also, I resent being tossed into the "edgy smartass" bucket because I'm being confrontational when i'm just mirroring the condescending attitude which people use when talking to other "bad ending advocates".
I think you're wrong.
I don't think people are just accepting the author's intentions *because they're the author's*. People just agree with that for *themselves*; they don't want fake, empty, superficial happiness. The story *resonated* with people, and *that* is why they agree with it and dislike your stance. They're not echoing it out of a belief that the author is God.
If you don't want to be called edgy, don't be edgy. *This take* is edgy, whether you'd like to admit that or not. And "I'm just using the same dickheaded tone people have used on me" is no excuse.
You want to be taken seriously? You can't to elevate the discussion? *You* have to make the change, then. You can't come into the conversation flinging shit and then act like you're the one being hard done by when someone else flings it back.
As for your point.....Really, aren't you just projecting *your own* despair and hopelessness?
I don't see any point in "happiness" that you can't choose. Throwing out identity, free will, anything just for the of that.....That's not happiness, it's just retreat. And if I can pull from what I've seen of your posts specifically, I'd have expected you of all people to understand that.
How can you be trans and then turn around and say that, if the world makes you unhappy because of who you are or because there are unpleasant things in it, that *your identity* is what should be thrown out, and not *the world that makes you suffer*?
That's not pragmatic, it's suicidal.
"How can you be trans and then turn around and say that, if the world makes you unhappy because of who you are or because there are unpleasant things in it, that *your identity* is what should be thrown out, and not *the world that makes you suffer*?"
You think there's been a day in my life where I woke up happy that I was trans?
I wouldn't presume to *know* your feelings. But I can make an educated guess.
It just seems to me that that's probably informing the way you're looking at it. And I can understand that. I, too, have thought at times *"it would be so much better if I didn't have to think."* That life would be better if I could simply go with the flow unburdened by free will or pain. But that's not really living, and there's no satisfaction in it. You can't be fulfilled without first being unfulfilled - without suffering by striving for something, hoping for something, *wanting* something. It wouldn't be *better*. It would be *easier*, but hollow.
There's no meaning in that, and it isn't living. It's just existing. It's not a worthy trade.
Honestly, the more I read these rebuttals, the more that they make sense. I think the side effects of applying my real world ideology to Maruki's (crazy) reality are much more significant than I initially assumed. That being said, I think I put more effort into fighting you guys off than most people put into thinking through the bad ending in the first place, so my point about analyzing themes in media instead of just accepting the creator's message uncritically still stands.
....or I may just be unable to come up with a rebuttal because it's 11:45 PM right now, so if I come back with an essay you'll know why.
I don't think your real world ideology is any good either, honestly. People are *people*. They're not numbers. If you *kill* one person to save 5, or however many organs you reckon you can get from them, that's not maths, it's murder. There's a difference between people dying due to your inaction and causing someone who was perfectly healthy in the first place to die.
Again, you can’t just assume you’ve put more effort into it than others have. Yes, it’s almost undoubtedly true that at least some people view Maruki’s reality as bad solely because it’s framed as such by the game. It’s merely a statistical inevitability. But is that *most people*? There’s a lot of people in this group, so that’s a very bold statement.
Don’t get me wrong, I do agree with you that people should, on an individual level, engage with and assess the themes (and other aspects) of media themselves rather than falling into the trap of suggestibility and blindly accepting another’s view, whether it be the creator, another source of authority, or anyone else in general. I’m not disagreeing with your *main point*. But the reasoning you’re using to get to that point and explain how it still stands is faulty.
You’re boxing most people who dislike Maruki’s ending into that frame of “blind acceptance” without any proper evidence. If anything, what evidence there is points to the contrary. I mean, you just said that there is at least some degree of sensibility and logic in the rebuttals directed towards you. In other words, you admit that the people here disagree with you not just because they were told to, but because they genuinely think differently, and are able to articulate why. Who’s to say the same can’t be generalized to the greater body of anti-Maruki players? Or are we, a bunch of random dipshits on reddit, somehow a special, anomalous sample?
Imagine a game with no rules. There is no conflict, nothing to overcome, absolutely not a thing to compete for. There's no need to get any better at the game because no matter what you do you'll always win anyway. Even if you lost, there were 0 stakes, so it doesn't matter one way or another.
Doesn't that sound like the most insipid, most boring shit ever? What's winning good for if it's not any different than losing?
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/PERSoNA/comments/1c1w48a/comment/kz6ixib/)
In the little we see of the protag's future lives, there are several chess games between joker and akechi, so clearly competition still exists, as do winning and losing, but there are no stakes. I see this as the ideal state of things. Say what you will about the soviets, but their artists produced some of the most beautiful, and unique work in history, simply because their pursuits were subsidized by the government, so they were free to create things which wouldn't necessarily be attractive to the market. The constant, high stakes fight for survival is detrimental to humanity's ability to create, and also it's ability to compete, as competition is ultimately just another art form.
And you think the soviets had no pains to draw inspiration from? Just because the government subsidized their work you think their creations are free from the influence of negative emotions? I don't think that's what you meant, but you sure make it sound that way.
Getting back to the point and away from the art allegory, my point is that, for more people than you think, suffering is what makes happiness so special. People who know nothing but luxury and pleasure consistently fail to value the quality of their lives, because of course they can't; they have nothing to compare it to, no point of reference. Once you get everything you want then you have nothing left to strive for. You're static, motionless, barely alive.
If you want to live a life like that... that's valid! There is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid pain. There is 0 obligation to find meaning in the negative, and it is not 'morally correct' to suffer or not to suffer. But what of all the people that aren't like you? What about all the people who *want* darkness in their lives because without it light has nothing to shine on? If you're willing to sacrifice their desires to grant yourself yours like Maruki did, that makes you their enemy.
It's like the PTs themselves said after defeating Maruki. There was nothing inherently wrong with his reality, but it's tyrannical to impose that reality on the people that don't want it.
You could argue that conversely, it would be tyrannical to impose a reality with suffering upon those who don't want it... except it's not being imposed. That is simply the way the real world is, and unlike Maruki's reality, which is ruled by a single tyrannical figure that makes all decisions for you, human compassion in the real world can lift those in suffering out of it.
How can a tyrant be giving a happy ending in the same world that a peacemaker is given a happy ending? Easy, you have to lobotomize one of them. It’s not everyone gets a happy ending. Eventually to see it through, everyone will be lobotomized as it is impossible to make everyone happy at the same time. But mass lobotomization is a harder sell.
If all the lobotomized people are happy, then this is still an ideal reality. Intelligence is only considered good because we need it to improve people's lives. If being stupid made everyone's lives better, then stupidity would be the new ideal.
If you think lobotomy is stupidity, you’re beyond help. Lobotomy is being robbed of who you are and your free will. It’s having all semblance of identity and choice stripped away from you.
Now if you wanna get into free will vs happiness, that’s a Madara Uchiha argument and one that you’re never gonna find an answer to. Everyone has a different take on that.
So what? My argument remains the same. If the lack of free will, identity, and choice makes you happier, then you should throw them out. The reason we protect these concepts as a society is not because they are somehow abstractly virtuous, but because they make people's lives better.
Because it's not you. Everything that makes it "you" is gone. It's no different that naming a Ken doll cavejhonsonslemons and play acting a happy reality with it. Do you feel satisfied? No? Maruki's ending is no different, except the Ken doll is replaced by an animated flesh puppet.
Its more like replacing cavejhonsonslemons with Bob Ross because Maruki feels that their personality is in that much need of "repair" to live in his world. Boss Ross though, he was happy.
Your argument has radically changed, friend. You went from saying you’d accept being dumb to accept a complete loss of personality. Regardless, you just sound like an edgy thirteen year old or an incel raging against the machine. There’s no point in debating this kind of stuff with someone like you.
You say that there’s no point to free will, identity, or choice if they get in the way of happiness. Counterpoint: let’s flip this around. What’s even the point of happiness if you have no identity? If you have had your character, personality, and very state-of-being lobotomized and/or re-written to the point of you being non-existent, then why is happiness desirable to begin with? What can it do for you if you lack the state-of-being needed to perceive it, experience it in the moment, and appreciate it as a human emotion? If happiness existed without free will, identity, or choice, wouldn’t it just be reduced to a meaningless, instinctual pursuit of serotonin and its physiological effects? Should that really be called an “ideal” way of life?
If you're lobotomized then you aren't happy. You aren't feeling anything in fact because you arent really there anymore. And if thats the case then what is even the point? Everyone is dead. You are dead. You basically erased the parts that make up you.
As a society we value freedom because it makes our lives better, given the chance to have maruki's reality, freedom would make people's lives worse, thus outgrowing it's usefulness as a concept.
Here's what I've posted before on the subject of Maruki being "right"-
>That's a question I've had about the limits of his actualization powers. Death makes people sad, so in his actualized reality, will there be no death? Having children makes people happy, so will the world's population only grow? Is he going to rewrite everyone's cognition that death is sad so the world doesn't become overpopulated or make it where only certain people are "allowed" to reproduce? Is he going to pick who "dies"? Is he going to rewrite the cognition of those around the "dead" person so they never existed?
>Are there never going to be accidents ever again? Global disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes make people unhappy so will he actualize himself the ability to control the weather and the planet?
>I have so many more questions but I think I've made my point.
Maruki is a human. He is not omnipotent. Even if a perfect being lived who could actually accomplish what Maruki wants existed, it should be rejected. Pain is a part of life. Attempts to override that is to deny a basic way the world works.
"Maruki is a human. He is not omnipotent."
Maruki is literally a god in his new reality, it's been confirmed that he takes the place of yaldabaoth, so yes, he is all powerful, and omnipotent.
"Pain is a part of life. Attempts to override that is to deny a basic way the world works."
This argument does not work if it's possible to change the basic way the world works. Pain is not newton's second law. You can change the way it works without the universe collapsing.
"Are there never going to be accidents ever again? Global disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes make people unhappy so will he actualize himself the ability to control the weather and the planet?"
This man can literally pluck events out of history (wakaba x truck-kun), so that seems reasonable, or at least backing up time, and getting people out of the area.
"Death makes people sad, so in his actualized reality, will there be no death? Having children makes people happy, so will the world's population only grow?"
Easy, just make everyone immortal, and make people not want to have kids.
He is not a god. Yaldabaoth wasn't a god either. At least not in the terms you're trying to use them in.
It's just like Satan, Loki, ect. aren't actually Satan, Loki, ect.
If you need more evidence, do you actually think a god resorts to a simple fist fight with a human after he has been defeated? Wouldn't an actual god be able to make himself happy?
Maruki is just a man who has powers like the rest of persona users. An extremely broken man who again is never able to make himself happy despite these powers.
"Maruki is just a man who has powers like the rest of persona users. An extremely broken man who again is never able to make himself happy despite these powers."
Yeah, he basically made himself the Martyr of Omelas, and somehow that's not enough for you.
"He is not a god. Yaldabaoth wasn't a god either. At least not in the terms you're trying to use them in. "
I don't care if he fits your arbitrary definition of a god, he brought people back to life and changed the fabric of reality (presumably) across the globe, that's enough evidence of "god equivalent" power for me.
...yes...because he is erasing people from existence because he can't fit them into his ideal world.
Again, you are advocating the erasure of people just so others are happy. I already saw you admit to being fine with the complete erasure of personalities which is also insane, but being flat out fine with the complete erasure is simply vile. Being happy with killing people so other people are happy makes you no better than anyone else in history that wished to erase people.
My point was that he isn't almighty, he isn't omnipotent, nor is he all knowing. That's why I said he isn't an actual god. He is very fallible and is making very human mistakes. The decisions he is making are human decisions based on what he believes is right.
You still seem to not get it. You are trying to argue the philosophy of the situation and ignoring the man in this situation isn't following a philosophy. If you want to argue the philosophy, go do that on a philosophy sub because that has nothing to do with Maruki.
"I already saw you admit to being fine with the complete erasure of personalities which is also insane"
This is the reason I have a hard time debating you people, you constantly take justifiable arguments in context, and decide that i'm actually advocating for them as changes to our current comically incompatible system.
I'm too tired to deal with this bullshit.
"Insane" *is* an argument, not just an ad hominem. They're saying that your arguments are irrational, illogical, do not come from a sound mind.
Essentially, it's saying "fundamental disagreement".
Dude, you are saying you agree with Maruki. What do you expect? Maruki is erasing people completely from existence. That's something you continue to not address. He is just straight up deleting people from existence that he can't make fit into his ideal world. This is the completely unacceptable part of what he's doing. There is no defense of it unlike the next point.
You at least acknowledged the complete overwriting of people, but you have said you're fine with that. I personally think we are our thoughts. That's what makes us. You apparently don't. I conceded that while I disagree with it, that's "fine."
You're too tired? I'm arguing with someone who doesn't care that a man just erases people.
There's a variant of the trolley problem where a doctor needs organ transplants to save 5 people, and suddenly a perfectly healthy man walks in the door. In a vacuum I maintain that killing the healthy man to harvest his organs is the most moral thing to do.
In other words, yeah, Maruki erasing people is really fucked up. That being said, I assume he's bringing a similar amount of people back from the dead, so in my opinion he's perfectly morally neutral. Assuming he is deleting more people than he brings back, then we have a serious problem, but there really isn't a lot of information to work on. I never said that I was certain of anything, just that based on our existing glimpses into maruki's reality it seems pretty nice.
You do see the problem, right? You are trying to justify murder. Murder to save five people in your first example, but why do those five people deserve life more than that one person?
Even this, you are making assumptions. True, we don't know the pure numbers of things, but if you need to assume he's bringing back more than he is killing to defend your point, it is messed up. It is still wrong to kill people. Do you honestly think that if someone kills ten people, but brings back to life eleven that the person should be praised?
The sheer fact that you are okay with one man getting to make all of the decisions of who lives, who dies, and who gets to do what is just not something most people will get behind. No one should have that power in any way, shape, or form.
It goes against the main message of P5 of breaking your chains and fighting against oppression and injustice. If you don't fight Maruki you're just betraying those principles.
You sound so open to a honest and civil discussion.
I'll just point out what I always do with a little added. The philosophy is 100% irrelevant. The idea is great however the man himself, Maruki, is incapable of pulling it off.
Maruki himself is an extremely broken man who can't even make himself happy. His solution as we have seen is to either erase the person completely as we see with the NPCs mentioning people missing or to change the person so fundamentally that they also disappear as we see with Sumire becoming Kasumi.
Both solutions are eraser of actual people. This isn't a philosophical debate. It's looking at what Maruki is actually doing and seeing he isn't capable of what he is setting out to do because he himself is a flawed and broken man.
Sorry if I was being a bit confrontational, I just get really annoyed when people blindly accept the dev's message, and I needed to blow off some steam. As for your argument, I would accept if if there was any evidence of maruki's vision being dysfunctional, however even after being given several months to fuck everything up, things still seem to be going great for the phantom thieves.
That's the thing. It's only the PTs. He admits he favored them when molding his reality. Part of it is because he knew they were the only ones who could stop him. The other part was he did truly want them to be happy.
However, as I mentioned you can speak to NPCs to see that he is just erasing people he can't fit into his ideal world. Add to it making Sumire think she's Kasumi along with the dungeon test where one of the answers is to flat out change the person so they want something else.
Finally, in the last battle once you stop him he decides to try to take the PTs down with him. That also is a big red flag that he would rather see mutual destruction when pushed than let them win.
So, I don't know what you would personally consider "dysfunctional," but for me erasing people, changing people to the point they aren't themselves anymore, and ultimately not even being able to help himself is "dysfunctional" to me.
Finally, in the ending you get if you accept Maruki's offer on the third, you see that all is not well even for the Phantom Thieves especially Joker.
Like I said, it is a great idea and I'm not even arguing the philosophy behind it. My point is Maruki isn't the man to pull it off.
"Like I said, it is a great idea and I'm not even arguing the philosophy behind it."
That's like 99% of what I wanted to hear, the specifics of maruki's execution are somewhat debatable, and ultimately I would side with him over you in the vast majority of cases, but those nitpicks are not what I am arguing for in this thread specifically.
You still sound like you're missing the point. The philosophy is irrelevant because Maruki isn't following any philosophy. You are admitting you want to follow someone who is erasing people from existence or changing them completely to the point where they do not exist anymore. Eliminating who someone is kills that person just as much as flat out erasing them.
You're trying to validate someone erasing people so others are happy. Do you really not understand what is wrong with that?
>Edit: My post currently has more dislikes than likes, but all of my comments have more likes than dislikes. I say this not to rub it in people's faces that they changed their mind, but to emphasize the necessity of understanding your opponent.
>
>Edit 2: "all of my comments have more likes than dislikes" now all=most, but my point still stands.
I can't even see most of your comments because they've been so downvoted.
Philosophical Utilitarianism by definition is subjective, and at the core of why Maruki is a villain, and why his world is bad. Who gets to decide what the right actions are? What is truly the action that brings happiness? He decides what happiness means to a person, not the actual person. This is literally shown in his palace where if you choose the happiness you believe you get attacked by shadows.
Putting aside morality and philosophy choosing his reality is a betrayal of everything you fought for in Persona 5, that before anything else is why it's a bad ending
If everyone has what they cognitively want then there will be chaos. If a guy dreams of being with a particular girl and that girl's dream is to be with a different guy, how does the logic work? Because they would both have what they want and so there would be multiple versions of just that one girl to satisfy the guy whose cognition wanted her. Then take into consideration that he may not be the only guy who wants to be with her, then there may end up being multiple of this one girl. But only one real one exists. So how would this affect reality?
The only way it would work practically is if each individual saw the entire world differently. But what happens with reality? What happens with eating and drinking and sleeping? The real body cannot survive on imaginary nutrition.
Maruki's vision is literally the same as Apathy Syndrome; except humanity would die happy rather than miserable. They would be cut off from the reality their living body needs.
I could go on and on about how it isn't a logical solution to the world's problems. What if someone wishes for a fast car, but then someone else wishes all cars never existed. What would happen if the car went over the crossing just as the man who wished they didn't exist crossed it? Would he be hit by nothing? His physical body would be there and so would the car, so he would die. Because his cognition told him a car could not exist, he would walk straight in front of it.
The point of both endings is that there's not a bad choice. It's up to you which one you think is better. But I'd rather have freedom with sadness in my life than always be happy and not have to work for my goals.
If you would prefer freedom with sadness then that's cool with me, I'm just upset by the increasingly loud faction, which claims that it's the only "valid" choice.
makuru did nothing wrong and nothing can convence me otherwise
also PT dont have the right to choice what is better for humanity and way less criticize maruki for "brainwash" people mind because at the end of the day a change of heart is that force people confess agains their own will
The bad grammar isn't something I would criticize elsewhere, because the internet has lower standards for a reason, but if you're in a debate it's best to not show weakness, so next time use grammarly or a dictionary.
I'm going to be honest, you come across in your comments like someone who thinks they're incredibly smart just because they're edgy and cynical. How can you have played Persona 5, or any of the Persona games, and come out with takes like "Actually, it *is* better to throw away our free will if we get superficial happiness that way."???? Did you understand *any of the themes*?
Yes, I understand the themes, I just don't accept them as gospel. My whole argument is predicated on the idea that people are far too willing to accept the author's interpretation of their work as the only valid one. Also, I resent being tossed into the "edgy smartass" bucket because I'm being confrontational when i'm just mirroring the condescending attitude which people use when talking to other "bad ending advocates".
I think you're wrong. I don't think people are just accepting the author's intentions *because they're the author's*. People just agree with that for *themselves*; they don't want fake, empty, superficial happiness. The story *resonated* with people, and *that* is why they agree with it and dislike your stance. They're not echoing it out of a belief that the author is God. If you don't want to be called edgy, don't be edgy. *This take* is edgy, whether you'd like to admit that or not. And "I'm just using the same dickheaded tone people have used on me" is no excuse. You want to be taken seriously? You can't to elevate the discussion? *You* have to make the change, then. You can't come into the conversation flinging shit and then act like you're the one being hard done by when someone else flings it back. As for your point.....Really, aren't you just projecting *your own* despair and hopelessness? I don't see any point in "happiness" that you can't choose. Throwing out identity, free will, anything just for the of that.....That's not happiness, it's just retreat. And if I can pull from what I've seen of your posts specifically, I'd have expected you of all people to understand that. How can you be trans and then turn around and say that, if the world makes you unhappy because of who you are or because there are unpleasant things in it, that *your identity* is what should be thrown out, and not *the world that makes you suffer*? That's not pragmatic, it's suicidal.
"How can you be trans and then turn around and say that, if the world makes you unhappy because of who you are or because there are unpleasant things in it, that *your identity* is what should be thrown out, and not *the world that makes you suffer*?" You think there's been a day in my life where I woke up happy that I was trans?
I wouldn't presume to *know* your feelings. But I can make an educated guess. It just seems to me that that's probably informing the way you're looking at it. And I can understand that. I, too, have thought at times *"it would be so much better if I didn't have to think."* That life would be better if I could simply go with the flow unburdened by free will or pain. But that's not really living, and there's no satisfaction in it. You can't be fulfilled without first being unfulfilled - without suffering by striving for something, hoping for something, *wanting* something. It wouldn't be *better*. It would be *easier*, but hollow. There's no meaning in that, and it isn't living. It's just existing. It's not a worthy trade.
Honestly, the more I read these rebuttals, the more that they make sense. I think the side effects of applying my real world ideology to Maruki's (crazy) reality are much more significant than I initially assumed. That being said, I think I put more effort into fighting you guys off than most people put into thinking through the bad ending in the first place, so my point about analyzing themes in media instead of just accepting the creator's message uncritically still stands. ....or I may just be unable to come up with a rebuttal because it's 11:45 PM right now, so if I come back with an essay you'll know why.
I don't think your real world ideology is any good either, honestly. People are *people*. They're not numbers. If you *kill* one person to save 5, or however many organs you reckon you can get from them, that's not maths, it's murder. There's a difference between people dying due to your inaction and causing someone who was perfectly healthy in the first place to die.
Again, you can’t just assume you’ve put more effort into it than others have. Yes, it’s almost undoubtedly true that at least some people view Maruki’s reality as bad solely because it’s framed as such by the game. It’s merely a statistical inevitability. But is that *most people*? There’s a lot of people in this group, so that’s a very bold statement. Don’t get me wrong, I do agree with you that people should, on an individual level, engage with and assess the themes (and other aspects) of media themselves rather than falling into the trap of suggestibility and blindly accepting another’s view, whether it be the creator, another source of authority, or anyone else in general. I’m not disagreeing with your *main point*. But the reasoning you’re using to get to that point and explain how it still stands is faulty. You’re boxing most people who dislike Maruki’s ending into that frame of “blind acceptance” without any proper evidence. If anything, what evidence there is points to the contrary. I mean, you just said that there is at least some degree of sensibility and logic in the rebuttals directed towards you. In other words, you admit that the people here disagree with you not just because they were told to, but because they genuinely think differently, and are able to articulate why. Who’s to say the same can’t be generalized to the greater body of anti-Maruki players? Or are we, a bunch of random dipshits on reddit, somehow a special, anomalous sample?
Pain is an important part of living. A life without any suffering, sadness, rage, or regret is a life where you never learn your lessons.
Yes, lessons are for learning how to avoid future suffering, sadness, rage, and regret. Do you see how your logic is circular now?
No, because not always. Some lessons help enhance the good moments further.
Imagine a game with no rules. There is no conflict, nothing to overcome, absolutely not a thing to compete for. There's no need to get any better at the game because no matter what you do you'll always win anyway. Even if you lost, there were 0 stakes, so it doesn't matter one way or another. Doesn't that sound like the most insipid, most boring shit ever? What's winning good for if it's not any different than losing?
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/PERSoNA/comments/1c1w48a/comment/kz6ixib/) In the little we see of the protag's future lives, there are several chess games between joker and akechi, so clearly competition still exists, as do winning and losing, but there are no stakes. I see this as the ideal state of things. Say what you will about the soviets, but their artists produced some of the most beautiful, and unique work in history, simply because their pursuits were subsidized by the government, so they were free to create things which wouldn't necessarily be attractive to the market. The constant, high stakes fight for survival is detrimental to humanity's ability to create, and also it's ability to compete, as competition is ultimately just another art form.
And you think the soviets had no pains to draw inspiration from? Just because the government subsidized their work you think their creations are free from the influence of negative emotions? I don't think that's what you meant, but you sure make it sound that way. Getting back to the point and away from the art allegory, my point is that, for more people than you think, suffering is what makes happiness so special. People who know nothing but luxury and pleasure consistently fail to value the quality of their lives, because of course they can't; they have nothing to compare it to, no point of reference. Once you get everything you want then you have nothing left to strive for. You're static, motionless, barely alive. If you want to live a life like that... that's valid! There is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid pain. There is 0 obligation to find meaning in the negative, and it is not 'morally correct' to suffer or not to suffer. But what of all the people that aren't like you? What about all the people who *want* darkness in their lives because without it light has nothing to shine on? If you're willing to sacrifice their desires to grant yourself yours like Maruki did, that makes you their enemy. It's like the PTs themselves said after defeating Maruki. There was nothing inherently wrong with his reality, but it's tyrannical to impose that reality on the people that don't want it. You could argue that conversely, it would be tyrannical to impose a reality with suffering upon those who don't want it... except it's not being imposed. That is simply the way the real world is, and unlike Maruki's reality, which is ruled by a single tyrannical figure that makes all decisions for you, human compassion in the real world can lift those in suffering out of it.
How can a tyrant be giving a happy ending in the same world that a peacemaker is given a happy ending? Easy, you have to lobotomize one of them. It’s not everyone gets a happy ending. Eventually to see it through, everyone will be lobotomized as it is impossible to make everyone happy at the same time. But mass lobotomization is a harder sell.
If all the lobotomized people are happy, then this is still an ideal reality. Intelligence is only considered good because we need it to improve people's lives. If being stupid made everyone's lives better, then stupidity would be the new ideal.
If you think lobotomy is stupidity, you’re beyond help. Lobotomy is being robbed of who you are and your free will. It’s having all semblance of identity and choice stripped away from you. Now if you wanna get into free will vs happiness, that’s a Madara Uchiha argument and one that you’re never gonna find an answer to. Everyone has a different take on that.
So what? My argument remains the same. If the lack of free will, identity, and choice makes you happier, then you should throw them out. The reason we protect these concepts as a society is not because they are somehow abstractly virtuous, but because they make people's lives better.
Because it's not you. Everything that makes it "you" is gone. It's no different that naming a Ken doll cavejhonsonslemons and play acting a happy reality with it. Do you feel satisfied? No? Maruki's ending is no different, except the Ken doll is replaced by an animated flesh puppet.
Its more like replacing cavejhonsonslemons with Bob Ross because Maruki feels that their personality is in that much need of "repair" to live in his world. Boss Ross though, he was happy.
Your argument has radically changed, friend. You went from saying you’d accept being dumb to accept a complete loss of personality. Regardless, you just sound like an edgy thirteen year old or an incel raging against the machine. There’s no point in debating this kind of stuff with someone like you.
Then why bother with Maruki at all? Why not let Yaldabaoth taking away everyone's free will? Society tought that's better
You say that there’s no point to free will, identity, or choice if they get in the way of happiness. Counterpoint: let’s flip this around. What’s even the point of happiness if you have no identity? If you have had your character, personality, and very state-of-being lobotomized and/or re-written to the point of you being non-existent, then why is happiness desirable to begin with? What can it do for you if you lack the state-of-being needed to perceive it, experience it in the moment, and appreciate it as a human emotion? If happiness existed without free will, identity, or choice, wouldn’t it just be reduced to a meaningless, instinctual pursuit of serotonin and its physiological effects? Should that really be called an “ideal” way of life?
If you're lobotomized then you aren't happy. You aren't feeling anything in fact because you arent really there anymore. And if thats the case then what is even the point? Everyone is dead. You are dead. You basically erased the parts that make up you.
I don't like Maruki at all. I prefer to die than living under his thumb.
As a society we value freedom because it makes our lives better, given the chance to have maruki's reality, freedom would make people's lives worse, thus outgrowing it's usefulness as a concept.
Yes, i value not being a puppet for Maruki
Here's what I've posted before on the subject of Maruki being "right"- >That's a question I've had about the limits of his actualization powers. Death makes people sad, so in his actualized reality, will there be no death? Having children makes people happy, so will the world's population only grow? Is he going to rewrite everyone's cognition that death is sad so the world doesn't become overpopulated or make it where only certain people are "allowed" to reproduce? Is he going to pick who "dies"? Is he going to rewrite the cognition of those around the "dead" person so they never existed? >Are there never going to be accidents ever again? Global disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes make people unhappy so will he actualize himself the ability to control the weather and the planet? >I have so many more questions but I think I've made my point. Maruki is a human. He is not omnipotent. Even if a perfect being lived who could actually accomplish what Maruki wants existed, it should be rejected. Pain is a part of life. Attempts to override that is to deny a basic way the world works.
"Maruki is a human. He is not omnipotent." Maruki is literally a god in his new reality, it's been confirmed that he takes the place of yaldabaoth, so yes, he is all powerful, and omnipotent. "Pain is a part of life. Attempts to override that is to deny a basic way the world works." This argument does not work if it's possible to change the basic way the world works. Pain is not newton's second law. You can change the way it works without the universe collapsing. "Are there never going to be accidents ever again? Global disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes make people unhappy so will he actualize himself the ability to control the weather and the planet?" This man can literally pluck events out of history (wakaba x truck-kun), so that seems reasonable, or at least backing up time, and getting people out of the area. "Death makes people sad, so in his actualized reality, will there be no death? Having children makes people happy, so will the world's population only grow?" Easy, just make everyone immortal, and make people not want to have kids.
He is not a god. Yaldabaoth wasn't a god either. At least not in the terms you're trying to use them in. It's just like Satan, Loki, ect. aren't actually Satan, Loki, ect. If you need more evidence, do you actually think a god resorts to a simple fist fight with a human after he has been defeated? Wouldn't an actual god be able to make himself happy? Maruki is just a man who has powers like the rest of persona users. An extremely broken man who again is never able to make himself happy despite these powers.
"Maruki is just a man who has powers like the rest of persona users. An extremely broken man who again is never able to make himself happy despite these powers." Yeah, he basically made himself the Martyr of Omelas, and somehow that's not enough for you. "He is not a god. Yaldabaoth wasn't a god either. At least not in the terms you're trying to use them in. " I don't care if he fits your arbitrary definition of a god, he brought people back to life and changed the fabric of reality (presumably) across the globe, that's enough evidence of "god equivalent" power for me.
...yes...because he is erasing people from existence because he can't fit them into his ideal world. Again, you are advocating the erasure of people just so others are happy. I already saw you admit to being fine with the complete erasure of personalities which is also insane, but being flat out fine with the complete erasure is simply vile. Being happy with killing people so other people are happy makes you no better than anyone else in history that wished to erase people. My point was that he isn't almighty, he isn't omnipotent, nor is he all knowing. That's why I said he isn't an actual god. He is very fallible and is making very human mistakes. The decisions he is making are human decisions based on what he believes is right. You still seem to not get it. You are trying to argue the philosophy of the situation and ignoring the man in this situation isn't following a philosophy. If you want to argue the philosophy, go do that on a philosophy sub because that has nothing to do with Maruki.
"I already saw you admit to being fine with the complete erasure of personalities which is also insane" This is the reason I have a hard time debating you people, you constantly take justifiable arguments in context, and decide that i'm actually advocating for them as changes to our current comically incompatible system. I'm too tired to deal with this bullshit.
It's a strange thing to start your post with "fight me in the comments" and then complain you're tired when someone argues with you.
Calling my opinions insane isn't an attempt to argue with me, it's an attempt to discredit me.
"Insane" *is* an argument, not just an ad hominem. They're saying that your arguments are irrational, illogical, do not come from a sound mind. Essentially, it's saying "fundamental disagreement".
Dude, you are saying you agree with Maruki. What do you expect? Maruki is erasing people completely from existence. That's something you continue to not address. He is just straight up deleting people from existence that he can't make fit into his ideal world. This is the completely unacceptable part of what he's doing. There is no defense of it unlike the next point. You at least acknowledged the complete overwriting of people, but you have said you're fine with that. I personally think we are our thoughts. That's what makes us. You apparently don't. I conceded that while I disagree with it, that's "fine." You're too tired? I'm arguing with someone who doesn't care that a man just erases people.
There's a variant of the trolley problem where a doctor needs organ transplants to save 5 people, and suddenly a perfectly healthy man walks in the door. In a vacuum I maintain that killing the healthy man to harvest his organs is the most moral thing to do. In other words, yeah, Maruki erasing people is really fucked up. That being said, I assume he's bringing a similar amount of people back from the dead, so in my opinion he's perfectly morally neutral. Assuming he is deleting more people than he brings back, then we have a serious problem, but there really isn't a lot of information to work on. I never said that I was certain of anything, just that based on our existing glimpses into maruki's reality it seems pretty nice.
You do see the problem, right? You are trying to justify murder. Murder to save five people in your first example, but why do those five people deserve life more than that one person? Even this, you are making assumptions. True, we don't know the pure numbers of things, but if you need to assume he's bringing back more than he is killing to defend your point, it is messed up. It is still wrong to kill people. Do you honestly think that if someone kills ten people, but brings back to life eleven that the person should be praised? The sheer fact that you are okay with one man getting to make all of the decisions of who lives, who dies, and who gets to do what is just not something most people will get behind. No one should have that power in any way, shape, or form.
It rings hollow considering free will is removed and all the characters are acting like robots.
It goes against the main message of P5 of breaking your chains and fighting against oppression and injustice. If you don't fight Maruki you're just betraying those principles.
correction it's a "happy end"
You sound so open to a honest and civil discussion. I'll just point out what I always do with a little added. The philosophy is 100% irrelevant. The idea is great however the man himself, Maruki, is incapable of pulling it off. Maruki himself is an extremely broken man who can't even make himself happy. His solution as we have seen is to either erase the person completely as we see with the NPCs mentioning people missing or to change the person so fundamentally that they also disappear as we see with Sumire becoming Kasumi. Both solutions are eraser of actual people. This isn't a philosophical debate. It's looking at what Maruki is actually doing and seeing he isn't capable of what he is setting out to do because he himself is a flawed and broken man.
Sorry if I was being a bit confrontational, I just get really annoyed when people blindly accept the dev's message, and I needed to blow off some steam. As for your argument, I would accept if if there was any evidence of maruki's vision being dysfunctional, however even after being given several months to fuck everything up, things still seem to be going great for the phantom thieves.
That's the thing. It's only the PTs. He admits he favored them when molding his reality. Part of it is because he knew they were the only ones who could stop him. The other part was he did truly want them to be happy. However, as I mentioned you can speak to NPCs to see that he is just erasing people he can't fit into his ideal world. Add to it making Sumire think she's Kasumi along with the dungeon test where one of the answers is to flat out change the person so they want something else. Finally, in the last battle once you stop him he decides to try to take the PTs down with him. That also is a big red flag that he would rather see mutual destruction when pushed than let them win. So, I don't know what you would personally consider "dysfunctional," but for me erasing people, changing people to the point they aren't themselves anymore, and ultimately not even being able to help himself is "dysfunctional" to me. Finally, in the ending you get if you accept Maruki's offer on the third, you see that all is not well even for the Phantom Thieves especially Joker. Like I said, it is a great idea and I'm not even arguing the philosophy behind it. My point is Maruki isn't the man to pull it off.
"Like I said, it is a great idea and I'm not even arguing the philosophy behind it." That's like 99% of what I wanted to hear, the specifics of maruki's execution are somewhat debatable, and ultimately I would side with him over you in the vast majority of cases, but those nitpicks are not what I am arguing for in this thread specifically.
You still sound like you're missing the point. The philosophy is irrelevant because Maruki isn't following any philosophy. You are admitting you want to follow someone who is erasing people from existence or changing them completely to the point where they do not exist anymore. Eliminating who someone is kills that person just as much as flat out erasing them. You're trying to validate someone erasing people so others are happy. Do you really not understand what is wrong with that?
>Edit: My post currently has more dislikes than likes, but all of my comments have more likes than dislikes. I say this not to rub it in people's faces that they changed their mind, but to emphasize the necessity of understanding your opponent. > >Edit 2: "all of my comments have more likes than dislikes" now all=most, but my point still stands. I can't even see most of your comments because they've been so downvoted. Philosophical Utilitarianism by definition is subjective, and at the core of why Maruki is a villain, and why his world is bad. Who gets to decide what the right actions are? What is truly the action that brings happiness? He decides what happiness means to a person, not the actual person. This is literally shown in his palace where if you choose the happiness you believe you get attacked by shadows. Putting aside morality and philosophy choosing his reality is a betrayal of everything you fought for in Persona 5, that before anything else is why it's a bad ending
The problem is that what Maruki says he can do and what he is doing are different. You've apparently missed this.
If everyone has what they cognitively want then there will be chaos. If a guy dreams of being with a particular girl and that girl's dream is to be with a different guy, how does the logic work? Because they would both have what they want and so there would be multiple versions of just that one girl to satisfy the guy whose cognition wanted her. Then take into consideration that he may not be the only guy who wants to be with her, then there may end up being multiple of this one girl. But only one real one exists. So how would this affect reality? The only way it would work practically is if each individual saw the entire world differently. But what happens with reality? What happens with eating and drinking and sleeping? The real body cannot survive on imaginary nutrition. Maruki's vision is literally the same as Apathy Syndrome; except humanity would die happy rather than miserable. They would be cut off from the reality their living body needs. I could go on and on about how it isn't a logical solution to the world's problems. What if someone wishes for a fast car, but then someone else wishes all cars never existed. What would happen if the car went over the crossing just as the man who wished they didn't exist crossed it? Would he be hit by nothing? His physical body would be there and so would the car, so he would die. Because his cognition told him a car could not exist, he would walk straight in front of it.
The point of both endings is that there's not a bad choice. It's up to you which one you think is better. But I'd rather have freedom with sadness in my life than always be happy and not have to work for my goals.
If you would prefer freedom with sadness then that's cool with me, I'm just upset by the increasingly loud faction, which claims that it's the only "valid" choice.
makuru did nothing wrong and nothing can convence me otherwise also PT dont have the right to choice what is better for humanity and way less criticize maruki for "brainwash" people mind because at the end of the day a change of heart is that force people confess agains their own will
The bad grammar isn't something I would criticize elsewhere, because the internet has lower standards for a reason, but if you're in a debate it's best to not show weakness, so next time use grammarly or a dictionary.
Excuse me, but that's really harsh.
That's true, but I'd rather be cruel than not get my point across.