Jump to content

A Critique on Voxism


Ferrous
 Share

Recommended Posts

Usually, I keep my blogings to myself and anyone who likes to read them. However, I think this one warrants its own thread. Enjoy, if you can stay awake.

A Critique on Voxism

For those of you who read my article, "A Critique on Francoism," you would know that the following is not simply pro-NPO propaganda, but more of an investigation into this newer philosophy. Voxism, born from the rebellion group, "Vox Populi," is the only other philosophy that has been published that holds any kind of weight. It is very different from Francoism both in the underlying framework, and in the end purpose, giving a breath of fresh air to those who enjoy reading walls of text on the different political philosophies of the Cyberverse.

Voxism starts with one axiom (the existence of the Admin), and thenceforward addresses how the existence of Admin - and the game mechanics that follow - creates meaning in the Cyberverse. The resulting conclusion is that meaning can only be found through constant conflict. While Voxism has a few points that are worth considering, there are too many flaws in its reasoning to reasonably consider it to be a usable philosophy.

After accepting the existence of Admin, MegaAros, in his piece "Voxism: The Absurd World", explains that there is no afterlife, no destiny and no meaning in endlessly building up infrastructure (due to the meaningless of the citizens of each individual nation). The only meaning that can be found is by conflict; attacking other nations in order to give meaning to the soldiers by using them for their purpose.

The first problems occur with the ideas that there is no afterlife, no destiny and no meaning in endlessly building up infrastructure. To the first point, there is an afterlife, of the individual's choosing. Should someone leave the game, they can become "reincarnated" as someone new with a new nation and people, or even come back as himself (as this author has done). We can choose the same nation name, same location, same ruler name. Furthermore, while there is no tangible form of "Heaven" or "Hell" in the Cyberverse, there are more metaphorical forms of such. Memorable characters that have left us are sometimes forever entombed in old discussions of "do you remember when so-and-so did..." Granted, many of these forms of "afterlife" exist outside of Admin's direct control, but that is because Voxism ignores a key component - that every individual also has free will.

The second error in the framework of Voxism is that there is no destiny. The idea of a destiny is that a single individual or a single alliance is meant to come into a particular position or will surely take a particular action. I will not deny the tenet that Admin does not control any such aspect of destiny, but that does not preclude the notion altogether. Given the above tenet that every individual has free will, then we are all free to choose our own path and carve it out. Whether or not we actually make our goals is not the same as making our destiny: our destiny is determined not by an external being, but rather by the choices we make and the environment in which we exist.

The third error in the framework of Voxism is that infrastructure is meaningless, given that the existence of our citizens is meaningless. However, MegaAros himself admits that "All nation rulers in their own subjective thought will seek to make meaning mean what it means to them." Hence, infrastructure is only meaningless if we so choose to make it so. Every time we purchase more infrastructure and give attention to it, we give some measure of meaning to infrastructure, regardless of how small.

Finally, we arrive at the point where Voxism states a policy of conflict in order to disrupt the order presented by Francoism, the NPO and their allies in order to achieve meaning in the Cyberverse. Their choice to create meaning in such a manner is up to their own disposition, but that does not mean that other forms of meaning can be taken into account. Treating a nation as a tech seller or a tech buyer or using diplomatic skills to maneuver the nation into a good alliance with good protection are all forms of meaning that are disregarded by Voxist philosophy in pursuit of a narrow-minded pursuit of disrupting order.

EDIT: Major typo error. ROFL.

Edited by Ferrous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am way too lazy to read this. I don't care about voxism or any of your ideologies. I don't understand why you'd bother to critique it though.

I don't understand why you are posting if you don't even bother to read the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: I noticed it wasn't that long and read it anyway.

One the first error: Reincarnation as it would concern me, doesn't happen unless otherwise stated by the soul. If an individual is aware of the former consciousness, then I will agree, but if he is not, then it has no reason to involve me. Also, this is not quite an afterlife. It is an afterlife in that an individual has a life after the one he currently lives, but it is not another plane, it is not removed from this absurd world.

The second error: Planet Bob is defined only by actions of the people within it. Since beings can destroy nations and create new ones, infinite possibilities of removing inhibiting factors of the environment are also annihilated. Also, most things within the environment are manipulated by those with free will. I will note that a very faint form of compatiblism exists, but only very, very slightly. In the end, the actions and the consequences of those actions are up the ruler. All influences may influence him, but since no stimulus will have the same effect on every soul, I have little reason to believe that a person is defined by their environment. Destiny as you use it here is also very interesting. By destiny, I did not mean the end, or the path you take, but rather, a fine consequential path that is locked and set in stone: unchangeable.

The third error: You are correct. However, eventually, those nations that only value building will find themselves in conflict with those who wish to destroy (IE: myself). In order to keep building their meaningful infrastructure, they will have to neutralize me first. It is only in conflict that those nations can truly achieve their intended meaning, for if they choose not to engage me, their meaning in building infrastructure is lost, since it is far easier for me to destroy than it is for them to create.

Finally: Yes, as a matter of a fact, Voxism thrives on the fact that somebody will have thoughts contrary to the Voxist way. This is what allows for conflict and discussion in the first place. Only if nations disagree with Vox and Voxism, can their truly be any conflict at all. All the work that goes into an alliance, all of that leading and building all in the end is good because it allows for more destruction.

Let us face facts. If all of use simply remained to ourselves and became ignorant of everything, the world would be safe and sound. No, you all want to build your nations for war and destruction. Why else would you tech deal? Tech has it's main purpose in war! MDPs? They have the word defense right there! No, alliances build so that they may fight. The more they build, the more they may fight. Voxism wants a balance of the two, so that true conflict, conflict that will breed meaning and allow us to evolve and become stronger, may exist.

Edited by MegaAros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the whole voxism concept is stating there is no value in infrastructure then arbitrarily assigning value to "conflict..." If infrastructure has no value, then presumably conflicts over infrastructure also have no value.

Specifically, why is there no value to using infrastructure/citizens for their purpose (growing, etc) while there is a value to using soldiers for their purpose (as the OP/MA defines it, aggression)?

Furthermore, who says aggression is the purpose of soldiers? The purpose of my nations soldiers is to keep public order and maintain a respectable defense against attack, so that my nation can thrive.

This Voxism (really just nihilism) falls apart at every seam.

Edited by Count da Silva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the whole voxism concept is stating there is no value in infrastructure then arbitrarily assigning value to "conflict..." If infrastructure has no value, then presumably conflicts over infrastructure also have no value.

Specifically, why is there no value to using infrastructure/citizens for their purpose (growing, etc) while there is a value to using soldiers for their purpose (as the OP/MA defines it, aggression)?

Furthermore, who says aggression is the purpose of soldiers? The purpose of my nations soldiers is to keep public order and maintain a respectable defense against attack, so that my nation can thrive.

This Voxism (really just nihilism) falls apart at every seam.

I think the point of it is that infra is just a means to an end: a form of power to be used in conflict, while for many infra is an end in its own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome. And wow, that was fast.

You'd already told me about it (on your blog), and I simply thought it best to thank you for challenging what our members say as it gives them and you a chance to develop and evolve ideas. MegaAros can defend his own far better than I can, at any rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of it is that infra is just a means to an end: a form of power to be used in conflict, while for many infra is an end in its own right.

Actually, it depends upon how the leader of the nation views his infrastructure and citizens. Some view it as a means to war and power, others as a means to defense and security, others view it as a means of growth and civilization, and still others may view it as a means of benevolence to other nations. Or any combination of these. What makes that one aggressive motive more worthy than all the others?

Edited by Count da Silva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voxism starts with one axiom (the existence of the Admin)

I never did quite get this. How can one, after purporting to demonstrate that objective knowledge is impossible, then go on to say "oh, but we know admin's real" without an attempt at supporting evidence or even explanation? Of course, I wouldn't argue the idea that he is, but I'm not the one claiming that we have "no objective means of discerning the world." Given this, either they have disregarded the foundation of their own ideology at its very inception or it's nothing more than an act of faith, turning the ideology into a cult.

Maybe one shouldn't expect a flow of logic from an ideology that is forced to begin on the premise 'the world doesn't make sense' to justify its own nonsensical narrative, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never did quite get this. How can one, after purporting to demonstrate that objective knowledge is impossible, then go on to say "oh, but we know admin's real" without an attempt at supporting evidence or even explanation? Of course, I wouldn't argue the idea that he is, but I'm not the one claiming that we have "no objective means of discerning the world." Given this, either they have disregarded the foundation of their own ideology at its very inception or it's nothing more than an act of faith, turning the ideology into a cult.

Maybe one shouldn't expect a flow of logic from an ideology that is forced to begin on the premise 'the world doesn't make sense' to justify its own nonsensical narrative, but still.

Admin has revealed himself to us on multiple occasions, and his power transcends the five senses. Admin's existence in itself is illogical, yet possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it depends upon how the leader of the nation views his infrastructure and citizens. Some view it as a means to war and power, others as a means to defense and security, others view it as a means of growth and civilization, and still others may view it as a means of benevolence to other nations. Or any combination of these. What makes that one aggressive motive more worthy than all the others?

Easy.

Most nations that build up allow for war. Most nations do not select peace mode, although there would be absolutely no threat under peace mode.

OOC: If a nation in the real world had peace mode, I'm sure they would use it all the time, because their citizens actually matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and most severe fallacy of the OP is assuming Vox has an ideology, unless you count borderline mindless hate as an ideology and a will to stoop to any low in order to make claims that another group is low as one.

Except I wrote one up for even people not in Vox.

Also, the same could be said of Francoism nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the whole voxism concept is stating there is no value in infrastructure then arbitrarily assigning value to "conflict..." If infrastructure has no value, then presumably conflicts over infrastructure also have no value.

Specifically, why is there no value to using infrastructure/citizens for their purpose (growing, etc) while there is a value to using soldiers for their purpose (as the OP/MA defines it, aggression)?

Furthermore, who says aggression is the purpose of soldiers? The purpose of my nations soldiers is to keep public order and maintain a respectable defense against attack, so that my nation can thrive.

This Voxism (really just nihilism) falls apart at every seam.

War is not a conflict over infrastructure first off. CB's never include "Hey, I want to destroy your infrastructure." War's conflicts based upon hatred, trade, legitimate arguments, or even duels, but never over infrastructure. As for arbitrarily assigning value to conflict, first, it is simply the main mechanism that Voxism prescribes to make meaning. There are subjective ways of creating meaning that do not involve conflict, yet those philosophies will inevitably conflict with war hungry nations. This is where the meaning is giving. Because your own will is challenged, you now have something against to will yourself into existence. That is hardly arbitrary.

There is value in infrastructure. It is used to make more war, cause more conflict, develop the nation further so that it may cause more conflict. The citizens have no purpose or life anyway, seeing as how they simply stop existing if I sell infrastructure, and all they do is pay taxes.

I will agree with you here, yet, defense is simply one half of conflict. Thus, soldiers here are still part of conflict.

OOC: If you really have to relate it to a real world philosophy, it's more Existentialism (the basics of it) than it is Nihilism, since I tell you how to make meaning, but hey, whatever man.

Edited by MegaAros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin has revealed himself to us on multiple occasions, and his power transcends the five senses. Admin's existence in itself is illogical, yet possible.

He has revealed himself to us, yes, because we can see him and his (perfectly logical) effects, much like we can see many other things. Or are you suggesting that we only know he is there because you can 'feel' his presence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...