explosivecombat | NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

I've got the pocketwatch already, don't I?

Let's hear your answer first. And remember, no further guidance from me on that point - it can be any interpretation you want, relating to anything you want, but it has to be your own.

In the world I'm from, there tends to be a certain philosophical divide between the cultures of the East and those of the West. Western culture tends to be focused — some might say fixated — on dichotomies: good and evil, dark and light, one or another. In that model, many aspects of the world are zero-sum games; right is mutually exclusive from wrong, and one prevails over another.

The philosophy of the East is more...encompassing. "Form is Void and Void is Form; the same is true for feelings, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness", goes one teaching. Things the rigid structures of the West could never account for because they defy the nature of dichotomy.

"All is One; One is All" — that's the truth reached at the moment of enlightenment. The simultaneous understanding both of one's own self, and that there is no self. Western thought would call that an irreconcilable contradiction; Eastern thought would indicate otherwise.

And were I any sort of formal teacher, now would be when I ask you for your thoughts, not intellectual discussion; there's a marked difference.

Are you asking me to explain a concept I haven't attained, teacher?

Do you believe it to be attainable at all?

Of course I do.

I think the concept you're asking me to contemplate is the same one that, upon mastering it, grants enlightenment. I think it's what a person understands when they come to terms with their role in the universe. I think it's one I'm bound to struggle with articulating because, like any wise student, I'm not merely conscious of what I know, but also of how much I don't.

The sort of power you've described an alchemist wielding — I think it's one that needs to be tempered with recognition of the forces at play, and that's why you ask for what this statement means. Is it life — that all things belong to it, and every individual life touches the others in some way? Is it the energy you manipulate? That'd fit with your law of equivalent exchange — everything is the same, is one, and so long as the balance is equivalent, any one of those things might become any one of the rest.

You want my thoughts? I think that it's the first lesson — the one that forces a student into precisely these thoughts and inquiries and self-reflections so that they can't help but appreciate the magnitude and possible ramifications of the power their education might put at their disposal.

Had you insisted on standing by your first answer, I would have told you to get out of my sight as a pupil and not return until after at least half a year's reflection on the matter.

I would be willing to teach you for that last one, however.

I'm already out of your sight, and you'd miss me if I avoided you for so long.

And if you truly intend me to learn, teacher, then I hope you'll elaborate on how I managed to meet your approval.

The first answer was purely intellectual. It told me what you've learned, yes, which is valuable insight, but it told me nothing about you. Anyone can recite facts and teachings, and at best you were sounding incredibly pretentious. It was fluff, really.

There's a difference between asking for an honest answer and asking to be impressed.

I wasn't trying to impress you. But I couldn't give you a solution without first trying to define the problem — and with no guidance from your end, I had to make up for it with an attempt at my own.

Fair enough, especially since most usually take a while to form their own understanding of it; it's actually rather unfair to expect a solid answer right away, given that it's a difficult concept to get one's head around. But that was a good answer, in the end, particularly for one that was come up with on the spot.

Oh? And how long are your hopefuls usually given to produce a satisfactory answer?

It's never been an issue when it comes to my hopefuls, as I've never taught anyone personally.

I don't know how long it takes others, but my first attempt at an answer was rejected; I was told to go work on it for at least a few weeks before trying again, and it took me a few months to come up with something satisfactory.

[Oh, boy, she's special again.]

What is it that makes a good answer, then? Surely it can't just be honesty and a good-faith effort alone — there's something you're looking for in what you hear. And I hit on it?

Alchemy isn't something that can be done by everyone; there is an element of natural talent to it, a sort of aptitude that can't be replicated by just anyone who tries.

It's not something that can be put into words very easily, so it's a bit difficult to explain exactly what we look for when it comes to those sorts of answers. You'll just have to trust me when I say that particular aptitude recognizes itself in others.

And that particular aptitude survives and can be found even across worlds?

You have a soul, don't you?

What kind of a question is that?

Theoretically speaking, if you have a soul from which to draw power, you're capable of performing alchemy; I haven't seen any exceptions to this. There are several that I've met here that I don't doubt would be able to do it, given time and practice and proper teaching, if the restrictions this world likes to lay on us weren't in place.

Are you from a world where the soul is a matter of faith? Because I've met some that aren't sure whether they have one or not.

I don't understand. If you have a soul, then theoretically you can do alchemy — but you said yourself that not everyone can do alchemy. Are you suggesting there are people without souls? Or is it a question of competency, that anyone might have the potential but that doesn't mean they can do it well enough to be worthy of remark?

It's definitely more a case of the latter. It's along the lines of saying that if you have hands, you theoretically would be able to draw - you just have some who can draw portraits and others who struggle to draw stickmen. That last set can draw, technically speaking, but they don't have any sort of natural aptitude for it, and there comes a point where practice will only get you so far - even if those sorts of people manage to put in enough effort to perfect their technique, there will always be an element missing, that sort of natural creative spark won't be present because they simply don't have an eye for it.

It's like that with alchemy as well. Some can draft arrays that would result in absolutely stunning transmutations, but due to the lack of natural aptitude they likely wouldn't be able to activate those arrays. It takes a certain sort of understanding and relationship with the world; not everyone has that, even if they can comprehend the theory.

But from what you've said, I do.

Which is good, because whether I have the knack for it or not, that wouldn't stop me from wanting to learn.

I'll see what I can teach you, then; I'll warn you now that I'm not much of a teacher, temperament-wise, and obviously whatever I teach you won't be functional here - my own arrays are completely useless, much to my irritation.

But as long as that's acceptable, then I don't see why not.

It's nothing short of insulting, the way Johto tends to strip people's talents away. There are plenty of reasons to like it here, but I've never considered that to be one of them.

Though I do hope these generous lessons you're offering won't detract from your ability to function in your capacity as a member of the Legion of Evil.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject