explosivecombat | NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

That's closer, I think, though it's not exact, either. When I want to end a conflict, I want to end it as quickly and efficiently as possible. As much as you hate weapons, bear with me for the sake of analogy - if you're going to shoot a man and you're aiming to kill, you're going to aim for the head rather than trying to nick their wrist and hope they bleed out.

It's a matter of efficiency; winning is the goal but it's not usually explicitly on my mind. Do you follow, or do I need to clarify?

I think I see. It's about — loath as I am to put it this way — simply doing the job properly. Whatever means get you to the conclusion you want in the most expedient way, that's the means you take.

So it's...if I have it right, then you're not thinking about winning because the fact that you'll win is a given, and synonymous with ending the conflict. Thus, you're focused on ending the conflict efficiently, by whatever means work best to do it.

...I'm not explaining this properly, am I?

I never assume that victory is a given; there's always a chance that I'll lose, and that's what I mean when I say winning is still the goal - it's not a certainty at all. However, I...

...Does it help if I tell you that entire arguments have been had about the fact that I don't often focus on the long-term effects of what I'm doing? For example, if someone locks me in a room to keep me from being killed, which has happened before - I don't focus on the reason why they're doing it, which is obviously to my benefit. I tend to focus on the fact that they're stabbing me in the back by confining me like that, if they know I handle it badly; if I don't know that, then I forego that part and focus on getting out of the situation. Either way, the long-term reason doesn't matter; it's the immediate situation that matters. It's something like that. I'm not focused on winning, I'm focused on ending the conflict.

Didn't you tell me once that you don't like chess?

Is it...something like that? You're no good at chess because you're not thinking that far ahead? It boils down to the same thing as what you always tell me about assuming you have some master plan when you don't — you just...only look at what's in front of you.

And you're awful at chess because you're only looking at the immediate next move, not the bigger game.

...Yes. That's it, I think.

I need you to explain something else to me, then.

It's not that I don't...understand it, exactly. I just don't want to assume, because it's something I want to make sure I've followed.

Of course. Go on.

What was it that resolved the conflict, just now?

There's a further point to this, I promise, but it's one where I have to start at the beginning.

I think it was about the point where you stopped insisting that what you were doing was acceptable because you feel like you should have some sort of right to manipulate people in order to "make them care" and acknowledged that what you did was an actual transgression.

And then that alleviated the immediate situation.

Yes...?

All right. This is the harder part to get through, so I'm going to ask again that you be patient with me. I haven't been wording things well this evening already, and there's a chance it'll happen again. Please just tell me if that happens, and let me try again; I'm not trying to justify anything I did or make excuses after the fact. I just need your help in working through this.

You've told me before that you're not fond of people who compromise their beliefs. That one of the reasons why you like me is because I have my beliefs and I stick to them.

Which is the bigger transgression in your eyes? Conceding a position without a fight rather than sticking to it because I believe in it...or having a position that you find repulsive and trying to defend it?

I know that's not directly on point for this specific situation, and I'm not trying to suggest it is. It just...seems as though there's no way to come out of a situation like that unscathed. If the way to extinguish a fight — once it's begun, mind, because obviously the way to avoid it entirely is to never let it begin in the first place — is to concede quickly...how does that fit in with keeping one's strength of conviction?

Does that...as a problem, does that make sense?

It does, yes, but I don't quite understand what the point of it is and I think I'm missing something - why would you concede your position so quickly?

To stop the fight.

So you'd stop being furious.

It's a greater transgression to concede.

That's what I thought.

Then what do I do, in a situation where I've made you angry like this past one? Again, aside from not getting into it in the first place; we're assuming I'm imperfect, and make mistakes, as I do.

There has to be something I'm missing, or else it comes down to, "If I defend myself, I'm in for it, but if I don't it'll be worse." Where is the distinction that I'm not seeing?

Please. I'm not being sarcastic, I promise.

...This is what I'm not understanding, I think - what do you believe will happen if we fight?

You'll scream at me awhile, I'll come away from it feeling miserable and wretched...I might run the risk of having you so disgusted with me that you decide we're through or I'm not worth your time...

...

Please don't say, "That wouldn't benefit me so I'm not likely to do it."

Near the end of the Ishval Civil War, I was transferred to the Kanda district; outside of the usual orders to level the place, I was also tasked with finding a pair of Amestrian doctors who had stayed behind when our people were ordered to leave the area. By the time my unit found them, they were already dead, having been killed by Ishvalans; however, it wasn't the militia that killed them.

It turned out they had been administering aid to both our military and as many injured Ishvalans as they were capable of treating; they were eventually killed by their own patients.

My men were quick to insult them, to say that they had it coming to them for aiding the other side, and I suppose that objectively speaking that's true - their deaths wouldn't have occurred if they'd followed orders, after all. And by now I'm sure you know my stance on Ishvalans.

But at the same time, while I find their particular actions and convictions to be questionable and I don't agree with them in the least, I still respect them for standing by them and refusing to back down. It's an admirable thing, and regardless of what I thought about their stances, I didn't find them to be repulsive.

My thoughts on your convictions aren't necessarily my thoughts on you.

You told me that's where you were going. The Kanda district...I remember that.

Can I ask you the same thing in return? What do you believe will happen if we fight?

I've never really thought about it.

I'm not saying that to avoid the question; it's a genuine answer.

What I'm afraid of is that I'll...learn.

That I'll end up dreading the possibility of being taken to task so much that I will start conceding just to escape it. Because I'll have learned that conceding will just make it stop. It's not something I'm proud of contemplating, but...

Isn't that what she was like? That other version of me you met? Desperate to please, afraid to...do anything.

If it happened to her, it's not unreasonable that it could happen to me. I don't think it would be intentional; I just...don't think it's impossible, either. The fact that it's not impossible...that scares me.

You keep mentioning being taken to task as though it's the worst possible thing that I can do to you. Any particular reason?

I think it's because it's still on my mind, and I'm still shaken. And I hate feeling this way, so I'm fixating on trying to stop it.

You realize that I'm only going to continue doing it if you keep doing things that warrant it. Manipulating me warrants it. If you're going to require this tremendous double standard to be a large part of how you're going to interact with me - this notion that you can manipulate me all you like and I should just accept it, while even if I catch myself before I manipulate you and stop myself from doing it, it's still completely unacceptable and you're going to treat me as you did last time - then this isn't something you want to pursue.

I'm not trying to be accusatory, but hypocrisy is unspeakably ugly to me and that's something I'm not going to be able to tolerate. That's what this comes down to.

NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

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

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)