We're moving Forums to the Community pages. Click here for more information and updates.

No idea what the above.

edmasterchaos wrote:

The concept of the Avatar is a god that resides in a human, the Avatar could just be a huge god in the sky that kills people who commit crimes, but no, the Avatar is a godly spirit that resides in a human being, so that it can find compassion, and understanding of a human's desire and potential.

I believe that it is absolutely not the case, and you are completely off track. The Avatar is not a god per se, it is the combined memories and powers of generations of previous avatars (think Dalai Lama). And no, the Avatar's goal is not to find compassion and understand desires, but rather exorcise all compassion and desires from himself in order to achieve "perfection".

edmasterchaos wrote:

I could go on, but meh, it's just a tv show that ended.

About as smart as saying, "No point discussing this book, the author's already dead".

picaboomman wrote:

i had to gogle search two of the word from the title

Glad that this thread contributed to someone's education. Congratulations on becoming smarter.

No idea what the above.

No idea what the above.

edmasterchaos wrote:

The concept of the Avatar is a god that resides in a human, the Avatar could just be a huge god in the sky that kills people who commit crimes, but no, the Avatar is a godly spirit that resides in a human being, so that it can find compassion, and understanding of a human's desire and potential.

I believe that it is absolutely not the case, and you are completely off track. The Avatar is not a god per se, it is the combined memories and powers of generations of previous avatars (think Dalai Lama). And no, the Avatar's goal is not to find compassion and understand desires, but rather exorcise all compassion and desires from himself in order to achieve "perfection".

"As can be seen from your posts" would have been a more polite way to put it. Unless you were making a personal attack on no grounds whatsoever except a vague feeling of inferiority.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

why do you concern yourself with such things as a television show on Nickelodeon?

Avatar interested me because it's a surprisingly well done and engaging show. And I am not more concerned with the network that airs a show than with the paper a book is printed on.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

You cant change the way things happened by complaining.

I am not complaining about the way things happened in Avatar. In fact, I think that the authors wanted to show us that the avatars' morality is questionable, and that Aang surpassed the previous avatars and Guru's teachings in this respect. To once again indulge in a religious parallel, Aang preferred the ideals of New Testament Christianity to hard-core Buddhism.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

you preach of worldy detachment. why so attached to an argument?

Because this argument is key to my entire line of thought? I fail to see your point.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

i dont mind if you snap at me too… but, do have a nice day.

Glad to be of service 8=) And a good day to you, as well.

Undead_Prince wrote:

I am not complaining about the way things happened in Avatar. In fact, I think that the authors wanted to show us that the avatars' morality is questionable, and that Aang surpassed the previous avatars and Guru's teachings in this respect.

there, you've answered your own question. now can we end discussion?

Edited on 07/21/2008 12:51pm

Now that's a level of discussion I like to see! I was referring, however, to the concept of "reincarnation" of the Avatar (much like the Dalai Lama I think is believed to be reincarnating, up to the point of the monks checking whether the child recongnised things from his previous life to confirm that it's the new Lama).

MaddoKos wrote:

The Buddhist goal is to create a union between absolute wisdom (the realization of Emptiness, and thus non-attachment) and absolute compassion for all living beings. I think this is the goal of the Avatar as well. Although the Avatars remind me more of the incarnations of the god Vishnu who's purpose is to uphold Dharma, or order, not to achieve spiritual enlightenment.

Yes, I believe you're on to something here. The ultimate goal of the Avatar does not seem to be compassion for all living things, or else the Guru and the past avatars would have been much more understanding with regard to Aang's problem. Rather, it embodies non-attachment and balance, which I guess can be paralleled with dharma.

So in fact Aang's struggle is between different aspects of Buddhism?

"As can be seen from your posts" would have been a more polite way to put it. Unless you were making a personal attack on no grounds whatsoever except a vague feeling of inferiority.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

why do you concern yourself with such things as a television show on Nickelodeon?

Avatar interested me because it's a surprisingly well done and engaging show. And I am not more concerned with the network that airs a show than with the paper a book is printed on.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

You cant change the way things happened by complaining.

I am not complaining about the way things happened in Avatar. In fact, I think that the authors wanted to show us that the avatars' morality is questionable, and that Aang surpassed the previous avatars and Guru's teachings in this respect. To once again indulge in a religious parallel, Aang preferred the ideals of New Testament Christianity to hard-core Buddhism.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

you preach of worldy detachment. why so attached to an argument?

Because this argument is key to my entire line of thought? I fail to see your point.

imNOTcrazy wrote:

i dont mind if you snap at me too… but, do have a nice day.

Glad to be of service 8=) And a good day to you, as well.

Now that's a level of discussion I like to see! I was referring, however, to the concept of "reincarnation" of the Avatar (much like the Dalai Lama I think is believed to be reincarnating, up to the point of the monks checking whether the child recongnised things from his previous life to confirm that it's the new Lama).

Ha ha, yes, the collective. Need I say fascism, or communism, or something like the French revolution? Doing something for the supposed benefit of the collective (i.e. majority) does not automatically make it moral.

KikitheFiend wrote:

The advice given by the avatars was only to be used as a last resort, and at the time it would have been the only way to end the war, thus save the world.

It was not "last resort" advice; it was the only advice they offered. To them, killing Ozai didn't even seem like a problem. They did not propose, nor did they seriously think about, any alternatives.

KikitheFiend wrote:

Machiavelli also tells us "If an injury has to be done to a man, it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared". Aang achieved this..... it would not have been any different had he killed the Fire Lord.

I see you're serious with this, and the old Florentian almost has you in his sleazy clutches. What he's actually saying, is that if you for some reason need to screw someone over, better kill him so that he can't get back at you. If the gAang actually followed this evil advice, they would have killed both Ozai and Azula, along with any number of people who might have been harboring ill feelings towards them.

KikitheFiend wrote:

As for the Pathik; it was not detachment from the world but from desire and earthly longings for the world. He encouraged Aang to sacrifice his own wishes for the greater good.

Detachment from earthly longings = detachment from the world. You can find this in both Christian and Buddhist tenets (both religions view this world as somewhat evil and tainted by sin, and the goal in both is to detach oneself from this world and transcend into a better place, Heaven or Nirvana). Sorry for bringing up religious parallels again, but it's hard not to when discussing a show so obviouly influenced by religious/ethical concepts.

That would be beyond fantastic, beyond brilliant. And it is not inconcievable. Firemen will actually set controlled wild fires in order to maintain the health of a forest, preventing it from becoming overgrown and stale. Gardeners must trim the garden to maintain its overall health. Wildlife management will use sterilization if an animal is overpopulated. From sharks to driver ants, the balance of ecology is maintained by ensuring no one species over-populates and outcompetes all the others. Even the finale in Sozin's Comet is an example of destruction bringing balance; the destruction of Ozai's power and more importantly the destruction of the FN's power in Ba Seng Si and I'm sure following that and the destruction of FN power across the world where they had moved their power into the confines of the earth kingdom.

And then there's chaos. It's black and white thinking to think chaos is contrary to goodness, and as silly as saying that all control and lockdown security is automatically good. Chaos no more automatically means fire and destruction of cities and society then security automatically means chains and locked steel doors. In terms of society, I view the spectrum as balance as having chaos/lawlessness on one end and control/law on the other. When society falls out of balance and leans to far toward security and control it becomes a dictatorship in which speech is suppressed to protect people from being offended, all actions are watched and controlled to prevent anything unpredicatable and potentially dangerous from happening, and minorities are kept seperated from the rest of the community to prevent irrational distrust and uncertainty about other people. Examples of history in which forces of chaos act as an agent of balance include the revolutionary war, the civil rights movement, the overthrowing of suddam hussein, and the death of Hitler All these events pushed back control; segregation gave way to "chaotic" mixing of the races, etc. The forces of chaos manifests itself in the freedom of speech to be anything the individual pleases without anyone having security from being offended.

And as for peace. Let me say something about world peace. There are many things that would have to happen for there ever to be world peace for such a creature as humans. Diversity would have to be eliminated, creating a population of one uniform government, one uniform religion, one uniform class, one uniform race, in which everyone looks and dresses the same and has the same sexual orientation. Although this may not work in which case the last politician must be strangled with the entrails of the last priest. And if that does not work, and it probably won't, then there's only one option left. Humans cannot live without prejudice and ill-will unless there is only one man left alive out of the entire human race. Humans are far too petty, foolish and intolerant for it to be any other way.

I certainly would rather have a bit of chaos and freedom at the sacrifice of absolute peace and security.

And besides, hardship and challenge is the catalyst for adaption, evolution, invention, improvement, education, and development, and for growing in strength, durability, ingenuity and knowledge.

Edited on 07/21/2008 3:10pm
Edited 3 total times.

Okay then, how about killing a child to save two children? Or killing 500,000 innocent people to save 1,000,000? Or cutting up one man for body parts to cure 2 or 3 other persons from a lethal illness? Or to cure 10 other persons from a non-lethal, but very painful and horrible disease? These are the sorts of questions that are extremely hard to answer for a moral person, and extremely easy for a pragmatic/machiavellian. In fact, in the most democratic and humane states the law does not take from the rich and give to the poor in equal share, though some might consider that humane. While you enjoy your donuts and computers, children in Uganda are starving to death, and wouldn't it be justifiable and humane to take all the "excess" food/machinery etc. from the rich countries and give it to the third world? See how many people agree to that, though. Some might even call you a communist. And we all know where the communist ideology finished up (i.e. most horrible crimes in the name of most lofty ideals).

mark426 wrote:

I know. That's what I don't understand.

That more likely just goes to show that even the guru doesn't know everything about the avatar state. Only the avatar has intimate knowledge of the avatar state, and gurus only give guidance-- lead them on the right path.

And I was showing that doing something for the supposed benefit of the majority does not automatically make it moral. Or even more moral. Morality cannot be simply equaled with the wishes of the majority.

KikitheFiend wrote:

it was last resort advice; based on their own knowledge; killing the Fire Lord was the only way and without the information given to Aang by the lion-turtle I would be inclined to agree.

It was not the only way even without the Spirit-bending; Ozai could have been tied down and locked up like Azula, but not necessarily killed.

Another way, less moral but still tolerant of Aang's personal beliefs, was to have someone else do the killing (Iroh comes to mind, and a fitting atonement for his own past sins would it have been). Aang is just a 14-year-old child, and it really isn't humane or moral to force this killing upon him in the first place. Iroh's point about only the Avatar killing Ozai is moot as there was virtually no one to witness the fight, with the exception of gAang members and possibly a few enemy mooks who probably would go to jail anyway.

There was even a way to restrain Ozai without resorting to the Avatar State (since by the book to achieve Avatar State Aang should have destroyed all love and friendship within himself, which is a pretty evil thing as well). All they had to do was focus all forces on stopping Ozai & his fleet, instead of rather pointlessly attacking secondary and tertiary targets (Ba Sing Se and the FN Capital could certainly wait a few days, and news of the Phoenix King's defeat would have greatly demoralized FN forces). Combined strength of the Gaang and the Old Masters would probably have been enough to take down Ozai without killing him.

KikitheFiend wrote:

the context of the quote does not necessarily mean death or physical harm but the prevention of coming to harm. Of course death would prevent it but imprisonment(such as what occured to Azula) and other alternatives alo apply(such as Ozai's fate).

Technically yes, but a) in his (real life!) examples provided in the book Machiavelli obviously favours killing over any other form of "preventing vengeance", and b) the avatars clearly follow this line, as they would prefer to kill Ozai even when he was immobilized and helpless.

KikitheFiend wrote:

Finally, it is earthly longings and desires that the religions view as corruptable. The detatchment from these is what the Guru desired. By Aang doing so, he did not became dehumanised but self-sacrificing, potentially forsaking his own personal happiness for the greater good.

Longings & desires = love, friendship etc. Illustrated most glaringly by Aang's love to Katara. To destroy all love and friendship within oneself is dehumanizing in my books. And the point here is not that the Avatar forsakes his own happiness (and consequently the happiness of people who love him back), although that's a pretty cruel thing to do to a child already; no, the real problem is that a being who is blind to human love and does not have any emotional ties with the world cannot serve as the ultimate judge and executioner. One could think such a being an ideal judge, but really he's quite the opposite – an inhuman omnipotent tyrant who under particular circumstances could become the bane of human race.

MauricXe wrote:

Actually these questions are not hard to solve if you subscribe to a specific moral philosophy. The term "moral" person is subective to the school of thought you subscribe to.

Yes, if you're a Malthusian, it's easy to condone turning people into Soylent Green (more room on the planet + cheap nutrition = win!). If you're a Nietzchean nihilist, a Social Darwinist, or simply a solipsist, you would place your own interests and wants above all else, and gladly sacrifice any number of people to achieve whatever it is you desire. And I'm not even touching the more obviously evil philosophies like Nazism. Even mathematical pragmatism (to save 2 people you can kill one; to save one child you can kill 2 adults, or vice versa depending on your outlook; one educated person is worth more to society than a hundred savages; etc. etc.) won't get you far on the moral wagon, as the mathematics will eventually snuff out the humanity.

MauricXe wrote:

Human nature corrupts and that can't be avoided.

I would add that human nature also redeems. And ultimately, only a humane judge has a right to judge. Otherwise it's not justice, it's enforcement of whatever's written in the Book of Law (which might as well be Lawful Evil, as is the case with various dictatorships and totalitatian regimes).

MauricXe wrote:

The Avatar is the bringer of peace, balance, wisdom, and the connection of the supernatural to the natural. The Avatar serves as a legitimate source of moral authority.

Without inner humanity, and with such tenets as "achieve your goal by any means necessary", the Avatar is not a moral authority. Aang understood this; otherwise he would have succumbed to the advice of the Guru and the past avatars.

MauricXe wrote:

There was no alternative to killing the Fire Lord, as the previous Avatars saw.

There were plenty of alternatives, as elaborated above in my response to the previous poster.

MauricXe wrote:

The real world is much different from a philosophy class as Zuko pointed out and risking lives for the sake of ideals is dangerous.

Right, so all those wars for independence and freedom were just dangerous escapades provoked by idealistic fools? I'd like to see you say that during a history lesson…

And besides, Aang was risking much more by facing Ozai alone. Now that was a stupid move from the point of protecting lives (again, see above).

MauricXe wrote:

Luckily for Aang, there was a way out that none of us, or the previous Avatars, had known before.

I believe there was a reason the art of Spirit-bending was not known – or rather, was probably forgotten. The Avatars had no need for Spirit-bending as they destroyed their enemies, and did not seek ways to stop them without killing. Aang was the first in the long line of Avatars to actually spurn this philosophy – and he was (karmically?) rewarded by the power of Spirit-bending.

MauricXe wrote:

I don't know how old you are and I don't care if you are six or 110. This is a forum for children. Maybe you should find a new audience?

You don't sound like a child yourself, so what are you doing here? Anyway, I don't see how any harm could come to children by reading this thread. If anything, it could help them understand more about their favorite show's underlying morality, some aspects of which they (and many of us here) might have overlooked.

We're moving Forums to the Community pages. Click here for more information and updates.

Avatar: The Last Airbender Forums

Avatars: Machiavellian/Nihilistic Bastards?

imNOTcrazy

Undead_Prince

edmasterchaos

MaddoKos

Undead_Prince

fire_wheels

Undead_Prince

imNOTcrazy

MaddoKos

KikitheFiend

Teranef

MauricXe

MCMLXVI

scottd2242

Undead_Prince

Axrendale

MauricXe

MauricXe

Undead_Prince