Pokemon, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Stein's Gate, Psycho-Pass
Stein’s Gate: If you ever had the chance to speak to a past version of yourself, what would you tell them?
Treasure the people in your life more, and don’t always believe everything you hear. Offer some resistance to life or you’ll be dead long before your body’s gone.
Pokemon: If you can have a real life pokemon, who would it be?
This question is actually tough for me now because after that Pokéddexy thing I’ve come to realize which Pokémon I like the most. Probably go with Luxray since it happened to be the first to pop up in my mind. Mareep, and Vaporeon follow after, though.
Neon Genesis Evangelion: Do you think a world where everyone completely understands each other necessarily means a better world?
Okay, that’s tricky. Because I know I mentioned before in an ask thing that it would make the world a better place. People would understand intentions easier and it’d be harder for people to do wrong things because they’d understand how it’d harm others. It could potentially also be a deterrent for crime since most people commit crimes under the impression that they’ll be able to get away with it, but if a human could understand another person completely, then they would not be able to get away with it. “I know A reacts to X negatively, and judging by how large X had an impact on A, A will do something drastic to recover/take vengeance on X.” Or maybe some other Minority Report or Psycho-PASS kind of thing will occur. In a sense that could be a better world. But it’d also be somewhat boring. And that attribute [boring] lowers the quality of what a “better” world would be. If people completely understood one another, then there would be no surprises; people would exhibit less range in emotion per individual [i.e. B might hate unhappy things and C knows this and only tries to keep B happy; but D might prefer to dwell on the sad things and E knows this and keeps D where they prefer].
So far, most of my conjecture has been under the assumption that everyone is altruistic. But even in the case where some being rose to power and tried to manipulate others using their complete knowledge of another person—or let’s say a group tried—their actions would prove fruitless. People would understand their intentions to harm, and they would be detained to some extent.
The notion of complete understanding of each other does not necessarily equate a better world. Because complete understanding can mean not just values, but also emotions would be known between every person. “Some events may be avoidable, such as car accidents, because everyone would have the cognitive perception of knowing that this person next to or behind me is not paying attention and is a threat.”
Taking this all into consideration, I would say that no, people understanding each other completely does not necessitate a “better world” [though the conditions of “better” are in the eyes of the individual and on what portion of the world “better” is referring to is also inconstant between individuals].
Psycho-Pass: Is there such thing as absolute “good”? Provide an example if you believe so. Either way, explain your choice.
Because I can’t think of a solid example, I will say that an absolute “good” does not exist. Altruism is a concept, after all, and there’s unfortunately no such thing as complete selflessness. An example I was thinking of would be how [sane] mothers are protective of their children and watch them grow and try to support them, but after further evaluation, rather than a “good” it seemed more like an internal evolutionary drive to ensure your genes passed on. And in very intense situations, a mother would not stop at harming another if their child was in danger. Maybe at the broad end of the spectrum of “good” and “bad,” something exists, but personally I don’t think something can be absolutely good or absolutely bad. To me, an absolute good implies that the “good” is all around beneficial for everything in some way and leaves no thing with ill feeling or experiencing a negative cost. But in most cases, what some consider “good” others would consider “bad,” and the rest could be indifferent on the subject.
The closest absolute good I could think of is the gift of giving from one’s self; offering what you have to others without need or desire for gratification. It leaves both the giver and receiver with good feelings. The downside would be that the gift cost someone else time with the giver, and that might spur negative feelings.
