Add Bookmark | Recommend this book | Back to the book page | My bookshelf | Mobile Reading

Free Web Novel,Novel online - All in oicq.net -> Sundries -> Is this the moon phase?

Arrangement between wars 27, story 1

Previous page        Return to Catalog        Next page

    As I promised, I told about my experience in the Holy Grail War, but when I talked about the King's Banquet, my story was interrupted.

    "Why is there something wrong with what the King of Conqueror said?"

    "The King of Knights is a person who has almost cut off instinctive desires, while the King of Conquerors is just the opposite. He is a person with infinite desires. Freud once divided human will into three parts, the id, the ego and the  Superego, almost everyone is composed of these three tendencies. It can even be said that these three tendencies are three ** personalities. Among these three personalities, the id is the incarnation of the instinct **, and the ego is  The embodiment of human thinking, while the superego is the embodiment of moral pursuit. If this theory is used to describe these kings, it is not difficult to see that the self of the King of Knights is almost completely suppressed, while the King of Heroes and the King of Conquerors are  It is the superego that is almost completely suppressed, and the King of Wisdom is the existence of all three selves. If the King should be more like a person than anyone else, the King of Conqueror obviously goes against what he said, because he actually does not  Not like a person."

    "Then you are saying that the Conqueror is no longer worthy of being a king?"

    "I didn't say that, and I'm not qualified to say that. There are many kings in the world, and there are many kings. Maybe the conquering king has a wrong understanding of why he became a king, but this does not hinder his qualifications as a qualified king.  , only the people have the final say on whether a person is qualified to be king."

    "Then you agree with what the King of Conquerors said that he is a tyrant and the King of Knights is a coward?"

    "I seriously disagree with this. The results may be good or bad. People who care very much about the results may regret it. I don't think the actions taken by the King of Knights because of regret are correct, but if  It would be too arbitrary to say that he is a foolish king just because he regrets it.¡±

    "But why does the King of Conquerors have followers while the King of Knights rebels?"

    "Do you think the winner is the king and the loser is the bandit?"

    "Of course not!"

    "Similarly, I don't think so. Fundamentally speaking, the King of Knights cannot be regarded as a betrayal, because the Knights of the Round Table have never belonged to the King of Knights."

    "Eh~~!" The girl's eyes widened and her mouth widened.

    "The Knights of the Round Table only belong to the Knights of the Round Table, an organization based on the concept of equal dialogue. Although it is said that the King of Knights established the Knights of the Round Table, he himself is just an ordinary knight in the Knights of the Round Table. As for the Knights of the Round Table,  From the beginning, the regiment fought according to the King of Knights¡¯ ideas. Rather than following the King of Knights, it was more about everyone having the same idea.¡±

    ¡°Eh~~!¡±

    "And what would have happened if the King of Conquest were placed in England during King Arthur's time? Not to mention the so-called 'revolt and separation', no one would stand with him from the beginning."

    "Why?"

    "Have you read the Knight's Manifesto?"

    "without¡­¡­"

    "I swear to be kind to the weak,

    I swear to fight against rape bravely,

    I swear to oppose all wrongs,

    I swear to fight for the defenseless,

    I swear to help those who ask for help,

    I swear not to hurt women,

    I swear to help my brother,

    I swear to treat my friends sincerely,

    I swear that I will remain true to the one I love until death.  "

    ¡°¡­¡± The girl was silent.

    "Only such a person is qualified to be called a true knight. Is the King of Conqueror capable of making such a person surrender?"

    ""

    "Although such knights are rare in the later world, in the era of King Arthur, there were not many such knights who fought only for the justice in their hearts. From the initial gathering to the final disintegration, the most fundamental thing is  The reason is that justice in everyone's mind has similarities and differences. In other words, they choose to assemble or divide according to their own hearts. They are not subject to any constraints, and they are absolutely not subject to any constraints. Relying on binding others  , and then used his charm to impress their conquering king. If he had appeared in that time and place, he would have been destined to be even more miserable than the Knight King, and he might even have disappeared from the world without even being heard by anyone.  .¡±

    This point was not explained in the works I saw in my previous life. However, in the novel version of the work I saw in my previous life, it was clearly mentioned that if the King of Knights chooses to manage Britain like the King of Conquerors managed Macedonia,  The result will undoubtedly be that of Britain being worse off than it would have been under the King of Knights.  Moreover, it was revealed in an interview with the voice actor that "King of Knights" does not mean "a king like a knight", but "only a knight can understand""King of the King". Even after the betrayal, the knights of the Round Table still understood what their king had done. This was something that the King of Conqueror could not do. Although the King of Conqueror had always had the king's military followers, among his subordinates,  No one truly understands him. The magician Merlin has clearly predicted the fate of the King of England. This prophecy is not directed at Arturia herself. No matter who becomes the King of England, his fate will inevitably be like this. This is not a curse.  But only such a "saint" who is doomed to tragedy can change Britain at this time, so that the people can recuperate and future generations of kings can manage the country safely.

    ""

    "Speaking of which, there is an interesting person appearing in this Holy Grail War."

    "who?"

    "His name is - Emiya Kiritsugu."

    "Did he do something?"

    ¡°This person believes that because everyone¡¯s justice is different, the only universal justice is to put people on a scale to measure value. According to him, because everyone has a different view of value, any value should be used for human life.  No other measure can accurately measure its value. The only measure of human life is - bars."

    ¡°What¡¯s the problem with this??¡±

    "The problem is huge Although the above is basically correct, everyone's justice is different, and everyone's view of value is also different, but he ignored that he himself is also a member of the 'everyone' he said  ah!"

    "Then what is universal justice?"

    "How do I know this kind of question? I am just one of 'everyone'. If you ask me what 'my justice' is, I can easily tell you that my justice is choice and acceptance.  , which means that everyone has the right to choose the behavior they do, and at the same time has the obligation to accept all the consequences of this behavior, whether good or bad. Remember, this is just 'my justice', as for  What universal justice is, I don¡¯t know.¡±

    Emiya Kiritsugu¡¯s view of justice can be regarded as a branch of ¡°utilitarianism¡± in moral philosophy, while my view of justice can be regarded as a branch of ¡°liberalism¡± in moral philosophy.  The relationship between the two is not incompatible. John Stuart Mill once interpreted liberalism through utilitarianism and achieved quite effective results.  But there are fundamental differences between the two sides. Emiya Kiritsugu would weigh human lives on the scales, but I would not, because there is no such thing as "value" in my justice.  Or it can also be said that I will not say because this thing is just, so I will do it, but I will say that this thing is what I want to do, so I will do it.  There seems to be no difference between the two, but in fact, people who say they do something because of "justice" actually do it because they want to do it, or because they stipulate that they do it.

    "Even though he and you are from the same family, I don't see where that person's statement is wrong!"

    "I can't judge whether his statement is right or wrong, but it cannot be deduced by itself. The value of human life cannot be measured in any other way, and it does not prove that the value of human life can be measured using 'bar' as a unit of measurement.  . Of course, this does not prove that his statement is wrong, but in my opinion, things like human life should not and cannot be measured by value!!"

    Speaking of this, I suddenly remembered a very popular but annoying question in my previous life: "If a mother, lover and child fall into the water, and only one person can be saved, which one should be saved?"

    Someone replied: "Save the nearest one." In fact, this answer is quite tricky, and it is basically the same as: "Save any one."

    Someone answered: "If your wife is gone, you can marry again, if your child is gone, you can have another one. There is only one mother." This answer is a bit excessive, because in fact, everyone in the world will not have a second one, that is, for the mother,  For me, there may be a second reason for not saving, that is, putting myself at the center of the world. In fact, this answer essentially says: "I want to save whoever I want to save." Of course, in fact,  Everyone does this, but it is a bit inappropriate to find such a statement that devalues ??human life. It can be said that "except for the people I care about, other people's lives are worthless."

    Another saying is: "After saving the mother, the mother can live for 10 years, after saving the lover, the lover can live for 40 years, and after saving the child, the child can live for 70 years." Strictly speaking, this answer is: "Who can live?"  Who can I save if it takes longer?¡± When emotions cannot give an evaluation, it is a good answer to simply abandon emotions completely, but the question is who can prove that this judgment is correct?  ?  In fact, no matter who is saved this time, he will be lost within 10 years.??The possibility of life.  And who can prove that the person who lives longer is the person whose life is more valuable?  ?

    Just like this question, the method of measuring the value of human life is also a question that cannot have a correct answer, because no matter which answer is chosen, there is something worthy of doubt. It is better not to measure the value of life, because for life  The value itself is something we feel with our simple thoughts.

    "This person is really pitiful"

    "Indeed, if he had not come to participate in this senseless war, if he could continue to be his messenger of justice, he might have become a famous fighting hero. However, this is his choice, no matter what the outcome is  No matter what, he can only choose to accept it."

    ¡­¡­¡­¡­

    ;
Didn't finish reading? Add this book to your favoritesI'm a member and bookmarked this chapterCopy the address of this book and recommend it to your friends for pointsChapter error? Click here to report