7:15 This is a good point, Evbo failed to make a real post-parkour civilisation, instead just making his own iteration of the existing power structure. His remaking of civilisation was significant, but it wasn't as much as it easily could have been. His civilisation was a jump forwards in progress, but it was an easy and familiar jump. He failed to aim higher and make the world even better. In a sense, he only jumped for the chicken, not the beef.
The illusion (or lie) of equal chance or equal outcome: Every assumption or assertion made by pascals wager is wrong. On the other hand: No, not everybody is equal and what some might consider "improving the world" might very well be considered the most evil thing imaginable by others. You don't even need to look at religion: Just look at how politicians and their parties act, or football fans.
Yeap, the original Pascal's Wager is pretty much a fallacy, but I thought that in the case of ParkCiv it worked because the choices and consequences are way more tangible and 'real' if that makes sense, you fall or you don't, it's not a 'maybe ___ could happen'. As for your other point, yeah, I agree with you to some extent. But it's in the limitation of everything to parkour ONLY that I found issue with. If we extended the question further, what if someone wanted to be a builder or pvp-er? They can only build parkour and do parkour battles/races in that world to fulfill that, everything is still solely defined by parkour. I found the lack of opportunity to outweigh the issue of the problems it might pose and hence my stance, but again, not saying that your point isn't valid, just diff opinion.
just put the fries in the bag man, just put the fries in the bag.
here u go 🍟🍟🍟
7:15 This is a good point, Evbo failed to make a real post-parkour civilisation, instead just making his own iteration of the existing power structure. His remaking of civilisation was significant, but it wasn't as much as it easily could have been.
His civilisation was a jump forwards in progress, but it was an easy and familiar jump. He failed to aim higher and make the world even better. In a sense, he only jumped for the chicken, not the beef.
wow I really didn't expect you'd do this good of an analysis.
People really out here making parkour civilization philosophical is crazy
true haha but hey it works!!
Never expected seeing a breakdown on parkour civilization. Pretty good work.
Thank you!!
IT WAS IN CELESTE
The illusion (or lie) of equal chance or equal outcome: Every assumption or assertion made by pascals wager is wrong.
On the other hand: No, not everybody is equal and what some might consider "improving the world" might very well be considered the most evil thing imaginable by others. You don't even need to look at religion: Just look at how politicians and their parties act, or football fans.
Yeap, the original Pascal's Wager is pretty much a fallacy, but I thought that in the case of ParkCiv it worked because the choices and consequences are way more tangible and 'real' if that makes sense, you fall or you don't, it's not a 'maybe ___ could happen'.
As for your other point, yeah, I agree with you to some extent. But it's in the limitation of everything to parkour ONLY that I found issue with. If we extended the question further, what if someone wanted to be a builder or pvp-er? They can only build parkour and do parkour battles/races in that world to fulfill that, everything is still solely defined by parkour. I found the lack of opportunity to outweigh the issue of the problems it might pose and hence my stance, but again, not saying that your point isn't valid, just diff opinion.