Best Season or Worst?

[zobothehobo]

Honestly, I'm tired of arguing the characterization with either of you. I've come to realize you both are going to nit-pick at my words and wording and dance around the issue because it's not actually there. Season 6 is not season 5 or any season before it. The characters changed drastically between The Gift and Bargaining Part 1. But you've got to understand, Buffy died. Like for real died. Like "the worms are eating her brain" died. Of course they're going to change... and they remained changed and change even more in season 7. One last thing I'd like to point out about characterization... in order for it to be out of character behavior not character developing behavior, they have to go back to the way they were before the behavior in question. The only person you can say did this is Buffy... And I don't really call coming out of a depressive episode leaving out of character behavior... I just call it coming out of a depressive episode.

See the highlights? You have changed, not the painting. Perception is not reality.

Again who's to say what IS reality and what ISN'T? We each have our own perceptions which create our own reality... just because my reality isn't what yours is doesn't make either one of us right or wrong. It's actually kind of scary to think that if you look around, you don't know if you're seeing things the way they are or if your mind is manipulating the picture. No one knows for sure what IS because no one can see the world without the filter called their mind.

It's the same with season 6. I see it differently than you because I'm paying more attention to the season as a whole and the big picture of the season and you're paying more attention to the little details that would make it fit with season 5. I just chalk all of the changes between The Gift and Bargaining Part 1 up to the fact that Buffy died which drastically changes the way the group operates. When Buffy's brought back, she's not ready to jump into it the way it was before and the group has already changed so much meaning it is a different environment. I'm about to start a season 6 re-watch, and when I do, I'll try to pay more attention to the little details and how they make season 6 fit with season 5. Maybe you should do that and try to think about it my way... I imagine both parties will perceive things differently this time around.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

Easy, because we can test perceptions of said reality. I know my perception of green as brown is incorrect because, not only is it far more likely (about 95% or more) that someone will see the green correctly, my perception of this color can be shown to be incorrect through use of genetic factors as well as tests.

What's more, the assertion itself is provable. If perception could change reality, than it would effect my perception as well. In other words, you should be able to go home and float a pencil to me merely by perceiving such an action as occurring. I am not going to hold my breath on that happening.

Perception doesn't change reality... but everyone's reality is different. The way I view the world and therefore think about it is different from you. What you think and believe, however true, will be true in its consequences. For example, if you think season 6 is horrible, it will be horrible when you watch it.

 

[Ruminator]

I've come to realize you both are going to nit-pick at my words and wording and dance around the issue because it's not actually there.

Let me get this straight... the fact we actually pay you the courtesy of looking directly at your words and responding to them is... nit picking? And "dancing around the issue" (huh)?

I apologize for treating your words as something worth discussing then.

Season 6 is not season 5 or any season before it. The characters changed drastically between The Gift and Bargaining Part 1.

Um... yes. That's bad writing! We aren't arguing those things aren't true, we're arguing that such a leap constitutes bad writing for the reasons we've stated.

in order for it to be out of character behavior not character developing behavior, they have to go back to the way they were before the behavior in question

Not at all. Again, if Tara walked into Buffy's house, clad in black leather, and tossed a hand grenade at Dawn and was suddenly a villain... that would be out of character whether or not she showed up the next day back to her normal, sweet self. Characterization is about ongoing behavior, not adherence to a static concept. The problem is not that Willow became a villain, it was that the necessary steps for it appeared out of nowhere.

Again who's to say what IS reality and what ISN'T?

Again, because we can test reality. I am wrong when I see green instead of brown because I have genetic factors that change my perception. This is provable. Hence why reality is not subject to perception.

I just chalk all of the changes between The Gift and Bargaining Part 1 up to the fact that Buffy died which drastically changes the way the group operates.

That's not perception, that's synthesis. You have artificially created facts not in evidence in order to make sense of what does not make sense. It's the same way humans deal with cognitive dissonance.

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------

Perception doesn't change reality... but everyone's reality is different.

Again, provably false. An atom, is an atom, is an atom. Perception doesn't change that, ergo, perception doesn't change reality. If perception doesn't change reality, than reality is the same for all of us, what is actually different is perception. Since they are not one and the same, we can dismiss correlation between them.

 

[Icarium]

The characters changed drastically between The Gift and Bargaining Part 1.

Okay, I don't really agree with that but for the sake of argument let's assume you are right. Don't you think the writers should have shown this change instead of skipping straight to Buffy's resurrection? This is arguably the most dramatic change the characters underwent in the entire run of the show and for it to happen off screen is beyond ridiculous, IMO. It's like skipping from say Reptile Boy straight to Passion and leave the viewers to wonder how come Cordelia and Xander are dating, Angel is evil, etc.

 

[Ruminator]

Okay, I don't really agree with that but for the sake of argument let's assume you are right. Don't you think the writers should have shown this change instead of skipping straight to Buffy's resurrection? This is arguably the most dramatic change the characters underwent in the entire run of the show and for it to happen off screen is beyond ridiculous, IMO. It's like skipping from say Reptile Boy straight to Passion and leave the viewers to wonder how come Cordelia and Xander are dating, Angel is evil, etc.

Right.

If the argument is really that there was dramatic change... not showing said change is a fundamentally bad choice of writing, because it means that large amounts of pertinent characterization has happened beyond the scope of the audience, which will render future events difficult to discern without that context.

 

[zobothehobo]

Okay, I don't really agree with that but for the sake of argument let's assume you are right. Don't you think the writers should have shown this change instead of skipping straight to Buffy's resurrection? This is arguably the most dramatic change the characters underwent in the entire run of the show and for it to happen off screen is beyond ridiculous, IMO. It's like skipping from say Reptile Boy straight to Passion and leave the viewers to wonder how come Cordelia and Xander are dating, Angel is evil, etc.

Those two are awful comparisons. I think it was perfectly reasonable for the show to skip those three months. The dramatic changes in the characters happen because they had to grow up when Buffy died... but honestly, it would have been torture watching episodes that represented those three months. Duh they're going to grow up... Just get to the good part already. This is what fan-fic is for. If you want to answer those questions... make it up.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 PM ----------

Again, because we can test reality. I am wrong when I see green instead of brown because I have genetic factors that change my perception. This is provable. Hence why reality is not subject to perception.

That's not perception, that's synthesis. You have artificially created facts not in evidence in order to make sense of what does not make sense. It's the same way humans deal with cognitive dissonance.

Again, provably false. An atom, is an atom, is an atom. Perception doesn't change that, ergo, perception doesn't change reality. If perception doesn't change reality, than reality is the same for all of us, what is actually different is perception. Since they are not one and the same, we can dismiss correlation between them.

You're not thinking abstractly. You're thinking in the box... take a step out.

And an atom is an awful example for this because you can't see an atom. You can't perceive an atom in any way. You can't touch just one atom, you can't see it, you can't taste it, and you can't hear it. My bedspread is a better example. It's a blue-ish green... to me. To my friend, it's a green-ish blue. Who's to say which of us is right? Neither of us know because we can't see it without the filter of our brain.

 

[Ruminator]

This is what fan-fic is for. If you want to answer those questions... make it up.

I still maintain it is the writers job to write their own show, not me. If I have to synthesize organic characterization they left out, then I want some of their paycheck, cause then I am doing their work for them.

You're not thinking abstractly. You're thinking in the box... take a step out.

There is no need to, your argument is already shown to be invalid. Perception changes, not reality. Case closed.

And an atom is an awful example for this because you can't see an atom

It's called a scanning tunneling microscope. Please make sure your comments are actually accurate before you state them.

Who's to say which of us is right?

As has been stated to you three times already, by testing the perception. Reality does not stop because of your intellectual surrender to test its merits.

 

[zobothehobo]

I still maintain it is the writers job to write their own show, not me. If I have to synthesize organic characterization they left out, then I want some of their paycheck, cause then I am doing their work for them.



There is no need to, your argument is already shown to be invalid. Perception changes, not reality. Case closed.



It's called a scanning tunneling microscope. Please make sure your comments are actually accurate before you state them.



As has been stated to you three times already, by testing the perception. Reality does not stop because of your intellectual surrender to test its merits.

So your opinion is if most people perceive something to be true, it must be true? That's ridiculous. And not everyone has a scanning tunneling microscope... plus an atom is way too small to be an example for this. Like I said earlier, step outside of the box and you'll get what I'm talking about... Everyone has their own definition of the world and their own reality. One person's reality is no better or more accurate than someone else's.

 

[Ruminator]

So your opinion is if most people perceive something to be true, it must be true? That's ridiculous.

Not at all, as has been stated many times, perception can be tested in numerous ways. Just because you don't want to do that does not mean they do not exist.

And not everyone has a scanning tunneling microscope... plus an atom is way too small to be an example for this.

And now you are just moving the parameters. You CAN see an atom, which is directly counter to what you said.

Furthermore, the fact an atom is outside the ability for us to normally perceive is actually perfect for this discussion. Since we can show the existence of things beyond standard perception, we can show that our perception is both A. Limited when it comes to defining reality and B. Show how perception of reality has no effect on reality.

Like I said earlier, step outside of the box and you'll get what I'm talking about... Everyone has their own definition of the world and their own reality.

You can say this all you want, but that doesn't actually give it any meaning. Objective reality is not bound by perception. In fact, what you speak of is subjective reality, which is a highly flawed concept.

Seriously, honest to goodness question here.... have you taken philosophy or ethics classes in college before? If not, I can offer some really good books on objective reality.

One person's reality is no better or more accurate than someone else's.

Yes, yes it is. Again, my perception of color is completely inaccurate due to a genetic defect. This is provable, verifiable fact. It's not even controversial to suggest.

 

[zobothehobo]

Not at all, as has been stated many times, perception can be tested in numerous ways. Just because you don't want to do that does not mean they do not exist.



And now you are just moving the parameters. You CAN see an atom, which is directly counter to what you said.

Furthermore, the fact an atom is outside the ability for us to normally perceive is actually perfect for this discussion. Since we can show the existence of things beyond standard perception, we can show that our perception is both A. Limited when it comes to defining reality and B. Show how perception of reality has no effect on reality.



You can say this all you want, but that doesn't actually give it any meaning. Objective reality is not bound by perception. In fact, what you speak of is subjective reality, which is a highly flawed concept.

Seriously, honest to goodness question here.... have you taken philosophy or ethics classes in college before? If not, I can offer some really good books on objective reality.



Yes, yes it is. Again, my perception of color is completely inaccurate due to a genetic defect. This is provable, verifiable fact. It's not even controversial to suggest.

I'm not talking about genetic colorblindness. Genetic defects would affect your subjective reality... but I'm talking about normal cases where people don't have genetic defects. People who aren't colorblind still perceive color differently. Who's to say one person's exact perception is right and anther person's is wrong? The answer is no one. You can take sides but ultimately no one know what that color actually IS because our brains interpret it.

An no, I haven't taken philosophy. I'm taking it next semester.

 

[Ruminator]

I'm not talking about genetic colorblindness.

I know that, which is the main flaw in your argument. If perception dictated reality, then my obviously flawed perception would change reality. Only it doesn't. My inability to perceive green correctly doesn't change green, it changes my perception of green. That is the fundamental aspect of reality.

Simple postulate; Perception of an object does not change the object.

Since perception can be skewed by consequences beyond those related to what one is trying to perceive, it is a poor way to judge reality.

Who's to say one person's exact perception is right and anther person's is wrong? The answer is no one. You can take sides but ultimately no one know what that color actually IS because our brains interpret it.

Again, this is incorrect because such a concept is testable. How do you think they designed color blind tests in the first place? If people really perceived color's so differently, then why is it only those of us with genetic defect's can't see the dots?

Now, the most iimportant question. How does this pertain to season 6 of Buffy?

When I say I don't care if someone else likes it or not, I say that because, no matter of we feel about the season, Xander still leavs Anya at the altar, Willow still gets addicted to magic, etc. Our perceptions of these things doesn't change whether or not they happened, ergo, I am not concerned what our preferences on them are.

An no, I haven't taken philosophy. I'm taking it next semester.

You're gonna love it. Place close attention to the parts on objective reality and the concept of reality itself. Also, I hope they go over the Allegory of the Cave, you are really gonna love that one, if you don't know it already.

 

[Tillow4ever]

If I had to put them in order, I'd say 7 then 6, cause at least Willow and Tara were happy for a little while in Season 6, but I do hate the ending. The sex with Buffy and Spike was a little to intense, without her loving him, I mean. I hated when Riley came back. And yeah, but I pretty much love every other season except season 7 and the end of 6.

 

[Icarium]

The dramatic changes in the characters happen because they had to grow up when Buffy died... but honestly, it would have been torture watching episodes that represented those three months.

I thought you liked the season precisely because it was "dark". Now you don't want to see this hypothetical episodes because they would have been "torture"?

Just get to the good part already. This is what fan-fic is for. If you want to answer those questions... make it up.

So let me get this straight - the dramatic changes in the personalities of the characters between The Gift and Bargaining I are crucial for the understanding and enjoyment of season six, yet not important enough to be, you know, actually shown on screen? Is that what you are saying?

Willow still gets addicted to magic

Giles seems to disagree with that in S7. 😀

 

[StarSlayer]

What you described was ambiguity. Pure as the driven snow. You specifically stated that the "boring bits" was dependent upon further definition. Definition not provided by the quote. Ergo, ambiguity.

I did not specifically state the definition was dependent on further definition. You're twisting my words.

If I am color blind (which incidentally, I am) and I insist something is green when it is clearly brown, I am not right simply because I insist upon it. It is brown, and I am wrong. You gave a clear cut example of ambiguity and I defined it as such. Crying "opinion" doesn't actually change what it is.

Honestly, that's not the best anaolgy when people watch films or TV shows. I can guarantee for a fact because I studied it that people can have different opinions and interpretations of a film or TV shows. Let's say we both look at a cloud. I may see a bunny but you may see a dog. Although it's still a cloud, it becomes so much more based on what we see. So, while I loved s6 and you hated it, it doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or visa versa. There's no right or wrong answer because we just have different opinions based on our viewing experience.

How one feels about something doesn't change the nature of something. It's really that clear cut.

Again, I disagree.

You just explained that a message sent by the writers stems from the narrative flow of their story telling. If the narrative flow is deficient, then the message is lost. If something is produced by another process or object, than the quality of that process or object will effect the end result of the other object. The message is dependent upon the narrative, if the narrative is bad, then the end result of the message is diminished. Ergo, the message does not trump narrative flow.

Again. It depends upon the specific narrative being told. As I stated, if it's good writing, the message will trump the narrative and people may take with them that over the story. And, with s6, I found it to be excellent writing.

Um, what? Logical fallacies aren't true. That's why they are logical fallacies! It's faulty reasoning! If you want to argue they apply, then you need to show they apply, otherwise they are dismissed as faulty reasoning. That's why logical fallacies exist!

Um, I know what they are and you stated generalizations were them, which I disagreed with to an extent.

That's fine, you're totally wrong though, but that's fine. Perception does not change reality. I know this is true because no matter how many times my eyes tell me green is brown, it's still actually brown.

And I know that sometimes, perception can change the way you approach reality because of personal experiences I don't want to get into right now.

Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Spikefan31]

No offence, but I don't understand the continuous back and forth arguing between the season 6 lovers and season 6 haters. I think it's clear neither side is going to sway the other. If you like it, cool. If you don't, that's still okay. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[StarSlayer]

No offence, but I don't understand the continuous back and forth arguing between the season 6 lovers and season 6 haters. I think it's clear neither side is going to sway the other. If you like it, cool. If you don't, that's still okay. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I'd give you rep for that but I don't know how from my phone lol! But I agree with ya! 😀
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[InsaneMystic]

Not wanting to delve into the debate too much, it's tedious enough to read as it is...

But @ Ruminator... as you've been bringing up philosophy yourself, I'm very surprised that you still uphold as "proven fact" that there were any kind of objective reality. One word: solipsism. "Objective reality" has to be taken on faith alone, there never can be proof for it. So, if you change perception, you indeed change everything - there is, to the best of human knowledge, no world aside from the one in our mind. The color-blind person believing that his green is "objectively" brown is the same as someone saying that God exists because the Bible says so. The same applies to atoms. I can believe in atoms, like in God - I can know about neither. It's utterly subjective, as 99.999999% of all things ever held to be true by anyone. Indeed, the only indubitable fact that I know is "Thinking exists" - everything else is a matter of subjective faith, not objective knowledge.

To lend further credence to how bad colors are as an example, I might also add that different languages represent colors differently. I hope I still remember it correctly (my linguistics studies at uni are a few years past, now 😉) but to a speaker of Welsh, there "objectively" is no such color as "blue", because there's no special word for it in Welsh; what speakers of English call "blue" falls on the border of "green" or "gray" in Welsh. Who's objectively wrong now - the Welshman to whom the color of something is "grey" (to which 60+% of all Welsh would agree, with another 30% saying it's green 😀) or the Englishman to whom the same thing is "blue" and clearly not "grey" (to which 90+% of all English would agree)?

Deciding objective truth on statistics is very thin ice... because then, you end up with the sun and all planets objectively circling around the Earth for a couple millennia (everyone knew that, before Copernicus came around), and then suddenly deciding that all planets including Earth should rotate around the sun instead when the Copernican system became the one most people believe in. 😛

 

[Tome]

No we weren't. We were talking about a quote by Hitchcock, not Hitchcock's job as a movie director.

Actually *me* and *you* were when I mentioned you should have some humbleness toward Hitchcock. Because you then brought up the comparison with the President.

Again, Icarium and I have made this clear on several occasions. Internal inconsistency and a break down of internal logic is the problem.

Fair enough. I do agree with some of what you said, I just don't think it's worth that much debate. 😛

No, you are engaging in a well known logical fallacy called argument by generalization. You are saying these things exist because you've seen them before, but you are applying such to everything without proving that such a rule actually applies to them. Again, Icarium and I have provided examples already when prodded before. We are still waiting to here about these detrimental inconsistencies.

I don't feel the need to prove anything because it's pretty easy to see it's the truth. I'm sure most peoples would agree with me on that. There's NO perfect movie/show storyline out there.

I am not going to write a very, very long, verbose answer to a question that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Especially when I can just link to many OTHER people making that argument already.

So I'm gonna take it as your opinion is the same as their. And alright, let's not go too off-topic I guess haha 🙂

Nonsense. Pure and utter untruth. 2/3rds of that link was related to A. An argument the character resolutions were cheap. B. The writers ego was detrimental to their writing. C. The concept the community was actually involved in under mining the show. D. The inability of the writers to write romance. Hell, she even engages people herself in the comments who make this very same argument to her. Never mind the fact she provided plenty of other links to authors who also talked about how the finale was terrible.

Did you actually read the link?

This, right here, is exactly why I find it so hard to actually discuss with various fandoms for too long. When confronted with outward criticism, they engage in some of the worst forms of confirmation bias. Totally ignoring everything that was said to them and assigning strawman positions to their critics. It's groupthink at it's ugliest.

As I've said, it was most of what she complained about. I put the whole *resolution* of every character in the same bucket as getting answers. As for my own opinion on the matter at hand, I don't think the resolutions were cheap. It's as if she expected *every* character to have an episode dedicated to them to conclude every little thing that was part of their storyline. Kind of a dream if you ask me...

The writers ego? Ok I don't know enough about those two guys to give a proper opinion but how would that even impact on the ending?

Inability to write romance? Well I think the show wasn't really focusing on that, to be honest. There was a couple relationships(my favorite being Sun/Jin) that had good screen time(the love triangle for example) but unable to write romance? What?

I read almost all of it, yes. I love Lost so I like reading anything that talks about it. Good or bad!

''outward criticism''

So you don't consider yourself a fan then? What are you? A critic? And again, do you consider me biased *because* I liked the ending? I'm not sure I get your point there. I'm not ignoring anything 😛

Again, argument by generalization. You have to prove that this is true, not simply assert that it is true.

Again, I don't feel the need to prove myself to YOU. Anyone with a good deal of experience would know this is true. It feels as if you just want me to bring more facts that you'll try to debunk. No thanks.

"If I ignore the things that are bad, then it is good". How is this a proper argument? If one turns in a math test with half the problems incorrect, could one argue with the teacher that, if they just focused on what was "good" in the test, she would see that I did really well?

What you are describing is uncritical and nonanalytical thinking. Sorry, I got that trained out of me in college.

That's not what I said. Way to interpret what I typed the way you wanted! All I was saying is that I'd rather focus on the good things than the bad ones. I'm not saying these shows are perfectly done, lol. I just don't care enough to nitpick on little things like that. Your math test comparison is obviously irrelevant when you actually *understand* what I meant in the first place.

What I *actually* implied might not be critical or analytical thinking, but for me there's two way to watch a tv show/movie. This way is much more fun. Trust me I can be very critical about *anything* - it's easy to be -, but I'd rather enjoy my time. And I'm sorry for you if college had that effect on you 🙁 It's sad if you can't watch a story without criticizing and analyzing every scene you see.

Again, pure and utter untruth about the nature of the argument made.

See up there!

I giggle every time I hear "epic" now. Fishbiscuit and Urban Dictionary are right, it is the most over used word on the internet.

Would you have preferred me to use 'amazing', or 'awesome', or 'fantastic', or 'mind-blowing'? Again you prove to me with that remark that you love nitpicking over little things.

And all this time, I thought the two and a half hour finale was going to be Lindelof and Cuse doing a live call in show! Wow, thanks for clarifying that for me, I literally had no idea.

I'm glad you liked my sarcasm, I love yours too 😎 But again you just avoided what I implied with that 🙂

I don't give a flying leap if you like. I'd be even more blunt and, well, vulgar about it if I could, but I just don't want to.

Aw, I'm sorry if I hit a sensible spot 🙁 That wasn't my goal... I'm trying to discuss with you here.

I could not possibly care any less about whether or not you like it. It doesn't change how I feel about what you just said in any way, shape, or form. You completely misrepresented everything Fishbiscuit, and I, have said about the finale. Whether or not you liked it doesn't have anything to do with why that would upset me.

Again, you don't have to be so flustered about it. And I didn't misrepresent what she said. I agreed with a few things, but again, she expected WAY too much. There's always peoples to criticize and complain about something, anything.

 

[PDH5204]

"It made no sense save for the writing teams desire to make sure no one was happy and completely regressed all the forward momentum the character of Xander had made in five years towards becoming a more self confident and aware person."

That sounds rather like you simply not being happy with what was done to the character. I mean, why can't there be setback? Or perhaps better yet, maybe you just thought that he had fundamentally changed when he hadn't. There's a reason why the road to abandonment came with that certain vision. He only believes the vision if he's still that same scared little boy (which is what Anya said he was at the tail end of Entropy). I don't see that as out of character, since was only the season prior when, with notion of impending death looming, he asks her to marry him, but he won't allow either him or her to tell anyone that they're going to be married. Why was that? As I've otherwise said before, the leaving her at the altar afforded a chance to see how much, if any, Anyanka was left. There were bits and pieces of an answer along the way (her horror at seeing a flayed Warren, standing protective watch over Giles, etc.), but the culmination was in Selfless, when Anya tried to prove, to herself, that she could once again be Anyanka, by taking out the Abercrombie&Fitch catalogue. As I've remarked, she failed miserably ("what have I done").

"If you are going to argue that detrimental inconsistencies are everywhere, then please provide examples"

Not all that certain what you mean by detrimental inconsistencies, but there were significant issues with other seasons. Take Dawn and the season prior. Fine, you changed some memories. Problem is, there's more than memory involved, as there's our recorded history, you know, the birth certificate, or history of birth, the divorce decree entered in the divorce action between Buffy's mom and dad (which after item 1, granting the divorce, and item 2, dealing with alimony, would provide, at item 3, whether there were any children of the marriage and, if so, identify those children and make provision for their custody/visitation and support, and unless Dawn is starting school in the first grade, don't we need the records from her prior school years, etc.). Oh, re money issues, to deal with the one complaint, why would Buffy's dad have to pay for Dawn's support? She is not his child. And since Buffy knew that, perhaps that might explain why she never tried to have a court order any such support.

"When the show dealt with the real world, it tried to do so with a "supernatural twist", because that was the construct they had built for their world. Season six tried very, very hard to remove those supernatural elements for the sake of real world story telling"

Sorry, but that critique is simply laughable. Black Willow isn't exactly "real world". Neither is doing the horizontal bop with the undead. And we have a supernatural vision courtesy of a now demon to feed into Xander's ever present insecurity (they could have done the scene without the demon, as it wouldn't be the first time in human history that someone was left standing at the altar for all too human reasons)(i.e., could have simply been him in the basement hearing the family fighting again and he himself imagines that children may have a tendency to turn out just like their parents (that whole modeling thing)). Now back to horizontal bop with the undead, in our world we don't have sex and damage the building quite in that fashion, but such served as the fitting illustration that while Buffy was seeking a chemically induced resolution to her own pain (think endorphin release), the rest of the world (the building) was collapsing around her (as a matter of fact, given that the building didn't collapse on its own, but owing to her and Spike's efforts, there's the not so subtle hint that Buffy herself bears responsibility for the world collapsing around her). Lastly in this respect what was so wrong with Black Willow? She got fairly shat on by the real world over the course of most of the preceding five seasons. And she came to use the magik to avoid the pain that would come from the supernatural. And so why any great surprise that when the pain was coming from the natural, like it had before, she'd apply the same response? That was always the danger. You didn't need to be told that, as it was obvious. And the reason why it wasn't in a prior season was simply that she lacked the "technical" skill to apply the magik at that time (recall Buffy to Willow in Fear, Itself, something about Willow being honest and having to face the fact that her use of magik was basically a 50/50 proposition). By the way, for a point I've alluded to in my usual summary of Selfless, D'Hoffryn himself illustrated the danger/problem: Isn't that just like a slayer, solving ALL of her problems by sticking things with sharp objects. Here that would be, just like a witch, solving all of her problems by use of magik. And so the obvious finally got a chance to play out. And even when it wasn't a matter of pain intruding, it was a matter of taking the easiest path, just like water, and so rather than do it yourself via natural means, use the magik, with the danger here being her ultimate dehumanization with even the mundane task of creating the right atmosphere for the party being solved not by human intuition and labor but by magik. And go back to the season prior, Something Blue. What happened when Willow used magik to get over Oz? So season 6 is Something Black when an even greater pain comes from loss of relationship. By the way, for the mundane (All The Way) leading to dehumanization:

GILES: Brooms all around, then.
WILLOW: Or I could whip up a jaunty self-cleaning incantation, it'll be like Fantasia.
GILES: We all know how splendidly that turned out for Mickey.
***
ANYA: Oh, that's okay. This is just the first premarital celebration. There'll be lots more. With gifts.
TARA: Sure, maybe we'll even have time to decorate for the next one.
WILLOW: Why wait?
Willow speaks a few words and a shimmer goes through the room. When it passes, the room is decorated with paper lanterns and streamers. Dawn laughs with pleasure. The others look around. Tara looks unhappy.
ANYA: This is so much better than the way it usually looks. Thank you.
Anya hugs Willow. Giles gives a disapproving look, which he shares with Tara. Cut to the kitchen. Willow pours snacks from a bag into a large bowl. Tara sits by the island.
TARA: The grocery store's still open, we ... could've bought decorations there.
WILLOW: Why bother? These are perfect. And extra biodegradable-y. In a couple of hours, poof!
TARA: No, they're, they're great, it's just ... why use magic when you can do something naturally?
WILLOW: Well, you can fight monsters naturally, with sticks and stones. Don't recommend it though.
TARA: It's different.
WILLOW: How?
TARA: Becau- (sighs) Because you're protecting people. Keeping them from being hurt.
WILLOW: Which makes them happy. Like pretty decorations made Anya happy.
TARA: (sighs) That's not the point, Will.
WILLOW: Why are you being like this?
TARA: This isn't about me!
WILLOW: This is so about you. You're always coming down on me for, for doing magic that couldn't harm a fly. What's your problem?
TARA: Willow, I j-just wish that you would stop and think about what you're-

By the way, not for the only time, Tara gives the wrong response, in part. The correct response was not merely "keeping them from being hurt", but "keeping them from being hurt" owing to supernatural forces, i.e., a supernatural action allows a supernatural response. Tara does, however, hit the dehumanization point, i.e., "naturally", as in the way human's normally resolve strictly human concerns, and if you stop doing that, sooner or later you'll stop or cease being human.

Almost forgot, but back to Xander's not turning out as you imagined or envisioned, good that instead Anya went from His Mrs. to a reasonably well-adjusted independent individual. If she had survived, maybe then they could get back together, with her being her own person in the relationship (no more klingon for her).

 

[zobothehobo]

I know that, which is the main flaw in your argument. If perception dictated reality, then my obviously flawed perception would change reality. Only it doesn't. My inability to perceive green correctly doesn't change green, it changes my perception of green. That is the fundamental aspect of reality.

Simple postulate; Perception of an object does not change the object.

Since perception can be skewed by consequences beyond those related to what one is trying to perceive, it is a poor way to judge reality.



Again, this is incorrect because such a concept is testable. How do you think they designed color blind tests in the first place? If people really perceived color's so differently, then why is it only those of us with genetic defect's can't see the dots?

Insane Mystic has already stated my point in a philosophical explanation:

One word: solipsism. "Objective reality" has to be taken on faith alone, there never can be proof for it. So, if you change perception, you indeed change everything - there is, to the best of human knowledge, no world aside from the one in our mind.

Now, the most iimportant question. How does this pertain to season 6 of Buffy?

When I say I don't care if someone else likes it or not, I say that because, no matter of we feel about the season, Xander still leavs Anya at the altar, Willow still gets addicted to magic, etc. Our perceptions of these things doesn't change whether or not they happened, ergo, I am not concerned what our preferences on them are.

Fine, don't watch it again thinking about it positively or paying attention to the particular things I like... You don't KNOW you won't like it more, but that obviously doesn't matter to you.

You're gonna love it. Place close attention to the parts on objective reality and the concept of reality itself. Also, I hope they go over the Allegory of the Cave, you are really gonna love that one, if you don't know it already.

I ADORE the Allegory of the Cave. I'm really excited, and I've heard the professor teaching it is really really cool. He's my sociology teacher's husband and she says he's got the opposite teaching style of her... I can't wait.

I thought you liked the season precisely because it was "dark". Now you don't want to see this hypothetical episodes because they would have been "torture"?

No, I would have been tortured because it would have moved so slow. I don't need to see EVERY change to understand it's there or appreciate the consequences of it. A smaller example: I didn't see Anya die her hair brown again but at the beginning of season 7, I noticed she had, and I liked it and accepted it. Like I said, smaller example... but the same concept.

So let me get this straight - the dramatic changes in the personalities of the characters between The Gift and Bargaining I are crucial for the understanding and enjoyment of season six, yet not important enough to be, you know, actually shown on screen? Is that what you are saying?

The crucial part is understand they're there. Part of the fun of season 6 is figuring out what those changes were and how they affect the group. They are shown on screen throughout season 6 and are the very changes of character you seem to think is out of character and hate.

Giles seems to disagree with that in S7. 😀

After season 5, Giles and I don't tend to agree on much.

 

[Ruminator]

Just a quick posting, as the 18 month old is nipping at my heels this weekend.

One word: solipsism.

What is it you think I am arguing against? I am not the first, I won't be the last, and I am certainly not the smartest to point out the glaring problems with solipsism. Solipsism is intellectual surrender, denial of falsifiability, and egotism dressed as philosophy. What else would you expect from a school of thought founded by sophists?

What's more, and there is no real nice way to say this, solipsists seem to have a real tough time actually understanding what objective reality entails. For example:

The color-blind person believing that his green is "objectively" brown is the same as someone saying that God exists because the Bible says so.

This is provably false. Green is verifiable, earthly concept, God is, at best, a philosophical construct. One can find a picture of "green", one can not find a picture of God because God is a concept.

You know how I know my green is really brown? Genetic defect. You know how I know I have a genetic defect? Through study of the human genome. God, on the other hand, has no ability for falsifiability. It's..... ludicrous to compare them, and really, says more about the solipsist than it does about objective reality.

The same applies to atoms. I can believe in atoms, like in God - I can know about neither.

Again, nonsense. One can be shown an atom on a scanning tunneling microscope, one can not be shown God. This is the fundamental flaw of solipsism, it tries to draw parallels where none exist because it tacitly denies scientific theorem. It is, in a term, intellectual surrender.

If the existence of an atom is tantamount to the belief of God, then why can we manipulate atoms based upon scientific concepts, but we can not manipulate God beyond a metaphorical construct?

Indeed, the only indubitable fact that I know is "Thinking exists" - everything else is a matter of subjective faith, not objective knowledge.

The sum total of existence is not the cogito. In fact, the cogito is highly flawed, as Sà¸ren Kierkegaard pointed out. As he would put he, the sentence you just provided proves you do, indeed, know more than just "thinking" exists... you know "I" exist as well. Since the thinking has to come from somewhere in order for it to exist in the form you know it as, you are already presupposing that existence exists.

Who's objectively wrong now - the Welshman to whom the color of something is "grey" (to which 60+% of all Welsh would agree, with another 30% saying it's green ) or the Englishman to whom the same thing is "blue" and clearly not "grey" (to which 90+% of all English would agree)?

Neither, because objectivity is not conformity. Solipsism fails to understand objective reality arguments because it treats objectivity as unity of concept, and this is not true. Objectivity does not attempt to state perception does not exist or that it has no effect on the individual, merely that it has no effect on the actual world around it. Since solipsism doesn't believe the world exists in the first place, they can not account for this type of argument.

To put it directly in this argument, neither are wrong because what they choose to call something does not actually change what something is. Tomato or tomatoe... it still has the same properties.

Deciding objective truth on statistics is very thin ice...

This is solipsisms' biggest lie about objective reality. It is not about truth through statistics. It is about reality through falsifiability. If anything, solipsism is about reality through statistics; the statistic of one. Taking solipsism to it's logical conclusion, it would argue that there is no such thing as mental illness. If a schizophrenic patient argued that lizard men from the planet Gorgon were using a laser drill to make his teeth into their dino babies... well.... solipsism would argue this constitutes an actual reality. Clearly, this is flawed.

Here is a really good write up on some of the issues with solipsism as well.

because then, you end up with the sun and all planets objectively circling around the Earth for a couple millennia (everyone knew that, before Copernicus came around), and then suddenly deciding that all planets including Earth should rotate around the sun instead when the Copernican system became the one most people believe in.

This is why solipsism fails at describing the outside world. Why was the heliocentric model (which, by the way, existed loooong before Copernicus) adopted over the geocentric model? Falsifiability. Science was able to prove that a heliocentric model was, in fact, the correct manner in which to explain the observable nature of the movement of the planets. However, since solipsism denies falsifiability in all its forms, it instead becomes "what we believed" instead of "what we have proved".

When you get right down to it, solipsism is merely anti-intellectualism smeared with egocentric belief in the self.

Now, as interesting as this conversation is, it really, really has nothing to do with season 6 of Buffy, and I'd suggest if we want to continue on in this vein, we should probably take it elsewhere.