Most mer don't want what the Thalmor want.

In fact, most mer aren't even aware of what the Thalmor want. They think it's all about some military conquest and "re-establishing the lost empire of the elves".

http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Special:Search?search=Rising+Threat&go=Go&nsnum=130&redirs=1&searchtitles=1 are a good guide as to how the Thalmor lied their way into power, and obfuscated both their motives and methods from most of the people now under their control.

I don't believe extremest organizations can really be dealt with. These Thalmor, as opposed to their party prior to Tibers invasion, are far more aggressive and radical than their predecessors. The Thalmor of the 4th Era are one who are using the situation to further their goals through war, murder and deceit which through my moral standing is wrong. Of cource, someone who truely believes in their faith will not be wavered so its difficult to really say if they could be persuaded or not, its just their way involves death of everyone where Talos' way requires the death of no one and yet they all achieve the same divinity.

Rising Threat is written by someone who has much to gain from the destruction of the Thalmor. Meanwhile, they testify as to how to Thalmor helped free the Argonians and brought stability to both the Summerset Isles and the Empire. It's largely a matter of perspective.



I have to be careful here, because even though it's a fictional world, I'm at work and don't want to say anything I shouldn't.

Sure, their way requires murder, deceit, and war. So did Talos' way. They believe that large amounts of death are actually the right/correct method to their goal. Further, we don't actually think they're wrong-- we just don't like their goal. Is that correct? If so, why prefer Talos' goal to the Thalmor's goal?

Of course it is.

That is the basic model upon which all logic is defined.

All knowledge is based upon assumptions, because we cannot know anything absolutely and existence itself must merely be assumed.

All logic, philosophy, science, and all knowledge of any form must recognize which assumptions it is based upon, and if those assumptions are invalidated, all logical statements based upon that assumption must therefore be invalidated.

To do anything else is just delusion.




Yes, no disrespect, you're simply basing your arguments on saying that everything I say is uncalled for and ridiculous without actually trying to discuss the merits. :whistling:

The theory of forms IS discredited. It is taught only in philosophy courses as part of the "history" of philosophy so we can understand where it has been. Nobody actually believes in the notion that there is a single perfect chair from which all physical chairs are corrupt shadows anymore. In fact, most people would look upon such an idea with incredulity that it ever took hold as a major form of thought.

Philosophy is the basic underpinning of how we see the world and base our thought and judgment, and as such, you really don't need to explain someone's philosophy to them, even if they think they know nothing about philosophy, because the philosophy they believe in is something inherently understood by them.

I may have gone with joking hyperbole (although not nearly at the level of the "Plato was a dike" page I referenced), but the flat fact of the matter is that Heracletus's views are generally seen as basic common sense (I.E. a philosophy we use), while Parmenides's ideas are seen as alien and bizarre. That's all you need to know to judge which school of thought has stood the test of time.




That is not a tautology.

A tautology is "2 = 2".

A tautological argument is meaningless because its assumption is its statement. It is nothing more than circular reasoning.

For example, it would be like saying, "If I had two apples, I would have two apples. Therefore, I have two apples." If the assumption was true that you had two apples, then you would be right, but the statement is false if the assumption is false. Nothing was derived from making that statement, however. It is a meaningless statement to declare "If I have two apples, then I have two apples," because there is no relevance to any case but having two apples, and you very well may not have two apples.

This is basic logical reasoning, and it is beyond dispute.



Plato was a major influence on Aristotle, and Aquinas was basically responsible for interpreting Plato into the context of Christianity after the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. That is not to say that Plato's teachings did not have an earlier effect in shaping the basis of proto-Christian morality by being a part of the radical influx of ideas into Judea from which Jesus emerged.

I cited online sources for you to check the facts if you doubted them.

To not bother to check or make actual claims other than "I think you're wrong" is a fairly specious argument.

The Thalmor require Omniside, the literal death of everything and then the prevention of mankind and creation again. The Thalmor wish to go back, while Talos (Lorkhan) wants to go forward. Where as the Thalmor are content with going back to how thing were originally, Talos is presenting a world where everyone can become greater than that. In Tibers time, he required the subjugation of all Tamriel under his rule (before becoming Talos) which when you read about him, he did more so through political maneuvering that flat out war. Certainly he had killed his share of people, but he never advocated the death of entire races to achieve his goals. Upon apothesis he becomes the glue that hold the mortal realm together and thus allows it to continue offering the purpose Lorkhan (supposedly) originally intended.

I don't believe the Thalmor are right, there's no real proof that they can achieve their goals through what their doing (War and killing and all, basically the genocide of man) while we have proof through Vivec and Tiber Septim that one can indeed become greater than God's through the trials of the mortal realm.

Actually, what's more important than whether it is possible or not is whether it is even a worthwhile goal or not.

The Thalmor want to zero-sum out the entirety of existence. If they want to commit suicide because they don't like living, it's one thing, but destruction of all life and all the meaning of existence because nobody asked them if they wanted to be allowed on the ride is insane by almost any measure.

At least the Dwemer were polite enough to only take themselves out of the picture. The Thalmor want to go the route of absolute Omnicide.

Just did a double take when I saw how many comments this topic had ...
YOU GUYS ARE FREAKING AWESOME!!!

OT: could you not say though if you surmise that the Third Age at around the time of TES: IV is the Golden Age of the Empire. An Empire made almost invincible by Tiber Septim and that in time is good for everyone? Aside from rumours of political revolution in Summerset Isles (which we can now assume is the Thalmor) it all seems quite rosy.
There seems to be little persecution and anyone can become pretty much anything although the Beast races don't get much of a look in.

Well, there's kind of the problem that it was basically the end of the Golden Age in Morrowind, what with the whole Blight thing and the destruction of the Tribunal around which their entire culture was based, and the fact that the events of Morrowind (the game) set into motion the fall of the Ministry of Truth and the eruption of Red Mountain, thus leading to the destruction of Morrowind as a province. That was kind of bad.

Daggerfall the game didn't occur that much earlier than the events of Morrowind.

Of course, DURING the Oblivion crisis, things were outright horrible, especially for places like the Summerset Isles or Kvatch.

Right after the Oblivion Crisis, in the fourth era you have the collapse of the Empire and everything the Thalmor did, including several genocides and causing multiple revolts of provinces from the empire, and goading the argonians into finishing off Morrowind.

Really, if anything was a golden age, it was the time just before the Imperial Simulacrum (before Arena). (There's also the time of the Alessian order, which was sort of the high point of humanity, but generally svcked for everyone else.) Tamriel has a pretty blood-soaked history in general, though, so it's kind of hard to say it had some sort of golden age of prosperity at any time.

Aside from the minorities in Kvatch though it was pretty rosy.
The revolution in Sum. Isles is the only really low point.

tautological has two meanings; one is redundant (as Wraith-Magnus is using it) and the other is absolutely flawless (as King Moogle is using it)

There's your problem, trying to grasp infinity with finite hands. It won't do.

They are not nihilists either, the the Thalmor deeply believe in this, and do not want an existence without meaning. They want an existence where all possibilities are equal, a universal arena.

The mortal mind shies away from confronting the absolute, but I guess Mer have more an inclination to at least try.

On the contrary, an existence where all possibilities are equal, and equally never fulfilled, IS an existence without meaning.

If you want a different metaphor, the world of Nirn is a story written in a book. A book where the limited number of words are set in a linear order so that their cohesive whole has a meaning. At least, when the dragon isn't breaking, in which case there's multiple unfolding stories that have to somehow be put back into a single linear narrative again.

The Thalmor's dream-state, however, is not a book at all. It is just words. Not even words, actually, just letters. Every letter in every possible combination without order so that the letters are illegible. There is no story, there is no meaning, they are just THERE.

I understand what you are saying, but in such a situation, no mundane metaphor is applicable, or needed. But you are using linear understanding to try and explain a non-linear existence. I understand your objections to there being no meaning in an existence where all possibilties are equal, it depends on how to clarify it. You are describing it via negativa, in negative terms, because it cannot be known to us. I understand it more as the opposite, wherein all possibilites are equally realized, all meanings realized and derealized.

I agree with you and disagree with you.

The Thalmor, in the 4th age, aren't nihilistic. They are deeply religious in their way, that is if you see religion as a way of ultimate transformation. Their teleological destiny, from our perspective, is "nihilistic," only if they succede, but nihilism won't exist if they succeed. So, they will never be nihilistic. The Thalmor are the ultimate iconoclasts.

No, the Saxhleel used the Thalmor, at best. At worst, they used them as a scapegoat as to why they invaded. As soon as the argonians got what they wanted, they removed all of the Thamlor out of Black Marsh, along with the Empire.

Their belief in their teleological destiny belies a worldview that has values. It's a full blown ideology (because everything is ideology) with its own set of values and meanings. Their entire quest for a return to the formless beginning is the result of a set of values they hold. A nihilistic elf would probably not give much thought to what the masses of high elves are pursuing because nothing has any inherent value to the nihilist. I can't see nihilism really existing in TES on that level though, the heavens and hells and gods of that world are all very real and can establish absolute values for their followers.

Vivec was Friedrich Nietzsche though.

So what happens when people die? They don't go back to this pre-physical existence state? Because to me that seems like it would solve everything if that is what happened. Once their mortal lives were spent, they go back to immortality. But I guess that is not what happens in the TES world or having a physical existence wouldn't be such a big deal right?

The Thalmor wants to go back to being formless beings? IE, not being in existance?

Um...would killing them count as sending them back to formless beings?

Unless your bound to a daedric prince or are a brave Nord who died in battle, your soul gets recycled into the Dreamsleave and you are reincarnated (eventually). The Thalmor don't want to just be constantly reincarnated back into mortal bodies, they want to go back to the time when they were always spirits and never lost their immortality.

Most of the reasons for disliking Talos have already been stated, but I want to add this. The Dunmer would not hate him, for they view mortal existence as a test, they believe that they were not worthy of their god like existence and that they must prove that they are through their life on Nirn, as it is taught by Boethiah. So, in theory, you're traditional Dunmer would not hate him, but would not revere him either.

Your traditional Dunmer would hate him on political and religious grounds, not philosophical ones.

They have their Tribunal. Their Three True Gods, and all else is a lesser version or a distracting lie. Politically, they wouldn't like him simply because he "conquered" them (again, though, it would all turn into worship for Almsivi, since they set up the treaty that basically leaves the Dunmer alone). Philosophically, if they actually managed to sit down and really pay attention, they might agree with him... but that doesn't mean they'd like him.

I said purposefully achieving non-existence for non-existence's own sake is nihilistic because I cannot see any possible purpose in that.

You might disagree, and say there is some teleological reason to have non-existence for non-existence's own sake as intrinsic finality, but I cannot give that the credence of being a holistic worldview. It's like saying you have decided the purpose of life is to enjoy vanilla ice cream for vanilla ice cream's own sake - if you just put ANY words into that sentence, you can create something that sounds like intrinsic finality.

That's why I call it nihilism - I don't see non-existence as having any purpose, other than as a distinction from existence itself. Without existence, non-existence loses all purpose, and hence, the Thalmor are actively seeking to destroy the only purpose the non-existence they covet has.

(And now we're onto the merits of enforced existentialism... quick, guys, let's involve some of that economic theory from that mod thread I was talking about a while back, just to make sure there are only 3 people in the world that can read this topic and understand any of it!)

Sorry to chime in out of the blue. But does it really mean that? I see it as occupying a perfect eternal moment. What's not to like?

I see your point. I guess this all arises from the ambiguity surrounding just what existence as et'ada entails. Is it existence or simply metaphor? One could argue that they aren't for wiping out pure existence, just physical existence and Mundus. It's kind of like you said though, their entire conception of of this dichotomy arises from the fact that they have physical form and if that is destroyed then the state of being that is their goal ceases to matter as it is a dialectical relationship.

Well, for starters, in order to "like" something, you need to have a thought process, and processes take time to work, which is hard to do in a state without time.

Further, "like" only has meaning in terms of a judgement - "liking" has no meaning without its contrast of "dislike", it's all about judging something in comparison to what you can reference. However, what are you going to reference in a state of theoretical endless possibilities that never have been fulfilled?

In a state where every possible idea exists at the same time without causality or consequence, how would you compare the benefits and costs of, say, going out to eat and having a good time with your friend versus your friend going insane, torturing and murdering you? It's a trick trick question, of course, as you don't have friends in this existence because that would require a personal identity both for yourself and others, much less time over which to experience the consequences of those actions. One is just as indistinguishable from the other and have as little meaning as the other in such an existence.

You can't "like" anything, as there is no good or bad without consequence. Because nothing has consequence, every possibility is as empty and unfulfilled as the next, what's the difference between the worst things you can imagine and the best things you can imagine?

As I said, I have to reject such an idea utterly as someone with existentialist leanings, as such an existence is an existentialist nightmare where no possible act could ever have meaning. It is something even more nightmarish than Hell, as even in eternal torture and suffering, one can find purpose and meaning in suffering.

Accepted. And foolishly bathetic on my part.

But what of the Thalmor's interpretation? Have I understood them correctly?


I am currently digesting as much of the Lore as possible; however, it is all new to me and will take time. I trust that you will be gentle with me