The World or Yourself

The more I think about this question, the more I feel that the way you interpret it is far more telling of what kind of person you are than your actual answer to it. In my opinion, the question is deliberately framed at least somewhat vaguely to allow for that kind of interpretation.

In the past I’ve kind of likened this question to the little psychological test: “finish the sentence: If the cuckoo won’t sing ___”, (which of course those who have read Majikoi would be familiar with - not sure about the prevalence of this elsewhere in society nor do I particularly care.) I was somewhat dumbfounded when one day my friend answered with “if the cuckoo won’t sing it’s probably fucking asleep, so just wait a while until it wakes up.” I had of course considered such things when answering myself, but had automatically factored it in to my answer and done my best to give an actual answer (not to say that his answer is actively invalid or anything), and it didn’t really occur to me that other people might not do so. It’s similar to the “wait until it does” answer but with a kind of nuance that tells you that he’s a bit of a jackass (which he is - not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

My assertion is that these question are intentionally vague and therefore in order for them to be fair, one has to answer them without further context. Of course, I would also assert that a demand for further context is itself an answer of sorts, but it’s not one I personally like because I think that you’re supposed to fill in the blanks yourself.

I even have a friend (my dumbass cuckoo is asleep friend) who puts the human race above the earth - which in the context of Rewrite would make him a Guardian supporter and therefore choose “Myself” to change, but since he interpreted “The World” as the human race, he chose “The World” to change. This is of course in opposition to my interpretation of “The World” to be my immediate to my not-so-immediate environment, including the variables but not limited to: society, culture, literal environment, etc, with something of an emphasis on the “literal environment” factor. So even though he and I strongly disagree on the issue in contention in Rewrite, our final answer is the same.

Is the “power” you have fantastical in nature?
To what extent can you control the change of the thing you’ve chosen to change?
How much “power” is it, really?
Can you really change one without changing the other? If not, is the question invalid or fundamentally flawed?
What is “The World,” exactly?
Hell, what even is “Yourself”?

It’s a very difficult question to discuss, considering that with the massive potential difference in interpretation that some people aren’t even really answering the same question in effect. But I think it’s a very valuable discussion to have, mostly in developing your own ideas in lieu of changing other people’s minds like you’d hope for in most debates or arguments. I think Rewrite itself really reflects the kind of impact the ideas this question challenges in it’s answerer, considering the massive changes Kotarou goes through between different routes, especially Akane’s route (which is really the only one where he takes a massively different stance from his usual, considering that in Chihaya’s route he refers to “we”(Gaia) as “the bad guys.”) Kotarou was naturally a fence-sitter on this issue this whole time which is why he is drawn to “I don’t know”, even when that’s not an option actively supplied to him. But in different routes where he’s had ever so slightly different experiences leading up to the choice that influence his mindset ever so slightly, he answers differently as a result. Knowing and changing his mind on the issue of this question does have very real effects on who Kotarou is as a person. And I’d like to point out that only in Shizuru’s and Akane’s routes - the ones where he chose an actual side - does salvation happen, and his actions are directly related to his answer. In Akane’s route he changes the world in a very obvious way (a few times, actually) and in Shizuru’s route he changes himself in a very literal way, right at the end.

3 Likes

It is actually amazing what 9 months can do and I hope that some users here (or elsewhere) may have a different opinion on things as they learn more about the world and themselves.

My answer is still pretty much the same, and machelmore brings up a good point about the “World” actually means in the first place. Unless the “World” meant the inside of a fishbowl for one fish or something, then it would still be my personal choice. However, with a better understanding of life and of events that aren’t excuses at all, some of which require new and better ways of finding happiness or self-improving, changing yourself is not an easy task.

If there is an unjustice in the world or something that needs obvious improvement, then the worst thing is to do nothing, and I honestly believe that I understand enough about at least one major problem that I would be required to try to fix it.

It’s… a tricky matter. Originally my reply was quite a bit more scathing, owing to my dim view of Romeo Tanaka and his philosophy, and it’s something I’ve been stewing on for a long time, long before I even found out about this forum, but some people have rightly pointed out that there’s a significant bit of room for interpretation here, given that “the world” doesn’t have to have a static definition. @machelmore, for instance, brings up some great points.

Problem is, as a psychological question, the very vagueness of the question (absolutely intentional when you account for the events of Rewrite) lowers its merit tremendously in my eyes. Even just going into the many interpretations of “the world” posted by people here highlights the two biggest problems with it: easing yourself into thinking that you’re more morally justified to look outwards first if you just lower the scale, and most importantly, something that was very nicely pointed out in Lucia’s route, the fact that you don’t really know what’s best for other people.

We’re a complex species. We’re not even close to understanding how we really function, no matter the standpoint, whether it be biological, societal or any other. If those things were easy to figure out, we would’ve done so many years ago, and so long as we don’t even understand the nature of conflicts between people (no matter the scale) and whether or not (or to which extent) they are necessary, I don’t think that’s going to change very much. It’s like figuring out how to drive a racing car faster: if you don’t fully understand its internal workings and don’t work to improve them, and you don’t understand how the various components interact both with one another and with any given external conditions such as weather, how can you consistently go faster and achieve better results in it?

For me, so long as I lack that understanding in any way, changing myself will remain the answer. Through being the best version of myself that I can be, I can gradually change the world around me at my own pace, without actively and recklessly pushing for it in a way that causes more harm than good. As long as those changes continue to gradually spread out from within me, I’ll live to see the results, and so long as those that come after me continue this trend, I’m confident that the world will easily change for the better at a faster rate than most would expect. If there’s one big mistake that I feel people could make on this topic, it’s to be pessimistic about our ability to change the world for the better, and that’s ultimately what killed Rewrite for me seeing as I could never get behind Romeo Tanaka’s philosophy.

There’s quite a bit more to go into, including the nature and scale of the changes needed regardless of the target, which leads a bit into the merit of taking calculated risks and the need to understand your limits before you can push them (and to fail before you can succeed), but I get the feeling that I’d go way off-topic if I dived into that too much.

2 Likes

Honestly, I guess it depends. My gut reaction would be to say that it’s better to change myself, but also… I do value my ideals? I hold them because I believe they’re right, so if it’s a choice of altering the world versus altering myself to accept something I think is bad - let’s say the inevitability of death, since that’s a non-political example - I think I’d be more likely to try and change the world.

So let me ask this question then since the concept of the World is so vague here.

If you knew enough to make a key change to the entire planet (the definition of the “World” that I’m using) or to a significant portion of it that was very likely to cause an incredible amount more good than harm, then why wouldn’t you take that risk?

If the financial, moral, philosophical, and ethical values align with making this change, wouldn’t you feel obligated to do something about it?

1 Like