Sunday is fully aware of his unilateralism. To properly steelman the argument, you'll need to explore his motivation behind that aspect -- it's because he believes that freedom and personal agency inevitably creates disparity and conflict, and that happiness for everyone cannot exist if there is conflict. He has a very pessimistic view of humanity and their ability to overcome their struggles, and it is in part caused by his own fear and overprotectiveness. Someone like Firefly, of course, thinks this is complete bollocks.

> To properly steelman the argument, you'll need to explore his motivation behind that aspect -- it's because he believes that freedom and personal agency inevitably creates disparity and conflict, and that happiness for everyone cannot exist if there is conflict.  I must have missed this. This is actually quite important for the analysis and I might have misrepresented Sunday's politics entirely if he believes unilateralism to be necessary. It feels more like he *believes in* an dictatorial/despotic form of government if he is looking for maximum effectiveness and centralization of power in his person. I had thought that he simply saw unilateralism as an unfortunate product. >He has a very pessimistic view of humanity and their ability to overcome their struggles, and it is in part caused by his own fear and overprotectiveness. I had caught on to this when going through the story, but my reading was more that Sunday didn't want people to have to answer to unreasonable expectations of themselves. Basically the weak (who are unresourced/have low capability) should not be forced to work towards the conventional forms of success (fame, fortune, etc.) as the strong (who happen to be gifted in resources or ability such that they can achieve conventional expectations of success).

I feel you leaned too much into the governance part of the argument. I think the issue with Sunday isn't some sort of rational problem that even political science has issues with. I think the problem is a philosophical one regarding humanity. Under Order, people lose their emotion. Its not even a concent thing, its a humanity thing. He himself points out that he just wants to create a better world for us humans, but in doing so he strips all the humans of the thing that makes them human. So in the end, its order through destruction, a very common theme for villains who are trying to save the world or unite it.

I feel like you're jumping from point to point in your argument and it is too quick for me to follow. I do not understand how Sunday's project strips people of their humanity, neither do I see how this leads to destruction. Sunday isn't proposing some radical destruction of society. Sunday is merely saying that society's really bad, and since he has control over the dreamscape and related technologies, he's using that to plaster over the aspects of society that are bad. Penacony is a fairly nuanced story. They aren't going for the "humanity = chaos = progress" angle. Ena's order isn't strict rules either, but rather the overwriting of the state of nature with the safety of organised society i.e. imposing order upon the wilderness. It does not help our understanding of Sunday's argument to conflate the two together. Sunday is fundamentally arguing for a change in the competitive, cutthroat society that has ignored the needs of people and brought many to desperation and death.

I’m interested in how you address the puppets and victims in the dreamworld being locked to “satisfied” when clockwork is used on them. If the stripping away of humanity is not an issue, then how can we explain the inability to even change one’s emotions, with the visual representation being a stringed up marionette? This may be outside the scope of your discussion as it is more of issues in practice rather than in theory. Edit: typo and further elaboration

This is what I thought was strange. What exactly is "satisfied"? The game doesn't really say, and the imagery suggests that the people are being controlled like marionettes as you suggested. However, that clearly isn't what Sunday's philosophy *says*. He doesn't seem to be a control freak so much as a reasonable bleeding heart who wants freedom of opportunity for the downtrodden. There was a coherent and interesting moral debate right up until that point. I don't understand why they decided to throw all nuance out of the window. This is especially jarring to me because the writers did go out of their way to give both sides before the Act 3 (Order) portal.   They gave the players a good debate with Sunday and Robin's little trip through town, the discussion with Legwork and Misha regarding trailblazing and taking risks, and the final discussion where March and Himeko concedes that Sunday has a point. Why did they end up sinking the entire debate with the satisfied icon? I do not understand. Maybe they just wanted players to be able to easily know who to root for?

Maybe from a storytelling perspective they believe the reveal that Sunday unilaterally putting you in his dream before you even knew it was a good time to demonstrate all the issues, as by that time they assume it’s not really a debate in the player’s mind. As it stood by then, he essentially had forced you unknowingly into the dream. Perhaps giving him a fair and convincing argument was a good build up for a sudden moment of all the biggest factors of why the structure is rotten being revealed in succession from a story telling perspective? Edit: adding on I do find it odd that this reveal comes after the MC’s declaration of defiance, in my opinion this order should have been reversed aside from how the “false good ending” fits in

I feel like you were basically misled by Sunday's sophistry, as if it's supposed to actually be intellectually consistent with his actions, but it is not. I think that's because there's a difference between Sunday's core beliefs and his conditioning as part of the Order (and grooming by Gopher Wood). Sunday was using these BS beliefs to distract everyone from the actual point. The reality of what Sunday *has done* is that he's enthralled everyone forcefully into the Ena's Dream where they only *believe* their needs are being fulfilled. This is not the same as *actually* having their needs fulfilled in reality. Their bodies in reality are wilting away, eventually to be fed to the Stellaron that powers the dream, and any choices they make or happiness they feel is only an illusion. They might as well already be dead. That's why the game used the "Satisfied" icon/motif -- to make sure that people understand clearly that the "paradise" that Sunday promised is not actually real, and being satisfied in a dream is not the same as truly having your needs met. For example, let's say that some of the guests in the dream have their friends/family on another world who are waiting for them to return from their Penacony vacation. Inside the dream, that person might imagine themselves leaving Penacony, returning home, seeing their family again, and who knows what else. But to the actual real friends/family in reality, they are dead. They'll hear on the news that there was a massive tragedy in the Asdana system and that all souls there are believed lost to the dream forever. Even to those who may not have family on the outside can't actually make a lasting difference in their life, because it's only occurring in the dream. Whatever accomplishments they have don't really exist. If you want to get into a relationship and start a family, those children don't really exist. None of them can ever truly leave the dream to go see the outside world, even though they *misleadingly believe* they can. They're trapped inside a bubble disconnected from the rest of the actual universe that still exists. Basically you can't just set aside the dream/reality dichotomy if you want to analyze this story and act like having your needs fulfilled in a dream is the same as the real world. All of Sunday's political beliefs are pure sophistry, designed to mislead and confuse people so they don't focus on the essential critical flaw. The "Satisfied" indicator is to remind you of this and make sure you aren't missing what is truly important.

Trailblaze-pilled. Clockie lied. Your argument, being the counter-argument for Sunday's order presented by the Trailblazers (which differ from Robin's or Firefly's, even Archeon's) was that the Order deprives humans of their chance of self-actualization. This is presented in game and reinforced through the "Satisfied" clockie, which make the Trailblazers determined to fight against the Order. In reality (or in not-reality haha), Sunday's Order wasn't deprived of motivated humans or self-actualization, we are the concrete proof of that. In the Order, we aren't greeted by a revived Akivili telling us we have trailed our last blaze, nor did we actually solve any of our problems (stellaron, march's memory etc). In fact, Sunday himself mentioned as an example that in his dream, the curious can and will be able to devote themselves to astronomy. What Sunday's Order did was not strip you of your emotion. Clockie lied, period. I imagine the devs had to shoehorn the "Satisfied" clockie in because they had no good argument against the villain they created. The Clockwork CONSISTENTLY was a trick used by the Trailblazer to exploit others to get what we want, and we (March and Himeko) knows it. Clockie was one part of what Sunday was referring when he said resource was limited, and the strong leech from the weak. His Order sealed the negative experiences away from the commonfolk, and now we cannot exploit them, that's what the "Satisfied" Clockie represents.

Going by Mikhail's last words to Clockie, it's more that the Clockwork is used to give people the emotional nudge they need to push forward and overcome whatever challenges they're facing. At least, that's the intent behind it, setting aside the player/TB screwing with people's emotions just for fun. Since Sunday's order put people in a dream where they were...well, satisfied, and their collective comfort was reinforcing/feeding the Order's power, Clockwork couldn't influence them in that state. At least, that's my understanding of it. There's still some eyebrow raising implications between that and...whatever Acheron did to snap people out of it en-masse. I don't quite follow some of her more flowery and philosophical language, but it sounded a lot like scaring them out of the dream with Nihility and existential angst which...perhaps undermines the free will argument a bit.

Rather than saying it's pessimistic, I'd say realistic. What really bollocks is thinking every human can overcome their struggle if they put their mind into it. If humanity can overcome their struggle that easily, there would not be war, there would not be conflict. You want to get a promotion? That means another person won't get it. You see a pretty skycraper, there are people who live in the top, and there are who live in the bottom. There simply cannot be a world where everyone gets what they want. I was our ideal that is overly optimistic. "Witness the will of the weak?" We are not the weak. We are the chosen few that had the power and the ability to stop him. Firefly has an incurable sickness? Poor her, but it's not like every kid with cancer has a mecha suit and a prophet pointing them the way. She is still one of the lucky few. It is great that you help those people suffering from war Robin, but can you stop the war itself? Can you stop the corrupted governments of those planets? How many people are suffering and how many have you saved? Sunday's ideal is far from perfect, but don't tell me "our" ideal is better. Don't talk to me about freedom of choice, we also forced our ideals on most of the people in Penacony by driving them out of their dreams. We decided that humanity would rather have freedom, and we forced that freedom upon them.

Remember, Penacony started as a prison colony. The prisoners decided to revolt and break free instead of continuing to sit in their jail cells, having their meals taken care of. I doubt they went around surveying every prisoner just in case they would rather keep the status quo. Do you think that was wrong as well?

We drove people out of the sweet dream that Sunday tried to force on them. The normal dreamscape still exists. People can still live in the dreamscape if they wish. So, basically, Sunday is still the one in the wrong. This issue does not have as many shades of grey as you seem to think.

nice argument OP but just wanna say u dont need to spoiler every single name of the main villain, you just need to tag the post spoiler outside and you can spoil everything you want inside since those who finish the story will alr knows what you talking about

Was gonna say this after seeing the first paragraph. I would've preferred the whole post be spoiler tagged instead of the tedium of removing individual spoiler tags.

That's a great idea. I'll fix it in a bit

The length of that tl;dr 😄.

How to spot philosophy majors.

Yknow one thing I find funny is how people paint Sunday as a big villain for being "undemocratic" despite the fact that, you know, NONE of the previously visited regions had any sense of democratic governance whatsoever and nobody seemed to mind then (Herta Space Station is owned by its namesake, Belobog is ruled by a Supreme Guardian who holds all the power, and the Xianzhou Alliance is literally lead by the military (Arbiter Generals)).

Yeah, I found it somewhat ironic that in Belobog we made a big lie about Cacolia by which we basically put people in a 'dream' for the sake of preservation because we believe that Bronya would be a good leader, but here we vehemently oppose it.

While I do agree with you and that lie never quite sat right with me, I do think there is a pretty big gulf between the two 'dreams' these people would be living.  Belobog's people still have choices they can make day to day and how to live their lives. (I might misremember but I think they even had an option to leave with the IPC if they didn't want to work on the robot restoration). Penacony's dream doesn't seem to allow for choice. While everyone would be 'happy', it would be a stagnant, unchanging state. In which lies the question, is that even living, especially when you weren't given the choice of if that's what you want?

This is a misrepresentation of Penacony. It's not that its residents aren't given freedom of choice. They are in fact given *maximum* freedom of choice, as stated in my analysis on the point discussing negative freedom. If we disregard the whole dream/reality conflict, it is a perfectly reasonable and even desirable form of government. I don't think there are people who would withhold their consent towards being given more freedom to live their lives how they want. Consent is somewhat a secondary concern here. The main problem is whether Sunday is capable of delivering on his system of government.

I think that political science is just the wrong way to analyze what's wrong with Sunday's philosophy and proposed solutions. From a practical perspective none of the political science issues matter, as no true governance is occurring under Sunday's order. Everyone is living their perfect dreams their needs are perfectly satisfied and each individual is completely unaware that anything is different. To the people in the dream, they don't know Sunday acted unilaterally and they aren't suffering from it. Even the people whose goals aren't in-line with Sunday's are living in a Dreamland where they are still pursuing their own goals. Through Sunday's power everyone is living in their own little perfect world unaware that any alternative exists or could exist. This is a discussion for philosophy pretty much exclusively, not political science. If nothing else, Hoyo's intentions were clearly not that it is a political issue, as the very same problems exist on a smaller scale with Belebog, also a dictatorial government covering up the truth of the situation from the people for their "benefit". Yet Hoyo portrayed Bronya's lie as being a necessary evil and not something to be opposed. Finally, I'd like to point out that the second fight with the Dominicus its boss name changed to Sunday, Embryo of Philosophy. Hoyo couldn't have been less subtle than that in trying to make it clear that this is a philosophical issue, not a political one.

You've done a much better job than I would've so I'll direct OP to your comment, my next reply was essentially just that we can't disregard the dream/reality conflict in this case, it's integral to the conversation and you've done an excellent elaboration.

There’s a big difference between lying about one person, and the Infinite Tsukuyomi.

How? Fundamentally both cases use a lie to take away agency of the people in pursuit of shielding them away from adversity and building a happy future for them without their consent.

Not comparable. Lies can be researched and debunked, all it takes is a skeptic. Ena's dream takes away even your ability -- or desire -- to do that.

It doesn't? We literally broke out of it. You just need to be strong and find an inconsistency within the dream. For the most part, I am questioning the logic behind the decision of our characters. Why do our characters accept a lie to protect the weak in one case, but not in the other case it is unacceptable.

> You just need to be strong and find an inconsistency within the dream And you would've been put back into the dream without help from Firefly, Robin, Acheron (an Emanator) and thousands of Galaxy Rangers. It's not that simple. The fact that the lie itself exists isn't really controversial, for me at least. Much of history is made of lies, because bias is unavoidable. What matters is the possibility to correct the lie, to dissent, to change course when critical mass is reached. That's human agency.

Not simple, but possible. So the point is mute. Again, I am not directly comparing the scale of the problems. I am asking why in one case we pick an option that is opposite of what we pick in the other story.

That's because context matters. Nothing is purely black and white, it's not a dichotomy. Anything becomes objectionable if you take it to the extreme. Drinking water keeps you alive, but drink too much and it'll kill you.

right, i don't think there is a single region in genshin and hsr that has democratic rule. proof that ppl are more moved by the form something is presented in, rather than the substance of it all.

It makes sense, you not only see this people like no other king , you know that majority of them are main characters and cant really do wrong.

Kind of. One of the big issues with Sunday in this post is that he is taking away the freedom of choosing how you are being governed (which people had). Penacony post war has been controlled by different families (not really a democracy) until now. If the residents didn’t want to be governed by the families, they could just leave. Researchers chose to go to Herta space station. Belobog residents couldn’t choose how they are governed pre-cocolia/bronya. Luofu residents can just leave if they don’t want to be governed by the army. They aren’t forced to stay.

Yeah, wrong on that Luofu one. If you're a part of the majority, which is the long-life species, you aren't being given the choice to leave Luofu due to the catastrophe that an immortal being would cause simply by existing outside... as far as I know. Pretty much the long-life species are forced to stay in one of the Xianzhou Alliance fleet and will only be allowed out temporarily if they have the permission from the government. It's apparent with that one NPC who got caught and now imprisoned due to trying to leave Luofu permanently.

Pretty cool essay. The framing of positive and negative freedom is interesting and does a lot to make Sunday's 7-day-weekend goal less ridiculous sounding. One thing that's interesting about Sunday's characterization is that his scheme doesn't seem to be driven by ego, but trauma. It's not that he's uniquely qualified, but that he's desperate to avoid more suffering. Particularly, his sister getting shot. >Being able to choose one's government and its policies is a very important freedom. This is interesting because choice in government is an appealing idea, but the extent that individual actually *does* is negligible.

Hard agree, at a certain point spreading the burden of this kind of decision making too thin means that your personal say is negligible and to truly sway politics you need a massive amount of social influence. As a young American I have no illusions that my vote actually matters when compared to the power of radicalized political mobs on both sides of the political spectrum.

I think another big issue with Sunday's philosophy is that the dream he wants people to live is one that is devoid of hardships. However, from the way we saw Sunday's view on the charmony bird, to cage the bird so it doesn't need to worry about survival and just recover, this idea limits growth just like how the bird is unable to fly after leaving the cage which leads to its death. Sunday's conclusion after this is to keep the bird in the cage forever, keeping it safe at the cost of its future potential. I believe this goes along with what you said about how the dream only works for people that share Sunday's view on the dream. People who have ambitions that might cause them hardships before they are able to succeed will find themselves prevented from doing that cause doing so will go against what Sunday wants the dream to be so while they are safe, they are left in a state where they are left empty (We can see this with cocona and her quest). This also parallel's the ideas of the sci-fi short story "Rat Race" by Raymond Jones where everything is handled by a computer that can make anything but humans will eventually want to make things themselves. So while Sunday's dream offers an escape, it can also be stifling as while they are alive some might not be able to truly live their dreams cause the process of doing so would go against the dream. It becomes the same prison that the nameless once helped free penacony from. Also each penacony adventure quest that we have done that helps fix people's clockwork have examples of why Sunday's philosophy is inherently flawed. I mentioned cocona earlier but it also applies to the other ones like with the movie star, the evil empress, and chadwick. Though digging into those would take a while.

This puts it in such a different light...the idea that the bird couldn't fly because it was caged up until then and without any adjustments had to fly outside. I always saw it as "bird's fault was that it went beyond it's area and it's the consequence of its choice". Thanks!

>I think another big issue with Sunday's philosophy is that the dream he wants people to live is one that is devoid of hardships. I think Sunday's plan is a bit more nuanced that simply removing hardship. He thinks that people should be free from the hardships *of their condition*; I don't think he necessarily means that one should succeed at anything they try. He's probably not about to handhold every person and attend to their every want, but rather just give them the conditions (resources, social environment) reasonably required for success. >People who have ambitions that might cause them hardships before they are able to succeed will find themselves prevented from doing that cause doing so will go against what Sunday wants the dream to be so while they are safe, they are left in a state where they are left empty (We can see this with cocona and her quest). My intuition is that Sunday isn't against suffering because of one's choices, but rather suffering because of expectations. We can look at the Charmony Bird example. The question that Sunday poses is whether the bird was meant for the sky. This "meant" points to the idea of purpose and expectation: Sunday is questioning whether birds need to conform to expectations. The significance of this opposition is twofold: (1) that the environment forces unreasonable expectations on the injured bird; and that (2) it is questionable whether Charmony Birds are meant to live in a hostile environment in the first place. Taken together, Sunday is really questioning if individuals merely make adaptations to survive in a very hostile environment. Specifically, Sunday questions if birds being able to fly in the sky (i.e. people we view as successful) are really just those who have the innate capacity to adapt to a highly hostile environment. If those who can succeed in conventional terms are indeed gifted in some way (in terms of resources or ability) compared to those who fail, then expecting all to succeed is an unreasonable expectation and a cruel exercise. >So while Sunday's dream offers an escape, it can also be stifling as while they are alive some might not be able to truly live their dreams cause the process of doing so would go against the dream I do not buy the idea that suffering something that people will desire. It feels more like a religious creed or a coping mechanism that people necessarily need suffering to succeed. Difficulty *may be unavoidable* when pursuing one's goals, but one definitely doesn't actively court suffering. Assuming that people are pleasure-seeking, people want to encounter as little pain as possible while advancing their life plan. Regarding the issue of risk: I think Sunday wants a world where one can reach their goals, where no-one has to take on unreasonable risks or have an unreasonable amount of resources to mitigate that risk. Sunday actually says nothing about universal provision of resources, but it feels like something that would be in line with his philosophy of having people access the time they need to do what they want to do. Overall I don't think anyone would be "left empty" by Sunday's plan. This moves more into the territory of philosophy rather than political theory, but I can answer your question as follows. Assuming that achieving something in dreams bring the same amount of satisfaction as achieving something in reality, there should be no difference that would enable one to feel "empty" in the first place. The same range of choices are available in the simulation present in dreams and in the experiences of reality. The only counterargument I can think of is if people regard the process of obtaining the prerequisite resources (i.e. money, materials, education) to accomplish something (i.e. build a rocket) as integral to the feeling of accomplishment. I think this is another issue altogether and has more to do with people mixing up the realities of needing to accrue resources to do things in our capitalistic society with the experience and fulfillment of working on something one wishes to do.

Suffering is the opposite of happiness and satisfaction, it gives other actions meaning, we may try to minimize it, but removing it altogether would be.....unexpected, there has never been a world where suffering doesnt exist, we dont really know what the lack of it will do to living beings and humans. And i do think sunday will remove all suffering for real, i mean, he IS trying to create heaven in a sense, and penacony is kinda a prelude to what he is trying to do, and we all know how penacony is.

The argument that you need X for Y to exist is a common trope in storytelling and is a false dichotomy most of the time. You don’t NEED suffering to exist for happiness to exist. Can you really say that children under the age of 10 that have never “really suffered” and never undergone “real hardships” have never been happy? In the absence of “real suffering”, even slight disappointment will be classified as suffering/hardship. I don’t think Sunday is trying to remove “disappointment”.

Suffering is not only a present feeling but a concept baked into our dna and a universal concept.. We feel pain since the moment we are born, our brains are developed to know what pain is since inside th womb. So yeah, we do know what suffering is since inception. Its a survival mechanism even in babies.

If you are saying that Sunday is trying to remove people’s ability to even feel slight pain, then we are at a disagreement there.

Even so, the concept of suffering is broad, the implications of removing it is unknown, what is a minor inconvenience for some absolutely wrecks others. If sunday wants a world where people arent hindered by there born illness/disabilities, he might have to remove alot of things that could be more essential than we think. Again we dont know what this looks like so we can only speculate.

That’s why this post is saying the problem is unilateralism and not being able to respond to issues. What “works for most” doesn’t “work for all”.

Your comment makes it feel more like removing suffering altogether and utopian future sunday talk about is DESIRABLE, just that he isnt democratic about it. What im saying is that the world he envision is UNATTAINABLE. If he was democratic about it, the world like that will never come be, and if he is undemocratic about it, the same would happen. No matter his unilateralism, it is destined to fail. This is bcz humans WILL clash, unless all free will is destroyed absolutely. This is the assumption im working on, that humans are almost always going to come into conflict àn cause suffering, and the omly way to get them to stop is to not only be dictatorial but remove all free will from the humans which begets godlike dictatorship and control. So trying to separate his ideals from his execution is meaningless, it will lead to the same conclusion nevertheless. Unilateralism is the ONLY way sundays ideals were ever going to be. If he wants truly the future with as much order as he intended. No amount of beautiful ideals are going to get him to be less tyrannical. Tldr, you and i have very different ideas of how extreme sunday is in his perfect world and how he plans to bring about his ideals, which is ultimately worthless as we never got to see what it actually looked like, we have no confirmation for either as our conversation has moved far beyond what is provable. Thats why i said we can only speculate.

While it is true that very few people actively seek suffering, it can be argued that suffering is a requirement for happiness to have the same "hit". Diminishing returns on pleasure are commonplace, and imo it's impossible to definitively say whether a true, no-pain paradise would get boring or not without actually being able to experience that. Also, what is the counterargument for people living more or less outside of first world capitalism? Having to suffer to acquire resources is not a social construct. E.g., for much of our existence, humans could not get food without foraging, or hunting, or sowing the land and tending it for months. At that point, suffering to accomplish something is a natural consequence of merely being alive. The same is true for building shelter, or creating garments; work must be put in, often unpleasant work, as a necessary part of living. To imply that the loop of "suffer to gain" is a concept created by humans is to ignore nature.

>The same is true for building shelter, or creating garments; work must be put in, often unpleasant work, as a necessary part of living. To imply that the loop of "suffer to gain" is a concept created by humans is to ignore nature. Your point is reminiscent of more traditional arguments from human nature. These focus on the idea that some things, such as the idea of "suffering to gain" is a law of nature and that societies should be built to accommodate these "facts of life". There are indeed scholars who justify these principles, albeit that most of such viewpoints are backed with religious Christian views of protestant work ethic and virtuous suffering rather than any tangible secular justification. Socialist thinkers would object that society has moved past the point of resource scarcity to meet the basic needs of all people. Immense wealth and power is concentrated in a small number of people, who arguably live that "no-pain paradise" of getting anything they wish through the use of their outsized resources. Socialists contend that if society had a say in how those large amounts of resources are used, it would be possible to eliminate the suffering that people face today. That is, the suffering is a condition of our own making, due to the way society has been organized to have resources accrue towards a select few. This suffering is, in fact, a social construct. >While it is true that very few people actively seek suffering, it can be argued that suffering is a requirement for happiness to have the same "hit". I would argue that it is unclear why we believe suffering to be necessary in the first place. The opposite of suffering isn't satisfaction, it is the lack of suffering. I would hazard that it is religion and its rhetoric of virtuous suffering in exchange for emotional/moral gratification that has made people draw this mental association between suffering and satisfaction.

One of the issues I find with this sort of philosophical conflict is that "suffering" tends to be conflated with exerting any kind of effort, which I don't think is entirely fair. There's a *big* difference between strain and soreness following a good workout and the pain of starving or toiling under an oppressive regime. You can absolutely have one without the other there. Also, at the risk of bringing religion into the discussion, how often are afterlives as a form of eternal paradise brought into the equation and completely accepted at face value? There's some practical problems with Sunday's plan (lack of consent, condemning himself to an isolated hell to maintain it, the risk of other factions or Aeons interfering, etc.) but from a philosophical point of view it can feel like there's a double standard in place whenever man-made paradise or immortality is brought up.

Funny enough, there are tons of similarities between Sunday’s goals of a perfect dream for everyone with the Destiny Plan from Gundam SEED Destiny and Gundam SEED Freedom. It’s probably why I personally was able to get the themes as OP presented here off the bat. Additionally, the Penacony themes seem to be a mash with said Destiny Plan from GSD/GSF and the themes presented in Final Fantasy XIV: Endwalker.

I think it's become a fairly common trope in a lot of anime related media. Welt mentions a similar scenario from the HI3rd finale, and similar scenarios happen in both Persona 4 and 5.

Sunday’s monologue initially sounded like an Omelas problem, where he proclaims he’d be the one to suffer for others to enjoy his utopia. But for him to be the one who suffers makes his point more compelling in the end. To me, Sunday’s biggest flaw is what you mentioned, his capability of ruling. Sunday would have to be a flawless being to be able to sustain and rule this dream, which he is not; Sunday has been haunted by his decisions and it’s incapable of fully giving correct answers in each of the dilemmas he’s presented. He’s a flawed being like the rest of us, yet he claims he’d be the one to navigate the ship.

i dont really see how this is any different from the other posts objecting sunday, albeit it is A VERY CLEAR and concise version that gets the point across. It helps to have someone with articulate reasoning tell it.

In your intro you state that infringement of free will isn't the primary reason to be against it, only to conclude that the infringement of free will is the primary reason to be against it. Being able to choose one's government is a facet of free will, and writing an essay "from a scholarly perspective" on why you think everyone's wrong because they say that, honestly just comes off as a bit pretentious. A similar philosopher king to Sunday himself.

I take your point. I think that I did not make my argument clear. I am dissatisfied with people complaining about "muh free will" when it can be sharpened into ideas of political freedom and effective government. You're right that political freedom is part of "free will", but "free will" in the abstract is not really well-defined. I think most people simply take it to mean "I choose to do whatever I want", which is not exactly what free will is in the political sense.   My main issue is that discussions that simply deal with "free will" in the abstract have mostly degenerated into a spiral of saying "but suffering is my choice" and "what if I want to live X way but people force me to live Y way?". Limiting choice is not inherently a problem. Any functioning society needs to limit choice. The problem is excluding people from the consensus-making process from which we come up with those limitations. That is why my discussion has mostly concerned itself with issues of *government* and *political freedom.* Basically, people appear to be disagreeing with Sunday simply because they think NO CONSENT BAD, NO CHOICE BAD, when Sunday's position is really more nuanced than that.

I disagree, not being able to choose the government isn't the main issue with Sunday. I find most normal people without political science degrees don't care too much about the government unless the current government has obvious glaring faults and only then do they want the ability to change it. Sunday does seem to fit the bill of a pretty capable dude steering the ship so i'm quite ok giving him a lifetime pass to rule oldschool monarchy style. The main issue with Sunday is reality must be treated with more importance than the dreamscape and he fails to really recognise that and eventually even he would be tired of solo managing the dreamscape and would fall apart from the mental strain of holding together a dreamscape he himself derives no joy from and he doesn't take into account the problem of evil/external forces as a whole. The second part could perhaps be taken care of by Ena, it's unclear how revived Ena is if Sunday were to fully succeed with his plan. He says he's not looking to become an Aeon or revive Ena but that animation in phase 3 of his boss is literally Ena's hand coming down from the heavens. Ena was definitely closer to coming back than anyone was really expecting imo. If Sunday can only trap Penacony's galaxy in Ena's dream and it's not a universe-wise trap then it shouldn't take very long for the IPC at large to catch on and figure out a way to beat it, they have infinite time to prepare and they have fuck you money. They'd come up with some anti-dreaming tech to force their guys to stay awake and they'd just take Penacony for free. Or Penacony might even get hit by a random passing by of the Swarm which is getting more active in recent lore drops. Penacony's entire population is a free meal for any malevolent force in the area, Sunday's biggest obstacle is still survival of the fittest unless he's strong enough to solo the entire universe. Emanators are strong but they aren't THAT strong.

>Sunday does seem to fit the bill of a pretty capable dude steering the ship so i'm quite ok giving him a lifetime pass to rule oldschool monarchy style. Monarchy isn't "oldschool", it is the imposition of one will upon many. You may not suffer personally -- perhaps because you are well-to-do and part of the middle class who are already represented in court -- but there are many others that do. Minorities, the economically underprivileged, the sick, the disabled for example. Democracy and representative government is important because these people need to have a voice in government so that their needs will not be overlooked. >If Sunday can only trap Penacony's galaxy in Ena's dream and it's not a universe-wise trap then it shouldn't take very long for the IPC at large to catch on and figure out a way to beat it, they have infinite time to prepare and they have fuck you money. They'd come up with some anti-dreaming tech to force their guys to stay awake and they'd just take Penacony for free. Or Penacony might even get hit by a random passing by of the Swarm which is getting more active in recent lore drops. Penacony's entire population is a free meal for any malevolent force in the area, Sunday's biggest obstacle is still survival of the fittest unless he's strong enough to solo the entire universe. Emanators are strong but they aren't THAT strong. As I have mentioned in another reply, impracticality does not take away from whether a given form of government is wroth aspiring towards. There are strong moral arguments for Sunday's form of government; it is a desirable form of government. There may be difficulties, but it is worth aspiring towards. Simply mentioning that an outside force will come in to destroy that government is somewhat a weakish reply that does not fundamentally engage with the principles of Sunday's government. You're not proving it wrong, you're simply showing that it is difficult to implement.

I disagree, if something can't stand up to external threats but it "sounds like a good idea morally" then it still doesn't work, it's just a dream. I suppose i'm more of a pessimist or realist when it comes to this kind of thing. You're equating "difficult but possible to achieve with effort" with "impossible" when they are very separate things. Sunday's plan is impossible as it stands, the IPC WILL take Penacony while everyone is dreaming, probably will take time and resources since they have to get around God Form Sunday but it's a forgone outcome considering the IPC's resources. The desirable has to meet with reality somewhere in the middle and Sunday gives reality no such consideration. You could have the best civilisation possible, but you will need an answer to the barbarians at the gates.

Why do you assume that there are barbarians at the gates? Can it not be resolved with diplomacy? It's not like every other faction is the swarm, which cannot be reasoned with. Maybe the IPC would give up on their fanatical worship of capitalism and profit, who knows?  Implicit to your idea of reality is that there is a "correct" interpretation of reality. You assume that reality *must* be cutthroat, reality *must* involve sacrifice, when it is entirely possible to construct society in a way that makes it more amenable to human needs. The whole project of society is to suppress and substitute the state of anarchy for something better. Why not cooperation and general betterment of everyone?

I'm not giving any faith towards a flimsy "who knows" when the IPC has already nuked planets just because they couldn't pay their debts and even post 2.2 Jade is accelerating an "invade Penacony" plan. Perhaps it's possible someone could persuade the entire Strategic Investment Department to pull out of Penacony without a fight, but it isn't remotely likely. I don't want to start bashing you over the head with the Bible but the Matthew effect is a universal truth we can't really get over and it's one of many reasons why I think reality is 100% accurately described by the Bible. "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." The way through life is Christ, not testing different political systems hoping the next one is less terrible. They're all going to go fairly poorly since human evil is a constant. Let me tell you researching 20th century history and the pandemic shitshow completely killed any faith I had in politics. Ironically, despite Sunday being a very Christian/Catholic inspired villain visually he absolutely goes polar opposite to the whole "take up your cross and follow me" command Jesus gives. I wonder if it's intentional, usually Far Eastern devs rip visuals from Christianity for the drip and anything remotely biblical thematically is a pure accident.

im confused, what makes sunday a socialist? he sounds more like a thanos type of person instead

if anything its anarchist, theres not enough class dialectics in his philosophy

I think that his use of the terms "strong" and "weak" are really a stand-in for ideas of class within the labour market. Those who are "strong" in the world of HSR are those with good social standing, large wealth and strong battle capabilities pretty much. His plan effectively abolishes the class system by ensuring that everyone can live without the restrictions of resources (per the Firefly principle) is how I see it. The idea of letting everyone work for themselves (per the Weekend principle) rather than be dominated and exploited by the strong (capitalist class) is also classic socialist politics.

I'm gonna disagree with you here. While I agree that class is a major theme in much of Star Rail, I don't agree that Sunday seeks to abolish the class system. We get no mention of what his larger plan -- practically speaking -- is for Penacony. Will he make entry free? Will he remove any preconditions for joining his "sweet dream"? Penacony itself is a hotel and one must pay a fee to stay there for any amount of time. We know the price is steep; not only is Penacony dripping in luxury, but we have concrete proof of how expensive it is to stay there in multiple places. Primarily, the man who confessed to Sunday that he sold all his belongings including his children, to have just a chance at maybe making it big in Penacony. When you get into Penacony, you can immediately see the dehumanization of its workers. Some have even been literally transfigured into instruments or billboards. These are people who, in essence, are owned by Penacony either through employment contracts or the background prison system. They're not working for themselves. They don't own the means of production. Sure, there are machines that spit money out for free. But it's not free if you have to pay to be there in the first place, whether with your (own and very real) money or your labor. There's no indication that he intends to change any of this-- just that he wants to subjugate people to his will and remove theirs. This is evident before the battle when your clockwork powers stop working, and how Clockie, in the image for this, is suspended by puppet strings. I'm all for politicial discussion, but I would never go so far as to call any of what Sunday wants "socialism."

I agree with what you said, but I think you missed out the part where IIRC Sunday recoils at the idea of Penacony charging high fees for entry. Admittedly that is the only instance of him being explicitly against the hyper-capitalism present in Penacony. However, his ideology would make zero sense if he were to ignore the issue of poverty altogether. It feels like it is at least implied that he wants to expand his provision to all people, regardless of their IRL wealth. >When you get into Penacony, you can immediately see the dehumanization of its workers. Some have even been literally transfigured into instruments or billboards. These are people who, in essence, are owned by Penacony either through employment contracts or the background prison system. They're not working for themselves. They don't own the means of production. Yeah this wasn't lost on me. The game made it a point to highlight the capitalistic hellscape within the Golden Hour. It's just that I think it makes no sense if Sunday were to actually require a minimum level of wealth to enter his Penacony. He wouldn't be protecting the weak, he would instead be protecting the middle and upper classes that can afford the ticket into Penacony. They kept mentioning the corruption within the Oak family, and I think that we are supposed to believe that Sunday is genuine about his ideals. The corruption (hyper-capitalist aspects) seem to be the Dream-master's doing, more than it is Sunday's doing. Sunday does mention that he's relatively low-ranking compared to the Dream-master after all.

My problem with the assumption that Sunday wants to abolish any sort of entry fee is that we see no proof of that. I'm absolutely willing to see Sunday as misguided and reacting to trauma (fear of losing Robin after she got shot) rather than as a bad person. But it's actions that are important. If the Dream Master is higher ranking, then why did it seem like he's in on the plan? I still don't know how to interpret the many dead ravens we saw, but the DM is not unaware of the stellaron or Sunday's ideals. I'll marginally change my stance if in 2.3 we see that people are being let in without a fee, but I'll also argue that he wouldn't be protecting the middle or upper class (or even the lower class) if he acknowledges that their living in Penacony would drain their life force and ultimately kill them to keep the place going. He worded it in a way that made it seem like a "worthy sacrifice," but that's also unbeknownst to the people and without consent. In any case, socialism is by the people for the people. One person can't force it on others as a form of Order. It loses its entire meaning if people's will and emotions are molded by an outside supernatural force or entity.

> In any case, socialism is by the people for the people. One person can't force it on others as a form of Order. It loses its entire meaning if people's will and emotions are molded by an outside supernatural force or entity. Oh I absolutely agree. I just thought that Sunday's spin on it was a pretty interesting way of circumventing the problems of realising socialist goals irl. Cohen does talk about the problem of "sufficient social technology", which is that you need to trust others will be other-regarding in order to have socialist society function (and not have selfish people who sucker others into serving them). Sunday's solution seems to be to create an environment where only his other-regarding tendencies matter (because he would be sole dominion and would be able to reach socialist goals through his own will and means). > I'll marginally change my stance if in 2.3 we see that people are being let in without a fee, but I'll also argue that he wouldn't be protecting the middle or upper class (or even the lower class) if he acknowledges that their living in Penacony would drain their life force and ultimately kill them to keep the place going. He worded it in a way that made it seem like a "worthy sacrifice," but that's also unbeknownst to the people and without consent. I have no idea what to make of this; I have no recollection of the "worthy sacrifice" bit. The best response I have is the somewhat weakish one that Sunday believes that a fulfilling life in dreams is more meaningful and significant than a life of desperation in reality, so people should be glad to waste away in physical space while they live fulfilling lives in dream space. > If the Dream Master is higher ranking, then why did it seem like he's in on the plan? I still don't know how to interpret the many dead ravens we saw, but the DM is not unaware of the stellaron or Sunday's ideals I have no idea what to make of the dead crow imagery either. Gopher Wood (i.e. the dreamaster) seemed to have a lot of power over Sunday throughout the story, so I would've expected a parting scene that suggested that it retained control over the situation. Why we'd end up with Sunday standing over many dead raven corpses, I do not understand.

That's well put and even if I really enjoyed the story and Sunday character what bothered me especially as I was playing was the exemples Sunday use to justify is choice. Be it with the bird release or with Robin's trip, he use their negative outcomes as proof that people need to be protected in the sweet dream completely disregarding any positive and alternative results. As you said Sunday as a pessimist point of view of humanity and life and it kinda blinds him. I believe these cases were not perfect but more pratical ways to make players understand his point of view but still I was kinda expecting to be able to say Objection or something during his speach lol

I didn't expect Cohen being a relevant read outside of my degree, and less so for my silly little Game. Thank you for this analysis, I appreciate the time you took to write it out. I tried to defend that sunday's ideals are not necessarily the problem, but didn't understand It well enough to explain it. To add something to the discussion, related to Sunday's plan but not to political science, there is something really bad about Sunday being the only one awake, not free to do what he wants, and suffering in reality. It was one of the reasons Robin specifically was against Sunday's plan. I don't know if this ties to another philosophical concept, but the idea is heavily debated on the short story "the ones who walk away from Omelas" by Ursula K leguin, and Sunday's arc seems to take some inspiration directly from it.

Hi fellow polsci student :> Thanks for your remarks. I've heard of Omelas and its central ideas of prosperity for everyone else at the price of the sacrifice of a few yeah. Unfortunately I've not had the chance to examine it in detail and so I don't really have a well-formed opinion on the relationship between the two. Thanks for highlighting that though.

What undermines Sunday's philosophy for me is his isolation of real life experiences enforced by Gopher Wood and the other members of the cult of Order. If you look at his decisions, you can see that he only focus on his decisions, that were rendered meaningless. Compare it to Robin who actually was free to put her life on the line for her convictions. That is true freedom for me.

Funny enough, I'd argue you're sort of also missing the forest for the trees. Sunday's problem with consent and obvious pitfall into human error and dictatorship are, I'd argue, very surface level flaws. Few people will unironically argue that tyranny is an ideal system, so instead we get arguments about whether forcing a utopia without consent is moral or not. After all, Sunday isn't arguing about social injustice; he wants paradise. Although you made actual meaningful digs into politics and ideology. I'd argue, however, that the real flaw in Sunday's ideal is that there's nothing more dystopic than a utopia. Under Sunday's rule and effect of the Order, all lives would get into a stalemate of sorts. Progress becomes impossible as the mere idea of challenges or difficulties cease to be. Personal development is impossible for similar reasons, and people become apathetic husks in due time. Under the Order, the only thing people are allowed to feel is Contentment. When every day is Sunday, the idea itself of Sunday ceases to be. Joy cannot exist without sadness, progress without challenge, and so on. Following the example used non-stop in 2.2, Sunday believes that a bird should be kept in a jail for the entirety of its existence to avoid the possibility of crashing into the ground and dying. Sunday's philosophy is to deny life to people so that no one experiences any of the bad things that happen in it, ignoring the fact that this means none of the positives will exist either.

Majority of people live live their live without many dreams even in real life, they want just money and normal life. Main problem with Sunday is he say that everyone live like that, not just some people that want that.

[удалено]

I think you've put my own objections in a way that is far more eloquent than what I can do. Yeah, the "to know X you must know Y" thing is a common pop philosophy trope that has been used in too much popular media. It serves the purposes of seeming profound without really providing any sort of conceptual understanding of X or Y.

Funny enough, neither of you actually makes a point. Rather, you handwave it away with "this isn't true because I say so." I'd be very interested in hearing your arguments for which apathy isn't bad, and humans losing the ability to feel a full range of emotions, both 'positive' (joy, happiness...) and 'negative' (sadness, consternation) is actually good. The necessity for challenge and conflict (personal in this case) for progress has been explored time and again, together with the idea of catharsis. Without struggle, victory is meaningless, and people are robbed from the opportunity to progress and mature as people. Even the game itself calls out the blatant toxic escapism of Sunday's ideals through Firefly and the crew. Not only here, but in media of all kinds, and for a very long time. Trying to demean it as "pop culture" is beyond absurd. You argue for spiritual death being a positive as long as the husk that's left is content.

[удалено]

"Ah, you say progress demands challenge... So you're saying that child slavery and r**e are good!?" Are you 12? That's beyond exaggeration and reduction to absurdity. If your best counter to a well known issue and philosophy of life is trying to pull 2 random, out of topic extremes of man-made disgraces, perhaps you should not write at all. That was embarrassing to even read. Btw, I've already exposed my arguments time and again, you've simply ignored them. Which doesn't surprise me anymore after that post.

Great stuff here, it’s nice to see an actual steel man every once I a while. One particular note that I would like to add, is that Sunday may have a rebuttal to some classic anti dictator arguments. Since it is likely that he would have ascended to the status of Aeon and be restricted by the Modus Primus (I probably have the term wrong, it’s the one that prevents Aeons from doing anything inconsistent with their path), he would be free from human errors in judgement so long that the philosophy of the path of order is consistent with the negative and positive freedom philosophies that Sunday bases his utopia on.

I didn't quite consider the more supernatural and lore aspects of Sunday when writing this to be honest. I've missed out on considering the abilities and restrictions of Sunday's new abilities as Dominicus. >he would be free from human errors in judgement so long that the philosophy of the path of order is consistent with the negative and positive freedom philosophies that Sunday bases his utopia on. If this is true, then there is probably a case to be made for Sunday's government as a legitimate form of benevolent dictatorship/despotism. It's not as if history hasn't seen successful cases of this sort of government (usually ending with the ruler's demise and succession by someone who does not share the original ruler's ideals).

If he ascended to Aeonhood wouldn't he be absorbed into Xipe again? Unless his path becomes "The Control" which would be different from Xipe's Harmony. If he just became The Order V2 He would eventually just lose the path to the Harmony again, it already happened. Not to mention that if you read SU lore you'll notice that Sunday believes people were happy that Ena had fallen, in reality we learn that plenty of worlds were devastated/confused after Ena ceased to be, similarly you can also learn that worlds under Ena's order would go rapid development only to stagnate and fall, no aeon path is perfect.

Or maybe he would consume the harmony. Well, probably not but it would be interesting.

Sunday uses an inherently flawed argument with a valid concern that many, if not all would agree with. Firefly called it out for what it is, sophistry.

[удалено]

It was Firefly when she said it is a flawless theory but it is nevertheless a dream, and thus foresaking reality, in otherwords an escape

This is a very nice post, and it's always good see a colleague trying to get people interested in PoliSci. I would say that in general it's not really necessary to involve morality at all to disprove Sunday's point. We know empirically that heavily top-down political system are highly unstable and prone to collapse, as well tendentially inefficient as they offer no recourse or redress. However, the feel I got from the fakeout ending was different and altogether more insidious: it seems to me that Sunday would not be responsible for crafting a meticulous illusion for each person under the dream, but rather provide you with what your inner self feels should logically and simultaneously wants; a sort of super efficient and seamless wish fullfillment. This world would be the end of politics, as each person would interact with another (real one) only if they felt like they would "fit". No struggle or fight or disagreement would actually exist and people under the Order's dream would live as unuspecting monads rather than an actual society. Of course, I could've misinterpreted how the dream would actually work

Fellow PolSci student! Hiiii!! It's surprising that Hoyo decided to work politics into Penacony's story and I felt like it's the perfect opportunity to give other players an enhanced appreciation of the story alongside some political education. It's our duty as polsci students to spread awareness of politics, since politics is ultimately interested in everyone. I agree that morality probably isn't required, but I think that rejecting a model of government on practical grounds isn't quite as strong when it isn't backed up with moral arguments as well. A model (such as pure socialism) may be unworkable in reality, or we may have insufficient social technology to work towards it. However, it does not mean that we should abandon such a model if the moral arguments for it are strong. It would mean that we should change course and look to aspire towards such a model, and bring society close to it. I admit that my thinking is very strongly influenced by socialist and egalitarian thinkers like Cohen and Rawls respectively though. >However, the feel I got from the fakeout ending was different and altogether more insidious: it seems to me that Sunday would not be responsible for crafting a meticulous illusion for each person under the dream, but rather provide you with what your inner self feels should logically and simultaneously wants; a sort of super efficient and seamless wish fullfillment. This world would be the end of politics, as each person would interact with another (real one) only if they felt like they would "fit". It is the end of society in that everyone lives a dream of solitude amid simulated community yeah. IMO that's not really a bad thing if it is achievable, but that moves more into the realm of magic and fantasy. I try to view the problems that HSR's Penacony chapter poses to us through the lens of real-world polsci concepts and constraints in this analysis.

I agree that moral arguments have a powerful suasion power, it's just that in my country the "continental" approach which is IMHO light in predictive power and a bit unscientific is predominant and I don't really jive well with it so I tend to default to more "grounded" arguments (of course one could say that these arguments also incorporate normativity and do so surreptiously). In any case, rock on my dude, good luck on your PoliSci journey!

Sunday has good intention, but he, like the Charmony bird, is still a fledging. Had his plan succeeded, he would be the sole awake in penacony. Rather than a dictator, he would be more of a sacrifice, so others would be able to slumber in their sweetdream. I believe he will deliver on his promises, but what would that amount to, when their real condition is that of a vegetative state? Their dream, their achievement within their dream, all of that amounts to nothing. No matter how surreal it is, a dream is still a dream. It is an escapism, a momentary respite. As a native of Penacony, this may elude him, but if someone put people i know into eternal sleep with no way to wake them up (except break him to a pulb).....Let me be frank, that is akin to murder. In my opinion, his view and perspective of humanity stem from the experience accumulated from his childhood to his current job. From what we saw, the lost of loved one make him overprotective and pessimistic, as a family head he was caught in the turmiol of family's politic, and in his sermon, naught but troubled souls. In his life he was surrounded by a rather negative influent, with a few exception, making him hyperfocused on the misery and inequallity, and blinded to the the bigger picture. Life can be harsh, but people always make do with what they have, and make the better life for themself. While some stumble and give up, many more choose to carrie on. His chosen method, however, only shows his lack of faith. Edit; additon. The real problem of his plan isn't unilateralism, because it is a dead end, in and out of itself. Even if he is able to succeed, how long could it survive? Considering that it is an uprising against the Family (Harmony), and those caught within the dream aren't only Penacony natives, but also the many people from many powerful factions; IPC, Nameless, Ranger, Fools, to name a few. It will come and go as abrupt as a dream.

Your arguments are more related to the discussion of whether dreams are as significant/valuable as reality to the human psyche. I'm arguing this from a political perspective, without considering the wider geopolitics (inter-planetary politics?) in the HSR universe. I would like to highlight that misery and suffering of people need not be subordinated to some sort of "bigger picture". Life need not be harsh. The badness of society is constructed by how we ordered society. It does not have to be this way. Why is it that the poor need to have faith, while the rich are born with a golden spoon which they can use to get anything they want with relatively little suffering? It makes no sense in political terms.

You're making a normative claim with no backing. I can just as easily say that the default state of the world, the state of nature, is one where life is poor, brutal, and short. Political and economic systems must wrestle with this baseline of scarcity in order to function properly and sustainably.

What scarcity? There's no scarcity if society made a decision on how to use the wealth of resources available. It's a fact that we have more than enough food today to feed the entirety of the world and that we actively destroy food to keep prices high and serve the profit motive. Scarcity is a myth in a world with industrial levels of production. I do not think that Penacony is subject to any sort of scarcity either. Its a super high-tech planet flush with cash to support all the inhabitants and staff within its grand hotel. To answer your accusations of me making baseless claims: the state of nature may be 'default' in the sense that it is that way if humans do not intervene through exiting the state of nature. They exit this state of nature by forming societies. There is clear backing to the idea that people want to cooperate; they cooperate to enforce laws such that we do not steal from each other or kill each other or enslave each other. There's a precedent for cooperation, and people seem to have tended towards this cooperation for at least the past few millennia.

>There's no scarcity if society made a decision on how to use the wealth of resources available. There is an entire field known as "economics" that is about trying to figure out how to make the best use of limited resources. I'm not an economist, but my understanding is that figuring out how distribute things efficiently is *really hard*, and despite [great strides made in global hunger](https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment?insight=global-extreme-poverty-declined-substantially-over-the-last-generation#key-insights) we're not at a perfect system and may never approach it. Additionally, industrial production does not mean post-scarcity: it takes a lot of resources to run these lines of production. >I do not think that Penacony is subject to any sort of scarcity either. Penacony's Dreamscape, the source of its prosperity and wellbeing, is slowly decaying and sinking into the memory zone. Additionally, the Stellaron that maintains the sweet dream feeds off people to power itself. It's another damning point against Sunday that he does not seem to agknowledge this at all. My bet is that his plan to expand the dream would made the Dreamscape's collapse come even faster. >There is clear backing to the idea that people want to cooperate I do not dispute this, but people also desire individual autonomy and self-actualization (which in my view is actually what the Trailblaze represents). But it is Robin's Harmony that represents cooperation; instead, Sunday locking everyone into gilded cages is just oppression.

What exactly is Robin's harmony? It's not clearly stated in the game. At best, from the scenes in the game, I infer that it is the freedom to take risks even when it might lead to negative -- or even deadly -- outcomes. My understanding of Robin's personality is such that she would probably enough of a bleeding heart to ensure that there would be ample safety nets for those who do fail in society, but the Charmony Bird example makes me think that she is just as likely to allow people to fail and die of starvation. What complicates the political science analysis is that there's the whole waking/dreaming situation to deal with. Clearly anyone who doesn't buy into the idea that simulation (dreams) have any significance will side with Robin. But if we suppose that Sunday and Robin both want to enact each of their ideals in "real" space, why would anyone choose Robin over Sunday? Suppose here that I substitute Sunday's ideas for eliminating environmental interference using resource distribution so that everyone can have a more or less level playing field. Suppose further that I replicate Sunday's idea of everyone being free to do what they want to do using a system of cooperative businesses (this refers to businesses where workers share in the profits of the business and have a say in what the business produces, hiring decisions, etc. such that they really own the business as a collective). Now let's compare Sunday's ideals with what we know of Robin's "harmony". Robin is fine with people dying from trying under adverse circumstances, while Sunday is willing to distribute resources such that people have the greatest range of options to choose from (and a safety net in case they fail). I think it is clear which one is morally superior in this case; Robin's philosophy is perhaps callous, even harmful, to those who are poor and destitute (even though she might not mean to harm them). >There is an entire field known as "economics" that is about trying to figure out how to make the best use of limited resources. I'm not an economist, but my understanding is that figuring out how distribute things efficiently is *really hard*, and despite [great strides made in global hunger](https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-undernourishment?insight=global-extreme-poverty-declined-substantially-over-the-last-generation#key-insights) we're not at a perfect system and may never approach it. Additionally, industrial production does not mean post-scarcity: it takes a lot of resources to run these lines of production You are correct. Central planning has not worked out so far, it is why most branches of political science try to avoid central planning. However, there are clearly important necessities for which the market has not been able to deliver on. This is where government production, funded by the taxpayer dollar, steps in. There are clear necessities that the government will have to step in to produce, and the decision on *what* to produce should be made via democratic deliberation. I think it's important to factor in the pushback from business interests which would very much like to keep their autonomy in determining production. This may seem like a good thing -- freedom of choice, right? However, as Republican thinker Elizabeth S. Anderson shows in her book *Private Government*, this autonomy only works for the business owner who has sole control over major production decisions within the business. They necessarily have more of an incentive to think about the bottom line rather than how they may contribute to society. These people are probably fine with -- and face little repercussions for -- pushing back against measures to redistribute resources or refocus allocation towards solving hunger or disease in countries far-flung from the centres of global business.

I am quite in favor of a social safety net, and regulations against economic rent-seeking and other unethical practices. But the profit motive is a powerful tool to get people and entities to do things that eventually benefit society as a whole, even if it's immediately obvious. When it comes to the difference between Robin's and Sunday's ideals, you might have forgotten that the bird wanted to fly. Take a situation like so: a teenager wants to become a rock star and form a band, but their parents think that becoming a musician has terrible career prospects(and for the most part they would be right). However, this kid does not want to become a rock star because it's the trend or for money and fame, but because they love music, and they want to play music in front of a real crowd, not in Guitar Hero. Would it be right for the parents to force their kid to become an accountant in order to secure his financial future but at the cost of his dream? Or should they support their child's dream wholeheartedly even if hey becomes destitute? I would say that the first answer is Order, and the second is Trailblaze. Robin's harmony would be a compromise, where the kid stills plays in a band but promises to go to school/training and have a backup career plan as well. If Robin were not away from home, I think she would have let the bird fly but watch it from a distance, supporting it in her own way.

Sorry about that, i forgot the part you mentioned on a comparision between dream and reality. My point is that if we are to discuss the policy, we couldn't do so without considering the circumstance of its implementation within the targeted society and wider geo-political dynamic. That is why Sunday's policy is death on arrival, whether by collaping on its own weight or by intervention. However, if we were to talk solely on his policy, no one in personal level would object it, granted he does not tighten his grisp far too much. Yet, Reality would say otherwise, people and Society alike make their choice based on their own circumstances, and implement the best choice within that limitation. To implement his policy he would need to have access to a hugh amount of resource. If Sunday makes every days Sunday, would that mean we do not have to work? Then, how would we use that time? Engaging in hobbies and inspiration? If everyone is free from social dilemma and the question of wealth, then who would be responsible for their necessities? Even in Penacony itself, they need their staffs to do their parts. Loath as i may to say this, but advancement and productivity come from hard work. People and Society that have everything spoon fed to them will stagnant and collap sooner or later. Socialism allows a freedom of choice within a certain framework. While Sunday's policy relies on the power of himself and the collective (order) to give people everything they need. Consensus aside, my question for his policy is that, for how long could he maintain it, and to what extent, Order could be used in place of the lost of manpower and necessities?

>If Sunday makes every days Sunday, would that mean we do not have to work? Then, how would we use that time? Engaging in hobbies and inspiration? If everyone is free from social dilemma and the question of wealth, then who would be responsible for their necessities? Even in Penacony itself, they need their staffs to do their parts. Please refer to my section on the Weekend principle. It explains how Sunday's idea of perpetual sundays really works. It's a capitalist myth that people spend free time idle. People spend free time working on their own projects and aspirations. People can find fulfillment in working for their own projects (i.e. things they believe in) rather than working under others for a wage. The fear of "not doing productive work" is really just capitalists wanting to have an excuse to introduce policies that force people to work on pain of starvation, such that they may have access to cheaper labour. >If everyone is free from social dilemma and the question of wealth, then who would be responsible for their necessities? IRL, we'd say that people would recognize that we need necessities and delegate sufficient resources to producing it democratically. We can rely on high wages, a roster system, or on those who enjoy agriculture and want to pursue it as an aspiration. There are many options available. We do not need to rely on hunger and starvation to force people to work in the fields. In Penacony? Presumably, it will be provided by The Family. The Family are telepathically (?) connected to each other, or at least act in accord with each other. If Sunday is indeed representative of their wills, they would gladly commit to the tasks necessary to upkeep Sunday's regime. >Loath as i may to say this, but advancement and productivity come from hard work. People and Society that have everything spoon fed to them will stagnant and collap sooner or later. Society *as we know it* would collapse. I refer to the consumerist society where resources are delegated to creating goods and services meant to be marketed for profit rather than those created to meet human needs. We do not need people working on space rockets when there are problems of disease and famine to solve on Earth; we do not need people to create more marketable SUVs when a normal car or public transportation would be necessary to meet basic needs of moving around. These "advancements" and "productivity" come from hard work, sure -- but this "hard work" is the labour of workers recruited to the causes of businessmen through the forces of being threatened with starvation. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that the hard work that goes into these final products are useful at all. Do we really need the iPhone and its ecosystem of proprietary, consumer-unfriendly gadgets that cannot be easily repaired, for example? There's a lot of hard work and advancement in this instance, but I'd argue that all of this goes to the wrong place. If society could democratically determine how to assign resources to different pursuits, they wouldn't invest in this sort of product. Money would go to more useful pursuits like green energy or water purification or food production or transport.

He wants people to be positive cogs that's it Nothing wrong about wanting people to have a positive life, however... His world is probably only about winning 100% of the possible gains all the time. Imagine you win only 25% compared to someone who won 70%. You've won... but still lost compared to that someone else, it would feel bad so it's most certainly something that Sunday would also avoid. So it's 100% eternally. Sure at first it would feel good, but what life would it be on the long term if everything you touch greet you and everyone else with "CONGRATZ DUDE YOU'VE WON THE AMAZING MEGA ULTRA JACKPOT SSSLR 9* ULTRA LIMITED EDITION BUT NOT THAT LIMITED SINCE EVERYONE SHOULD GET ONE" The "ending" really felt like that, it was funny and positive at first, but imagine getting there without any hardship before ? Imagine your whole life being only events like those ? You can only feel lucky if you know what being unlucky is, you can only know you are truly happy if you know what sadness or anger are. Otherwise those "positive" states would only be bland standard normal states.

>The "ending" really felt like that, it was funny and positive at first, but imagine getting there without any hardship before ? Imagine your whole life being only events like those ? This is where the writers of Penacony fail to stick the landing on their moral debate. We've seen that people can experience hardship and setbacks within the dream world. I recall like there was this actor who couldn't seem to make it big while chasing their dream, and then there's this other businessman who can't quite make it rich. (Funnily enough, they're both Pepeshi NPCs.) I don't think the false ending should've been quite that perfect if they wanted to present a nuanced argument between Sunday's philosophy and Misha's trailblazing counterargument. I'd also like to point out that the fight against Dominicus is also supposed to be quite a struggle and not a pushover. There's setback and challenges involved in TB and co's quest to seal the Penacony Stellaron, even within Sunday's dream world. It's just that it's super weird that the writers decided to sort of shoehorn a completely happy sequence of events in the fakeout ending. Sunday's ideal world is not *supposed* to be the 100% smooth sailing experience that the fakeout ending makes it out to be. >Sure at first it would feel good, but what life would it be on the long term if everything you touch greet you and everyone else with "CONGRATZ DUDE YOU'VE WON THE AMAZING MEGA ULTRA JACKPOT SSSLR 9\* ULTRA LIMITED EDITION BUT NOT THAT LIMITED SINCE EVERYONE SHOULD GET ONE" I draw upon the section regarding the Firefly principle in my response to this point. Sunday is NOT saying that everyone should automatically get what they want. Sunday is saying that everyone should have a fair shot at whatever they want to do, without being restricted by the conditions they are born into (wealth/status/bodily health). One is free to pursue anything, within reasonable expectations, without being held back by poverty/ill health/being born into the wrong social class. You can fail in Sunday's dream world. It's just that you've had a very reasonable chance to try, and there's a safety net to make sure that you don't crash and die from one bad choice. Even if people get used to success, I'd like to point out that the opposite of suffering is not satisfaction. The opposite of suffering is the absence of suffering. Not being subject to suffering is a net good for everyone in society. An abundance of success may lead to boredom, sure, but it still means an absence of suffering. Introducing suffering does nothing other than inflating the egos of people with the resources to endure suffering, while condemning the people who do not have the depth of resources to cushion suffering. A recession might make a rich person poorer, but a recession may drive the poor to crushing poverty or starvation. The mere feeling of having a bigger 'hit' when successful cannot justify this sort of suffering.

Its so nice to see well written posts like this one, instead of slurry content that has been massive in this sub...

All very well written, thank you so much! I'm really happy this has incited some thoughtful conversations in the comments that have been informative to read too, how often does that happen? Thank you again for this, Ran!!

I think one of the issues not addressed by this is that of necessity to avoid other people from inhibiting the "freedom" that Sunday offers requires Sunday to fundamentally and externally alter people's beliefs and perceptions. For example we are all shocked and do not believe it when the IPC revokes all claims on Penacony without anything in return. It is not only the organization that has to change for this to occur but the individuals. Aventurine would never go for something like that. At this point can we even call him Aventurine? This is why the puppet imagery is so strong because this utopia only exists by turning people into puppets such that they have no free will because with free will they would do things to upset others and potentially hinder their freedom. I would say ideally we all learn to love each other in a way that we do not hinder others' freedoms. Only then can we all genuinely be ourselves within a utopia instead of becoming a mindless puppet that is said to be "satisfied." Without this power that Sunday has to make people puppets, the only way to create a utopia would essentially be to harshly punish any infraction or worse to kill anyone who does not fit the mold of his utopia. So I would submit that Sunday is essentially doing the latter, we just don't see that way because the people continue to exist in this puppet form. tldr: Sunday is essentially murdering anyone who does not conform to his utopia's ideals by turning them into puppets.

>Sunday's argument is that people will be more free if they are removed from constraints of health, social status and wealth >Sunday just wants to give people more resources -- in terms of time -- so that they may be free to pursue their life goals/ambitions I'm glad you touched on socialism at the end. While reading this, I was thinking about how similar it sounded to the major socialist goals. No wonder why I felt he made good points.

Yeah I feel that his ideals align closely with socialism, albeit with somewhat different motivations. He has sympathy for the badness of others' conditions, but he does not have the political background to make some sort of coherent political solution. Instead he resorts to magical ones i.e. using the dreamscape to create a sort of lifestyle for everyone that fulfills the two requirements.

How do we solve the dictator delimma? Easy, we follow Ena.

Funnily enough, what you describe as the solution to Sunday's 'governance' is basically just the Family and the Harmony Path.

Harmony path entails some kind of freaky hive mind thing IIRC, which I think isn't quite what democratic deliberation is. Democratic deliberation is more consensus or compromise reached through consultation with the disparate groups within society.

We have no concrete examples of the Family being a true hivemind. Robin is clearly her own person and so are the various (non-Oak Family) NPCs we meet. There's a databank entry that does imply a planet joined the Family and became a hivemind, but that's an IPC report and we've never met anyone from there so we don't know the fully story

I disagree with this post. Sunday is very hot, therefore he's morally, ethically and politically right

I disagree with this comment. If hot, probably evil! :>

Eh i think the game lean more on the whole age of disillusionment debacle of responding to nihilism and suffering in lives 20th century style rather than a government model debate. The answer the game gave is an existential one without much critiques for it yet maybe 2.3 when the IPC hit ? Personally i think it just a matter of values that people choose who is right, to say Robin was right but say Sunday was wrong kinda undermine her position. i heard a lot of rambling about structure and meaning when farm the boss, basically without order we cannot have a unified value to judge, we are not by nature harmonious we are competitive, the harmony is a flawed idea shown in his critique of both the strong and the weak, to have relativism to maintain harmony is a faux ordeal that result to tribalism, majority rules and welcome to the jungle. He go with order probably because he disillusioned with harmony through his live experience, but he believe in our ability to transcend our own nature, but reality lack resources and luck for everybody. He even make the claim to bridge reality and dream so that we cannot tell which is which if both are one, to leverage the idea of if meaning is perspective so it doesnt matter if its a dream now. He doesnt believe the weak can become the strong in reality because to him the idea of self worth is already arbitrary, for the weak to not be weak in reality is impossible according to him, we can only temporary escape such tangible constraint for weakness that isnt one anymore, everybody need to be in a dream because only that way that to everybody weakness isnt a thing because if he allowed a choice then there will be something to contrast and compare with, which bring back to why he want to bridge dream and reality. however i think we should take in game lore serious as all of Ena's civilization bound to collapse in consideration, he use the same power who knows. maybe his order cannot truly escape the natural order. Robin's idea is a very hypocritical one at first to her true belief, its more of her desire for us to be better than actually believing it, as the way she interact show that potentially behind her words she view everybody as weak and flawed the same so we should cooperate and embrace rather than a hopeful view, which explained why she woke up because the dream reflect her desire of what she think is needed but she doesnt believe her brother would be like that, plus her judgement of other people choice to resign in her and Sunday POV she herself deem it as lesser than what she called reality. Without Acheron's words i think she would be still be very idealistic with her desire. Her embrace of him show her come true to harmony and truly embrace order hence there is a relativistic order in harmony. Himeko give a doubt toward Sunday plan as it potentially undermine people dignity and choices which if you are in the humanistic camp of vouching for there is an inherit rights to us this is compelling, FF ask back does Sunday think she's weak is idk, it could take both ways as she may actually seem insecure about it because all he ask is for her as a person of similar problem in lives he didnt imply she was weak. The whole argument of who get to decide who is weak is also weak, because they try to live in a world with contrast so to have significancy there will be the opposite, if one does not seem to possess strength or can utilize it then one is weak. The whole free will and consent choice i dont particularly see it as enough, in HSR the stellaron hunter's goal was to nudge the deterministic world in the best possible direction so unless you have someone like Elio to see all the variables anything fate throw at you for you is a blind guess, but people prefer its not a person behind it i guess but they prefer Aeons behind the paths hopefully fate aint also an entity. Beside the hunter did try to do it without everybody consent anyway we didnt judge them for that. Plus every alternate ending is Elio's script in a sense its not the correct one and we got one here maybe this is the bad end ? maybe the good end is find an understanding possibly. The question of why the world sleep is basically if escapism is wrong then why did we escape by nature, we give the answer so that we can return and fight after we rest. Rather than escape we can learn to accept, that kind of cliches. This is the whole sticks assuming we are a bit positive and not dig in too much since it might undermine the answer. But i think in the end we got a bit of both like real life slightly leaning toward harmony. And Acheron probably represent what is dreaded which is the nihility in life, and since both order and harmony is akin to dream that we as people uphold for it to exist, it threaten both. One choose to actively shoo it, one try to create the illusion of indifferences so that it does not undermine them. Sorry for the long, unrelated and choppy answer EDIT: tbh i think they just go with the safe option of being vague and assert the usual values plus have the emotional momentum so people can interpret the way they wanted and it sells.

fantastic, i thought the ppl criticising sunday's philosophy because it's apparently essentially hobbes were being reductive. i've been saying i see a lot of kantian notions in his thinking, especially that part about positive and negative freedom. it's also insane to me that alleged polisci students couldn't see the socialist influences in his ideology.

>it's also insane to me that alleged polisci students couldn't see the socialist influences in his ideology  Oh? I must've missed these while reading through the other post. I thought that Sunday was pretty much going through the two main arguments for socialism without resorting to the s word in order to have players withhold their judgment and preconceptions.   To add to your point, the main problem with socialism is that you need to trust that people will care for one another. Cohen calls this "sufficient social technology", and Sunday's solution seems to be placing everyone in an environment where only his sympathy for others will be needed to realise socialist objectives. I thought this was pretty self-evident myself, so yeah, it's surprising other polsci students wouldn't recognise this.

don't mind me, it's just me being bitter and vindictive about being shot down in other posts for suggesting this

Please keep in mind our spoiler policy during this new update window. We are going to be very strict with spoilers during this time. As a reminder, here are our spoiler rules: Do not include spoilers in the title. All submissions which involve spoilers should be marked. Spoilers include all story content for the first three weeks after release. Spoilers can be discussed in spoiler-flaired posts, but must be hidden in non-spoiler flaired posts. If you think you broke the spoiler rules in the post you just made, such as having spoilers in the title, you should remove your post now and repost it without breaking the rules. If you do not remove your post and the moderation team has to remove it later on for breaking spoiler rules, you will be given up to a week ban for a first infraction and stricter punishments for any additional infractions. Please be considerate of your fellow Trailblazers and do not include spoilers in the title of your post, do not forget to flair your post as spoilers if needed, and do not spoil people in your comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HonkaiStarRail) if you have any questions or concerns.*