Watchmen (comics)/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

m (cleanup categories)
Line 143:
*** Actually, even in that they differ. Ozymandias seems to believe that humans have both good and evil in them (or rather the appropriate equivalents in terms of moral relativism) and that humanity is capable of things both great and terrible. He then takes it upon himself to ensure it is the greatness that prevails, and not the terror.
**** Terror, like, you know, bombing New York and inducing worldwide panic.
 
* It appears to me that most tropers don't understand that Rorschach unyielding moral "absolutism" is firmly based on absolute relativism. Reread his monologue to Doctor Long. It's very plain and clear. "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces." "Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose." "Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. There is nothing else." And finally: "Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach." This is, well, conclusive. There are no two readings. Rorschach is an atheist and an existentialist, he realizes the inherent subjectivity of the human experience of morality and believes there are no moral absolutes whatsoever. Therefore, as we live in a morally blank world, with no meaning and no pattern, he is free, as free as everyone else, to upheld his own sense of right and wrong every time he clashes with society. And that's exactly what he chooses to do, certain of his freedom, with unyielding determination, even in the face of Armageddon. Absolute moral relativism that leads not to nihilism but to existentialism, that's Rorschach's way of thinking. Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus would have been proud of him.
 
----
 
== Which Character Is The Least Screwed Up ((Spoilers!)) ==
* Hollis Mason, aside from being dead. Yeah, he's not a MAIN character, but he's still important and fairly awesome.
Anonymous user