UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-19-2015, 01:23 PM   #1
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Magic

Do you think of magic as a kind of supernatural talent particular to an individual, or some kind of learned art anyone who is educated can have access to?

Then, what do you think it would be better characterized as?

After posting, read this:

Spoiler: show

In my research I think it's pretty interesting that the modern understanding of magic as a mystic homolog to science didn't really appear until Aleister Crowley in the early 20th century. Until then, you had three only tangentially related disciplines in philosophy, alchemy, and mysticism. Archetypal magician figures like Merlin were just assumed to have supernatural powers, not unlike what we would ascribe to superheroes today. He could have been educated, but education wasn't the source of his magic.

I have found some references to an alchemy-sorcery confluence, like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but nothing in folklore before the 19th century supports the "magic is learned" preconception I'm sure many have right now.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2015, 01:27 PM   #2
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
I myself prefer a mixture of both, because that's the most realistic. It's like any other discipline really. You can teach someone how to play soccer but not everyone is going to be a world famous player. Experience can do wonderful things but genetics are still important and it wouldn't surprise me if someone's genetics gave them a certain magic that is just incomprehensible to the world.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 12:21 PM   #3
Mercutio
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
Magic is just an idea of mystery, not so much a thing in and of itself. It's simply power that is not understood. Wheher it's techchnology, trickery, innate ability etc. amd whether it's teachable is kind of irrelevant.
Mercutio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 04:01 PM   #4
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
No one is born with Magic. You have to go into a shop and buy a starter deck or packs. Duh!
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 04:19 PM   #5
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
I'm with Emi here. Everyone, or almost everyone, has the capacity for some magic, although some can be much more naturally gifted or challenged with it. Some people have to put in twice the effort to be half as good as some others. Different people carry different gifts.

Of course, "magic" can mean so many different things, too. The line between magic and mundane is not a fixed one.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 04:28 PM   #6
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Do you think of magic as a kind of supernatural talent particular to an individual, or some kind of learned art anyone who is educated can have access to?
Writers have obviously dabbled in both ideas, but the commoner idea is the one which colors my default thinking: the first. Magic is a supernatural talent particular to an individual a select percentage of the human race. It's not something which all of humankind is capable of performing should they apply themselves to its study.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Then, what do you think it would be better characterized as?
When I think of magic, I think of conjuring fire out of thin air, turning people into animals, or flying through the sky on a broom. So I guess with such guiding ideas of magic in mind, I would perhaps try to define magic as "the performance of an action or the bringing about of an event that is otherwise not possible through ordinary means," "ordinary means" in turn having to be defined as the set of all actions which non-magicians are capable of, "the set of all actions which non-magicians are capable of" having to then be defined somehow and ugh now you're frustrating me. It's hard. It's hard to provide a definition for magic that does not preclude future real-life humans from being classified as "magicians." Like ... I could try to say, "Violating the laws of physics is magic," but then that would mean if future species (human or otherwise) are able to violate the rules of physics then you're going to say, "AHA! Gotcha! So you're saying they're ... magicians! ;D" rather than more correctly saying, "Ah, yes, well, they're an advanced civilization capable of doing things within the confines of reality that we cannot do today."

Maybe this means that, somewhere in there, the definition of magic should include a reference to reality. "If it can really be done, then it isn't magic." This precludes us from labeling as "magic" any and all achievements in the future that viewed from today's lens would be seen by us as "magic," e.g. twirling a baton and suddenly spirals of fire twirl out helically towards a target.



It isn't "magic" if species in the future can do this in the real world.

Speaking of FSN, of course Nasu tries to intelligently write his way around this by claiming, "Well ... once the people of the future are able to do it, then sure, it quits being 'magic'; but until they can do it, it's fair to call it 'magic'." Nasu tries to differentiate magecraft (magic performed by magi which, some day in the future, could theoretically be replicated by an advanced civilization through other means, e.g. technological means) from true magic or sorcery (magical acts which, no matter the time period, should never and will never be possible of being carried out by ordinary men -- because they violate the very rules of reality) and sets up for his play's star players several magi capable of true magic/sorcery who intermingle with a hodgepodge of more ordinary magi who can only perform magecraft. But still ... Nasu's mental gymnastics be damned, personally I feel like if ever humanity can do it -- whether using technology, whether owing to genetic engineering, whatever the case -- then it's no longer "magic." For it to be magic, it has to be something where 99.9% of people's reaction is, "Whoa :o ... that's not possible ...!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
After posting, read this.
Well alright, then. Here we go!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Spoiler: show
In my research I think it's pretty interesting that the modern understanding of magic as a mystic homolog to science didn't really appear until Aleister Crowley in the early 20th century. Until then, you had three only tangentially related disciplines in philosophy, alchemy, and mysticism. Archetypal magician figures like Merlin were just assumed to have supernatural powers, not unlike what we would ascribe to superheroes today. He could have been educated, but education wasn't the source of his magic.

I have found some references to an alchemy-sorcery confluence, like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but nothing in folklore before the 19th century supports the "magic is learned" preconception I'm sure many have right now.
Well, see ... from my very own answer, you may have problems with your final assertion. I can't argue against "many," but you use "many" the way I'm sure you want to use "most or nearly all," and like ... I dunno about that. I think most people still see it my way. At least I know I do. ^^; And I think a big part of that is because that's how it's more commonly depicted in our culture:
  • No one could be nor ever was taught magic in Arthurian legend -- it was always just Merlin. (And, in extended tales, fellow wizards and witches like Madam Mim or supernatural beings like Queen Mab and the Lady of the Lake.) Well, of course we all have inherited the tales of King Arthur. They're still popular and relevant in modern times.
  • Laundry list of other older tales, but I can tell you won't be happy with this (given your spoiler-boxed premise) so I'm going to jump ahead to the 20th and 21st centuries.
  • Harry Potter certainly subscribes to the "special few; can't be learned" model. The entire basis of "squibs" and "muggles" relies on this. If everyone could learn magic, you wouldn't have squibs or muggles.
  • The Lord of the Rings presents Gandalf, a Merlin-like character, alongside the rest of the Fellowship, absolutely none of whom can perform acts of magic on their own. Gandalf is the only magical member of their team. And he was born with it. It wasn't something he learned from thousands of years of study (afaik), or even if it was, that doesn't change the fact that none of the other Fellowship members have the time and resources necessary to learn it before they die.
  • Sabrina the Teenage Witch gives us Sabrina Spellman, a half-witch, along with an entire universe where magic is argued as hereditary. Her aunts, Hilda and Zelda, are full witches; as is their brother, Sabrina's father; and Sabrina's mother, an ordinary human, is the reason why Sabrina is only a "half-witch," as she received her magical genes from her fully-magical father and her plain genes from her fully-plain mother. In this universe, very few people are witches, and few or no ordinary people (afaik) are ever capable of becoming witches. Yes, you may have to study witchcraft to go from leading an ordinary life to leading a magical one, but those successful few were always witches all along -- just latent ones, ones who hadn't yet discovered their powers. The STTW universe, afaik, doesn't argue for ordinary people like the students at Sabrina's high school ever being capable of performing witchcraft.
I'll agree that there are also depictions which make it seem like anyone can be a wizard if they try hard enough. For example, Disney's Bedknobs and Broomsticks made it seem like magic was simply knowing the right words and thus anyone who could read a piece of parchment correctly could perform magic. But I feel like all of the pre-20th century stories of wizards and witches we have inherited, coupled with the majority of 20th and 21st century stories which depict practitioners of magic classically, add together to throw a wrench in your hypothesis's works.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2015, 04:39 PM   #7
Crys
seems theres a case aclaw
 
Crys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,276
FRIENDSHIP IS MAGIC
__________________
Crys is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.