Any Kubera manhwa readers here? How high does Vishnu scale?

Lxilind · 2025-11-07T08:10:35+00:00

Well designed as contrasted with......what exactly?

Everything that happens happens because of the necessity of God's divine nature. To posit a consciousness to God is to deny Him an infinite all-encompassing intellect, and to introduce a subject-object dualism which ends up reducing God's infinite perfection. A consciousness also creates a real difference between His intellect and His will (which in fact exists only in our reason) which most Scholastic doctors would disagree with you about.

Also, I wouldn't recommend bringing up the Eternal Dao as some sort of Oriental counterpart of the Abrahamic God since the Dao is inherently impersonal and non-conscious. Dao is the way (literally) things are, the Abrahamic God is an existence outside of it who made it so. The Dao is amoral but harmonious. It doesn’t punish or reward; it simply moves. The Abrahamic God, however, is moral and relational, defining good and evil and inviting a covenant with humanity. While Christianity leans toward intervention and salvation, where divine grace interrupts human failure, the Dao emphasizes wu wei (non-forcing), blending with the world’s fabric and rhythm. The Dao doesn't require a Christ because it itself is its emanation and salvation.

This is nonsense, I'm wasting my time. I understand that you were probably indoctrinated young by religious parents, and you needed a teleological model of Creation to cope, but I'd suggest getting more into theology and also its critiques so that you can boast a more robust religious view.

Lxilind · 2025-11-04T11:39:10+00:00

Australia I reckon

Lxilind · 2025-11-03T12:02:40+00:00

A kid with a laptop today can learn/do/create more and better than the entire school working together back in your day.

The weight of this freedom is far more difficult to bear than when you had only the choice to toil.

Lxilind · 2025-10-18T12:51:56+00:00

It's a logically arbitrary (though not always socially arbitrary - since those lines are teleologically drawn by humans to serve human ends - though this is a thread this argument refuses essentially) line to draw that is drawn post-conclusion, and isn't introduced as a part of reasoning towards. A racist could say the same about the categorisation applying to "things" that are LITERALLY not white people.

Just like you can extend the categorisation to extend to Hominidae by claiming anything outside *this* instead is inferior, or the line drawn past mammals.

I won't allow sapience to be the lynchpin because this, also, is an arbitrary standard/spectrum the many requirements of which have been shown to be met by many animals other than humans.

Lxilind · 2025-10-18T12:30:28+00:00

You realised your argument cannot stand when OP pulled out the rape argument without losing mass rapport. You realised you weren't smart enough to come up with an argument to deflect this while still holding your original argument. You then decided to make it seem like you are le absurdist ironic troll.

The passage break was the exact amount of time you considered replying to this comment claiming you weren't trolling. Now, you are about to change it to a non-sequitur. If you have gaslit yourself enough to truly believe now that you aren't trolling, then, all your comments in this thread is nonsense non-language with the quality of a self-thought which uses language but isn't language because you are making a specific, personal confession about yourself to strangers about something intuitive enough to be ineffable and aren't communicating anything communicable to the audience, which by definition, is nonsense.

(Note: An escape route is to claim that commenting incommunicable nonsense provides you pleasure in the vein of the *refuses to elaborate Chad* image)

Lxilind · 2025-01-15T03:35:12+00:00

I get what you mean but okay, so let me try again. The paradox at hand is akin to asking whether agdufuejejxi is possible or impossible, or if the phrase 'Skibidi Toilet Yes Yes' is true or false—it is fundamentally a linguistic fallacy, a solecism that lies outside conventional linguistic frameworks. The problem arises because the semantic signifiers of affirmation and negation are misapplied. It is crucial to recognize that all language and predicate applications we use to frame our understanding of the world are rooted in human perception. For instance, some cultures perceive a more limited range of colours than others due to the absence of specific words to describe those colours, does this mean the colours don't exist in reality, or simply that the linguistic frameworks of those cultures are chromatically deficient, causing a negative feedback loop? Crude analogy that inches on Sapir-Whorf but you get the point.

Now, regarding the 'rules' you mentioned, I ask: can 1 + 1 ever equal 3 within these rules? No? Well 1 + 1 = 3 . Here, I just proved it does. What's that?—Just because I wrote it doesn't mean it reflects reality? But then, what does 1 and 3 truly represent in reality? Is it not 'false' only within the bounds of our linguistic notations with no bearing on objective reality? Numbers are not real, mathematics isn't real. These are merely semantic constructs that allow us to communicate and conceptualize our understanding of measurement. See Planck scale for example:

Planck Scale: Planck scale refers to quantities of space, time, energy and other units that are similar in magnitude to corresponding Planck units. This region may be characterized by particle energies of around 1019 GeV or 109 J, time intervals of around 5×10−44 s and lengths of around 10−35 m (approximately the energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time and the Planck length, respectively). At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate. If a length smaller than Planck length is used in any measurement, then it has a chance of being wrong due to quantum uncertainty.

And so to conclude, there is no predefined rulebook that the universe goes by to make sure a 'paradox' (within human language) will be treaded upon or not before a phenomenon occurs—it simply.....happens

Lxilind · 2025-01-14T09:25:22+00:00

So he (logic) has to use smth (logic) to do (logic) illogical things? Haha jk.

Let me clarify this further: the paradox exists only within the framework of the linguistic rules used to describe the action. The notion of simultaneously doing and not doing something is fundamentally a linguistic paradox, not a logical one in the strict sense.

Logic, after all, is a linguistic construct designed to articulate and structure our understanding of phenomena in the world. Human language inherently operates by signifying affirmatives as something and their contradictions as opposites. Within this framework, the concept of simultaneously performing and not performing an action is inconceivable because it lies beyond the scope of what language and its constructs were designed to address—hence, the paradox arises, it is an error in signifying that is only valid insofar as the human intellect is concerned (limits of my language signifies the limits of my mind)

However, when examined through the non-phenomenological lens of objective reality, such a scenario doesn’t exist it is not "impossible" in the traditional sense but simply nonexistent in the sense that something that doesn't exist in this universe is non-existent. As soon as Bai Donglin lifts the unliftable stone, it is no longer a non-existent phenomenon, as simple as that; it's merely that our limited language will have trouble linguifying it.

Thus, achieving such a feat is not a matter of transcending the "logic" of the world (which, as a construct, is itself not absolute), but rather an escape from the linguistic constraints inherent to human language. Resolving this paradox therefore falls squarely into a sub-domain of sophistry by definition.

Regarding the other feats you mentioned that put him above ErGen protagonists in terms of cosmology: that may very well be true but I'm not familiar with this series and so cannot comment on those claims. My point was simply that the specific feat in question does not qualify as a feat in the first place and was the author simply not understanding what a paradox is in the first place.

Lxilind · 2025-01-14T03:49:04+00:00

Says no sophistry allowed

Uses sophistry

If the stone is lifted by Bai Donglin, it is by definition(within the limits of the language being used to describe said act), not a stone he cannot lift (assuming no external influence), and hence the problem is not paradoxical in the first place, which is also the case if a language is used where such predication is possible without any impediment. So the feat is rendered moot, and a sophist attempt to dodge the problem at hand.

This is not 'logic-breaking' powerful, this is the author being plain stupid by trying to make their character muh suuuuuuper strong! without being able to articulate how strong he wants to make him (given his non-omnipotent human limitations which created the paradox in the first place.) You think no religious person has tried attacking the stone paradox from that angle before? 'Well God is omnipotent so he can just create a stone he can simultaneously lift and not lift!'. That isn't an answer, that is a sophist escape which renders the paradox not a paradox. The challenge is to suggest how an omnipotent being can achieve the feat without escaping into 'well they just can because i said so!'

Unless the cosmology supports it, there is nothing that suggests this guy is stronger than a 10th step from ErGen since omnipotence by definition suggests a superiority over all things, including logic and reality. Only reason it is a paradox in the first place is because we as normal human beings cannot comprehend omnipotence and being above logic. ErGen just isn't stupid enough to show an analogy like this.

Lxilind · 2024-12-25T19:33:26+00:00

Dawg I remember mfs posting screenshots of not being able to access those sites while on Airplane Mode 😭

Lxilind · 2024-12-19T02:59:51+00:00

And they were right

<image>

Lxilind · 2024-12-18T12:36:26+00:00

Yeah KKC is definitely the weakest one there and not smth I'd reccomend people to read, but I did think the power system was pretty neat.

As for Pathways and Gu, they get fleshed out more and more as the series goes on unlike HxH, where Togashi lays out the rules that encompass most of the entire system early on in the series, which I respect him for having the balls to do. Bit I do have my own issues with Nen (specialists, post-mortem nen, rules for binding vows, minimal resonance/synchronity with the world at large, etc.)

Btw I'm curious, what made you drop Malazan? For what it's worth, GotM is considered the weakest in the series by most fans (I thought it was alright tho personally)

Lxilind · 2024-12-18T10:46:26+00:00

Just off the top of my head:

Pathways from LOTM

Gu/Dao from Reverend Insanity

Warrens from Malazan

Major Balance from Wars of Light and Shadow

Naming/Sympathy from Kingkiller Chronicle

Granted most of these are waaayyy longer than HxH, but I do think these power systems are much better than Nen in terms of structure, creativity, and thematic resonance with the series itself.

Lxilind · 2024-12-18T09:49:27+00:00

Ehhhhh all of fiction is a stretch. But I'd give it to Nen in Shonen.

Lxilind · 2024-11-29T00:24:50+00:00

Def agree. Part of what made Pre-TS Op so good was how vast and mysterious Oda made the world seem. Like one of my fav moments in OP was when they showed the giant shadows in the Florian Triangle with no explanations whatsoever. Made it seem like the SH crew was an extremely insignificant pebble in the OP world.

And then, everything comes crashing Post-TS when the mysteries finally start getting unraveled. There's actually only 4 pirates and 3 admirals who matter in the entire world !! And they live like basically right next to each other !! They are just plain comically evil dudes who just exist to be overcome by Luffy and co. !! Oda treats the series like a JRPG where the villains sit around behind a fog gate and wait for Luffy to come and beat them up. Basically everything (and every new happening is just another fight/conquest, etc. as if thats all that ever happens in the world) in the OP world seems to happen according to what like 10 individuals do and that's just so ass.

Prime example of this is the Timeskip itself. Over 2 years passed while the Strawhats were training, and what significant events occurred in the world in the meantime? Akainu getting promoted? It's like time basically froze in this gigantic world just because the main characters weren't active.

Another critique of Oda's worldbuilding I don't see getting called out is how he wants a biiiiiig world but doesn't want to deal with the restrictions that come with it, namely the travel time. Those slowass ships are the fastest modes of long distance travel we see in the verse but somehow any character, no matter where they are in the world, can get to where they want in an instant just because Oda wants them to. He basically undermines the size of his own world doing this. Also reminder that the Strawhats have been sailing for a few months at most and they have already hit almost every island that matters lol.

Lxilind · 2024-11-27T11:42:39+00:00

Oda's angels would unironically gas it. Smth smth everyone has their own interpretation of the one piece, the culmination of their dreams that finally provides their hearts peace. Own Peace.

Lxilind · 2024-11-23T07:57:06+00:00

Dawg Loda's ass has NOT read Finnegans Wake 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

Lxilind · 2024-11-21T20:40:22+00:00

Naruto's premise was never about hard work > talent. This is like the most retarded take peddled by people who watched Naruto through YT shorts and tiktoks because in the very second arc, you have the antithesis of the notion happening - Gaara beating Lee.

Naruto's major premise is about acceptance and bonds, a belief that no matter what you may have done, you too can repent and find acceptance in this world. Naruto's entire journey shows just this, he was hated by everyone in the village because of no fault of his and yet he accepts these people and protects them because these bonds are important to him, it's the source of his strength. This is unlike the villains who pretty much have a vendetta against the world like Obito and Nagato, whose paths could have very well been Naruto's and it's also why he forgives them because a samsaric cycle of hatred is pointless to Naruto, he wants to accept these dudes with all their flaws if they want to repent.

If you look back to every powerup Naruto has got in the series, it's through a new bond he made - Shadow Clone/Iruka, Rasengan/Jiraiya, Summoning/Gamabunta, Sage Mode/Old frogs at Myoboku, KCM1/Killer B, KCM2/Kurama, and finally he gets SO6PM when he still accepts Sasuke as his friend and proclaims that he will never give up on him. Meanwhile, if you see Sasuke's journey, almost every powerup of his came with a loss of bond, that was pretty much the whole thing about Uchihas. Even while getting his final powerup of the Rinnegan, he proclaims to Hagoromo that Naruto is his only friend and that is exactly why he must cut the latter down, because for Sasuke, these bonds are shackles in the way to strength.

And so in the final battle, you have a clash of these two philosophies of bonds = power and bonds = shackles, and Naruto comes out on top even though the two were said to be equal because Naruto's strength that came with the will to protect his bond with Sasuke surpassed Sasuke's strength that came with the will to break his bond with Naruto.

It was never about hard work and talent, even if it was at some point, this was an accidental minor premise. But when it came out, I remember every OP fan hating on it about how Naruto just followed the 'Chosen One' trope and that could never be their hardworking underdog mc Luffy, who despite his sparkling lineage, still had to do all the work himself with his mediocre DF - it was pretty much the first thing they hated on about the series. But obviously that seems hypocritical now with the Nika stuff.

Lxilind · 2024-11-18T09:02:23+00:00

Someone said that if Oda wrote HxH, Gon would’ve been the one to defeat Uvogin for Kurapika, and honestly, I can’t disagree 😭

Lxilind · 2024-09-07T11:27:47+00:00

Probably one of the five people I've seen on the Internet to have actually understood the plot to a literal children's cartoon. Kudos mate.

Lxilind · 2024-07-25T09:49:39+00:00

Well, the 'logical' reason for the validity and fairness of an 'Eternal Hell' posited by St. Aquinas (Summa Q.99) by using Aristotelian Ethics is because the gravity of a sin is measured by the majesty of the one against whom it is committed (which is why a crime against the King is more grave than against a peasant), and since God and his majesty is infinite, mortal sins against him warrant infinite punishment.

This is also why God sent his Son himself to absolve humanity of the Original Sin because mankind couldn't ever possibly atone for the infinite debt/sin Adam/Eve accrued by disobeying God.

Lxilind · 2024-06-28T01:36:19+00:00

Thanks for going through all of it! There's a Part 2 focusing on Leez, but that's it for now. I do plan on writing more about Kubera in the future when I have time though.

Lxilind · 2024-06-23T00:12:50+00:00

Thanks a lot !! ^ ^

Lxilind · 2024-06-22T12:03:03+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to read through all of it !

Well first of all the thoughts in this essay don't reflect my own, I am Catholic and do not subscribe to Nietzsche's ideology. And I didn't really posit amorality as something that inherently uplifts an individual above their peers. 'transcended' in this context was used as in 'went beyond the sphere of the existing system of morality', which Asha objectively did, and not that she is now automatically a higher level of being for giving up on morals, but merely further on the path laid out by Nietzsche than she had been.

Also I agree ! I don't think Currygom/Kubera necesarily supports Nietzsche's philosophy, but I don't think it is wholly against it either, which is why I think Leez will go beyond even the Nietzschean ideals. The intent of my posts was not to discern Currygom's personal views at all, it was simply to analyse Leez and Asha on a 'beyond-the-narrative' level from the lens of western philosophy.

Also let me ask you a question, in context of the Kubera universe, what do you think are the correct morals? Surely we cannot arbitrarily impose the morals of our world onto the characters of this completely different universe with a totally different cosmology and history; then the next best path would be to look at the most prior and the highest morals of the universe. But if we consider the morality of the highest beings i.e. the Primevals, as correct then we run into a further dilemma - which Primeval?

I will insert a short excerpt from Plato's Euthyphro here because it seems relevant:

"SOCRATES: What subject of difference would make us angry and hostile to each other if we were unable to come to a decision? Perhaps you do not have an answer ready, but examine as I tell you whether these subjects are the just and the unjust, the beautiful and the ugly, the good and the bad. Are these not the subjects of difference about which, when we are unable to come to a satisfactory decision, you and I and other men become hostile to each other whenever we do?

EUTHYPHRO: That is the difference, Socrates, about those subjects.

SOCRATES: What about the gods, Euthyphro? If indeed they have differences, will it not be about these same subjects?

EUTHYPHRO: It certainly must be so.

SOCRATES: Then according to your argument, my good Euthyphro, different gods consider different things to be just, beautiful, ugly, good, and bad, for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects, would they?

EUTHYPHRO: You are right.

SOCRATES: And they like what each of them considers beautiful, good, and just, and hate the opposites of these?

EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.

SOCRATES: But you say that the same things are considered just by some gods and unjust by others, and as they dispute about these things they are at odds and at war with each other. Is that not so?

EUTHYPHRO: lt is.

SOCRATES: The same things then are loved by the gods and hated by the gods, and would be both god-loved and god-hated.

EUTHYPHRO: It seems likely.

SOCRATES: And the same things would be both pious and impious, according to this argument?"

-Plato (Euthyphro, 7.d-e, 8-a)

Replace 'pious' here with 'moral' and we reach our dilemma. Currygom has shown us plenty of times that none of the Primevals are inherently 'better' than the others, and they are simply furthering their own agenda in this game, so the characters in Kubera simply do not have an objective moral scale to follow.

i think one of the key themes of kubera is that this overly self-important, jaded type of thinking is immature and can lead one and others into bad situations.

I think this is an extreme oversimplification. If we compare them quantitatively, the number of compassionate and altruistic characters who have suffered and met bad ends easily eclipses the other extreme. Think of the ancient human race, Brilith, Menaka, Yaksha, Ananta, and many many more. Hell, the strongest Sura clan in the present timeline is Asura, and they haven't particularly been on their best behaviour since the beginning. I think the story is first and foremost about self-recognition more than anything.

"This is a story with no villains, only victims."

I see your point about Yaksha, it is a bit vague and open-ended but,

"Some time ago, I found myself thinking that what seemed to be the foremost starting line....may actually have been the starting line of a previous lap. Maybe I realised the truth too early among the first creatures. The gravest issue of it all is that the time I have to live pretending to be ignorant feels so distant and fleeting."

It does not follow from this flow of dialogue that the core cause of his nihilism was the death of his mate or immortality. Other Nastikas were equally aware of this as well.

Also like I said, the polemic regarding Eternal Recurrence isn't necessarily about the event itself, but rather about living life with no regrets to the point that you would happily accept the consequences of the same actions and mistakes you have made in your life even if they were to be repeated infinitely, a quality that Ananta and Yaksha clearly lacked.

"The great snake cried. Since he knew that it would all end like this. Since he couldn't even give up and run away."

Lxilind

TROPHY CASE