Talk:Eternal Alchemy

Is this page necessary? Kinda redundant, imo. Can we merge it with Asura? 206.100.221.113 22:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the theory of everything. Pushbiscuit 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Religion??
Isn't this science, not religion? br12 ~ 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say its science. Asura dont look like they would believe something unnatural... Limu Tolkki 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The religion of the Asura is closely related to sience. In the real world, there are people who also argue that science is just a different kind of religion (especially the big bang theory). 145.94.74.23 10:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler
Would someone add spoiler warning to this. As vekks quotes spoil eotn north... Limu Tolkki 21:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Use   ~  SCobra [[Image:User-SuperCobra-Sig.png]] 21:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What a mess!
This page is a disaster. It's got some of the worst circular writing I've ever seen on a wiki (and that's saying something), and it probably doesn't even need to exist as an independent page. Move suggestions, cleanup flag and spoiler alert added, philosophical basis corrected. -- Tekn0mancer talk 02:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed some of the writing, the religion referenced/influenced from is clearly not monism, there's no spoiler in the article, and this is a major religion so it deserves its own article. -- Konig / talk 02:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's almost word for word what Eternal Alchemy is. Monism is similar, true, but not even near as close as Determinism. In short: Eternal Alchemy (and determinism) is about that events are bound to happen and everything is bound to that string of events (some would call that string of events "Fate" - so the only thing that everyone is one of, would be one with Fate), whereas Monism is about that every being is the same - that there's only one being. -- Konig / talk 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Spoiler or not, meh. I added it because there was a mention on the talk page. The writing is still circular and awful, and I seriously doubt the "major religion" claim. This is no more developed than anything on this page, which is where it properly belongs. At only a sentence or two, this just doesn't merit its own page; maybe a redirect at best. Also, what is described in the article's current text is indeed monism. Not to get into a philosophical discussion on a video game wiki (of all places), but per Wikipedia: "Monism is any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities; or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions." Compare that to: "Eternal Alchemy states that all things and events are part of a greater scheme of existence. Even the gods, the Spirits of the Wild, other deities are a part of this grand scheme, and not even the Asura know where this scheme will lead." I'm willing to concede that there may be an element of deterministic materialism in it, but I don't know how you can look at those two quotes and not see the same exact idea. -- Tekn0mancer [[File:User_Tekn0mancer-Awaken_the_Blood_19px_sig.jpg]] talk 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a major religion because it is the religion of a whole race, the asura, much like how Sky Above the Sky, and the Great Dwarf/Great Forge. Regarding the influence: Monism states that everything is literally one being - that you and me are the same, this is not what the asura say. They say that they are part of a grand scheme, much like determinism's "view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences."
 * Edit: And how is the writing circular and "awful" - it doesn't repeat anything anymore (which it did in one sentence). But did a little rewording, perhaps now instead of saying it's "still circular and awful" you can point out what is, or better yet reword it yourself. -- Konig / talk 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)