At war, there is no place for emotions. Kokoro might be a perfect soldier
Emotions have plenty to do with war. You never see a soldier who doesn't fear for his life, the life of his comrades, or the life innocent bystanders. A soldier with low morale will be less willing to fight and his performance will dwindle inevitably resulting in his death and failure to his mission. In war, an adequate amount of fear and hope makes the perfect soldier.
Emotions have plenty to do with war. You never see a soldier who doesn't fear for his life, the life of his comrades, or the life innocent bystanders. A soldier with low morale will be less willing to fight and his performance will dwindle inevitably resulting in his death and failure to his mission. In war, an adequate amount of fear and hope makes the perfect soldier.
After all, a soldier is yet another human, no?
For humans. Her? Without emotions, she'll be a robot and get the job done regardless of who's in the way, even her allies if they slow her down (like that one situation in Xenosaga Episode I with Virgil and Kos-Mos).
For humans. Her? Without emotions, she'll be a robot and get the job done regardless of who's in the way, even her allies if they slow her down (like that one situation in Xenosaga Episode I with Virgil and Kos-Mos).
Not really, for perfectly logic based soldiers (ie. robots), they can be rather predictable and exploitable due to the fact that they tend to be unable to think outside the box or even in some cases, unable to think of anything not linear.
She does but its implied that they're underdeveloped and therefore lacks the consciousness to recognize and use them.
Which is a fancy way of saying, she doesn't use her emotions, therefore shes perfectly logic based.
Underdeveloped might lead to a more logic-based approach, I'll grant, but emotions aren't something you ''use,'' they're part of who you ''are.'' You don't decide to be angry or sad, they're reactions to how you see things. If anything, lacking consciousness of them would lead to her behaving more wildly; unable to recognize her emotions, and therefore unable to tell when they were influencing her, she'd do nothing to mitigate the influence they had on her decision-making, because she wouldn't see anything odd. There'd be no "I'm too angry, I need to calm down." The anger, even if lower-level, would have an undisturbed influence on her decisions.
Rampant speculation, of course, but I like speculating.
Underdeveloped might lead to a more logic-based approach, I'll grant, but emotions aren't something you ''use,'' they're part of who you ''are.'' You don't decide to be angry or sad, they're reactions to how you see things. If anything, lacking consciousness of them would lead to her behaving more wildly; unable to recognize her emotions, and therefore unable to tell when they were influencing her, she'd do nothing to mitigate the influence they had on her decision-making, because she wouldn't see anything odd. There'd be no "I'm too angry, I need to calm down." The anger, even if lower-level, would have an undisturbed influence on her decisions.
Rampant speculation, of course, but I like speculating.
Except underdeveloped/lack thereof emotions can be a part of who you 'are' too. The idea that lack of emotions is a negative thing is a false (human) assumption.
If you've lived for hundreds of years, the lack of emotions leading to wild behavior/unable to tell when being influenced by others is completely false. Even if you had no emotions, you would be experienced enough to logically know how you should act under certain circumstances.
Leave a comment