I wrote this article in July 2018 after a year of playing Life is Strange, and I needed to write down some of my ideas during that time. So here it is. Any suggestions are welcome.     

     

     

1. On Right/Wrong And Good/Evil     

     

"Right" and "wrong" are the terms to describe whether a piece of understanding is accurate to its corresponding objective fact. Whether this piece of understanding is right or wrong is utterly decided by the objective reality itself. "Good" and "evil" are descriptive words of the attitude held by an individual or a community towards an event or object. This description is usually dependent on this perceiving subject's surroundings, experience, traditions, and/or other possible influences. If I only want the guidance from objective reality, I need only to pay attention to "right" or "wrong", and be a pure bystander as to the issue of "good" or "evil". As Bertrand Russell said, "When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never l​e​t yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only and solely at what are the facts."     

     

#

     

Objective reality is defined as the existent facts that are consistent, independent from a subject's perception. For example, mankind evolved to its current form about a million years ago, before that the nature is an example of objective reality. Also, there are the scientific facts. A fact described by a scientific law (after confirmed) is existed throughout his​to​ry and in every location, while people at that place at that time have possibly not yet discovered it.     

     

     

2. On Fate     

     

Since this "fate" theory is not logically verifiable, this hypothesis is highly questionable to me. I personally see it as a temporary solution when we cannot make clear of something within the current level of knowledge, and this temporary solution could not and should not be considered as a factor in any decisions I need to make, if I only want the guidance from objective reality.     

     

So far I can conclude that "fate" is the comprehensive result of previous choices made by self or other people around, not a series of tasks arranged by a supreme entity. So there's in fact no such thing as "fate". Other people make their choices, so do I. I made choices in the past, so do I in the present. No need for anybody to see previous choices or others' choices as tenets, and bend the will of present self.     

     

     

3. On Choices     

     

Everything is a choice, including "fate", therefore I need to make my own decisions, according to my own will, in everything that I'm involved. This feature that every person needs to make own decisions according to their will, is the meaning of the concept "freedom". To quote the general idea of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that freedom is the nature of man, and that people in the state of nature were innocent and at their best and they were corrupted by the unnaturalness of civilization, "he is everywhere in chains". Although I do not completely agree with his idea that "freedom is the nature of man" - I think the term "nature" here means "necessary and sufficient condition", therefore the nature of man is reason - still I think that freedom is an inevitable choice of a reasonable man, or striving for freedom is an inevitable result of reason, or a necessary condition of it. Surrender to the loss of freedom is a symptom caused by the loss of reason, which further means the loss of human nature.     

     

That being said, if Max wants to live in the fullest sense of a human being, she must carry out her nature, meaning she must make her own choices, completely and independently, according to her own free will, to escape from the chains of society, and to become a whole and complete human being. That's why I very much appreciate that in the novel All Wounds  Max keeps saying to Chloe, and to herself, that "we need to be whole". That's also the part that I think is the most brilliant idea of DONTNOD, to tell everyone that he/she must make own choices freely, without any restrictions from any other people, if this person truly wants him/herself to be free.

     

That's why I love the song Mountains so much, and the lyrics that say "we could run away". Maybe only by running away can a person get rid of all the chains of a society, and find his or her true self, and reach freedom. I once read a reply in a Chinese forum, that said "To save the town is in accordance with sociality. To save Chloe is human nature." Well said. If a society requires that the individuals in it have to lose their nature, it's strongly not recommended to stay in it for long time. So it seems that the "Galt Valley" in Atlas Shrugged may be the ideal place to live. (Note here, the difference between a society trying to override human nature, and a society enhancing it) However, when all has been said, we should not neglect the fact that to run away is so difficult that few people can really achieve that. Rousseau said that "the unnaturalness of civilization" is irreparable. Henry David Thoreau only lived by the lake far away from people for two years. And it can only be a delusion for the mountains to run away. In the final scene of the game, the view that Max and Chloe drove out of town was no doubt true happiness, although clearly they were to endure a lot of difficulties. But no matter what difficulty lies ahead, I should never forget that happiness is always the more the better. I should try to grasp it with all my strength, whenever I can. Even if it is not everlasting, I have no reason to give it up. "Don't you think that it's better to be extremely happy for a short while, even if you lose it, than to be just okay for your whole life?" (The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger) "Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end." (Bertrand Russell) What I can say for now, the process of fighting for happiness is usually much more enjoyable than a happy ending itself.     

     

That's also why I got so thrilled every time I successfully saved Chloe. Max was somehow granted with this power, with which she can better achieve her purpose and further go along with her nature, thus becomes more of a whole and complete human being. This process is the greatest appreciation she can get for herself. So the final choice in game is not troublesome at all. Of course Max should not give up her purpose and nature. The two options are not comparable. One means to become her own person, the other to become a slave of other people. "A man chooses. A slave obeys." (Andrew Ryan in Bioshock) If a person loses own purpose and nature, what remains is merely a pile of organics.     

     

     

4. On Survival     

     

The reason why many people get stuck in the final choice is probably that the act of saving Chloe is ostensibly the cause of many deaths. This can be interpreted as a behavior of associating evil, thus makes this choice seems tearing. Despite the wish of the two having a life together, many people have to l​e​t go. Admittedly, for a random somebody, the value of all the people in Arcadia is greater than that of Chloe. As Chloe herself said, there were too many people not deserve to die, like Joyce. However, the truth can't be ignored here is that the one who's going to make the choice is not "a random somebody". For Max, Chloe is the one who brings happiness, way more than other people can ever do. Therefore the value of Chloe is greater than others.     

     

There is no objective, constant assignment of an object's value for all human beings. The amount of this object's value is varied with each individual, or is utterly subjective. Value is defined as the property of an object being im​po​rtant, or helpful, or beneficial to a perceiving subject (usually a person or a community), or the degree of this property. This definition requires a prior condition, "a perceiving subject". If such subject is not present, this concept is a pseudo term. So it can be derived that if someone else was standing at bottom of the lighthouse at that moment, he/she might choose differently, depending on this person's demand for either of the two groups. But the fact is that it's Max who was standing there, and it's clear that she needs Chloe more.     

     

I read some statements before, that Chloe's death is "the inevitable result of twisting a normal timeline" and "a well-deserved outcome after many faults", and that "Chloe should not live". My opinion here is, whether a person should live utterly depends on whether this person is capable to win life (solely or cooperatively), and whether this person has made the choices helpful for survival, although to survive may not be the intention of these decisions. In the world of objective reality, a key point does exist indicating the pattern of life and death for every human being (and other creatures), which is "survival of the fittest". Other than that, any statement or practice intending to meddle in the issue of life and death is a wishful thinking, an override of natural laws. An objective nature needs only the self-contained individuals working on their own outstanding states, not the justice warriors that speak for the nature in the name of righteousness. For example, Bertrand Russell's Nobel Prize speech in 1950 , in which he indicated that, in the face of objective nature, any artificial moral criterion standing separately is in vain. What we should really focus on is the driven effect of one's desire to his actions, rather than to grant him a moral code that we think is noble and expect his constant compliance. Another example is the outcome of a natural disaster. In all such events there are people survived and people died. It is not by being "good" that some people can keep alive, but because of the possible facts that they run faster, or jump higher, or are more knowledgeable about survival, or someone else is willing to help (as Max to Chloe), or they are just lucky. A third example is that, after Max saved Chloe and they drove away, there were some deer loitering on the road. Being in a spot of frequent tornado incidents (which we can conclude from Chloe's word at the end of Episode One, that Oregon gets about five tornadoes every 20 years), residents there actually don't have sufficient knowledge or experience or skill to survive, poorer than some deer?

     

The phrase, "normal timeline", is an utterly subjective perspective. We have experienced only one timeline, and if we call it "normal", that makes us no different than frogs at the bottom of a well. For what I know for now, there is no theory or evidence that can prove the current timeline should not be twisted. It is merely a piece of common sense, and common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired from life experience (more often than not from the life before age eighteen, said Albert Einstein). Tying oneself to the condition where there's only one timeline in a world where time travel happens, is just like sticking in the bottom of a well when already aware of the much larger world outside.     

     

     

5. On Chaos Theory     

     

This is a theory that says the states of a dynamical system, which appear to be random and irregular, are actually governed by deterministic laws that are sensitive to initial conditions. A meteorology system is a perfect example, whose initial conditions are extremely uncertain and changeable due to factors such as viscosity and turbulence, with each of these tiny variations being a possible significant influence of the whole system. It is a field where chaos theory is profoundly characterized, so that some interpreted it as the "butterfly effect".     

     

Chaos effect was first discovered in meteorology systems, because of the unexpected consequences. In old-day meteorological researches, people thought a meteorology system was a linear system, not a dynamical system as it is, thus simply eliminated the nonlinear terms in gas motion equations, as these terms are higher-powered infinitesimals. Such operation simplified these gas motion equations into linear equations, thus greatly reduced the complexity of the meteorology model, and made it much easier to retrieve the numerical solution. Hence it was widely applied in those years when there were no well-developed numerical calculation techniques. However, in meteorology systems this approximation always resulted in great errors, and these errors often got greater and greater uncontrollably as the iteration went on, which was not expected for an infinitesimal, and eventually led to total futility of this meteorology model. Thus Chaos Theory was stated, to tell people they should not simply eliminate the nonlinear terms in an equation, when dealing with a dynamical system such as a meteorology system.     

     

It then can be concluded that Chaos Theory doesn't tell us that what cannot formerly be proved as an initial condition now becomes one. It only tells us those initial conditions evidenced before cannot be ignored. Therefore the attempt to assert that Chloe is connected to that tornado using this theory is unreasonable, as it cannot be proved that Chloe's life is one of the initial conditions of a meteorology system in the first place. An example fits here. Say I broke a cup five days ago, and today there comes a tornado. I certainly cannot say that the tornado is connected to that cup, even if I wear a "Chaos Theory" sandwich board and ring a bell.   

     

     

6. On Game Story     

     

As is said, Chloe's life is not the cause of that tornado. We cannot put any reasonable explanation or logical connection between these two things, at least within the current scope of knowledge. If there's an explanation for the tornado, it has to be something that can be proved connected to meteorology system, for instance the turbulence caused by Nathan's bullet (as to counteract the potential dynamics of that tornado). If we persist to argue that the tornado is caused by something in that bathroom on Monday, the possible reasons were: (1) turbulence caused by Chloe's animations, but this set of animations is not restricted to Chloe on Monday in that bathroom; (2) Nathan's bullet, in which Nathan had to fire the gun for the turbulence caused by the bullet to neutralize the tornado, but the bullet doesn't need to hit anyone; (3) the falling down of a human body, or something of the same weight and shape, causing airflow disturbance; (4) the wing flaps of that butterfly, in which case Max just needed to smash the insect; (5) other minor factors acting as possibilities, however Max doesn't need to use every ounce of possibility to save more people, despite all other things. Or alternatively if we see the possibilities of something else triggered by another person in another time in another place caused that disaster, there are so many. If Chloe is sentenced to death because of possibility, should all people with possibilities be sent to death as well?     

     

And there's another theory, about statistical regression, that says if Max rewound back to Monday via that photo, she would return to the initial timeline. The only difference between it and the one that Chloe was saved would be the survival of Chloe. And the initial timeline would have no tornado, the other one did. So the tornado must be triggered by the life of Chloe. Even though we cannot prove the causality between the two, we can still retrieve the ostensible connection. The mistake here is, by traveling back to Monday via a photo, Max would not return to the initial timeline. What Max would actually do was creating a new timeline beginning from that Monday, where many things would look like those in the beginning. In fact we can conclude from the phenomena in game that every time Max travels through a photo, she creates a new timeline, never returns to an old one. Evidence is that on Wednesday she rewound back to five years ago and resulted in Chloe's paralyze; the next morning she again rewound to five years ago and made Chloe healthy. She did these by what seemed like returning to an old timeline, but the billboard outside Chloe's window was different.     

     

  

     

So these are actually two different timelines, only that the surrounding is deceptive. We cannot conclude that everything in this timeline is identical to those in the old one before Wednesday. Same reason applies to all the time travels via photos. So in that newly created timeline that starts from Monday, by staring that photo in front that tornado, we could not tell if everything other than Chloe's life was identical to the very beginning where things were not disturbed by time travel at all, therefore we cannot get any statistical regression conclusion. If we cannot provide adequate evidence for the existence of the causal or statistical connection between two things, we can only acknowledge the non-existence. For more details, see the logically fallacious -Proving Non-Existence .

     

Continue the previous example. Today there comes a tornado, and I rewind to five days ago via a photo, and avoid breaking that cup, and I come back to see that tornado disappears. Despite how happy I am, I still cannot say that the cup is connected to the tornado, because I actually create a new timeline that starts from five days ago, and I cannot tell if everything other than that cup is identical to before I rewind. Maybe the billboard outside my window changed too?     

     

     

7. Some Other Thoughts     

     

Some fatalism statements are no longer worthy, after playing Life is Strange. The game keeps telling us "this action will have consequences". I make different choice, and I will get (possibly) different consequences. It's preferable to bother myself with how to make wise choices, rather than to pay attention to the fate thing. Instead of caring about whether I can succeed, I should care more about how to succeed; instead of caring about whether I can get a happy ending, I should care more about the process of hardworking. If I blame my failure on fate, it's only finding excuses for my inability or cowardice. Like the police officer said in Two Whales Diner in Episode 2, "you have to create your own good luck." If I don't try, failure is the only ending. This is also why I very much love the song The Sense Of Me. "Try, to try again" is the best sum-up of the thing we all should do. Max tore up the photo that would win the contest, despite her deep love of photography. Max also sat on that driving seat and headed back to town to find a way to save Chloe, despite the dangerous road and that she was only a novice driver. All these were eventually repaid by the reunion on the beach, which may be the happiest moment I will ever get in a video game. That's the perfect example of "the sense of me". Also, there's a quote from the novel All Wounds:     

     

"Well, yea, that's part of what I love about us, Chloe: we try. We, like, inspire each other to try. I don't expect our lives to magically become some happily-ever-after." (All Wounds, Chapter 20, A Song of Healing)     

     

Very good are these words from George Bernard Shaw: "The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." People don't need to trap themselves in adverse surroundings, and keep complaining about the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or the fault in crossed stars, while cringing away and shrinking back from making own choices. "Fate" and "destiny" and stuff are in fact telling people to obey, and choices and trying are meaningless. However, the process of making choice itself is the "meaning"; trying with the best effort itself is happiness. William and Joyce cannot change the fact that a paralyzed Chloe is suffering from a dying respiratory system and will eventually die, no matter how hard they try. Does that mean their trying is meaningless?     

     

Chloe was abandoned, in the hardest time in her life, and was left alone for five years. An unforgivable mistake to say the least. People always say that tolerance is a virtue, now I know they are not kidding. I love the book Tolerance by Hendrik Willem van Loon, but until now those stories only happened in his​to​ry, not in my life. Then Chloe came and showed me again, this time with personal experience and full details, what a great virtue tolerance is. When Max came back to Arcadia, Chloe chose to recognize the old Max as the closest friend. She chose tolerance, and the choice eventually paid back with survival and happiness. An incomparably wise choice to say also the least. Russell said "Love is wise. Hatred is foolish." It sounds just like some fancy words at first, but now I realize there are more to it. I just need time to find out what are more to it.     

     

My only worrying is that the death of Joyce in that tornado would damage Chloe so severely that she would never be as strong as before, strong enough to see Max with no grievance. And Max thought the tornado was caused by her action, and buried herself so deep in remorse that there's no way out. Maybe Chloe didn't want to become the reason of Max's sorrow and helplessness, so she took out that photo, and asked Max to rewind to Monday to save the town. It's only that, when faced with difficulties, we should choose to overcome, not to surrender. And more im​po​rtantly, we cannot prove anything between Chloe's life and that tornado. So remorse is only because of misunderstanding of natural laws. To get rid of it, the only thing Max should do is to make up her mind, oh-so determinedly, to study deeply about meteorological physics.     

     

     

8. A Word to Finalize     

     

"The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."     

                                                                                                                         -- Ayn Rand