Having taken philosophy for two whole years, I figured that it would be interesting to apply things I barely learned and understood to things that I enjoy talking utter nonsense about. This is the first of many articles to come (hopefully). Basically, I'll talk about philosophical things in relation to anything within the realm of popular culture or I'll talk about things in popular culture that are attempting to express philosophical ideas. As I mentioned earlier, I have only done two years of philosophy, so, don't expect an expert analysis, just some rambling about things I thought were interesting and
might not be is definitely not philosophically rigorous.
Basically,
Assassin's Creed can be seen as the competing doctrines of free will and determinism with the Assassins representing the extremity of free will while determinism is represented by their rivals, the Templars. In the case of
Assassin's Creed, the free will advocated by the Assassins contends that people should be free to make their own choices without being hindered by any form of restrains while the deterministic worldview held by the Templars is that humanity should be guided towards perfection, with the Templars controlling them and determining the course of history towards what they considered a utopia. The main game I will be focussing on in the series is
Assassin's Creed III as I believe Connor Kenway and Haytham Kenway are the most representative of their respective doctrines.
Connor tends to the libertarian side of things, believing in free will and denying that determinism is compatible with free will. Taken to the logical extreme, Connor advocates an almost anarchic conception of freedom where people should be free from any form of control and is basically able to do anything they want, perhaps within the boundaries of the social contract (this part is not clear). The allure of this particular conception of free will is that it provides an almost unlimited sense of freedom, maybe even the truest form of freedom. Obviously the problem with this sort of philosophical doctrine is, as previously mentioned, the logical extreme means an anarchic sense of freedom since government can be seen as a constraint on free will, perhaps even going so far as to void the social contract as it prevents people from truly having the ability to make choices without restrictions. Due to his initial youth when inducted into the Assassins, Connor takes a naive conception of freedom and free will, basically believing in freedom without considering the circumstances of the time, such as his discussion of slavery with John Quincy Adams in Boston, where he argues for the freedom of slaves without realising the implications of attempting to end slavery in a slave-driven economy. That is not to say that it is a bad thing, merely a little unwise and very headstrong and idealistic. Of course there is merit in Connor's way of thinking. He merely wishes to help people be free and break down the shackles of tyranny and oppression, a worthy pursuit, one typically associated with the revolutionaries of 1776 and 1789 although the truth (another discussion of historiography entirely) is somewhat less noble than it seems.
His father on the other hand, is more of an authoritative figure who believes that controlling humanity will help them ultimately progress to perfection. Don't confuse determinism with predeterminism though. Predeterminism basically argues that all things have been decided in advance, which means that whatever occurs has been decided in some grand scheme of things that will play out in an exact manner. Determinism argues different, it merely states that choices are influenced by prior events, basically, a cause-and-effect scenario. In this particular scenario, Haytham Kenway and his Templar allies wish to influence the future by manipulating their present, gaining control over humanity in order to drive them towards a better society. On paper, this seems like a noble pursuit, one that seeks to drive humanity to the best and brightest version of itself albeit under the control of a few influential men (not unlike how the world works today). However, if one takes it further and considers the consequences of such a system, we arrive at the conclusion that this is basically a form of absolutism as the Templars are basically demanding the power to run society unbridled, to achieve their conception of a perfect future. If this sounds familiar, then the name Lenin should also ring a bell. His particular form of social change used the term "vanguard of the revolution" to define the cadre that would lead the masses to their utopia. This is of course but one example and a very particular constitution (to go further, a perversion of Marxist principles) of an authoritarian conception of society.
In my experience of the game, I felt that the third entry in the series (not strictly the third, but the third in the numerical title order) had the strongest philosophical underpinnings in its plot and characterisation. Unlike the previous two games, there was a fairly robust and overt discussion of the philosophy of the warring factions (I of course refer to the Assassins and Templars but same can be said of the Americans and British). From my understanding of things, which is of course not always right, the writers seemed to be pushing the game towards a less idealistic conception of the battle between Assassins and Templars in that they stopped painting it as a battle between good and evil but rather taking a more subtle and complex view that contends both sides see themselves as attempting to achieve the greater good and seeing the other as not so much evil but rather misguided in their pursuits.
Back on the philosophical side of things, I'm not going to weigh in on one side or the other even though I was taught that I should have a stance in philosophy because I don't really want to imply that one particular stream of philosophical thought is better than the other. That's up to you to decide. If you have any thoughts, questions or just want to call me an idiot, feel free to do so in the comments. Also, if anyone reads this, would you be kind enough to let me know if you're interested in this sort of thing? I have a few ideas for more philosophical discussions in regards to various forms of popular culture and would like to hear what people think of this becoming a sort of semi-regular series.
