Lord British's Open Challenge...

@Bowen Bloodgood,

Even if you try to avoid analyzing whether Olive's love was real, I think you can't avoid the conclusion that she ended the relationship, not Popeye, because she tore the veil of the relationship and broke his heart. Popeye could have been less hasty in his anger, but his response was understandable. Even if he wasn't angry with her, its hard to see how he could have kept up the relationship with her at that point.

But, if Olive did have emotional problems, it also casts Brutus' offer in a darker light, because he was also taking advantage of her emotional problems. And suddenly, the reason why Wimpy refused Olive becomes clear. Why would Wimpy say "I don't want any part of this!" instead of asking for a hamburger in payment? In the story, its an enigma. But maybe its because he knew that Olive was bad news for Popeye.

Chris, well, just seems a bit psychotic to go beat up on Popeye like that, when Popeye's emotions were understandable.

 

Interesting, but isn't there passionate love? Maybe this term love is too rigid? I've heard a lot of stuff about "unconditional love". I just haven't seen it anywhere. I can believe in it, and we can possibly possess this, but I don't think this is an action that we are truly capable of. So far I haven't found it displayed in living human beings. I've heard stories about it, and the stories can in fact reveal unconditional love. Love without conditions.

Did olive act in unconditional love, maybe!!! I don't see anything here staying there was at any point she didn't perfectly love Popeye. She was hurt by his rejection but she didn't complain to her friends about how much of a creep he was and how mistaken she was.

SO olive may have displayed uncondtional love. She even sacrificed her body to be with him, and there was nothing to far nor obstickel too great stop her. This is love that looks at the danger and does it anyway. She even honestly told popeye all that she did to get there. What kind of perfect love can exist when there are secrets being held back. True love holds nothing back.

????

 

But even if she was okay with that there was no reason to think Popeye would be okay with that. Lets say you feel love for a girl, and start stalking her, even though you know she doesn't want that. Lets say, even after she says no and rejects you, you still follow her around. The point is real love is not just an abstract question. Nobody's perfect, but love is more than a feeling. The stalker feels he loves the girl he's stalking. And feelings don't justify deeds.

Also, was Olive honest? Has she been honest when she's told Popeye she loves him? Was the relationship she created him with a lie? If she was dishonest about the entire relationship, is she absolved for that just because she tells Popeye honestly she slept with Brutus?

 

We have all given some great arguments from many different angles. In fact we've all written quite perswasively. So I wonder can we truly seek truth? Or is the best we can do is disprove what isn't true? Although if our arguments are geared to being right, then we have already concluded that we have Truth with a capital T. I don't think any of us can be perswaded way if we believe we have Truth with a capital T. Perhaps that is why we are all so polarized politically too? Maybe the only way for humanity to agree on anything, is to say I don't presume to know anything. Right or wrong I do have some strong opinions, but then again they all might be wrong! Maybe that is kind of what Richard Garriott was getting at when he spoke about everybody having different experiences etc... Or maybe it was Obi Wan who said, "Luke many of the truths we cling to greatly depend upon our own point of view." Obi Wan is never wrong.

 

OK so if feelings and emotions cannot be love then what about marriage? Why do people get married? Traditionally marriage was between a man and a woman. Traditionlally marriage was prearranged (which seems to have better success rates)... so love actually might be a problem when it comes to marriage. Now the same argument given that love isn't emotional is the same type of argument used about same sex marriages. They used the physical to define what is "morally correct"... or something... and then they used physical things like ... well private things... and then they refrenced religious laws and said SEE real love as defined by all this is only love IF all these conditions are met.

The problem with that is love is conditional, and none of that is true love by the very definitions of the religious texts and all of our stories about love. So it's all BS. Then again today same sex marriage is becoming widely accepted and in about 20 years people will look back and say wow what a crazy issue to even debate. Now not all people are going to accept that, but women voting wasn't acceptable at one time, and there are still some people who think women should just be housewives and cover their heads and not wear makup, but that isn't the majority.... Now this might turn into what I'm afraid to be a much longer post than I was origionally intending, but I cannot help but continue. So in any case love might just be following our heart not our brain (whatever that means???).

OH gosh there I go again trying to perswade people with fine sounding arguments. Maybe I ought to just stop.... gosh I hate that...

 

@Steve D.,

Love may be in part emotional, but there are a lot of things people confuse for love. I used in my example infatuation.

But even if we were to accept that love is all feeling, that would mean its not a virtue, because feelings aren't virtues. So when people say "its not so bad Olive did that, because she did it for love", it may really mean nothing other than she did it for her own feelings.

 

That's one of the points. She thought she was acting out of love, bu she wasn't, she was being selfish as she didn't even consider Popeye's feelings and just wanted to go see him in that precise moment.
Now, I think we must work under the boundaries the test gives us. The story states that there is no other way for Olive to cross at that moment, so we must not assume that she can convince Wimpy wit money (or burgers) or any other solutions that allow for her to cross in that moment. She wants to visit Popeye now, so all the solutions we are presented are the only options for her to visit him now, for which there is none but sleeping with Brutus: that's the boundary that the test provides. But there is another option that the story, as it is, allows: she could just have waited. All we know, all we are limited to, is the now. Nothing forbids other options at other points in time (perhaps popeye can visit her tomorrow, or there is a regular ferry that's just broken... who knows).

As I said in my post, at the end they're all being selfish, but I don't think you can't measure selfishness with a number. No one can say "this action is 20% more selfish that this other", only perceived and subjective cases of extremes. Specially when, as it is the case of the test, we don't have all the information and have to fill in with our own assumptions. Which, interestingly, leads to the following question: Could someone who had all the information, a complete and full picture (a.k.a. The Oracle) effectively create an objetive set of morals and rate them numerically? Or is any moral value, any virtue, inherently either biased by its own definition or paradoxical (in which it's impossible to fulfill all its precepts at the same time)? (and suddenly I am reminded of Asimov... )

 

This actually touches on why we tend to rank actions.. because of what we perceive as direct consequences. That little white lie than no one is supposed to detect or find out about has little perceivable consequence.. Olive sleeping with Brutus on the other had has more immediate and potentially severe consequence of hurting Popeye emotionally.

Rather than ranking each individual's actions we're really measuring how we perceive the noticeable consequence of those actions. We rarely think of things in those terms however. The problem of course is it's impossible to know or predict the resulting ripple effect. How for example, was Popeye to know that spurning Olive would get him a beat down by Chris? We can only judge as much as we perceive.

As for the conclusion as to who ended the relationship.. we could get into a lengthy debate just on that if we wanted. It only takes one to end a relationship.. but that one is the one who decides to do so. Popeye was the one that made that decision. He could have forgave. He chose not to.. furthermore he chose to end it. Olive made a mistake yes.. but actually ending that relationship wasn't her idea. It was his. It was his decision and therefore his responsibility. Olive didn't make him do it.. but she did give him reason to and that much is on her.

 

Popeye could have continued the relationship, but I think it would have seemed to him in that position a lie and not a healthy relationship. So the question is whether he would be doing Olive any favors to continue the relationship and engage with her.

So you're right. Popeye ultimately had the choice not to break it off, but whether he's blameworthy, or she is, is I think the real issue.

On the other hand, if he saw that Olive was sincere at least, how he handled the breakup might have mattered also.

 

All this type of stuff only show me a fundamental misunderstanding when people can't agree what love is. Who's to say love cannot co-exist with feeling? I would describe a romantic love and love plus infatuation where as many people confuse infatuation alone with love. Though I would argue that love exists through action precisely when to chose to love when you don't really feel like it. But it's something you DO. Feelings come and go but it's our actions we live by.

 

In the very least I appreciate that Olive was at least honest. Though if we're bringing the continued relationship into question I have to wonder if it was ever a good idea to being with. If it were to be an unhealthy relationship going forward.. was it ever one from the start? I begin to question Popeye's judgement and taste in women.

 

Yes that much is true

 

worst to least worst:

Wimpy: Knew olive's predicament and refused to help anyways just to avoid potential drama.
Chris: For overeacting with only one side of the story
Popye: For not trying to get his ass to olive and shunning her even after she explroed every option to get to him. And getting beat up by chris.
Brutus: He offered a service for payment, didnt force her, but had a lack of compassionf or the situation.
Olive: Being honest, trying everythign she could to accomplish her goal, but coulda used a decoy or soemthing

 

What I mean by changing the backstory is when people say Olive should have tried to find money to pay Wimpy or Popeye should build a boat, etc.
Your interpretation is *exactly* what the test is trying to get from you. It shows what you hold most precious in this mix of actions and emotions. Some may think sex and love are forever intertwined and that Olive broke the love with her action, but others will see sex as a physical act only and love as so much more, therefore it was Popeye who broke the love. Or violence is acceptable, but indifference is not. Again, all great interpretations that are meant to be discussed, but trying to add in "Brutus was only acting this way because of the torment of his childhood" and "it's aliens" or something, well that is adding too much.

So please, talking all about the emotions, the love, the non-love, the violence, the indifference... great discussions, but the test is to rank these things on your personal values. Otherwise, in this case, say this is TMI (too much personal information for a forum) and say it is none of our business. I chose to answer and explain, and I appreciate those who have, and I respect those who choose not to do so.

 

Yeah but why does it hurt popeye emotionally? Female cats just moan and moan when they are in heat and the toughest cat on the block gets to be the father. Do the other male cats get their feelings hurt?

Where did this concept that we ought to be monogomouse? I don't know. Does anybody know? We can speculate that it has something to do with primitve males taking ownership and dominion over women. However that falls short. Actually there are stories about marriage from early civilization that were far more apprieciative of women than modern times. So who knows?

Why is popeye's feelings hurt? He wasn't rejected? Olive said she loved him and was willing to even be honest with him. Sounds reasonable enough. However it is this sexual act she performed with Brutus that seems to be the whole thing that got popeye's nose bent out of shape. Why does he care what she did with brutus. She's with him now? HOw is that different than having a girfriend who had a boyfriend she slept with before getting together with the current guy. For some reason people seem to see that diffrently.

Now don't get me wrong I too would have a problem with it if my wife were to have extramarital affairs. For one I can get an STD, and some of those can alter the course of our lives, but not likely. Usually for men it is just something antibiotics can fix. So really what is the problem?

 

Yeah seems like true love. Probably is. Seems to be most benificial. Nobody can feel love forever. However then popeye is he acting in love? Popeye rejects olive. Now I suspect he must have had some kind of feelings for her to get so sore at her for what he believed to be a betrayal. However if he was acting in love as you just defined it, then even though his feelings were busted, he ought to have continued on with her and never reject her and never force her to go away in this situation.

 

No, I get that. The test is trying to pit "its only sex" against "its love." But the question is whether that's misleading. The fact that Olive, in a real world scenario, would have done other things, demonstrates how its misleading. My interpretation is based on that. It actually has nothing to do with a view of whether sex and love are forever entwined -- which I don't believe -- but the specific scenario, and what's intentionally not being said in the story.

 

She obviously knew he cared; otherwise she wouldn't have gone over to Wimpy and asked him before she went back to Brutus. Right? She also felt the need to tell him. So part of the question is also not whether Popeye was justified in feeling hurt, but whether she knew she was hurting him and did it anyway.

 

Precisely. That is far from the only path to be traveled, either.

 

The most wonderful thing about this thread is that it could be measuring the potential of the human race. In fact the human race might just be summed up as popeye and olive.