Vinland Saga Episode 18 Discussion

Gabisu said:
I will argue for him, being specific, from a point ago Canute was a spoiled and cowardly person, right? From Ragnar's explanations, Canute grew up in a scenario full of self thinking people (as in episode 13 a flashback showing Canute, a child in the face of castle deaths), in the midst of this power struggle, people don't think of each other, this point drives his train of thought in this episode.

While raised by Ragnar, he learned good manners, was still close as shown his characterization episodes ago, but even learning good manners, he was stopped in time, enough to hear the priest himself questioning God, Canute is angry with supposed "hypocrisy" of the priest, for he was in fact questioning after innocent people died cruelly.

Episodes after Ragnar's death surfaced shaking Canute completely, he was alone there in that world, lost not only his father figure but the person with whom he showed his true feelings, after all he never had a love of a Father, his Father himself despises him. Then comes the mutiny, in which everything turns to Canute, it's the cause of everything, and once again people are killing each other for no reason, as Thorgrinn himself did this mutiny thinking about himself, he didn't think of any more. people, only followed Askeladd, which strengthens the dialogue of everyone thinking about himself (but clearly differently).

Canute's whole dream was a message of independence for his own, since that's why he decided to look into the present (obviously a punch from Askeladd didn't help him), and upon waking up he comes across the war scenario again, while the priest decides to argue with him, Canute's mind exploded with all this, it was as if he were a medal, he was alone, while listening to the thoughts of the priest, he decides to question God himself, after all alone he would have to depend God's? Would he need to wait for his salvation? Seeing that Father was the first to question God and all the dialogue about being tested in this world influenced Canute thinking, he was fed up with seeing the same landscape, people killing themselves for futile reasons, and how God would do nothing to change this landscape, he decides to want to change, to at least want at least a paradise on earth, and of course he is the prince, he may have a chance to become a king, so he relies on what was given to him from the beginning. , he will need to fight fairly to get what he wants, after all he tired of waiting for God, of course I can not say that this was realistic, but the epiphany was consistent with what was shown and interconnected at these points.

bonus: This scenario represents why Thors quit his life as a warrior, I think one of the things that most drives this thinking is when a soldier Thors has just killed says a woman's name (In the first episode, a man says the word '' Maria ''), could it be his wife? The daughter? Who knows, but there could be a dear person in his life, he had someone to go back to, which is why this line of thinking makes Thors think of his family and abandon everything, just as Canute thinks of people in general. and want to end it all, '' as a king's duty '', on the one hand someone tries to escape the battles, on the other, someone tries to end them, but the general context of these scenes is always the same, about the The subject of war brings no fruit to humans, only trauma or horror, this killing is meaningless, it is just a small thing I have interconnected, so you can ignore my point.

Of course I would say that this is an awakening, not a development, for me development is when he takes action and shows a new perspective on the universe, more he walks. This promised deliverance that he himself must find, since he has always grown up in the midst of death, always refusing to wait for a miracle, he decides to change things.

It is not a dialogue about how a King should act politically, but as someone who should guide people to salvation, after all if you want this to end, you must have the will and action to change the whole landscape.

emraanash said:


this is about a war okay, where was the war? where is the detailing?

they have to show us the cause and effect for connection and impactful drama, but so far there was none. and its been 18 episode for fu*ks sake!

emraanash said:



point number 3 that's what I was saying the whole fricking time! so far there is none.

deg said:
i do not get what is love they are talking about lol i only get that ye there might be no love in the hearts of humans so Canute decided that Gods trials and tests are not worth shit to develop that love they are seeking or even the paradise they wanted to have so he will do it instead of their shitty God

Hegar said:
The philosophizing was nonsense. Love is when you identify with someone else, or with an animal or a person if you will. Someone else's happiness is your happiness, someone else's sadness is your sadness. It is an instinct that evolved to keep people together.

There is way too much philosophizing and singing about love, because it is easy. You can make the song and anyone can listen to it, since no one can object to love. But it then becomes this big metaphysical thing that people try to twist to fit what they want it to fit.

And "discrimination"? To love one person but not everyone is "discrimination" and therefore not love? I sure hope the words meant something else in Japanese.

deg said:
i do not get what is love they are talking about lol i only get that ye there might be no love in the hearts of humans so Canute decided that Gods trials and tests are not worth shit to develop that love they are seeking or even the paradise they wanted to have so he will do it instead of their shitty God

Hegar said:
The philosophizing was nonsense. Love is when you identify with someone else, or with an animal or a person if you will. Someone else's happiness is your happiness, someone else's sadness is your sadness. It is an instinct that evolved to keep people together.

There is way too much philosophizing and singing about love, because it is easy. You can make the song and anyone can listen to it, since no one can object to love. But it then becomes this big metaphysical thing that people try to twist to fit what they want it to fit.

And "discrimination"? To love one person but not everyone is "discrimination" and therefore not love? I sure hope the words meant something else in Japanese.

nanashi796 said:
but he's right if you love one you discriminate others that normal, he talks about true love, the one god is supposed to have for everything and everyone,ragnar didn't do anything to save the village people,he choose canute over them thats discrimination,that's the philosophy that thors have,killing others to save the one you love is bad,no lives matter more than others, all lives have the same value,that's what he means to be a true warrior,the priest said that the the death is the perfect form of love because when you're dead you can't do anything bad and only being useful to the others forms of life and the earth,obviously this form of love is impossible to have due to the nature of humans.

nanashi796 said:
love doesn't exist without discrimination or prejudice,if you love someone you automatically prioritize him to others,that's called discrimination,the life of others have the same value of the one you love.

savtruff said:
In negative connotation yes that is discrimination meaning, but you're not enough googling it. In simple meaning discrimination like you said it just mean distinction. It can be mean diversity or separation. Okay I'm googling it too. Discrimination : "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another".eg.
"discrimination between right and wrong" from Oxford btw...lol... So I think the priest's speech make sense. Like Love is also have many meaning from agape, eros, in this part the priest's love is agape. And not only Makoto yukimura brought this concept, you can search falling in love is discrimination by Jordan peterson. I think it's up to you to receive that concept.

Yautja said:


I've got one word for you two. Equivocation. You two, and Peterson, are buying into a misleading fallacy at best. A "technically right" argument. Just because being selective means excluding others, does not mean you're being "discriminatory" in the truest and majority sense of the word.

If you actually think anyone is going to buy that bullshit "god is suppose to love everyone" argument, you're relying on ignorance. If you make me break out a bible and list off every example of the Christian god being an absolute "discriminatory" piece shit, we're going to be here for the next week. And that childish ass philosophy of "killing is wrong no matter what" can get fucked.
No, all lives don't have the same "value", depending on your interpretation, simply because value means monetary worth, merit or importance. And I can tell you for 100% fucking sure, Elon Musk has way more value than me.
The real word isn't rainbows and sunshine or black and white. If you're going to be arguing in favor of a philosophy that says defending the people you care about is bad, my god, go to a fucking monastery, because you've already got the self-righteousness, ignorance and arrogance down, might as well make it official.
Love isn't defined as "doing nothing bad and being useful".

nanashi796 said:
lol i just explained what the priest meant with that,people merit doesn't matter,he thinks that all lives have the same importance,still he's right about the fact that when you love one you are prioritizing him to others without even knowing it.

Yautja said:

And I just explained why that priest is full of shit; he's a drunkard with a half-assed pseudo-intellectual / pseudo-philosophical understanding of the words he's using, preaching about a god and he barely understands & knows about.

He may have that opinion, but that opinion, based on the definition of the words value and merit, is factually and semantically, wrong.

Yea, and prioritizing or favoring someone you know and care about isn't "discrimination" in the proper sense of the word.

That one word, "equivocation" fractures the entirety of his and your argument. That whole schpeel was a bunch of bullshit that won't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.