the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Dustofsnow Commoner | joined 20 Jun 2004 | 1

posted 20 Jun 2004, 02:06 in The Darkness That Comes Beforekellhus == good guy?? by Dustofsnow, Commoner

That's the point, I think of Khellus. He combines Nietzhian ethics (if such a thing exists) and Kantian ethics. If you remember the quote at the beginning of the prologue, "If it is only after that we understand what has come before then we understand nothing. Thus we shall define the soul as follows: that which precedes everything." That's what Khellus does. He stands, or attempts to stand in the nothing that precedes everything. In this way, he is or is at least in the position to be Kantian. At the same time however, since he stands within vacuum, since he is a witness to nothing, everything loses the importance it would have in a world of Kantian morality. Therefore, you see all through out that Khellus moves with nihilistic motives and tendencies. Uses people as he pleases without thought of whether his actions breaks the Categorical Imperiative. In this way, Khellus is nihilistic. Now whats really interesting is the fact that Khellus has to know about morality and has to have lived it out before he can stand "before" it and control the people around him. Which is why Khellus is a man of "intellect". The only way he can know about morality while not being moral is through his intellect. Hence, all the refrences to him as inhuman. Afterall, what we colloquially define as human is very much rooted in our definition of good and evil. Khellus on the other hand thinks himself beyond good and evil. Some speculation. I think later books (I've only read the first one and know nothing of the other ones) will see Khellus become more and more tied up in the morality of the people around him. Intellect isn't everything in the human being. In Khellus we think we see a man whose intellect has conquered everything else in him. But consider this, if Khellus stands before everything, then he cannot see himself. He only sees himself though the eyes of other people. And even then, it is because he wants them to see a certain thing. So Khellus is constantly seeing himself as different things, inhabiting many possibilities. Yet something must remain constant otherwise Khellus is no more. And in this constant part of Khellus, the struggle between intellect and morality continues. While his intellect suppresses his morality, it is at the same time being modified by those suppressed moralities. As an example I point to the time on the cliff when he decided that he needed Cnaiur. Other possibilities were before him. But he only chose one. This decision is not made by intellect because intellect only sees. It does not decide. If Khellus was a man of intellect then his is bound by the chaotic everything and does not stand apart from it in "the nothing." If he stands apart from everything then he cannot know this for sure because he cannot see himself by his own intellect. Anyways, this ain't a paper. Suffice to say, Khellus is the combination of the Kantian man and the Nietzchian man. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.