Classpect Discussion Thread

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the big picture means "the entire perspective on a situation or issue —used with the"  Based on this definition from an actual dictionary, your definition of "The big picture" seems to be incorrect, as seeing the entire perspective would include the full outcome of a situation. Whereas normally, the big picture refers to not being able to see the overarching effect, because of you are currently feeling, the opposite outcome would be true as well, only being able to see the current situation, and not considering what will eventually happen.

Plus... I would say she missed the big picture because she didn't give a thought to how John eventually succeeded. Just straight up knocking Vriska out.

But, you're the one who defined it as seeing the big picture, not homestuck. So, if you're redefining your own definition of the Big Picture, when we've been arguing on the premise of all using the same definition of that phrase, that's basically argument cheating.  XD

Don't take that line out of context. From this page:


The message here is that as a Seer, her understanding cuts across all aspects, rather than being specific to Light. Her comment after this about minutiae would then imply that she doesn't have the depth of understanding of other players' aspects that they themselves do.

Then it's useless to use it as a piece of evidence unless you can first establish that further claim. Trying to claim a thing is the case, without explaining that none of the words involved mean what they usually mean, is pretty disingenuous argumentation. Because you can just say, at any point, "Well *that* word doesn't mean what you *think* it means," and thus can move your goalposts whenever you like. It strongly resembles (and may even be) a "no true scotsman" fallacy--you presented it as though it were the common understanding, and when that showed an untenable weakness, you assert that it must be re-defined to remove those weaknesses. It doesn't mean your point is wrong (fallacious arguments are only incorrect reasoning, not incorrect conclusions), but if you're going to resort to that kind of argumentation, it loses any persuasive force it might have had.

If you meant something other than "big picture" when you used the words, whether you quoted it from the comic or not, the onus is on you to explain that, to explain to us that "big picture" actually means "the present moment," or whatever you believe it should be defined as, and "fine details" means...? I'm not entirely sure what it means, to be honest, since we're allowing such enormous leeway in the meaning of its intended opposite, "big picture."


The original point isn't one I would have made, so don't take this response as me laying claim to the argument, but your rebuttal is flawed for the simple reason that Terezi couldn't, even in principle, have foreseen John's interference. He has stepped outside of the story, and thus his choices can no longer be observed directly within the story. Game Over Terezi looked to see what places would be worth changing, but we have no indication that she could see what effect his changes would make. (That she was simply wrong about the wallet, for example, may be evidence thereof; or she may have known he didn't have it, and was relying on his confusion to make additional effects, we'll never know for sure.)

Also, your use of the winky emoticon, while perhaps meant to communicate a sense of humor, more gives me the feeling that you're being flippant. When combined with the questionable logic of your previous point...well, emotion shouldn't matter in a rational discussion, but a participant coming across as "rude" doesn't contribute to a healthy discussion. That may not have been your intention at all, but it definitely feels like that to me, and I would encourage you to avoid such flippant-seeming tone.


It adds: the "big picture" and "minutiae" of which she speaks may have nothing to do with the particular information she acquires, and rather to do solely with the (putative) fact that Seers' sight reveals information regardless of what aspect it might pertain to--simply viewed through the lens of that aspect. E.g. Rose can absolutely learn important details about the meaning of Time or Space, even though neither is *her* aspect, because the details of Time or Space are relevant to what her aspect shows her, "the path to victory for all." She can see whatever she needs to see, without becoming bogged down by comprehensive knowledge of other aspects.

It contradicts: the idea that the "big picture" of which she speaks has nothing to do with individual details. In fact, it can be solely expressed through individual details, e.g. "I don't actually know how Space works, or how Time works, but I have been informed that the more you pass through one, the more the other becomes knotted up and twisted around." That's a particular detail about Time, and a particular detail about Space, without all the background about Time or Space. Similarly, her later statements (after God Tiering, which I'll note that her "big picture" comment is pre-GT) talk about how she can use her brief moments of Sight as one extra source, to cross-reference and compile with other sources (the books, the dreaming dead), providing enough information to draw conclusions and make inferences. That sounds much more like gathering small snippets of detail, which can then later be factored into a larger body of knowledge that presents the whole picture.

The dictionary definition isn't going to tell us anything about how 'the big picture' applies to magic powers in the context of multiple time loops in a web comic. The classpects work in a specific system, and the big picture in that system is specific to that system.


I was never trying to figure out what it means in Homestuck, I only said that Rose used it to describe what she does as a Seer. Based on that, I was trying to interpret how that could be true. 


I was referring to the list Terezi made and gave to retcon John. And I was joking. Hence the wink.


The whole point is that comprehensive knowledge is detail oriented information. Knowing little bits and pieces here and there doesn't create an incredibly specific picture of any one thing you're looking at as opposed to just seeing enough to know how the things your looking at fit into the grand scheme of things. So if a Seer is some one who can realize they're in a forest based on observing the existence of various trees, their counterpart would be able to tell you far more detailed and comprehensive information about one tree, or one specific kind of tree, while missing the existence of the forest.

Possibly. Though to be fair, in that quote, Rose doesn't mention her aspect at all. 

Nor should you wait, since it won't be disconfirmed!

I did for the longest time, but now I think that Maid is paired with Heir as the Maker Classes. Combined with Rogue stealing their Aspect to give it to others, there's no more room for a provider/giver pair. There just isn't enough difference between creating something like Hope or Rage (which can only exist inside of a person to begin with, and thus creating them always involves giving them) and providing it, thanks to Rogue covering the convept of giving it by taking it from elsewhere. I think serve still has a chance, but only in its "fight" and "obey" definitions.

So...is this kind of snipe really necessary? "Super excited to see you guys proven wrong!" isn't exactly contributing to a fun and friendly discussion. TBH, I would have just reported this post rather than replying to it, but since I can't find the report button, this reply is all I have.

It's fine to be confident about your interpretations, and fine to express your distaste for other interpretations, but this? It's just needless antagonism. Surely we can be more mature than that.

It's under the gear, two buttons to the right of the quote button. 

I thought amiabletemplar was snippier to me than thecrystalship was to anyone. If she was doing anything, she was just being silly, and poking at fun at some of us.

This is why these threads always break down. People make things too personal and too serious and that leads to people acting like dinks to each other and derailing the conversations. Yeah we want to stay on topic, but considering we're never going to figure out if we're right unless Hussie confirms it some way, it's best not to lose your shit over it.