Shirou Emiya - The hero and the weapon

If you had the power to save people would you do it in exchange for a sacrifice such as your humanity? This question is raised in the confrontation between Shirou and Archer. Their battle, their final confrontation, is a fascinating moment in Fate/Stay Night Unlimited Blade Works, and even if I don't like Shirou as the protagonist I can't deny that that battle was very beautiful, certainly better than the one against Gilgamesh, because here there was a real ideological clash, there it was a battle between two ways of conceiving heroism.

Shirou is the modern Artoria, in a nutshell, he believes in heroism, he wishes to become a hero himself, following in the footsteps (or rather the influence) of his father, he embodies his desire to be a hero and to this is obsessed with that path. Like Artoria, Shirou renounces emotions (mainly because of his trauma), he prefers to be an object that saves everyone and sacrifices himself for others rather than being a simple human being who cannot save anyone, this idea of his, this his way of seeing heroism, as we have said many other times, is represented by the Unlimited Blade Works where you can see the presence of gears that symbolize Shirou's machine nature, this nature without humanity, practically empty. Shirou, in this ideological battle is a puer, let's say so, he's a naive boy, a young man who aspires to become a hero like those of legends: a hero of justice. The senex, the elder, is Archer who represents the destiny of Shirou's ideologies, even if he comes from another reality, we can consider him as the "elder Shirou". He knows that ideal and hates it because it has led him to an abyss: he has become a weapon used by others to commit atrocities. He's a mercenary, in that sense, no ... perhaps worse ... he's literally an object used to do harm. He has killed a lot and he knows it, he knows he has killed and he knows that it's all the fault of that ideal of wanting to save everyone. Archer knows, from his experience, that you cannot save every life, you must always make sacrifices, such is the course of things and so it must be.

In Unlimited Blade Works, the swords in the desert represent the lives that Archer has taken, all those weapons are his sins are the result of his wanting to be a machine that saves others. The question here is very simple: who is right? Who is wrong? Establishing this can be difficult.

 
The first thing to say concerns the renunciation of humanity: Shirou's sacrifice is the one made by Artoria but there is a difference that may be difficult to notice ... Artoria is not a hero in the same way that Shirou wants to be. You see: Artoria just wanted to protect all the people of her nation, but she was still a queen, she didn't have time to protect everyone, she wasn't some sort of Spiderman, let's face it, her job was to defend the homeland not to save the world and this is a fundamental difference that must be kept in mind.

Leviathan

Shirou sacrifices his humanity for humanity but Artoria sacrificed her humanity for the homeland, in other words she has become something like the king on the cover of Leviathan (T. Hobbes) ... she has become the representation of the supreme will of the people, she's became the absolute leader of the kingdom. The ideal king in both peace and war, but nothing comparable to the hero that Shirou dreams to be. Perhaps Artoria is more like a saint like Joan of Arc but certainly calling her a "hero" is a bit of a stretch since she doesn't actually respect the definition of heroism that her own Master wants to pursue.

Shirou wants to sacrifice himself, his own humanity to become a true hero, but doing this means becoming a weapon. He wants to become a weapon that can be available to everyone, even to higher forces. Does it remind you of anyone?

Enkidu and Shirou have a lot in common, much more than Artoria and Shirou. What do Enkidu and Shirou have in common, in your opinion? Isn't it obvious? Being weapons. But they aren't weapons for the good of a group of people but for the good of anyone, they're objects and coincidentally both have a characteristic: they have been used by superior forces in an inappropriate way. Let us remember that Archer was used to kill people, and Enkidu was used by the Gods to kill Gilgamesh. It's not all. The Noble Phantasms of Enkidu and Shirou are linked to their being, to their very essence, they are not separate weapons, like a sword or a bow or a magic, they are a part of them, of their being: the chain is a part of Enkidu and emphasizes the fact that he's not a human being since he can even take on any appearance, after all he's made of clay and like clay can be shaped.

The Unlimited Blade Works is a part of Shirou, a metaphor of his existence; and here's a curious thing ... although there are several magical formulas with which Shirou activates the Noble Phantasm there are parts, in different formulas that are interesting:

1. "I am the bone of my sword, steel is my body and fire is my blood" 
2. "My body is made out of swords, my blood is of iron and my heart of glass"
3. "This body is made out of infinite swords."

The theme is always the same: Shirou is not human, he's a weapon just like Enkidu. And let us remember that Enkidu can take the form of any object and therefore technically also of any weapon, so even Enkidu could say of himself that he's made of infinite swords. Here we have two weapons that have had a completely different fate. In fact Enkidu was saved, absurdly, by Shirou's rival and this is the sweet irony that takes me away. 

Enkidu was saved by Gilgamesh who as his opposite and perfect rival completed him and made him more human. The explanation for this lies in Enkidu's lack of that victimhood that instead characterizes Shirou, in fact, Enkidu is a weapon, yes, but still he feels a form of exaltation when he fights against Gilgamesh, he doesn't start from the assumption that he will lose but wishes to face Gilgamesh and winning him; he's driven by competition and this leads him to join Gil, and to be with him. A friendship is forged between the two but also a rivalry.

While Shirou got nothing from Gilgamesh and even less from Artoria or Rin and practically learned nothing from Archer, in other words, he stayed true to his path. Which can be praised or not. But the fact is that a recurring element in Shirou's magic formulas is his victimization and perhaps pessimism which for some can be slightly annoying. When Shirou fights he assumes that he will lose but still gives his all. I don't know whether to call it modesty or imbecility.

 

Enkidu, as a weapon, taught one thing: being objects doesn't make you free, on the contrary, it's a renunciation of all freedom in the vain hope of being used in the right way. This self-objectification is a key point in Shirou's philosophy and is the reason that leads him against Archer, who wants to kill him to avoid committing those atrocities. Here the question is: can a hero who has no feelings really be a hero?

Artoria lost her kingdom due to her lack of humanity, because the people thought of her to be too perfect, too machine-like, but why would this be a negative side? I do not understand. The perfect hero, or the perfect king, is the one who feels no emotion, right? And anyone would like to have a perfect king or hero, right? No, wrong. In reality there's no perfect king or hero, it's an illusion, but the existence of competent kings and heroes is not. A competent king, as opposed to Artoria, is one who doesn't represent perfect justice but knows how to communicate to the people because he knows that the people must be happy in order for the kingdom to continue. The people are not interested in justice, but in happiness; this was understood by the Roman emperors, by the way.

Artoria didn't understand this because, recalling the famous words of Alexander the Great, she had clung to an illusion, a fable, an ideal of a king which in reality is completely useless and ineffective.

And what about the hero?
The competent hero is not the one who saves everyone, but is the one who knows how to cultivate a myth of himself. The reality of things is that no one can save every single person, one cannot be a perfect hero. But one can turn one's heroic acts into stories to be told for ... what purpose? The purpose is to teach the future generation, the purpose is to cultivate new heroes who will one day follow the same path. You have to become legends, not perfect beings. 

The irony is that the King Arthur myth is a beautiful lie born for the sole purpose of teaching kings to be perfect for the people. But the real Arthur, probably, was a Roman leader who killed barbarians, or the natives of Britain, and therefore, technically, he was on the side of the oppressor and not the oppressed, so yeah... not really a heroic figure.

 

In addition, the absence of humanity makes the hero a figure of dubious morals. Saving a person automatically is like drinking a glass of water, it's not right or wrong, it's amoral, that is, it cannot be subjected to a moral judgment. And one might say: "No, because the important thing is the gesture." And I say ... no, the important thing is also the intent and this is also told by Kant in the Critique of Practical Reason: there are visible actions and invisible intentions. The latter are subjected to a moral judgment. If you save someone for money, you're immoral, if you save them because you have to save them, then you're moral, but if you save them because you can't do otherwise, then what are you?

Let me be clear, the matter here is very complicated. Kant likes to keep us in these philosophical dilemmas but we have to put up with it. So ... in the Critique of Practical Reason two types of imperatives (i.e. commands) are introduced:

• Hypothetical imperative
• Categorical imperative

The hypothetical imperative is presented in the formula "if ... you must ..." to give a simple example: "If you want to do well in school you must study".

The categorical imperative is presented in the formula of "you must" pure and simple. It's a duty for duty. You have to help that person because you have to help that person, okay? Fine. The categorical imperative has formulas that it must respect to be considered as such:

1. The first formula (or basic formula) tells us that this imperative must respect a universalizability test, that is, if your maxim is applicable by all human beings without affecting their relationships and their freedom then it's a categorical imperative;
2. The second formula tells us that the categorical imperative must respect human dignity and must not reduce your neighbor or yourself to a means of selfishness;
3. The third formula tells us that the categorical imperative must be the result of a rational and autonomous will and must not start from the outside, or from a enslaving will.

So our Shirou acts in a moral way or not? I could say, "Yes, he's moral because Shirou saves people." The problem is that he wants to save them because he wants to be a hero, and therefore there's an ulterior motive and therefore the saved person is reduced to a means that Shirou uses to achieve his goal, which is heroism. But the question is not that simple: we must take a step back and understand Shirou's maxim ... what command did he impose on himself? To be a hero. I could say, forcing Kant into this discussion, that Shirou reasons this way: "I have to be a hero because I have to be a hero". Okay, so this is his maxim, his command. But is it a valid categorical imperative? We need to determine if it exceeds the three formulas:

1. If this imperative were followed by everyone we would probably all have a better life, there is no doubt about that, but then I stop and ask myself: what does it mean to be a hero? The idea of ​​heroism, unfortunately, is quite subjective. Let us take Artoria's idea of ​​heroism which coincides with the idea of ​​sanctity which for Kant is impossible in life, since sanctity is the perfect conformity to the moral law, a perfection that no rational being can reach at any moment of life of one's existence, because to be holy one must not be influenced by human needs (emotions, instincts, desires and so on ...) but the human being, at least once in his life (and perhaps even more than once) will act by following his own needs and not the moral law and therefore the sanctity of Artoria is impossible ... unless you give up your humanity as she did and as Shirou wants to do. So heroism, for them, equals the renunciation of humanity and such a thing if applied by all human beings would deprive any person of the emotions, empathy and desires that are a part of humanity anyway, a necessary part of the human being. So this maxim would ruin human relationships and make them impossible;
2. Does this imperative follow the second formula? Well, technically not, because the question we have to ask is: can a person deprived of his humanity have a conception of human dignity? I don't think so and Archer proves it to us because following that imperative he ended up killing people and therefore did not respect human life and the dignity of other lives. So it doesn't follow the second formula;
3. This imperative does not even follow the third formula because Shirou did not conceive this imperative completely by himself but was influenced by his father, so it's not a fruit of his autonomous will.

So what have we just shown? That Shirou is not following the moral law however, beware, as I said before, he's not immoral because in any case it must be considered that he doesn't harm others; his deeds are good but his intent cannot be subjected to a moral judgment, just like that of an object. Obviously Archer sees all of this as bad because it would mean risking becoming a vulgar killer, nothing more, nothing less.

Archer possesses the material experience of the fruits of that suicidal ideal of Shirou, an ideal that brings with it only death and loneliness. However, Shirou's response to Archer's ideology is basically, "Just because you're correct doesn't mean you're right". For Shirou, being a hero is a matter of justice. Of justice to whom? Towards others? Towards himself? Towards his father? What does it mean to be right for Shirou when Archer reveals to him that the fate of his ideal is black as coal?
Shirou is aware of the sacrifice he's making, he says it himself, he knows that he's walking in hell but he still wants to walk that path. He wants to fulfill his father's wish, he is an object that contains his father's obsession, a weapon forged by the desires of a man whose morality can easily be questioned, let's say so. This is right for Shirou. The righteous is in that sacrifice. Sacrificing his life, his humanity for an ideal of heroism which, as we know, is suicidal by definition.

 

But so that means Archer is right, right? Archer was supposed to kill Shirou to put an end to this madness. The renunciation of humanity, Artoria herself is aware, is a serious mistake whose consequences can ruin many innocent lives. So Archer is really right while Shirou is wrong. The matter could end here ... but there is one more thing we need to highlight.

 

Archer versus Shirou. This ideological clash recalls the experience of Gilgamesh against Enkidu however it is deprived of a real alternative that can resolve the situation definitively for both characters. Archer sees in Shirou the source of his mistakes and wants to kill him in this way he will never kill again and will never be a weapon again. Shirou sees in Archer a man who has lost his values, who has lost the right path, a man who must deny at all costs because he no longer knows what is really right.
Their battle could have ended either with the death of one or with the death of the other because there are no real points of contact.
Psychologist Sheldon B. Kopp had seen in Gilgamesh and Enkidu the representation of the conscious and the unconscious, what we call with the Latin terms senex and puer. The senex, the elderly, is: wise, rational, perhaps arrogant, human, cold and logical; the puer, the child, is: instinctive, irrational, emotional, animalistic and empathic.

In the battle between Gilgamesh and Enkidu there is an ideological opposition, yes, there is a deadly battle, yes, but there is a bond like that between Yin and Yang that leads the two to understand their weaknesses and strengths . Enkidu knows that Gilgamesh is his opposite and can improve him and Gilgamesh knows that Enkidu is his opposite and equal and can also make him a better person. Thus their friendship was born.

But Archer and Shirou do not present the same opposition for several reasons:

1. They are the same person and therefore they really have nothing to learn from each other, they simply oppose each other;
2. Neither actually teaches the other, they simply stay close to their ideologies; 
3. The desire to kill Shirou manifested by Archer is moved by the last bit of humanity that probably remains in his soul;

This third point is my philosophical device by which I affirm that: Archer, in killing Shirou, is committing suicide for the good of humanity itself, and therefore shows a human side in preventing himself from becoming a machine of death and nothing more.
But what was Kinoko Nasu's mistake?
Here we don't have Gilgamesh / Enkidu, no, here we have the killer who wants to kill himself before he can become the killer. The attempt fails because Shirou triumphs, but in the end the two become allies which is a fundamentally wrong choice. Shirou has all the credentials to be an antagonist yet he is treated like a hero even when technically he shouldn't be.

The ideological clash between Archer and Shirou immediately makes one thing clear: the two can never get along, they can never be allies, because the ideological clash between the two characters is based on a definitive repulsion where only one of the two can emerge victorious and any compromise would be for each of the two as a betrayal of their cause.
Obviously Archer is the one following Shirou.

Nasu's mistake therefore was to conclude the ideological clash between these two as a battle between Goku and Vegeta, where the difference between the two characters is useless, it is superficial.
But please don't make the mistake of the average user who looks at Fate and says that the "battle between Shirou and Gilgamesh is an ideological battle" because I know it and you know that there is little ideology and more battle between protagonist and antagonist. The ideology of Gilgamesh is not even treated by the anime, it is simply hinted at and abandoned in the basement as the typical B-series antagonist ideology; during the battle against Shirou, Gilgamesh does not philosophize, he simply teases him and acts like a bitch and then ... well there's very little ideology and in fact our dear Gilgamesh also dies badly. Very badly.

The real ideological battle, the only time Shirou's ideas are challenged, is when he confronts Archer and for me the conclusion of their confrontation was unsatisfactory.

 

But that's just my opinion.