view the rest of the comments
Daystrom Institute
Welcome to Daystrom Institute!
Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.
Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.
Rules
1. Explain your reasoning
All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.
2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.
This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.
3. Be diplomatic.
Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.
4. Assume good faith.
Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”
5. Tag spoilers.
Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.
6. Stay on-topic.
Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.
Episode Guides
The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:
- Kraetos’ guide to Star Trek (the original series)
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Animated Series
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Next Generation
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- Darth_Rasputin32898’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- OpticalData’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
- petrus4’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
But what does it even mean to be "made up of negative traits"? Would he have been completely unable to learn? To realise that, maybe, sometimes, there is benefit in not being "evil", even for entirely selfish reasons? And who says that GoodKirk couldn't also learn to be more assertive? (psychotherapy must be easily available in our socialist future, especially for high-ranking Starfleet officers, as well as plenty time off for mental health reasons)
It's not like Kirk's positive and negative traits are inherent, he wasn't born with them, but they are a result of his life's experiences. So could one make the argument that both would just need time to adjust?
See this is exactly what I mean. The Kirk example is a grey area, that in real life would lead to way too many questions than could be answered in a single TV episode. It's an interesting thing to think about though, and gets into the whole nature vs nurture debate that we saw tackled a bit in episodes like the DS9 one with the baby Jem'Hadar. If you're ripped apart into two beings like that, are you essentially "born" good or evil and would you have the capacity for change?
Could each Kirk have gone on to become psychologically stable? Maybe, maybe not. Did merging them save one combined life that would've otherwise soon expired, or did it murder two individuals who could've gone on to have long happy lives? Lots of questions, ripe for debate. A grey area.
Whereas in the Tuvix example, there's nothing really grey about it. And regardless of which side you come down on in the Kirk debate, that's why I believe Janeway gets all the flak and Spock does not.