So I think the theme for FP is not so much "you should always accept the status quo" but more "obsessing over your past regrets will make you miserable in the present".
Yes, I'm oversimplifying things; Colin's lesson was more along the lines of "Learn to see all the good there was, and embrace that; don't get bogged down by the few bad things there were".What you say at the end is what I was interested in when writing my post: Under which circumstances would it be "okay" (from the audience's point of view) for a Sigmund patient to change their memory? You assume that at least when someone is at peace with their past, they may escape Colin's trap of no longer seeing the good they had when they decide to use the service, and that that might be an okay way to use it.
What you say at the end is what I was interested in when writing my post: Under which circumstances would it be "okay" (from the audience's point of view) for a Sigmund patient to change their memory? You assume that at least when someone is at peace with their past, they may escape Colin's trap of no longer seeing the good they had when they decide to use the service, and that that might be an okay way to use it.
I'm trying to come up with a situation in which memory change would be "good". Best I can think of is this: Imagine a patient had a life where they misunderstood many things that happened to them and that made them unhappy. If it were possible to walk them through the same situations again and this time help them to see what they couldn't see the first time around – that other people didn't have bad intentions when they did certain things, that the patient was valued but just couldn't see it etc. - then they could come to a kind of peace with their life that is both achieved through the memory change and anchored in truth. Now that would be positive, wouldn't it?
For another, the true self of others - that's the "fake River" argument. It'd be a loss of the good you actually had together and you could no longer be sure that the ones you are with really behave like they would in reality: For example, River took Johnny's hand in the shuttle, something she wouldn't have done in real life.
Is it bad that Johnny exchanged his real life for a fabrication? I'm torn.
We only know a few moments out of Johnny's new life; we can't even say what the rest looked like. I've always kind of assumed that it was pretty similar - after all, we do see the two move into the same house. And as Neil says, River being there at all, that's generated by Johnny himself. Why would he not use as many bits and bobs from reality as possible for his new life?
If it were mostly a different life and much more to Johnny's liking ... I can see the point in disliking that. It sounds like disrespect to River to take all the points of misunderstanding away, like losing who she really was (as mentioned above). From a utilitarian point of view, it wouldn't matter - if he were happier, it'd even be better. But yeah ... somehow it feels like there was value in the true story of these two.