Is it good art? Sure, I think so.
Is it good in the TCG meta? Meh. Regi Gate could be helpful to grab a Basic Pokemon for your bench. Its attack is strong (140 damage), but is it worth not attacking next turn? I think there are better options out there, and itâs also out of rotation (F Regulation Mark) as of April 11.
Is it expensive? No.
Have I answered your question?
Itâs good.
I would like to disagree with the esteemed collectors that have offered their opinion here so far and provide the following counterpoint: it is not good.
Regirock is always good
I think this thread is deeper than most of us, dear collecting fellows, think.
The real question arose WHILE thinking about stated question in this thread â which was clearly the anticipated itention of op.
For the REAL question now is:
Was it good?
I understand your perspective, and I think it can be expanded upon even further.
Not only was the question generated while thinking about the card in the past, but the question was also left open-ended.
âGoodâ can mean any number of things. It can be subjective, objective, moralistic, righteous, materialistic, and beyond. Distilling this card down to itâs prior worth, without narrowing down the element on which this worth is evaluated, begs the question: What even is good?
Or, given that the question was asked in the past: What WAS good?
And then imagine if this seemingly âoh so normal bla bla blaâ card actually would have BEEN good.
Then most of if not all philosophical question could be answered simply by Regirock.
Would humankind be ready for this ⊠and which good would arise from that? And would this good itself again by definition be Regirock as well â and lead to an infinite but unavoidable regress (which in case of the truth of my statement might already has started).
Those are interesting times we witness. Intersting indeed!
Indeed so. Iâd like to direct our attention to Bertrand Russelâs review of Principia Ethica by George Edward Moore, titled The Meaning of Good, to shed some further lights on this discussion:
Mr. Moore begins by dismissing the notion that ethics is solely concerned with human conduct, or with the goods attainable by human beings: ethics is the general inquiry into what is good, and into what good is. The chief contention of the first chapter is that good itself is indefinable: an ultimate, simple notion, like yellow. Not that it is impossible to define the good , i.e. , the things which are good; but that what we mean when we say that a thing is good, cannot be explained in any other terms. This is established by observing that, however we may propose to define good , it is always significant to say that that which is suggested as the definition is itself good.
Indeed, we must consider such arguments before we even attempt to evaluate Regirock as good or not good. For, as Bertrand Russel states: âgood itself is indefinableâ.
If i understand your point, then the question is âIs good good? And is it that?â To which i will stick with my surveyed answer âWell yes, but actually noâ
So by quoting Moore we also have to talk about Wittgenstein and his critique regarding Moores position in Ăber GewiĂheit which clearly states that talking about knowing something always has to have the possibility left open to doubt it for we can not use the word âknowâ without the possibility to doubt it. For then it would just simply be believing.
For further information I would like to direct you all interest in this direction
6. Kann man nun (wie Moore) aufzĂ€hlen, was man weiĂ? So ohne weiteres, glaube ich, nicht. â Es wird nĂ€mlich sonst das Wort »Ich weiĂ« gemiĂbraucht. Und durch diesen MiĂbrauch scheint sich ein seltsamer und höchst wichtiger Geisteszustand zu zeigen.
- Moores Ansicht lĂ€uft eigentlich darauf hinaus, der Begriff »wissen« sei den Begriffen »glauben«, »vermuten«, »zweifeln«, Â»ĂŒberzeugt sein« darin analog, daĂ die Aussage »Ich weiĂ âŠÂ« kein Irrtum sein könne. Und ist es so, dann kann aus einer ĂuĂerung auf die Wahrheit einer Behauptung geschlossen werden. Und hier wird die Form »Ich glaubte zu wissen« ĂŒbersehen. â Soll aber diese nicht zugelassen werden, dann muĂ ein Irrtum auch in der Behauptung logisch unmöglich sein. Und dies muĂ einsehen, wer das Sprachspiel kennt; die Versicherung des GlaubwĂŒrdigen, er wisse es, kann ihm dabei nicht helfen.
121. Kann man sagen: »Wo kein Zweifel, da auch kein Wissen«?
ChatGPT translation (caution: may totally be rubbish compared to academic translation)
- Can one now (like Moore) list what one knows? Just like that, I donât think so. â For otherwise, the word âI knowâ is being misused. And through this misuse, a strange and most important mental state seems to reveal itself.
- Mooreâs view essentially amounts to this: the concept of âknowingâ is analogous to the concepts of âbelieving,â âsupposing,â âdoubting,â âbeing convinced,â in that the statement âI knowâŠâ cannot be mistaken. And if this is so, then one can infer the truth of a proposition from the utterance. And here the form âI thought I knewâ is being overlooked. â But if this is not to be allowed, then error must be logically impossible in the assertion. And this must be understood by anyone who knows the Sprachspiel; the assurance of a credible person that he knows it cannot help here.
- Can one say: âWhere there is no doubt, there is no knowledge eitherâ?
So, this brings us to the final question: If it was good and therefore is good and forever will be good, can it then really be good for it does not leave room for doubt and therefore should not be called knowing a definition for good but only believing it?
(In this context my selfish me wants to throw in the seemingly simple answer that MAYBE the answer just is Starmie.)
Iâd like to cast the net wider and ask: âis it is it wicked? Do you really like it?â
This might be lost on some people so apologies for the terrible humour in advance
[Source material for this deep philosophical question is of course based on the timeless prose of DJ Pied Piper and the Masters of Ceremonies ⧠2001]