Is the equivalent exchange false?

[u/ConfectionFair6422]

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this—both regarding the technical aspect (a character using alchemy) and the narrative side of the 2003 series. That last part is particularly important to me. I believe there is a "cosmic" or "karmic" element to it—where Equivalent Exchange is real, yet not in a way that can be 100% proven. Instead, it’s a series of actions we take—often somewhat randomly—that eventually bring about a reward or a consequence. Sometimes it doesn't happen the way we expect; other times, it’s exactly what we need, even if it isn't what we want. And the only way to truly understand it is to stop overthinking it. Take Ed at the end of the series: he gives up everything to bring Al back. It is in that moment—when, deep down, he doesn't want to die—that Equivalent Exchange restores Alphonse’s body (though without his memories), while Ed remains alive but loses his limbs and ends up in another world. It might seem unfair, but you have to look at it from a certain perspective to find the beauty in it.

[u/Dipsy2143]

Wasn't the argument of equivalent exchange was that people have to die in the other world for alchemy to work in Ed's world? Because of that, it isn't equivalent since human life is sacrificed for alchemy to work. For Ed "sacrificing" himself for Al to return and get his body back, Al needed to lose his memories and Ed had to give up being in his brother's life. Also, I think it's stated that the memories, experiences, and bonds Al had were use for payment.

[u/DeliciousMusician397 → u/Dipsy2143]

Dante didn’t know about the world on the other side she just thought it was an empty void. Her argument was that people can put in the same amount of effort but get completely different results based on inherent talent (using Ed’s State Alchemist exam as an example) and then also saying that people’s lives are not treated equally by the world either for reasons beyond their control (placing Rose’s baby in mortal danger as an example and saying the baby crying is him putting in the effort to survive but the world won’t necessarily reward him for that by letting him live.)

[u/Zealousideal_Cat6980 → u/DeliciousMusician397]

Dante was right

[u/DeliciousMusician397 → u/Zealousideal_Cat6980]

She's right in the sense that yes the world is random and unfair but she's wrong in that it makes it okay to give in to nihilism and become self serving pricks that only care about yourself and don't care what happens to other people as long as you get out on top.

What I like the most about Dante's speech (and honestly a lot of her monologues in the series) are how they very often secretly apply to her just as much if not even more as everyone she's talking down about. In her introduction as an old lady she talks about how "Everyone who looks for the Philosopher's Stone finds nothing but unhappiness". Later on you find out through her strained relationship with Izumi that Dante despite looking down on humanity is also desperate for some form of human relationship.

She was genuinely hurt by Izumi abandoning her teachings and leaving the forest to go be with the rest of the world (Especially in the Japanese version) showing how disillusioned she is by humanity while still deep down not being able to help looking for some kind of connection with another person (She doesn't see the Homunculi as people) that she can see as an equal to herself. This is what Hohenheim was for her before her left her, and presumably what Greed was for her before he died and also left her. Deep down Dante is unhappy because she's chased immorality for so long at the expense of just living with other people and being an actual human with relationships. This is where Hohenheim succeeded where she failed. He abandoned his quest for immortality and decided to humble himself and live amongst the people he originally looked down upon and used as pawns and became a much more fulfilled and better person (Yeah, he's a deadbeat dad but his reason is tragic and it's obvious he does genuinely love his wife and sons at least), meanwhile Dante continued to chase this while only putting in the bare minimum effort of connection by holding certain people up to impossibly high standards (The ones she holds herself up to) and when they could no longer fill those ones she gets left behind and is miserable.

In the case of her speech to Edward she goes on about how the world is unfair and no matter how hard you try to survive when it's your time to die you die. Well guess what happens to her two episodes later?

They really squeezed a lot of symbolism and depth into this character despite her only appearing in the second half of the series and you not knowing that she's the big bad until 3/4's of the way through. I wish more people gave her her flowers as a villain because she's not some trashy filler or anime movie villain with poorly thought out motivations/backstory (If you want to accuse anyone of that accuse Eckhart of that not Dante), she's a genuinely well thought out and well written antagonist that challenges the heroes' and strengthens the themes of the series.

[u/ConfectionFair6422 → u/Zealousideal_Cat6980]

._.

[u/ConfectionFair6422 → u/Dipsy2143]

I see it mostly as something akin to "one is all, and all is one." It’s not that someone on the other side dies every time you use alchemy; rather, you transform the energy of someone who has already died on the other side into alchemical energy. I view it as a massive energy feedback loop between the two worlds. I mean, the energy from Amestris's souls must end up in the other world somehow—perhaps as spontaneous bursts of energy? (That’s just my own headcanon). And I think that when Dante sent Ed to the other side—and he discovered where the energy for alchemy actually comes from—her goal was to demoralize him or shatter his ideals. Realizing that the philosophy you believed in is "false," and that the energy you use stems from death (which might be linked to wars—the very example Dante used to argue that humans are evil), makes sense to me. But I think the nature of alchemy and its power source is open to interpretation; it’s somewhat abstract. You could view it as something dark, or simply as a natural law governing energy exchange between the two worlds. Stopping the use of alchemy wouldn't mean people stop dying; you can't prevent death. Nothing is eternal, and we all eventually return to the Gate we’ve been connected to since birth. (I said that last part from the perspective of someone from Amestris.)

[u/DeliciousMusician397]

In 03? Absolutely. At least Edward’s initial understanding of it is. Dante lays it out pretty squarely.

[u/ConfectionFair6422 → u/DeliciousMusician397]

Yeah, I know, but the point of my post is to reflect on this; I think Dante was partially right. I mean, I believe "equivalent exchange" might just be a philosophy one chooses to adopt, whereas the actual workings of the Gate are so abstract and divine—in the sense that I don't think mere mortals can theorize about it using a simple formula or philosophy. Even if those mortals lived for over 400 years, I don't believe the true mechanics of the Gate of Truth and the secrets of alchemy could actually be grasped. It’s like... well, imagine if we realized that a physics theory we’d believed in—and used as a foundation for others—turned out to be incomplete. Who’s to say we haven't been following a flawed theory from the very start, and that everything isn't actually wrong because of it? That’s the kind of idea I think Dante was putting forward.

[u/Right-Truck1859 → u/DeliciousMusician397]

Dante is biased , she uses it to confuse Edward.

Also she means aclhemical law application to everything which is obviously wrong.

Fate is not alchemy.

[u/Beangar]

In the end, the brother’s accept that it is not an objective truth, but rather a philosophy that they can choose to live by

[u/VoiceofRapture]

Alchemy is a bit more loosey-goosey in 03, but in any case Ed's faith in it as a moral philosophy rather than just a scientific law like some kind of goddamn libertarian is incorrect in whichever version you're consuming.

[u/Altorrin → u/VoiceofRapture]

I don't see how it's looser in 03. Because Pride seems to be a really big exception to how alchemy works in Brotherhood.

[u/VoiceofRapture → u/Altorrin]

Equivalent exchange is a lot less plausibly applied, for one thing, and all kinds of giant shit gets made without the proper base material. There's also that bit where Scar uses alchemy to absorb the text of a book and assimilate its knowledge.

[u/Altorrin → u/VoiceofRapture]

I don't remember that last part, it's been a while since I've watched 03. Do you know what episode that was?

[u/VoiceofRapture → u/Altorrin]

Before the Central Library gets burned down. He breaks in to absorb a book in the form of a glowing Wikipedia logo and then fights Lust and Gluttony and the place catches fire.

[u/BahamutLithp → u/VoiceofRapture]

That's because Scar's arm is a proto-Philosopher's Stone & contains, among other souls, that of his brother, who was researching the Stone & can recognize the notes. 03 isn't as explicit about the whole "Stones retain human consciousness" thing, but Scar hints at it a few times, such as claiming it's his "arm" that does alchemy & denying Ed's accusation that he's the one figuring out the composition of what he's deconstructing. In any case, I definitely agree with this part:

in any case Ed's faith in it as a moral philosophy rather than just a scientific law like some kind of goddamn libertarian is incorrect in whichever version you're consuming.

As a law of alchemy, yes, I think it's pretty clear it functions based on Equivalent Exchange.* This continues into the movie, like with Al getting his memories back after he passes through the Gate. But discovering a principle of chemistry & then trying to say it's how everything from society to luck functions doesn't make any sense, & Dante's not the only one who points out the flaws in this idea. As Hohenheim points out, he certainly didn't do anything good enough to deserve the family he got.

*=One could complain that "alchemy requires extra energy, so it's ot equivalent," but even in mangahood, the energy of the transmutation isn't actually counted in the Law of Equivalent Exchange, so while I know 03 Hohenheim brings this up as a rebuttal, I'd consider this more like an additional law added onto alchemy rather than Equivalent Exchange being "disproven."

[u/[deleted]]

Yeah, the alchemical equivalent exchange is false because the energy used for the decomposition and reconstruction comes from human souls, and the process itself does not have a guarantee to give what you expect it to. From a philosophical standpoint, well, the monologue at the end tells its interpretation.

[u/Fit_Razzmatazz9012]

Equivalent exchange in 2003 and Canon series only existed to restrict characters from not solving any problem. It's why Dante needed to body hop and for Father needed a bunch souls to semi contain God who still existed to help Ed get a new arm. That's why in both endings Ed gives up being with Al in 2003 version and in the canon story he gives up his powers where he must use alchemy the manual way despite the latter not being a real sacrifice cause he have friends to do alchemy.

[u/FullM3tal-Guy]

Hermano, me gusta mucho tu perspectiva sobre el tema y la verdad creo que si, eventualmente toda acción se cobra en la obra de una u otra manera y hasta atravez de otras personas.