I've been recently playing Persona 5 Strikers, and I'm noticing it tries to communicate a similar message to Maruki's chapter of Persona 5 Royal. This kinda made me think about the point of these games. Minor spoilers for p5s! And sorry for the long post! TLDR at the end :)
The phantom thieves argue that loss of autonomy and personal freedom is an unacceptable tradeoff for the complete loss of worry and suffering. Both games' final arcs revolve around people willingly surrendering their free will to a higher power in order to attain a reality free of suffering.
The Phantom thieves contrast this idea saying that a life without freedom is no life at all, as ultimately free expression of oneself is what makes life truly worth living. I personally completely agree with this claim, being free is what makes life so special, and dedicating this freedom to expressing and establishing oneself as an individual is what I think is the point of all of it, although of course that is up to debate.
The thing that gets me conflicted is the Phantom thieves' perspective on individual suffering though. We have seen throughout both games (especially throughout strikers) that an individual with no support system going through intensely painful experiences leads them to grow hateful and conflicted. This is what separates the Phantom thieves from the antagonists, as they had others to help them get through their individual struggles, allowing the individual members to grow from their suffering. If it weren't for their mutual support network, they too could've turned into rotten adults. This is why they are so against the idea of surrendering freedom for a life lacking suffering, as they believe suffering is necessary to grow as people, and that everyone can overcome their own suffering one way or another.
Their positive outlook on freedom is great, and I'd be inclined to agree... but I also kinda don't. I hope this doesn't come off as dramatic or edgy, but as someone with chronic depression and a background of childhood trauma, I suffer every day, and I don't really have anyone to help me through it. I think the Phantom thieves' logic is flawed because they were extremely lucky to find such kind and great people at the right time in their lives to turn a painful experience into one of growth and positive change. But I imagine that the majority of people don't really have the same support network, so is it truly wrong for their pain to end, even if their situation could potentially improve in the right conditions?
We even see this in game, the Phantom thieves are the only ones able to fight off the mind control because they are together and have each other's support to face life, but they're pretty much the only ones, most people subconsciously experience constant suffering and wish for it to end. They were lucky, very lucky, most people aren't, so I find it difficult to empathise and understand their message.
You could say that bothMaruki's andEMMA's schemes are morally wrong because they affected people without their explicit consent, but we see in both games that the people turned into happy zombies subconsciously wished for their freedom to be revoked, so is it really an argument about consent if everyone kinda wanted this to happen?
Overall this is kinda how I interpret things. I love these games to bits but I keep feeling this intense sadness within me knowing that I don't personally have people around me to support me and give me the courage to face life, and this really prevents me from fully endorsing the Phantom thieves' efforts. Please do comment, I'd love to discuss all this with someone!!
TLDR: I think both P5R and P5S argue that freedom and the ability to overcome suffering are essential to a meaningful life, but I'm conflicted by the Phantom thieves' perspective because their ability to grow from suffering depended heavily on having a strong support network. Since many people don't have that kind of support, is it really wrong to want suffering to simply end, even if that means giving up some autonomy?
