Safeanew said: Nothing has a set definition sure, but if you're going to use a word that has reached a common definition, unless you want to cause confusion or unnecessary discourse, use the accepted definition. Unless you just want to get philosophical about the meaning of anything (in which there is no meaning and thus nothing can be understood) then use the accepted definition.Tommeow said: It doesn't matter if that fits your definition of escapism, that's what escapism is, plain and simple Do you only use the lexicon definition of words, or can you read between the lines and understand things that are based on context? Then this should not be hard to accept that we bend the meaning of words to fit the context. |
   Why don’t we become monsters and really mess up this awful world? Just destroy until there’s no more evil, no more sadness, no more anything… Wouldn’t that be great? |
Ringo_Elegant said: Safeanew said: Ok so I agree with your position 'escapist' as genre that is still taken seriously. My point of everything can be escapist, is that reality itself is mostly escapist. People work to forget things, people are mean to others to forget things. The only escape is this avoidaince of thinking. My problem is not with some textbook defintion, it is people use to make out reality like the only thing that matters. No, fiction matters because it is the only way to truly face reality. You might enjoy the philosophy of Rene Descartes, he often talks about how uncertain reality is, but coined the famous phrase "I think, therefore I am". He addresses some of what you're talking about, and the school of metaphysics in general is a beautiful tradition of thought addressing some of these concerns. I myself grew a great interest in the nature of "reality" after playing MGS2. Snake's line at the end "What most people think of reality is actually just fiction" is one that resonates with me deeply. I think the problem people are having with your thread and why you're feeling no one is addressing your concern is that the use of the term 'escapist/m' is a bit ill-advised here. You're saying you have no problem with the 'textbook definition' of escapism nor with the categorization of genre under escapism, but rather a specific rhetorical (perhaps foolish) strategy that some groups use to dismiss fiction. I think if you made the much cleaner claim of "People who dismiss anime as having merit based on preconceived notions are in the wrong", you'd find almost everyone here agrees with you (except for maybe some self-hating weebs). Yeah Rene Decartes "I think therefore I am" is what Zizek the philosopher i follow is arguing for when he says we should go back to the cartesian view of the subject just with the added insights from psychoanalysis. Thanks for the advise, but I make a point in trying to provoke because one thing is it challenges the idea of a consensus based in common sense. My point is that people don't agree with each other on a fundamentall level and a bit heated conflict can show how no one truly agrees with anyone else, just we meet each other from time to time when the words fall into place. |
Safeanew said: Ringo_Elegant said: You might enjoy the philosophy of Rene Descartes, he often talks about how uncertain reality is, but coined the famous phrase "I think, therefore I am". He addresses some of what you're talking about, and the school of metaphysics in general is a beautiful tradition of thought addressing some of these concerns. I myself grew a great interest in the nature of "reality" after playing MGS2. Snake's line at the end "What most people think of reality is actually just fiction" is one that resonates with me deeply. I think the problem people are having with your thread and why you're feeling no one is addressing your concern is that the use of the term 'escapist/m' is a bit ill-advised here. You're saying you have no problem with the 'textbook definition' of escapism nor with the categorization of genre under escapism, but rather a specific rhetorical (perhaps foolish) strategy that some groups use to dismiss fiction. I think if you made the much cleaner claim of "People who dismiss anime as having merit based on preconceived notions are in the wrong", you'd find almost everyone here agrees with you (except for maybe some self-hating weebs). Yeah Rene Decartes "I think therefore I am" is what Zizek the philosopher i follow is arguing for when he says we should go back to the cartesian view of the subject just with the added insights from psychoanalysis. Thanks for the advise, but I make a point in trying to provoke because one thing is it challenges the idea of a consensus based in common sense. My point is that people don't agree with each other on a fundamentall level and a bit heated conflict can show how no one truly agrees with anyone else, just we meet each other from time to time when the words fall into place. Oh... Zizek. Interesting guy for sure. But, I have to say, when you tell me "[you] make a point in trying to provoke", it just makes it seem kind of... intellectually dishonest. It plays like you're just intentionally confusing people by operating with a similar yet distinct definition. It sounds like, dare I say, clickbait. |
Safeanew said: iasuru said: what in the fuck is "modern objectivism" Modern objectivism is a blanket term I made for every "objective reason" someone says to discourage discussion. Anime being escapism is a common one. it is an escapism for people but it doesn't mean it is it for everyone. that said, a lot of things also can be considered as a medium for escapism (movies, video games, activism?, writing, and you can go and on and on). Anyways, to the title of your thread, anything can pretty much be considered as "escapism". Just depends on the person. It's just that I don't know if people actually think about doing something because it is an act of escapism. For me, I've never really done that. If it is, it just is. To answer the question in the body, Anime to me is a hobby. Do I consider it as a tool for escapism? I mean sure. |
 |
Maurice_5 said: Safeanew said: I am defending the people that enjoy anime without thinking, by saying what they are doing is not escapism by itself. What I find is escapist is those that seem to want to shut down threads or conversations in the way they speak. They don't speak on topic, they just say you are ridiculous in these camoflaged ways that makes them seem smart while being really disrespectful of the person they are talking to. Safeanew said: I define escapism as the lack of thinking, the lack of commiting oneself to the things one do. I mean, you do you, but that's not what literally the rest of the world means by 'escapism'. So if you try and start a conversation about it and keep using the wrong word, you can't really get upset that no-one knows what on Earth you're talking about. Using the alternative meaning of 'escapism' - that is, the correct one - there's no need to 'defend' people that watch anime for that purpose. Because, you know, that's fine and all. It is escapism, whether you call it that or not, and most of them would happily admit that's a big part of why they watch it (example: the rest of this thread). And just because it caught my eye: Safeanew said: No, fiction matters because it is the only way to truly face reality. I disagree. Massively. Fiction can, sometimes, reveal telling things about the culture it's portraying, and about the author and their assumptions, and a lot of other things. Certainly, that's true. But it's not 'the only way to truly face reality' - that's actually ridiculous. There's lots of people who, for whatever reason, just aren't that into fiction. They're not disconnected from reality as you claim - they just engage in a different way. And even for those of us who do enjoy fiction? It's, at best, a minor part of how I 'face reality' (whatever that even means). Oh, and if you don't like me saying your writing is confusing, maybe don't write in a confusing way? I count dreams when we sleep to things one should take seriously if one wants to take reality seriously. Without fiction one avoids the desires that one have but can't accept, because in reality we are expected to act civilized to fit into society, many of our desires get pushed away and that can be correct, but if one avoids facing those desires one avoids the full meanings of the things pushed away one are not truly facing reality. |
Safeanew said: Well I see alot of comments in this thread whose sole intent is to shut me up, and they don't even answer my question. Because this forum is full of people who like to stir the pot with half-assed claims and cheap controversy, and you're acting just like one of those. You can't expect people to take you seriously if, from the start, you came up with a nonsense 'blanket term' that's a fundamental part of your reasoning but you don't even take a moment to explain it in the introduction to your thread. Safeanew said: If anime is only escapism for people as in something to avoid the pain and theres no other meaning in it, how can you even discuss anime if there is no meaning in it except avoiding pain? Again, your basic premise is wrong. Just because something is used for escapism doesn't mean that escapism is all there is to it. Even the worst pieces of fiction are multifaceted. Escapism is solely one of its facets. You can discuss the plot, even if it is shallow. You can discuss the characters, even if they are all one-dimensional. You can discuss the themes, even if they are obvious. Heck, you can discuss about literally everything that composes it. A lot of people read The Lord of the Rings for mere escapism, for example. That doesn't prevent them from discussing it in depth, because it is a complex work with a lot going for it. And just because someone finds solace in reading it to escape reality doesn't mean they will completely ignore everything else about said work. Just because you're escaping from reality doesn't mean you can't learn anything from that experience. As I said, the nature of anime itself is escapism. Japanese culture has escapism deeply rooted in it. And still, that never prevented them from actively discussing anime. Even the most obviously escapist genres (like CGDCT) has lots of fans lively discussing them. |
 |
Tommeow said: Safeanew said: Nothing has a set definition sure, but if you're going to use a word that has reached a common definition, unless you want to cause confusion or unnecessary discourse, use the accepted definition. Unless you just want to get philosophical about the meaning of anything (in which there is no meaning and thus nothing can be understood) then use the accepted definition.Do you only use the lexicon definition of words, or can you read between the lines and understand things that are based on context? Then this should not be hard to accept that we bend the meaning of words to fit the context. I don't agree with this, of course if someone wants to understand me I will use the language that is the most easiest to understand, but this is a fundamental disagreement both in philosophical claim and in language use, I should not use the definitions of words if it's that very definition I am criticizing. People think that defintions and common sense have authority over how one should talk, but that is truly the end of all discussion if that was true. Inventing new meanings and words is signs of meaningful discussion, because it means one is still exploring beyond the horizon of knowledge. |
| All human culture is escapism from biological realities. Though these are cleverly integrated and partially obscured to prevent societies from falling into animalistic chaos. I'm not saying this to be cynical either. The fact that primitive people were able to mitigate in-group conflict through symbolic thought is pretty damn cool. |
syncrogazerFeb 28, 2019 4:28 PM
Safeanew said: If you want to change the definition of something, go for it, try it, know that unless enough people see fit for change that change will not happen. You haven't criticized the definition of escapism btw, you've basically just said "I have a different idea of what escapism should be" which in and of itself shouldn't be called escapism because it has nothing to do with escaping. What's the point in calling something an established idea if it doesn't fit that idea? It's like randomly calling a new development in the field of psychology Fruedian and discarding the previous idea.Tommeow said: Nothing has a set definition sure, but if you're going to use a word that has reached a common definition, unless you want to cause confusion or unnecessary discourse, use the accepted definition. Unless you just want to get philosophical about the meaning of anything (in which there is no meaning and thus nothing can be understood) then use the accepted definition. I don't agree with this, of course if someone wants to understand me I will use the language that is the most easiest to understand, but this is a fundamental disagreement both in philosophical claim and in language use, I should not use the definitions of words if it's that very definition I am criticizing. People think that defintions and common sense have authority over how one should talk, but that is truly the end of all discussion if that was true. Inventing new meanings and words is signs of meaningful discussion, because it means one is still exploring beyond the horizon of knowledge. |
Why don’t we become monsters and really mess up this awful world? Just destroy until there’s no more evil, no more sadness, no more anything… Wouldn’t that be great? |
Safeanew said: I count dreams when we sleep to things one should take seriously if one wants to take reality seriously. Without fiction one avoids the desires that one have but can't accept, because in reality we are expected to act civilized to fit into society, many of our desires get pushed away and that can be correct, but if one avoids facing those desires one avoids the full meanings of the things pushed away one are not truly facing reality. Be. More. Clear. How on Earth am I meant to unpack this... waffle? ... I mean, I will, but for all your talk of liking discussion you sure don't seem very good at actually facilitating it. Right, so, since you quoted the whole post but only seem to be replying to the last bit, can I take that as you agreeing that your definition for 'escapism' is at best incorrect and, more fairly, misleading? And also that people do, in fact, watch anime for escapism? Good! On to the actual 'meat' of the post (to stretch the definition a bit, putting it freaking mildly): Dreams, again, can sometimes indicate things about a person's mindset in reality. But not every dream is something to be psychoanalyzed. I mean, last night I dreamt I was a werewolf hunting Slenderman, because my dreams are awesome. That doesn't reveal anything about me, I don't think. (I mean, you'd have to analyze something like that with Freudian or Jungian methods anyway, both of which are debunked.) Okay, the next bit. This is actually more Freudian id/ego/superego bullshit. I disagree that we're only acting civilized to fit in with society. I am civilized, thank you, and all my social codes are embedded far more than skin-deep. And even if I accepted that, the fact that you would be suppressing your most basic urges to gain the benefit of living within a social network means that you're actually behaving far more rationally than someone who lets those urges control them to the point of driving others away. In other words, the reality is that you are living in a society. Also, not all fiction is for the purpose of allowing us to fulfill some deep hidden desire. Most of mine fulfills one, very public one - I want to enjoy myself. I enjoy fiction. So, I read fiction. Also, just what do you mean by 'facing reality' anyway? Do you mean being a fucntioning human being? Do you mean being an active participant in society? Do you mean having a grasp on the way the world works? None of those necessarily require you to engage with fiction. |
Ringo_Elegant said: Safeanew said: Yeah Rene Decartes "I think therefore I am" is what Zizek the philosopher i follow is arguing for when he says we should go back to the cartesian view of the subject just with the added insights from psychoanalysis. Thanks for the advise, but I make a point in trying to provoke because one thing is it challenges the idea of a consensus based in common sense. My point is that people don't agree with each other on a fundamentall level and a bit heated conflict can show how no one truly agrees with anyone else, just we meet each other from time to time when the words fall into place. Oh... Zizek. Interesting guy for sure. But, I have to say, when you tell me "[you] make a point in trying to provoke", it just makes it seem kind of... intellectually dishonest. It plays like you're just intentionally confusing people by operating with a similar yet distinct definition. It sounds like, dare I say, clickbait. Well it is the opposite actually, I provoke people to make visible the confusion people already have but never fully discussed. It is shown by the very reaction by my provocation, a person that is not confused would not so easily dismiss what I am saying. Because to be sure of oneself is to try to understand others fully before rejecting their claim. 'Intellectually dishonest' is another word used to not take seriously what other people are saying. I would claim that it is impossible to be intellectually honest, because honesty can only be honest nothing more or less intellectuall about it. |
| Anime can be a form of escapism, just like many other hobbies can. |
Safeanew said: 'Intellectually dishonest' is another word used to not take seriously what other people are saying.. You seem to have a lot of those, and it only ever seems to come up when someone says something you don't have a ready answer for. After which you just claim people have tried to shut down your argument, and then don't discuss it further. Almost as if you're trying to dismiss it and not take seriously what they're saying to you. |
| Anime is in my case mainly escapism, since I watch anime to literally drown my mind in something that makes me forget everything else; since I do that most of my time and get heavily depressed as soon as I stop, it's escapism. About the objectivity to escape thinking, I find that curious since I use subjectivity to avoid discussions. If I claim that we can both think whatever we want there's no room for discussion since everything's easily dismissed with a simple "it's like that for me". Also, I don't avoid discussions because I'm afraid to think, but because I know it's pointless since there's no way I'd change my opinion or someone else's. But I do it too because i'm pretty weak, I can easily be shattered and criticism could easily make me unable to enjoy something, as it happened more than once before, and if I live no room for people to argue with me I can avoid that scenario. |
  |
Satyr_icon said: Safeanew said: Well I see alot of comments in this thread whose sole intent is to shut me up, and they don't even answer my question. Because this forum is full of people who like to stir the pot with half-assed claims and cheap controversy, and you're acting just like one of those. You can't expect people to take you seriously if, from the start, you came up with a nonsense 'blanket term' that's a fundamental part of your reasoning but you don't even take a moment to explain it in the introduction to your thread. Safeanew said: If anime is only escapism for people as in something to avoid the pain and theres no other meaning in it, how can you even discuss anime if there is no meaning in it except avoiding pain? Again, your basic premise is wrong. Just because something is used for escapism doesn't mean that escapism is all there is to it. Even the worst pieces of fiction are multifaceted. Escapism is solely one of its facets. You can discuss the plot, even if it is shallow. You can discuss the characters, even if they are all one-dimensional. You can discuss the themes, even if they are obvious. Heck, you can discuss about literally everything that composes it. A lot of people read The Lord of the Rings for mere escapism, for example. That doesn't prevent them from discussing it in depth, because it is a complex work with a lot going for it. And just because someone finds solace in reading it to escape reality doesn't mean they will completely ignore everything else about said work. Just because you're escaping from reality doesn't mean you can't learn anything from that experience. As I said, the nature of anime itself is escapism. Japanese culture has escapism deeply rooted in it. And still, that never prevented them from actively discussing anime. Even the most obviously escapist genres (like CGDCT) has lots of fans lively discussing them. If someone starts a thread you think it is nonsense why would that lead to trying to shut it up, why not go to another thread instead where you will respect the people you talk to, that those not really sound civil. The only thing worth discussing is half baked, because I'm trying to learn new things, not doing the thing I already know how to do. My claim is also philosophical in that people use the word escapism to not fully take themselves seriously, like hobbies are a separate life apart from reality. I don't agree with this split between hobbies and real life because it sacrifices alot, mostly it sacrifices proper manners, how to treat other people. |
 its not that deep bro _________________________________ |
No one can justify life by linking happy moments into a rosary.  |
Safeanew said: Ringo_Elegant said: Oh... Zizek. Interesting guy for sure. But, I have to say, when you tell me "[you] make a point in trying to provoke", it just makes it seem kind of... intellectually dishonest. It plays like you're just intentionally confusing people by operating with a similar yet distinct definition. It sounds like, dare I say, clickbait. Well it is the opposite actually, I provoke people to make visible the confusion people already have but never fully discussed. It is shown by the very reaction by my provocation, a person that is not confused would not so easily dismiss what I am saying. Because to be sure of oneself is to try to understand others fully before rejecting their claim. 'Intellectually dishonest' is another word used to not take seriously what other people are saying. I would claim that it is impossible to be intellectually honest, because honesty can only be honest nothing more or less intellectuall about it. So you've proven that if you intentionally confuse people, they will be confused... Congrats? Honestly dude, I think the "question everything" attitude you're going for is admirable and a good start but you're going about this in a way that makes you seem (and I mean this in the sweetest way possible) really arrogant. You keep saying that the traditional definitions of terms are incorrect, but how are your definitions any more reliable? At least the traditional definitions have the backing of cultural acceptance and Occam's Razor, there is no reason for us to prefer your definitions that were custom-made for your arguments. Socrates was called the wisest man in Greece because he said "All I know, is that I know nothing". You're kind of going the opposite approach. You're claiming that the terms you use are the 'true' terms that humanity should turn to. What's especially ironic is that I (and some, not all, of the folks here) am simply offering critiques, not dismissal. It is YOU is being dismissive, Safeanew. You're claiming "No, I'm right about this" because you are simply redefining your terms so that nothing you say can be wrong. It's the same as if I made a thread saying "Horses are actually dogs", and if someone replied to me with a definition of a dog that a horse doesn't fit, I could just say "Well, I'm personally redefining the concept of 'dogs' here as any animal that primarily operates on four legs". Like yeah, I'm right via that definition, but nothing is proven and it looks like a project I just set up to make myself feel smart. |
Safeanew said: My claim is also philosophical in that people use the word escapism to not fully take themselves seriously, like hobbies are a separate life apart from reality. No, they don't. Again, it's only you who uses the word that way. |
syncrogazer said: All human culture is escapism from biological realities. Though these are cleverly integrated and partially obscured to prevent societies from falling into animalistic chaos. I'm not saying this to be cynical either. The fact that primitive people were able to mitigate in-group conflict through symbolic thought is pretty damn cool. I agree with this except that it misses the point of reality itself can only be experienced as illusion, this is not the same as reality is illusion! Also is not the opposite also cool, how escalation of conflict works? I would not call conflict animalistic, without it there would be no society to speak of. |
Safeanew said: I see alot people calling anime and also fiction in general escapism. But I find more true is that the very claim that fiction is escapism is escapism from thinking itself! What is anime for you? Take your time and really think about it!  just gonna drop this here.......... |
No one can justify life by linking happy moments into a rosary. |
fancyjasper said: Anime can be a form of escapism, just like many other hobbies can. Reality itself can be escapism, I just point out that escapism have nothing with what you are escaping to just that you are escaping from something. |
Chimaeraian said: Remember that it is one perspective out of many and you should be talking about what is and not what isn't. One should say ones perspective, even if one is ridiculed for it. Why would one have an perspective one don't believe in? |
| A hobby, a fun way to pass the time. A tool to get you curious about other cultures, life lessons and controversial topics. Finally anime is an activity that while it keeps you glued to your seat it also motivates you to move your body, do research and think. |
 |
Safeanew said: fancyjasper said: Anime can be a form of escapism, just like many other hobbies can. Reality itself can be escapism, I just point out that escapism have nothing with what you are escaping to just that you are escaping from something. Escapism is doing something to distract yourself from something unpleasant. |
|
Ringo_Elegant said: Safeanew said: Well it is the opposite actually, I provoke people to make visible the confusion people already have but never fully discussed. It is shown by the very reaction by my provocation, a person that is not confused would not so easily dismiss what I am saying. Because to be sure of oneself is to try to understand others fully before rejecting their claim. 'Intellectually dishonest' is another word used to not take seriously what other people are saying. I would claim that it is impossible to be intellectually honest, because honesty can only be honest nothing more or less intellectuall about it. So you've proven that if you intentionally confuse people, they will be confused... Congrats? Honestly dude, I think the "question everything" attitude you're going for is admirable and a good start but you're going about this in a way that makes you seem (and I mean this in the sweetest way possible) really arrogant. You keep saying that the traditional definitions of terms are incorrect, but how are your definitions any more reliable? At least the traditional definitions have the backing of cultural acceptance and Occam's Razor, there is no reason for us to prefer your definitions that were custom-made for your arguments. Socrates was called the wisest man in Greece because he said "All I know, is that I know nothing". You're kind of going the opposite approach. You're claiming that the terms you use are the 'true' terms that humanity should turn to. What's especially ironic is that I (and some, not all, of the folks here) am simply offering critiques, not dismissal. It is YOU is being dismissive, Safeanew. You're claiming "No, I'm right about this" because you are simply redefining your terms so that nothing you say can be wrong. It's the same as if I made a thread saying "Horses are actually dogs", and if someone replied to me with a definition of a dog that a horse doesn't fit, I could just say "Well, I'm personally redefining the concept of 'dogs' here as any animal that primarily operates on four legs". Like yeah, I'm right via that definition, but nothing is proven and it looks like a project I just set up to make myself feel smart. No they are confused to begin with, I am not really proving it, I am just claiming that is what shows in how people talk. Wise men is what common sense is, so the wisest man is the one that know nothing can also mean that the blind masses that follow common sense know nothing. I am dismissive of one thing and that is the word 'escapism'. No one has argued against the philosophical claim I made that 'one needs fiction to face reality' in a convincing way. People just argue for common sense and definitions, not wanting know what the other is talking about. |
Safeanew said: My claim is also philosophical in that people use the word escapism to not fully take themselves seriously, like hobbies are a separate life apart from reality. I don't agree with this split between hobbies and real life because it sacrifices alot, mostly it sacrifices proper manners, how to treat other people. I have to agree with Maurice_5 here. The problem stems from the fact that your whole reasoning is a big straw man fallacy. You're supposing the existence of behaviours without providing any solid evidence to think like that. Having a hobby never made anyone sacrifice their good manners nor treat people badly. You are constantly throwing new stuff into the pot without justifying any of it. Safeanew said: Reality itself can be escapism, I just point out that escapism have nothing with what you are escaping to just that you are escaping from something. Escapism literally means to escape from reality, so no, reality itself can't be escapism. You can't apply your own new meanings to words as you please. That's like saying philosophy is the field of study pertained with cheese. |
|
Safeanew said: Ringo_Elegant said: So you've proven that if you intentionally confuse people, they will be confused... Congrats? Honestly dude, I think the "question everything" attitude you're going for is admirable and a good start but you're going about this in a way that makes you seem (and I mean this in the sweetest way possible) really arrogant. You keep saying that the traditional definitions of terms are incorrect, but how are your definitions any more reliable? At least the traditional definitions have the backing of cultural acceptance and Occam's Razor, there is no reason for us to prefer your definitions that were custom-made for your arguments. Socrates was called the wisest man in Greece because he said "All I know, is that I know nothing". You're kind of going the opposite approach. You're claiming that the terms you use are the 'true' terms that humanity should turn to. What's especially ironic is that I (and some, not all, of the folks here) am simply offering critiques, not dismissal. It is YOU is being dismissive, Safeanew. You're claiming "No, I'm right about this" because you are simply redefining your terms so that nothing you say can be wrong. It's the same as if I made a thread saying "Horses are actually dogs", and if someone replied to me with a definition of a dog that a horse doesn't fit, I could just say "Well, I'm personally redefining the concept of 'dogs' here as any animal that primarily operates on four legs". Like yeah, I'm right via that definition, but nothing is proven and it looks like a project I just set up to make myself feel smart. No they are confused to begin with, I am not really proving it, I am just claiming that is what shows in how people talk. Wise men is what common sense is, so the wisest man is the one that know nothing can also mean that the blind masses that follow common sense know nothing. I am dismissive of one thing and that is the word 'escapism'. No one has argued against the philosophical claim I made that 'one needs fiction to face reality' in a convincing way. People just argue for common sense and definitions, not wanting know what the other is talking about. Expand that 'one needs fiction to face reality' |
|
Safeanew said: Ringo_Elegant said: So you've proven that if you intentionally confuse people, they will be confused... Congrats? Honestly dude, I think the "question everything" attitude you're going for is admirable and a good start but you're going about this in a way that makes you seem (and I mean this in the sweetest way possible) really arrogant. You keep saying that the traditional definitions of terms are incorrect, but how are your definitions any more reliable? At least the traditional definitions have the backing of cultural acceptance and Occam's Razor, there is no reason for us to prefer your definitions that were custom-made for your arguments. Socrates was called the wisest man in Greece because he said "All I know, is that I know nothing". You're kind of going the opposite approach. You're claiming that the terms you use are the 'true' terms that humanity should turn to. What's especially ironic is that I (and some, not all, of the folks here) am simply offering critiques, not dismissal. It is YOU is being dismissive, Safeanew. You're claiming "No, I'm right about this" because you are simply redefining your terms so that nothing you say can be wrong. It's the same as if I made a thread saying "Horses are actually dogs", and if someone replied to me with a definition of a dog that a horse doesn't fit, I could just say "Well, I'm personally redefining the concept of 'dogs' here as any animal that primarily operates on four legs". Like yeah, I'm right via that definition, but nothing is proven and it looks like a project I just set up to make myself feel smart. No they are confused to begin with, I am not really proving it, I am just claiming that is what shows in how people talk. Wise men is what common sense is, so the wisest man is the one that know nothing can also mean that the blind masses that follow common sense know nothing. I am dismissive of one thing and that is the word 'escapism'. No one has argued against the philosophical claim I made that 'one needs fiction to face reality' in a convincing way. People just argue for common sense and definitions, not wanting know what the other is talking about. So your thesis is "one needs fiction to face reality". Why do you believe that? |
Safeanew said: reality is illusion! Whether the 'reality' is really-real or not really-real, in whatever sense you want to call it, I don't think that changes the role of escapism as it relates to whatever 'reality' is being escaped from. without it there would be no society to speak of. Sort of. But start worshiping conflict, as conflict, and all of those pretty, symbolic mitigating factors will devolve into actual violence really quickly. |
zieek said: A hobby, a fun way to pass the time. A tool to get you curious about other cultures, life lessons and controversial topics. Finally anime is an activity that while it keeps you glued to your seat it also motivates you to move your body, do research and think. I like your answer! While I myself don't think anything as a hobby, I can agree with life lessons and controversial topics. But I don't think anime have to motivate oneself to do anything, when watching anime the point should be watching anime, not any benefits it gives. |
Satyr_icon said: Safeanew said: My claim is also philosophical in that people use the word escapism to not fully take themselves seriously, like hobbies are a separate life apart from reality. I don't agree with this split between hobbies and real life because it sacrifices alot, mostly it sacrifices proper manners, how to treat other people. I have to agree with Maurice_5 here. The problem stems from the fact that your whole reasoning is a big straw man fallacy. You're supposing the existence of behaviours without providing any solid evidence to think like that. Having a hobby never made anyone sacrifice their good manners nor treat people badly. You are constantly throwing new stuff into the pot without justifying any of it. Safeanew said: Reality itself can be escapism, I just point out that escapism have nothing with what you are escaping to just that you are escaping from something. Escapism literally means to escape from reality, so no, reality itself can't be escapism. You can't apply your own new meanings to words as you please. That's like saying philosophy is the field of study pertained with cheese. Reality is an escape from reality, that is my point. |
Safeanew said: No one has argued against the philosophical claim I made that 'one needs fiction to face reality' in a convincing way. You're right when you say that fiction is needed to face reality, but that argument of yours does not dismiss the existence of escapist fiction. Not all fiction is equally rewarding. Some are just a way to kill time. Safeanew said: Reality is an escape from reality, that is my point. And my point is that it doesn't make any darn sense. And it won't ever, since you are constantly vague instead of explaining yourself properly. |
|
iasuru said: Safeanew said: No they are confused to begin with, I am not really proving it, I am just claiming that is what shows in how people talk. Wise men is what common sense is, so the wisest man is the one that know nothing can also mean that the blind masses that follow common sense know nothing. I am dismissive of one thing and that is the word 'escapism'. No one has argued against the philosophical claim I made that 'one needs fiction to face reality' in a convincing way. People just argue for common sense and definitions, not wanting know what the other is talking about. Expand that 'one needs fiction to face reality' If one try to only face reality, it leads to blind following of common sense. It is only in fiction one is allowed to delve beyond common sense and face the desires one can't accept. |
..........?? That literally makes zero sense. This some kinda pseudo-psychology? I applaud your use of meta thinking. Meta thinking is not escapism. That is what your are promoting. There is no problem with your way of thinking. Think how you think. I don't care. What you are describing though is not escapsim. You can sugar coat it anyway you want but you are actively thinking about how you think: aka meta thinking. You are analyzing your thought processes and thats fine and healthy. (And is really good for managing anxiety and other disorders!) But that is not escapism. Escapism is using anything. Albeit, magazines, music, anime, manga, dancing, singing, etc. Anything someone uses to escape the harshes of reality to DISTRACT yourself is an escapism. Therefor, anime is an escapsim for some people. It keeps them from facing reality. You can put this any way you like but for YOU anime is NOT an escapism. Your experiences are not universal. This isn't even about anime. This is about psychology and philosophy. |
No one can justify life by linking happy moments into a rosary. |
Safeanew said: If one try to only face reality, it leads to blind following of common sense. It is only in fiction one is allowed to delve beyond common sense and face the desires one can't accept. Common sense is neither a fiction or non-fiction though. So making common sense isn't realism or non-realism. It's basically just a collection of things (rules, ideas, opinions, etc.) that is common. It's like an unwritten rule book. |
|
Safeanew said: If one try to only face reality, it leads to blind following of common sense. It is only in fiction one is allowed to delve beyond common sense and face the desires one can't accept. Hmm, I'm confused, what do you mean by common sense? That is usually a positive term but it seems like you see it as inferior. |
Safeanew said: If one try to only face reality, it leads to blind following of common sense. It is only in fiction one is allowed to delve beyond common sense and face the desires one can't accept. I disagree. Massively. You seem to have missed my post up there - you haven't discussed it, at least - so I'm just going to copy it here. Maurice_5 said: This is actually more Freudian id/ego/superego bullshit. I disagree that we're only acting civilized to fit in with society. I am civilized, thank you, and all my social codes are embedded far more than skin-deep. And even if I accepted that, the fact that you would be suppressing your most basic urges to gain the benefit of living within a social network means that you're actually behaving far more rationally than someone who lets those urges control them to the point of driving others away. In other words, the reality is that you are living in a society. Also, not all fiction is for the purpose of allowing us to fulfill some deep hidden desire. Most of mine fulfills one, very public one - I want to enjoy myself. I enjoy fiction. So, I read fiction. Also, just what do you mean by 'facing reality' anyway? Do you mean being a fucntioning human being? Do you mean being an active participant in society? Do you mean having a grasp on the way the world works? None of those necessarily require you to engage with fiction. You're also going to have to explain what you mean by 'blind following of common sense'. Are you suggesting that people who don't enjoy fiction can't think outside the box? Can't innovate? Because if you are, that's a pretty bold claim and I'm going to need a citation for that. (I mean, I don't expect one, because it's getting clearer and clearer that you're engaging in armchair philosophy without an idea of what philosophy actually is, but I'm asking anyway.) |
Ringo_Elegant said: Safeanew said: No they are confused to begin with, I am not really proving it, I am just claiming that is what shows in how people talk. Wise men is what common sense is, so the wisest man is the one that know nothing can also mean that the blind masses that follow common sense know nothing. I am dismissive of one thing and that is the word 'escapism'. No one has argued against the philosophical claim I made that 'one needs fiction to face reality' in a convincing way. People just argue for common sense and definitions, not wanting know what the other is talking about. So your thesis is "one needs fiction to face reality". Why do you believe that? It is said by most of the philosophers I follow, Kierkegaard, Bakthin, Zizek and Hegel who inspired them all. Hegels work is describing the way to be able of true scientific reason, how be able to experience truth. I of course have not layed the ground work on this thread to understand these concept. But I believe just by questioning the common use of language I can show the place of conflict. My philosophy is really simple, follow angst and always challenge oneself to listen to others and accepting conflict. I am talking about ethical rules that many do not share here. Fiction is the true place of conflict, reality uses common sense to avoid conflict, therefor avoiding political thought itself. Political thought is true responsibility to life and all it's dimensions. Political thought is the will to change things. |
| Just read this thread and I’m just gonna put this here for those who wish to engage with the OP: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” |
akamizu said: ..........?? That literally makes zero sense. This some kinda pseudo-psychology? I applaud your use of meta thinking. Meta thinking is not escapism. That is what your are promoting. There is no problem with your way of thinking. Think how you think. I don't care. What you are describing though is not escapsim. You can sugar coat it anyway you want but you are actively thinking about how you think: aka meta thinking. You are analyzing your thought processes and thats fine and healthy. (And is really good for managing anxiety and other disorders!) But that is not escapism. Escapism is using anything. Albeit, magazines, music, anime, manga, dancing, singing, etc. Anything someone uses to escape the harshes of reality to DISTRACT yourself is an escapism. Therefor, anime is an escapsim for some people. It keeps them from facing reality. You can put this any way you like but for YOU anime is NOT an escapism. Your experiences are not universal. This isn't even about anime. This is about psychology and philosophy. It is about anime, because that is what I get from anime. Gatchaman Crowds is my favorite anime because it teaches similar things. I claim also that there is no meta language, that is what I am arguing against. |
Safeanew said: It is said by most of the philosophers I follow, Kierkegaard, Bakthin, Zizek and Hegel who inspired them all. Hegels work is describing the way to be able of true scientific reason, how be able to experience truth. I of course have not layed the ground work on this thread to understand these concept. But I believe just by questioning the common use of language I can show the place of conflict. My philosophy is really simple, follow angst and always challenge oneself to listen to others and accepting conflict. I am talking about ethical rules that many do not share here. Fiction is the true place of conflict, reality uses common sense to avoid conflict, therefor avoiding political thought itself. Political thought is true responsibility to life and all it's dimensions. Political thought is the will to change things. Now, hold on, you've gone and confused me again. You have to remember that I'm one of those who is so far into "common sense" that I may not even realize it. You've cited some big names but your idea is no more understandable. Could you define "common sense" in the way you're using it? |
iasuru said: Safeanew said: If one try to only face reality, it leads to blind following of common sense. It is only in fiction one is allowed to delve beyond common sense and face the desires one can't accept. Common sense is neither a fiction or non-fiction though. So making common sense isn't realism or non-realism. It's basically just a collection of things (rules, ideas, opinions, etc.) that is common. It's like an unwritten rule book. Yeah and that is what structures reality as in there is no reality without the illusion of common sense. Common sense is not only an unwritten rule book, it is the thing guides everyones actions without them having to directly believe in it. |
Safeanew said: iasuru said: Common sense is neither a fiction or non-fiction though. So making common sense isn't realism or non-realism. It's basically just a collection of things (rules, ideas, opinions, etc.) that is common. It's like an unwritten rule book. Yeah and that is what structures reality as in there is no reality without the illusion of common sense. Common sense is not only an unwritten rule book, it is the thing guides everyones actions without them having to directly believe in it. Ok so what does this have to do with escapism or not. How does this tie up. I don't see it. |
|
Safeanew said: It is about anime, because that is what I get from anime. Gatchaman Crowds is my favorite anime because it teaches similar things. I claim also that there is no meta language, that is what I am arguing against. Once again, your experiences aren't universal. And just putting words together doesn't make your argument sound any less idiotic. Peace out.  I'm to high for this shit. |
No one can justify life by linking happy moments into a rosary. |
Maurice_5 said: Safeanew said: I count dreams when we sleep to things one should take seriously if one wants to take reality seriously. Without fiction one avoids the desires that one have but can't accept, because in reality we are expected to act civilized to fit into society, many of our desires get pushed away and that can be correct, but if one avoids facing those desires one avoids the full meanings of the things pushed away one are not truly facing reality. Be. More. Clear. How on Earth am I meant to unpack this... waffle? ... I mean, I will, but for all your talk of liking discussion you sure don't seem very good at actually facilitating it. Right, so, since you quoted the whole post but only seem to be replying to the last bit, can I take that as you agreeing that your definition for 'escapism' is at best incorrect and, more fairly, misleading? And also that people do, in fact, watch anime for escapism? Good! On to the actual 'meat' of the post (to stretch the definition a bit, putting it freaking mildly): Dreams, again, can sometimes indicate things about a person's mindset in reality. But not every dream is something to be psychoanalyzed. I mean, last night I dreamt I was a werewolf hunting Slenderman, because my dreams are awesome. That doesn't reveal anything about me, I don't think. (I mean, you'd have to analyze something like that with Freudian or Jungian methods anyway, both of which are debunked.) Okay, the next bit. This is actually more Freudian id/ego/superego bullshit. I disagree that we're only acting civilized to fit in with society. I am civilized, thank you, and all my social codes are embedded far more than skin-deep. And even if I accepted that, the fact that you would be suppressing your most basic urges to gain the benefit of living within a social network means that you're actually behaving far more rationally than someone who lets those urges control them to the point of driving others away. In other words, the reality is that you are living in a society. Also, not all fiction is for the purpose of allowing us to fulfill some deep hidden desire. Most of mine fulfills one, very public one - I want to enjoy myself. I enjoy fiction. So, I read fiction. Also, just what do you mean by 'facing reality' anyway? Do you mean being a fucntioning human being? Do you mean being an active participant in society? Do you mean having a grasp on the way the world works? None of those necessarily require you to engage with fiction. I agree that I should make myself clearer in certain ways. I quote the whole comment as a fast way to reply and show what comment I am answering. I tried answer the most relevant parts, those that I have not already answered too point that they might not be possible to answer. I follow mostly Zizek who uses Lacanian/Freudian psychoanalysis to read philosophical works and also analyze ideology. Ideology is the same thing as what I call common sense. |
Safeanew said: I follow mostly Zizek who uses Lacanian/Freudian psychoanalysis to read philosophical works and also analyze ideology. Ideology is the same thing as what I call common sense. None of this is answering my questions. |
Ringo_Elegant said: Safeanew said: It is said by most of the philosophers I follow, Kierkegaard, Bakthin, Zizek and Hegel who inspired them all. Hegels work is describing the way to be able of true scientific reason, how be able to experience truth. I of course have not layed the ground work on this thread to understand these concept. But I believe just by questioning the common use of language I can show the place of conflict. My philosophy is really simple, follow angst and always challenge oneself to listen to others and accepting conflict. I am talking about ethical rules that many do not share here. Fiction is the true place of conflict, reality uses common sense to avoid conflict, therefor avoiding political thought itself. Political thought is true responsibility to life and all it's dimensions. Political thought is the will to change things. Now, hold on, you've gone and confused me again. You have to remember that I'm one of those who is so far into "common sense" that I may not even realize it. You've cited some big names but your idea is no more understandable. Could you define "common sense" in the way you're using it? It is the same thing as ideology and my claim is that it structures even how we speak, what words we use and what we believe is common sense. I don't mean to confuse with big names, just listing my sources for curious minds. Of course I would not think anyone in this forum being able to understand my claims in this short amount of time and my messy way of doing things, what I look for is what degree of manners and interest people have with the ideas I tell. I find you have great manners but I find that you use language that I have hated even before I read philosophy. The theme of the words I hate is those the relate to common sense form of objectivity, that leads to idea of course everyone should agree with the ruling ideology that forms this very common sense. |
Classy_Cassy said: Just read this thread and I’m just gonna put this here for those who wish to engage with the OP: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Thanks, you just saved me about 30 minutes. I'll just leave this and begone. |
  |
Safeanew said: Ringo_Elegant said: Now, hold on, you've gone and confused me again. You have to remember that I'm one of those who is so far into "common sense" that I may not even realize it. You've cited some big names but your idea is no more understandable. Could you define "common sense" in the way you're using it? It is the same thing as ideology and my claim is that it structures even how we speak, what words we use and what we believe is common sense. I don't mean to confuse with big names, just listing my sources for curious minds. Of course I would not think anyone in this forum being able to understand my claims in this short amount of time and my messy way of doing things, what I look for is what degree of manners and interest people have with the ideas I tell. I find you have great manners but I find that you use language that I have hated even before I read philosophy. The theme of the words I hate is those the relate to common sense form of objectivity, that leads to idea of course everyone should agree with the ruling ideology that forms this very common sense. I am afraid even this confuses me to some degree. If "common sense" is ideology, which ideology is it? For example, the Nazis and the Bolsheviks disagreed about just about everything ideologically but they would likely both agree that breathing and water are necessary to preserve human life. Is not this an example where common senses agree but ideologies clash? |
More topics from this board
» List of canceled anime.ZXEAN - 3 minutes ago |
0 |
by ZXEAN
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» mal/Confessions ( 1 2 )NoelleIsSleepy - May 10 |
85 |
by Cammell
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Don't you find the obsession with fictional characters in the anime community alarming? ( 1 2 3 )removed-user - May 10 |
100 |
by MHRX_999
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» Your biggest why …? ( 1 2 )Yonahim_Zz - 8 hours ago |
50 |
by Bubble_Fish
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Anime sequels that fell offST63LTH - Yesterday |
36 |
by DarkShame2
»»
16 minutes ago |