Kanata no Astra Episode 12 Discussion

Kimurah said:


That's the same as: "wah wah you can't criticise a movie if you've never been a director"

Well, skippy, as hard is for your little brain to believe, you really don't need to be a content creator in order to make an objective analysis on what went wrong with it. As long as you understand simple rules behind in the making of script writing, anyone can see the differences between good writing and bad writing.

This can be applied to any sort of medium

* You can't be a food critic if you've never cooked for a 5 star restaurant

* You can't be a sports newscaster if you never played the game profesionally

* You can't be a motorcyclist test ride editor if you've never built a bike yourself, and so on...



Yeah, but we have already stablished several weeks beforehand that you're a fanboy of this work, so your statement that you like good writing and like this show is completely irrelevant and highly questionable.

Lets be honest, there's way more contrived writing than just Kanata's hand, and we've been mentioning this since the beginining (the whole idea of removing all borders and nations along with religion and creating an unified belief, covering a lie that the whole world agrees with, massive migration despite having the tools like FTL travel and warp tech to destroy or deviate the collision course of an asteroid, convenience on the crew getting all kind of resources and means to repair their ship without them being trained astronauts or field specialists, full convenience on finding a fully functional spaceship after being abandoned more than 100 years in a zone where an asteroid crashed with earth or just getting some damage from everyday debris circling around earth, and all the other asspulls this show showed off)

And yes, I know you're going to pull out the card "People should believe what the author says so" wich furthers proves my point that you have no idea what good writing is if you so easily believe all the crap that comes out of a writer's hand, without considering the plausability of the events; and note that I didn't call it being realistic, I'm talking how far can fiction stretch out a possible scenario without breaking suspension of disbelief.

Edit: Vinland Saga is also filled with tons of asspulls like a one army man swiss knife Thorfin that can kill several armored soliders in a single line with just one knife and similar impossible situations like that. So at least I can say we both agree on something afterall, and this comes from someone that thought Vinland would have been among if not the best of the season in the early episodes, but changed his mind after watching all that shonen-like display in a series with the "historical" tag, wich tons of fanboys defend it just because it has the word "Saga" labeled on the tincan.

HectorBlaze said:
It’s a good show. Yes, the end isn't something special but it’s a good ending, I think. I really liked this series, it has been a good journey. Also, there’s something that rembered to me Cowboy Bebop vibe, probably it was the space environment or something else, I don’t know how to explain it properly. Nice series.

Anime-is-King said:


I just went through your forums posts, every single one I clicked on was you going on a bitchfest. Did "pretentious dweeb" describe you so well that you got triggered?

Kimurah said:

Lets be honest, there's way more contrived writing than just Kanata's hand, and we've been mentioning this since the beginining (the whole idea of removing all borders and nations along with religion and creating an unified belief, covering a lie that the whole world agrees with, massive migration despite having the tools like FTL travel and warp tech to destroy or deviate the collision course of an asteroid, convenience on the crew getting all kind of resources and means to repair their ship without them being trained astronauts or field specialists, full convenience on finding a fully functional spaceship after being abandoned more than 100 years in a zone where an asteroid crashed with earth or just getting some damage from everyday debris circling around earth, and all the other asspulls this show showed off)

GenesisAria said:
If you want to see a better depiction of intelligent strategists conflicting eachother, watch the chinese film duology Red Cliff.

GenesisAria said:
Most of the people that obsess over LotGH tend to be elitist hipsters that gravitate to stuff that seems more "high-class","intelligent" and "elite"

GenesisAria said:
(which is also why a lot of edgy serious stuff with various aspects that commentate on the human condition in a pretentious manner appeal to the same kinds of people).

GenesisAria said:
That's primarily due to the persistence of conflicting Ideologies. It would be highly presumptuous to suggest that it's an intrinsic human trait. If the problems are gone, humanity will stagnate.. Stagnation is ignorance and lack of any progress, but it can be very peaceful if everyone is under the same rulership and ideology. Freedom brings about chaos and progress, but it has the side effects of also having the undesirable conflicts of differing views, and applies more variables which can lead many people to unideal circumstances that will likely jade them. The Galactic Empire in Star Wars was quite peaceful, it protected it's citizens, managed it's economy and was mostly doing quite well on the large scale (aside from some idiot projects like the deathstar), though it was maliciously tyrannical by doing so.

GenesisAria said:
A peaceful story to promote a peaceful outcome built on ignorance...?

GenesisAria said:
Yeah, no they don't. You need to do some serious research on that one. The things they call "impacts" are straight up assumptions. If you look at the actual data, there are usually unexpectedly bright flashes before contact. This even happens with comets. You can't shoot an object at a charged body like a comet, asteroid, or planet, and expect it to not have a significant electrostatic discharge, which is usually enough to vapourize the smaller body, due to voltage differential. Larger bodies are more likely to exchange extreme amounts of energy via massive arcing and excavation but generally repelling eachother. Again, as i said, most laymen and casual people who don't actually investigate the science won't know these disconnects between what is said and what the facts actually are.

GenesisAria said:
The anime is full of twists, and the anime may not have gotten the whole story.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Some of the main points of the warfare are that "people suck at basic warfare because they never studied even the basics of military tactics and history" and "people promote incompetent sycophantic yes-men to positions of power." It isn't even hiding it.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
That doesn't mean that the series endorses all the tactics you suggested. It applies some of the basics of it, and I can't fully judge whether all of them would even work without more technical knowledge.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I actually don't want my anime, films, novels, etc. to primarily focus on military tactics or technical details too much. Including some of it is fine, but I don't want it to be the main substance. I can't comment on that particular work though.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
What qualifies as "obsessing over LotGH"? Sure, I like it relatively speaking, but if the competition is something like Kanata no Astra's "Power of Friendship forever" approach, over-the-top reactions to every event, awkward mood shifts, and a story full of gigantic holes, LotGH wins by default as far as my tastes are concerned.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Most of the pro-LotGH (or not-anti-LotGH) people I've seen are pretty down-to-earth and cite substantial, non-elitist, and non-hipster reasons for liking it. Where are the actual hipsters and elitists? People write about them in their posts and reviews, but do they actually exist?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I like my anime a bit edgy, just not too edgy. I am fine with LotGH's "humanity never learns" approach because there is at least some nuance. The writing shouldn't be too soft either. Kanata no Astra is a good example of that, with the all-pervasive friendship.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
How would they convince everyone to adhere to the same rulership and ideology without conflict? That's the whole point people are objecting to. You are appealing to everyone adhering to the same rulership and ideology, but that is precisely the difficult part. How can it reasonably be done in practice so that the transition is voluntary?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
For instance, the 40-kilogram rock that slammed into the moon in 2013 produced a visible crater after the flash. It wasn't repelled by any means.

Meanwhile, when asteroids and comets impact Jupiter, nobody is expecting them to hit a solid surface. The asteroid breaking down or being vaporized isn't a problem in the sense of whether to call it an impact.

In Kanata no Astra, the asteroid is 300 kilometers across. Do you seriously believe that its trajectory would be sufficiently changed by electromagnetic interaction with Earth or that it would simply be vaporized?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
The anime tries to explain every twist in detail. I'd argue that some of their explanations were implausible, but they definitely tried. It doesn't seem like the kind of narrative that goes for well-hidden messages. And even if it did, I'd still call it bad writing because it would leave it too cryptic to figure out.

Lylaaz said:


How about you stop targeting people when you can't make a solid argument yourself?

I mean is anything that Kimurah wrote here wrong? :


These here are all solid arguments.
The reason why i don't bother writing so much is that the internet is full of people who just don't bother listening... but some people try and I respect that.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
That doesn't mean that the series endorses all the tactics you suggested. It applies some of the basics of it, and I can't fully judge whether all of them would even work without more technical knowledge.

GenesisAria said:
I never said anything about it being main focus. Yamato and Code Geass are perfect examples of playing it up smartly. And even Eureka Seven was better at stuff like politics.

GenesisAria said:
I never said Red Cliff was about tactics and stuff, it's about a historical part of chenese history, the battle of red cliff, and presenting the events how they may have played out, with a narrative twist on it.

GenesisAria said:
Even the political drama i saw in LotGH was really weak, shallow and contrived. It was like looking at a hollywood biased fantasy interpretation of nazis or soviets.

GenesisAria said:
Kanata no Astra is of a different style, i wasn't even trying to compare the two, i was just telling why i see LotGH as way over-valued, constantly heralded as one of the greatest anime of all time and i saw it as woefully mediocre, even after heavy extrapolation and positive thinking.

GenesisAria said:
What makes them hipsters is goint on about their unpopular series as if it's the greatest thing ever because of it being obscuse, and will use all kinds of reasoning to try and substantiate their claim. This is whree the elitism comes in: they will often believe that their reasoning is some kind of absolute logic which makes it objectively superior to other things. Any reasons i've seen given for it are completely self-serving, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they don't keep preaching it on high.

GenesisAria said:
"Humanity never learns" is a pretty ignorant statement. Similar-ish parallels do persist or reemerge over time, but there's always an epistemological inflation factor as more knowledge makes it's rounds and everyone has more at their fingertips; even before the internet, there were more books on more subjects more readily available as time went on.

GenesisAria said:
1) ask any dictator
2) most humans are susceptible to suggestion
2a) it could be involuntary, forced, and then sworn to silence under threat
2b) it could have been a deception and they used the "unavoidable apocalypse" as an engine for political power to create a new world order, denying that they could have destroyed or diverted it

I could be wrong but this is the most plausible if this were a real outcome. I dunno how much of a wishful thinker the author is.

GenesisAria said:
A) You must not know enough, and just read science headlines... they measure the mass retroactively by measuring the apparent energy release using their mathematical models.

GenesisAria said:
If they don't anticipate electrostatic discharge, they estimate the flash based on thermokinetic yeild equations and calculate it's approximate mass that way, and use that value to assume it's size. This is what happened with the Chelyabinsk meteor, where they way overstated it's mas based on retrospective mathematics by calculating the blast, when it was measured as smaller beforehand. I dunno the specific instance you refer to, but it's likely the math was fudged to fit expected values. Most people aren't even aware that there are things called "lunar transient phenomena" in which random flashes of light are detected on the moon from time to time. Cosmology through the popular science lens is extremely narrow and confined to a particular narrative; the NASA narrative.

B) Comet Shoemaker Levy 9 impacted Jupiter causing far more effects to the planet than anticipated, caused way more incredibly bright flashes than expected, and left a gigantic print in Jupiter's upper cloud layers that persisted for a while. All of this was predicted by electric universe proponents now under the Thunderbolts Project banner, and a complete baffle to mainstream cosmologists. The electric comet model is currently the most successful scientific model for explaining the behaviours of comets and asteroids, and the only one that complies with all the data from Deep Impact, Stardust, Rosetta, as well as data from the Ryugu and Bennu asteroids, and various spontaneous "comet discharging" asteroids. There's is much you do not know.

C) I can't say anything on a 300km diameter body necessarily, but it would potentially cause a lot of devastation, super-weather, but ultimately not collide. Either it would redirect before getting close enough or would potentially capture into orbit if not travelling too fast or made of an abnormally insulating material.

Maybe you'll find this stuff interesting, if not, your loss for not engaging in proper science.

GenesisAria said:
I said we might not have gotten the whole story, by that i mean check the source material to see if there is more if you want.

GenesisAria said:


I mean the whole context of LotGH is like a lot of sci-fi, say the Terrans in Starship Troopers for example, they are far too retarded to exist. It's actually funny there's a youtube channel that covers sci-fi races that are too stupid to exist. If they were actually that retarded, there is no way they'd have functional economies, technology, or anything, they woudn't even be able to travel in space unless some aliens just dropped a bunch of spaceships in their backyard for grabs. Plus as i've said, pretty much everything they used was straight up medieval tactics, backed up by their bizarre dichotomy of medieval architecture with spaceships... Not only that it's not even as good as real medieval tactics, strategy, politics... It's like someone studied WW2-based fiction and Lord of the Rings, and used that as their reference material.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Lelouch's plans in Code Geass are very suboptimal. He uses his Geass too little and with too limited commands, to the point that most of the events in the series could have been avoided. Lelouch pointlessly exposes himself to danger, relies too much on other people acting in precisely the right way, and often handles relationships with his allies and potential allies poorly. The last point also results in a lot of drama and harmful in-fighting that could have been avoided. He tends to throw away military resources by holding his greatest weapons back for too long. His ultimate plan in S2 seems unnecessary because there were more effective ways to fix the problems, many of which were in motion already.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
In terms of combat realism, the frequent use of humanoid-shaped mecha makes no sense compared to missiles or other types of less cumbersome vehicles or weapons. Also, the mecha advance unrealistically quickly over the course of the show, and the same could be said of their high-tech shields and other such items. In melee combat, Suzaku is over-the-top unrealistic and basically superhuman, much more so than Schönkopf in LotGH, for instance.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
In terms of politics, Code Geass doesn't argue about political philosophy all that much. There are many factions fighting, but many of them lack interesting ideological reasons or characterization. For instance, many of the people in the Britannian Empire are too blatantly racist and believe in noble birthright without bothering to think about it much, and the situation doesn't change sufficiently until the very last moments in the story. They don't really go far into legitimacy of government, the problems of democracy (other than the one funny vote scene in late S2), and other topics like that. There are also too many people who are motivated by personal grudges that could have easily been avoided.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You have only watched Die Neue These: Kaikou, which is the intro to the story. They have to establish the premise first. We did already hear some lines about the slide of liberal democracy towards authoritarianism, but there was only time for so much.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Average ratings on MAL:
Kanata no Astra: 8.26
LotGH: Die Neue These: Kaikou: 7.64 (This is the only part that you have watched.)

It seems that the opposite is true: Kanata no Astra is rated much more highly, at least on MAL.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I don't think being of a different style helps my enjoyment. It is clear that Kanata no Astra was written to be about the Power of Friendship on purpose, but doing it on purpose still isn't helping. The same with the plot holes. Even the old imperial admirals in LotGH probably would have figured out that they should divert the asteroid, so if tactics are really important, I would rate Kanata no Astra lower, whether it is light-hearted or not. In Kanata no Astra, mankind can unite just like that while in LotGH Rudolf at least had to build a political base for years and even then massacre billions of people. On top of that, the story in Kanata no Astra would have ended immediately without a number of astronomically unlikely coincidences.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
In the first place, who calls their anime / manga / novel preferences objective? And where are the people who actually like LotGH specifically for obscurity?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I didn't mean it so literally. Not everything remains exactly the same.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
The narrative suggests that it was genuinely voluntary. If it actually wasn't, they didn't drop enough hints of it. Dictators can't realistically recruit 100 % voluntary support, but the narrative suggests that mankind was united. If this wasn't true, they should have presented it differently.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I already read the manga before the anime finished, and it is almost identical.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
So you are in favor of electric universe theories and accuse the scientific community of consistently getting their math wrong. At least I know where you stand.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Now, I don't claim to be a professional astronomer or cosmologist, but why do you place so much emphasis on whether people are laymen when the theories you support are rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community? Electric universe theorists may not always technically be laymen but they are at least outsiders whose methods are generally not acknowledged as scientific and their texts on electric universe theories generally don't pass peer reviews. If status as a scientist is measured by peer-approved publications, they are kind of honorary laymen in this case. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, attacking laymen for being laymen makes less sense than usually.

GenesisAria said:
I never said CG was godlike or ultra genius, just more well thought out and had more going on in a way that didn't just like like a big posh mockery of an ignorant view of political/ideological conflict and warfare. I'm not sure what you mean by unnecessary, the final plan was really the only thing that'd be potent enough given how much everythign escalated. Lelouch made many mistakes and covered them up as if they were part of his plan. That was the whole point of that "make your lies into the truth" line. Lelouch's lack of use of his Geass was the limit of his imagination (same way characters like Accelerator aren't more powerful than they already are; plus he was already used to solving problems without it, so it was merely something to make the job easier, and naivete lead to consequence). It was "realistic" in the sense of being believable and flawed, human. LotGH feels like dry sock-puppet satire, or just general pessimistic ignorance; it doesn't feel natural at all.

GenesisAria said:
I'm not sure what you mean by unnecessary, the final plan was really the only thing that'd be potent enough given how much everythign escalated.

GenesisAria said:
I voluntarily suspended my disbelief on the part of the mechas. THe idea of using gigantic hordes of ships in grid formations for space battles and then blasting shots randomly at the other like you are just all-archer armies flinging arrows at eachother and not even armoured to withstand arrow fire, nor particularly accurate, is just as if not more egregious to me than super-human mecha which can be justified with some applied phlebotinum. It's a dumb idea but doesn't make it's characters look dumber than an elementary school chess player. I like my idiots to be amusing and lovable, not pathetic and egotistical.

GenesisAria said:
I think just due to the tone of shows people look either more or less deep into the details of the context. I see it all the time. There's plenty of less serious shows i've seen that had as much potent things to say as any pretentious show, in some cases even more, but people don't look past the surface.

GenesisAria said:
CG decided to keep it as exciting and campy as possible without sacrificing other layers and aspects too much. LotGH is EXTREMELY dry.

GenesisAria said:
That's not anything new, unique or special.

GenesisAria said:
Holy shit, i didn't realize Kanata no Astra was rated so highly. Die Neue These recieved a lot of downvotes mostly due to the nostalgia-visioned people. At laest in my experience watching it, most of the complaints were on stuff like art style etc "ruining their precious classic" yadda yada, stupid hipster bs. I though Die Nueu These was alright and i'd surely watch more of it because why not, but i still wouldnt put it above anything like Yamato. For Kanata no Astra being this highly rated, it's most likely due to it's marketing, it's appeal vs it's payoff. Kanata no Astra did well to present ideas, build on them, and pay them off in a way that doesn't betray anyone's hopes or predictions. In an era of "subverting expectations" having something that plays out as you hoped it would is very nice. It appealed to a sci-fi seeking crowd who weren't expecting much and were pleasantly surprised by it, result: high scores by the masses.

GenesisAria said:
That wasn't even my original point. I wasn't saying Kanata no Astra is better, i was saying from what i've seen, LotGH does not live up to it's praise at all.

GenesisAria said:
They don't expressly say these words and never will. Often its because they don't know they feel this way, or won't admit, but they will heavily imply as if to try convince you with some fancy rhetoric.

GenesisAria said:
There is a reason a lot of things are obscure and less common, and it's because it's not suited to most people. Even if LotGH was rammed full to the rim with the most intelligent subject matter on the planet, if it's dry and dull as fuck and painfully pretentious in it's presentation, then it's just not gonna catch on. Only exception to obscurity not being connected to lack of appeal is in cases like Firefly, where the show was cancelled before anyone got a chance to discover it or even know it existed.

GenesisAria said:
I mean the whole context of LotGH is like a lot of sci-fi, say the Terrans in Starship Troopers for example, they are far too retarded to exist. It's actually funny there's a youtube channel that covers sci-fi races that are too stupid to exist. If they were actually that retarded, there is no way they'd have functional economies, technology, or anything, they woudn't even be able to travel in space unless some aliens just dropped a bunch of spaceships in their backyard for grabs. Plus as i've said, pretty much everything they used was straight up medieval tactics, backed up by their bizarre dichotomy of medieval architecture with spaceships... Not only that it's not even as good as real medieval tactics, strategy, politics... It's like someone studied WW2-based fiction and Lord of the Rings, and used that as their reference material.

GenesisAria said:
Expecting too much of it haha. You saw how many times it ass-pulled with hardly any freshadowing.

GenesisAria said:
Well there you go then. It's just the mind of an optimist. That's alright, it's not my story, it's theirs. I appreciate fiction because it something made by someone that isn't me. If i want something my way, i write it myself, and that is exactly what i'm doing.

GenesisAria said:
There is no accusations involved, they get their math wrong constantly and they KNOW it (and admitted on a semi-regular basis). They just aren't mature enough to own it and try something else, due to jobs and reputations at stake (plus it costs way too much to rewrite all the textbooks etc).

GenesisAria said:
What you fail to understand is the resistance to change every era always demonstrates, we are all, even stientists, still human. You also underestimate the extreme depth and mess that is the politics of academia. Academic politics are worse than governmental politics, but they aren't all over the niws, you have to dig for it to fnd it.

GenesisAria said:
I must say you are seriously mistaking my angle here. I am not in favour of anything, my opinion does not matter. I stand by truth and legitimate science. By legitimate i mean following the scientific method to the letter, not cutting any corners, skipping any steps or biasing any results.

GenesisAria said:
Peer review also isn't what you think it is. First and foremost it is an elitist circlejerk, in which only subjects that are within a realm that people are willing to sign for a peer review and have on their record. If you peer review a controversial subject, it can be a form of suicide in the academic environment, where you will also get caught in that net of rejection and mockery, regardless of how legitimate the science is. Peer review is a terrible unscientific process that promotes stagnation and idea favourtism.

GenesisAria said:
I wasn't attacking anyone. I wasn't faulting you of anything, merely stating it's not surprising you don' know, and that's fine;you shouldnot be arguing subjects you are unfamiliar with just because it's what you read on headlines or wikipedia.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
In Code Geass, Lelouch is considered a genius even more so than Yang and Reinhard, yet he is far less competent for the reasons I have laid out. If lack of imagination and flaws are valid reasons, anyone from the old imperial admirals to Andrew Falk can claim the same.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
"Making your lies into the truth" assumes that the plans in place to do so can realistically work. Lelouch's plans often can't because they rely on one-in-a-million coincidences, like other people acting in precisely the right way or even predicting their lines word for word.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
He was already fixing the political situation, and he was very popular. There was no need for him to antagonize people like he did. Playing it chill would have made the final battle much easier because there would not have been so many people on the other side.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
People could say the same about standard space fleet battles. When it comes to them being unrealistic, they may suspend their disbelief and come up with all kinds of technobabble explanations in an attempt to justify it. Personally, I believe that LotGH would be better without space battles and Code Geass without mecha, but I don't mind them too much in either. Lelouch's lack of using Geass feels more problematic though. Precisely because he has it, his focus on the open military approach seems off. It would make more sense to operate in the shadows.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Aside from his abysmal use of Geass, pointlessly antagonizing people, and fighting against potential allies, Lelouch is really bad at conventional military combat tactics too. He sacrifices many small units even though he could deploy his heavy-hitting superweapons immediately. Then again, army-scale tactics barely matter when the superweapons almost exclusively determine the winner anyway. Why bother with any of this when Suzaku's godlike mecha does a few spinkicks for no reason and wrecks everything? Or some random person shows up with a new weapon or superpower out of nowhere anyway? And apparently whatever battle Lelouch is in is always the only one that truly matters for the outcome of a global war. Winning is completely up to the writers' whims. It is not fun. Forget about playing 3D chess, 2D chess, or even tic-tac-toe. In Code Geass, they are playing the lottery.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
It is kind of like the democracy example I used. Code Geass portrays one vote where a central flaw of democracy is pointed out, and even that hinges on an autocratic ruler using the vote, and it isn't discussed further. There are limits to how much you can express if you never discuss the topic explicitly because then I am left guessing about which particular beliefs, if any, they are trying to endorse. For instance, does CG claim that the value of democracy is contingent and instrumental (instead of universal and intrinsic)? What is the legitimacy of government based on, if anything? Who knows? CG just isn't interested in it.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
In Code Geass, the EU gets about zero screentime or development. We don't know nearly enough about them to judge whether they are like the Free Planets Alliance or not, especially considering later developments.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Obviously you haven't seen any of the meme-generating, comedic scenes in LotGH then.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Code Geass is campy, sure. Generic slapstick comedy, then Suzaku running up walls, then chasing a cat, then some freak accident plot twist that would never happen, then pure fanservice, then Suzaku single-handedly wins another battle with his godlike mecha while doing spinkicks, then the characters are suddenly sent to an island with beaches, then a new superweapon appears out of nowhere again, then right back to a high school festival.

If anything is boring, it is those things. They are anime clichés that we have seen a million times, carried out more or less in the same way, with only minor differences. They are boring additions. They are also a distraction from the main plot. Of course things were sacrificed to fit them in, such as plot cohesion, narrative causality, staying in character, a consistent tone, world-building, and screentime in general. CG isn't written as a parody either, and even if it was, it would not fully work because it would be too similar to its target. I suppose the campy additions look flashy, but even if kids initially like a circus, it becomes boring if it visits the town every single week.

LotGH has some problems, but adding beach episodes and high school festivals is not the way to fix them!

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Obviously, things like generic high school romcoms, generic battle shonen, and generic Gary Stu harem isekai are more popular. I would usually call them dull though. It is the same tropes all day, every day. Been there, done that.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Sure, the anime scene is overflowing with democratic theory. All those anime characters just can't shut up about democracy. We need more high school romcoms, battle shonen, and Gary Stu harem isekai instead. Haven't seen any of those lately.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I don't know the reason. Maybe people just like friendship, shonen elements, and light-hearted stories. KnA did betray my hopes and predictions, even though they were already low before reading / watching it.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
It lives up to it much more than Kanata no Astra. All it needs to do is beat its rivals. I already argued against Code Geass too.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
So it is your personal speculation.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are right. Then people do not like LotGH because it is obscure but because it suits their tastes for some other reason. They are not hipsters then. Calling them eccentric would make more sense.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
That is not what the line was referring to.

But anyway. Why is the "bizarre dichotomy of medieval architecture with spaceships" a bigger problem than the bizarre dichotomy of medieval architecture and high-tech mecha in Code Geass? Or having supposedly serious large-scale battles and the most competent people being high schoolers? Or portraying people as grand military tacticians while battles are actually won by lone super-units? Or going for an open military conflict in the first place when it could all easily be avoided with magic eye powers (and any remotely competent person would do so)? Or basing your plans on predicting other people's lines word for word? Come on. A society run by Lelouches would collapse the moment they don't have the writers on their side.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Not to mention, you are the person who in the other thread endorsed Star Trek Federation economics and found it realistic. I can't take your rant about extreme scifi realism seriously by any stretch of the imagination. You love unrealistic things.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Why did you even argue the point then? My expectations were pretty low, but sure, it managed to fail even them. If we agree on that, I will move on.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
So these are at least in part conspiracy theories.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
If someone tells me that their science has no bias whatsoever, that itself sounds suspicious. People generally have some assumptions related to their paradigms. You literally say in the same post that even scientists are human and thus make mistakes, but you allegedly don't have any bias.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Peer reviews are far from perfect, though I don't endorse your conspiracy theories. The point is that any layman could say the same thing about their ideas being rejected, so it is a weak argument to go after laymen for being laymen.

GenesisAria said:
Lelouch makes intelligent successes broken up by genuine failures and mistakes, emphasizing his character as human and flawed. Not unrealistic and persistent stupidity.

GenesisAria said:
You clearly didn't understand the point of any of it. Say he was a nice emperor, and then died, what becomes of the next one? Ugh it's painful how much you didn't comprehend any of the philosophy behind the entirety of the conclusion arcs. I can't explain any of it to you here because it's gigantic spoiler territory. Any of your half-ass armchair hypotheses on how to "conveniently clean up after war and political nightmares" do not work, and would never suffice for the global populous. The issues were sociological, psychological, deeply rooted and need a more powerful and lasting long-term solution. An enemy, and a victory for the new world and new philosophy, along with the demonization and abolishment of the old ways. This is in a way analogous to the meiji era of japan in whicnh the entire country was reformed in short order but with immense bloodshed as one ideology eliminated the other for a permanent change (though n CG the outcome was a lot more ideal than what became of the meiji reformation). Your ignorance on these things baffles me, and pretty much removes my ability to consider your view son things like LotGH with any intellectual credibility.

GenesisAria said:
Say he was a nice emperor, and then died, what becomes of the next one?

GenesisAria said:
I do NOT suspend my disbelief for moron misuse of assets in a way that would make anyone in the military fucking cringe. If we had robots that could do crazy funky martial arts and shit, it's not too hard to imagine them dancing around tanks and dodging subsonic missiles.

GenesisAria said:
It is impossible to imagine rows of ship, in any era of humanity, lining into grids and randomly spamming gunfire at eachother in total attrition. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

GenesisAria said:
Why don't you just admit you don't know anything about tactics and strategy, because all of this is false. Lelouch and others do make a number of rookie mistakes, but no, you don't throw your trump cards in at the start, that's a mistake.

GenesisAria said:
Every conflict is just as much strateg as it is tactics. It's about learning the enemy and finding out how much they know you, you have to test your success ratings and measure your adversary. You do this via small conflicts, not all out megabattles.

GenesisAria said:
New weapons DO come out of nowhere. Let me give you an example: german uboats harassing british naval fleets. They spot a uboat in the distance, and proceed to engage it with escorts. As they are running full speed, they suddenly get hit in the ass by a torpedo, expecting to take them from the front. This happened multiple times until wargamer strategists back in the homeland suggested a potential new torpedo that is acoustic homing, it homes in on sound, thus it chases the engines. This is real life, and exactly how shit happens. They develop a new weapon and then suddenly deploy it to the battlefied once it's been cleared by secret testing for field use.

GenesisAria said:
CODE GEASS IS ITENTIONALLY CAMPY AND GOOFY. SUZAKU SPIN KICKS WERE PUT IN THERE AND KEPT BECAUSE MEME. EMPEROR FLYING WITH SPARKLE GETS FOR ASS WAS KEPT BECAUSE OF MEME. So that's not a valid argument.

GenesisAria said:
This was a cimpletely non-sequitur complaint. I don't care what you think about clichés, especially because i laerned to appreciate and understand tropes instead of groan that i've seen it before. I rewatch anime all the time because i lke to see it again and be reminded of it, i also like seeing new takes on old ideas, like when i see new anime that have ultr cliché premises, but have a different feel because they came from another mind, and allow one to look more in the nooks and crannies of the subjectmatter, plus it's just refreshing to see new takes instead of being stuck with the one example made ages ago. CG is a parody, it's a parody of itself; an extremely intelligent and self-aware one.

btw, i absolutely loved the highschool festival stuff. Code Geass was not just intelligently written in the sense of subjectmatter, it also knew very well how to break up arcs and heavy tones, without dragging any tone or feeling on for too long, allowing it to provide a memorable emotional rollercoaster for invested viewers. The comedic relief stuff is to break the ice and have fun.

GenesisAria said:
Well that's a bit of what i'm saying. Half the time people think that weak protag in isekai suddenuy makes it the best isekai ever. That's total bullshit, it's the same, it just has a weak bitch instead of an overpowered kid. I find overpowered kids more entertaining (as long as they aren't a Kirito), because it intertains the idea of what i can't do, or what i might do if i had their power; it's an aspiration. If they are a weak bitch it's just for the sake of subversion, and in a way is less functional, and in a way more shallow as it objectifies the Gary Stu to something it's not made for. Fiction exists to allow us to experiment with ideas that .therwise could not happen or are too dangerous for reality for whatever reasons, and allow us to understand the subjects and ourselves better through narrative expression.
...The best isekai's i've ever known were not isekai series, but isekai arcs in other stories. The latter half of Mahou Sensei Negima! manga is an isekai arc, and having been part of the initial story, helps make it one of the most epic mindblowing adventures i've ever known.

GenesisAria said:
Wtf areyou talking about? Most anime promote some form of semi-socialist ideology full of buddhist philosophical background. Democracy is usually depicted as a breeding ground for corruptive manipulation. You should be glad i've yet to write a book on philosophy in anime and manga, and the japanese mentality in fiction vs western.

GenesisAria said:
I just told you the reason.

GenesisAria said:
No it doesn't. LotGH is heralded in such ridiculously high regard, pretentiously referred to as the greatest anime of all time, constantly, and in reality disappoints because it does not live up to that impression. Kanata no Astra most people went in blind, it was a dark horse of the season that most hadn't heard of and turned out to be a lot better than they expected or hoped.

GenesisAria said:
Code Geass was hyped for different reasons, and most of the hype was generated by people who didn't understand the story. In the same sense, most people who watch Gurren Lagann and think it's the greatest thing ever, never heard of Plato's Cave, nor understands any of the other conflicts, philosophies, or infinite spiral of scaled parallels across all aspects of the narrative... You need braincells for that one. Code Geass and Gurren Lagann are amazing anime for reasons OTHER than why most people praise them.

GenesisAria said:
It's not speculation, it's deduction. Go learn psychology my dude.

GenesisAria said:
Liking something obscure is not the problem. You can like fucked up hentai ova's from the 80s and 90s that are completely incomprehensible and funky...Do whatever you want. It's when people go saying that their obscure thing is SUPERIOR to the other thigs, that it becomes hipster.

GenesisAria said:
Where is there a bizarre dichotomy of medieval stuff and sci-fi? For one, CG is science-fantasy not science-fiction, for two they aren't spacefaring, and nearly destroyed themselves in their wars. For three, the architecture is merely stylistic choice fr display of wealth, not literally living a medieval lifestyle in oud-ass casles. All of the knights analogies and so on are depicted as tradition and a system of appointing generals.

GenesisAria said:
Much of real warfare is won by small groups of extremely talented soldiers, while the bulk keep everything busy or storm fronts. You should read more stories from WWII, for example the exploits of the russian KV-2. There's also plenty of other instances of various thing sin history. THere's also that russian sniper with hundreds or thousands of kills. Lone super-units is not remotely out of reality, when talking in terms of high-yeild expensive technology that is hard to mass produce, and that mass production only comes later once the technology becomes more efficient, which was depicted in CG. If you think most of warfare is generic riflemen and generic pikemen, then you are gravely mistaken. They may occupy the most numbers, but not the most decisive roles by a longshot. As stted in CG, a Nightmare is "an army unto itself", which straight up it analogizing a Nightmare frame as a batallion or something. In medieval times this could have been the introduction of chariots, or cavalry or whatever. You couldn't afford many initially, but they were so effective against the enemy forces that not many were needed until countermeasures or oppositional equivalent forces are employed. If you think battles are won just by the existence of these thing,s you are kidding yourself; a queen on a chessboard is useless unless you know how to fully use her abilities. Tactics win battles, strategies win wars; arsenal is irrelevant without tactical application.

GenesisAria said:
The wars could not have been avoided, you only think that in retrospect and throwing everything through a "writer's contrivance" bias lens.

GenesisAria said:
A society run by Leloches would function perfectly, however it would be stagnant due to lack of intellectual diversity. Very little of Lelouch's story is plot armour, almost all of it is completely justified and plausible within his setting. The only thihng that is improbable is his luck in some instances, as well as the effectiveness of his charisma.

GenesisAria said:
ps: many of the most effective soldiers in wartimes are the younger ones (teenagers and young adults). do some research.

GenesisAria said:
Your ignorance deems it unrealistic due to your quasi-satanist ie unwavering pessimistic view on humans as rabbit mongrels that will always war and cheat and steal even if everyone it happy, which is empirically false. Nobody who is provably happy ever commits any sins; they have zero reason to. Your view on things is the unrealistic one becaues you don't understand humans.

GenesisAria said:
I don't agree, because i had aveage expectations and they were exceeded. Your expectations you call "low" were actually extremely high (or rather specific), and because you did so, you forcefully induced your own disappointment. You are voluntarily being upset by it not doing what you wanted it to.

GenesisAria said:
Hanlon's Razor.
There is no conspiracy. A conspiracy implies there is an organized group of individuals who are secretly orchestrating something for their own malicious endeavours and trying to keep it secret from everyone.

Do you comprehend how fucking long it took for humans to adopt heliocentrism? ABOUT A THOUSAND YEARS. CHANEGE IS SLOW.

Pretty much every retort you have in this regard is based on complete and utter ignorance on both the subject matter, AND human psychology. Mainstream scientists are just as much humans as anyone else, and are just as susceptible to the same tribal archetypal behaviours.

GenesisAria said:
Yeah but that doesn't mean shit if you know formal logic, or better yet, platonic retroduction. Being unbiased is easy, it's called not filling in any blanks, or using interpretations as evidence... It's called seeing every subject from many many perspectives and possible ways of seeing, understanding or concluding based on the same facts... it's called obeying the Law of Identity, which necessitates Law of Non-Contradiction.

Every contradiction is a paradox, and a paradox is a cognitive failure of the most pathetic kind. If facts contradict your theory, stop being a bitch and admit you are wrong. Too bad that human nature doesn't work that way, admitting you are wrong is HARD.

GenesisAria said:
There is no fucking conspiracy theories, what i told you is objective factual reality, go fucking look for yourself and use your goddamn brain. When you know formal logic and retroduction, whether or not you have the approval of the ad populum (which is a fallacy by the way) is utterly irrelevant. Reality doesn't give a flying fuck how many people agree, it is reality regardless. A crazy in a tinfoil hat has just as much capability of being right as a highly educated guy in a nice suit; that is they(anybody) have a vast majority chance of being WRONG.

GenesisAria said:
Why don't you just admit you don't know anything about tactics and strategy, because all of this is false.

GenesisAria said:
Something tells me you didn't understand any of the intellectual subjectmatter in CG.

GenesisAria said:
Your ignorance on these things baffles me, and pretty much removes my ability to consider your view son things like LotGH with any intellectual credibility.

GenesisAria said:
If i had that i'd be making you read it and you'd finally understand japanese media for the first time in your life, because you clearly don't get anything presently.

GenesisAria said:
I don't think you understand human psychology or fiction writing at all.

GenesisAria said:
It baffles me you still try to argue with me when i'm FAR wiser and more knowledgeable on this subject, by a landslide.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You are seriously saying that launching a new war and wave of oppression is a great way to fix socio-political and psychological trauma, as long as they end at some point. And the comparison point is peaceful socio-political development. My reply is [Citation needed.] Is there any real evidence that war and oppression are better at healing people than peace and prosperity?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
1) This is ridiculous as a counterargument because the ending didn't solve this problem anyway. If this was what he was trying to solve, he failed.

2) He could abolish the monarchy. Not trivially easy but better than the alternatives.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Presumably, the missiles would be outfitted with the same magic stuff, unless you assume even more magic stuff that makes robots uniquely useful.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
The part about it not being fun is a different point. Even if it was realistic, which I contest, from a narrative standpoint these sudden new superweapons feel too convenient.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
It is a sound argument because the memes aren't funny enough. Random martial arts tricks and special effects are too detached from the plot events and themes surrounding them, so they come across as too forced and filler-ish. Writing a "meh" meme on purpose doesn't make it interesting even if they did it on purpose. I am not going to give points for it.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
How would you even know whether more people went into Kanata no Astra blind than into LotGH? I doubt anyone keeps statistics of things like that.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
If they explicitly talked about things, they could get more detailed philosophy done. And I give negative points for endorsing Plato's cave because I don't accept his reasoning.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Reading philosophical literature and enjoying fiction that contains similar arguments are not mutually exclusive. You call it "nuts and bots" (bolts?), I call it conceptual precision. It is necessary for doing philosophy with accuracy.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You seem unable to demonstrate how exactly CG differs from its parody target enough for it to work as a parody. Some of the outrageously over-the-top and one-in-a-million tactics, maybe, but I got the impression that many of them were meant as legitimate tactics and not as jokes. And if the point is going for parody, adopting such a heavily melodramatic tone for much of the run sure works against it. Am I supposed to laugh when characters tragically fall victim to ridiculous errors and coincidences? A successful parody can't have a tone that is all over the place. The obvious "breaking the ice" jokes are too generic and predictable to be funny. If you find bouncing boobs and people falling over funny, then that's your business.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
To return to the original point, you said that writing about democratic theory isn't unique. So where are all the anime about democratic theory then?
That is very vague as far as philosophical theories go.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Kanata no Astra is factually praised a lot. Read this very thread. Kanata no Astra is factually rated highly, which I already proved. And it does not live up to its praise. I don't need to prove anything else. Whether people were positively or negatively surprised is irrelevant.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
He could turn people into his slaves in the shadows and infiltrate upper echelons of government and military. He could at some points resort to force but only when it is necessary for more infiltration. Far more reliable than an open armed rebellion and heading into the line of fire personally. If he needs more military force, he can build up more of it behind the scenes.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Even if people were complete altruists, they might disagree on what is valuable in life and who deserves to get which part, and there does not seem to be any objective, universally verifiable method of determining who is right. There are also times when centrally micro-managing everything is too difficult. You tried to trivially hand-wave both points away in the other thread, but it wasn't very convincing.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I don't try to rate things based on how they worked relative to my expectations. Even if I expect something to be terrible and it actually is terrible, I won't give points for matching my expectations. I could raise the enjoyment score if it's bad in a funny way, but that is a different thing.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
There are multiple ways to try to change an empirical theory so that it better fits empirical observations. Formal logic alone doesn't say enough about which path to take.

GenesisAria said:
I'm done here. Have a nice day.

GenesisAria said:
I call you ignorant because you make bafflingly stupid comments like this. Lasting peace is earned. You don't earn it by taking a country by assassinating it's ruler and forcing everyone to your will; you will simply invite your own assassination and the cycle will continue.

GenesisAria said:
1) He achieved his goal quite sufficiently.

2) He abolished the aristocracy, not the monarchy. A country without a ruler or utopic philosophy within every citizen won't be peaceful. The masses needed a common goal, a unifying enemy. This happens all the time in the real world.

GenesisAria said:
More completely inept statements... The technology involved in moving a physical frame around is completely different from moving a missile. Say your super technology is some crazy new invention of an extremely strong high-torque mechanical joint that can handle unprecedented amounts of stresses... How do you make a magic missile out of super strong torque joint motors? Try using your head.

GenesisAria said:
It's loads of fun and dramatic and sudden. Not everything has to be foreshadowed to the point any idiot can predict it coming. You're just a dull dull human being with an extremely limited tunnel vision on the nature of fiction.

GenesisAria said:
Essentially nobody goes into LotGH blind. That's extremely rare. Very few people watch old anime unless someone recommends something to someone. Most people go to watch LotGH because everyone keeps going on about how "it's the greatest anime ever"... So yeah, wtf are you smoking?

GenesisAria said:

Are you kidding me?

(you just told me that you need them to exposition dump their diatribes on the subject for you do be able to even acknowledge it, LMAO)

GenesisAria said:
Nope. None of this is necessary in fiction. Hyper-dense political diatribe in fiction is excruciatingly boring to anyone who isn't totally enamoured by politics.

GenesisAria said:
Code Geass really must be over your head. Plenty of people understand why they like Code Geass, and it's not because they think it takes itself so seriously. Any jackass can figure out when code geass is being semi-serious and when it's being a meme. You sound like those digbats that try to tell you what a deconstruction is. It's like you expect every bit of amusement to give you a belly laugh. Excessive standards and extreme dichotomy much?

GenesisAria said:
Nobody would want to watch an anime only specfically about democracy in detail. It would be boring as fuck and wouldn't sell and be a total waste of production costs.

GenesisAria said:
It's passively present in many many anime, and rarely addressed as good. I guess you haven't noticed.

GenesisAria said:
And i told you why. I guess you forgot how to read. You would know what i say to be logically true if you knew logic.

GenesisAria said:
He needed to be a symbol for the people and have them rally to his cause willingly. Did you not comprehend his philosophy of "if the king des not lead, how can he expect his subordinates to follow. You are projecting YOUR view onto him. If were Lelouch, i'd probably do it more like he did, not your way, cuz your way is insufficient. It's exactly what Suzaku suggested and Lelouch starkly disagreed with the feasibility and effectiveness of that method. Once again, you don't pay attention to anything; you are only seeing what you want to see.

GenesisAria said:
Once people reach a certain saturation of wisdom/enlightenment, disagreement is irrelevant. There's no trivial hand-waving, you just continue to demonstrate you don't understand high reason and logic. There is no debating the reality of what works once it's found, everyone admits it unless they are an immature obstinate whiny bitch that is also stupid and ignorant because of this.

GenesisAria said:
You can't NOT rate it that way smh. Unless you are going to try and tell me you rate shows objectively, in which i will have to just laugh my ass off, because you wouldn't last 2 minutes in a room full of linguists, psychologists and fiction experts.

GenesisAria said:
Yes it does, because there is only one path: the path of truth. They do NOT change their models, they shoehorn and ad-hoc bullshit like fucking "virtual photons" aka leprechaun particles, just so they don't have to give up their magical bag of bumping corpuscular particles that are not observed anywhere ever and are complete mathematical fabrications, created for the sole purpose of not having to wipe the board clean and start fresh (which needs to be done in many specialized subjects which are too far down their own rabbit holes and up their own asses).

GenesisAria said:
My attitude took a nose-dive when you continued ti act like you knew things and yet continued to fail at every turn. I demonstrated quite significantly the logic and reasoning, and gave you plenty to reference and determine the level of reason i present, but you couldn't even give a minimum assessment.

GenesisAria said:
I gave you heaps to work with and plenty of logical backing for all of it, took time out of my day to try and explain things to you and presenting the process for your benefit, and you wasted your time fighting it at every turn, and thinking you know things that just ain't so.

GenesisAria said:
Just typical lean-back armchair behaviour of expecting some jackass in a suit to tell you something before you take it seriously. Just fyi, that's how religions work too... Never take anything seriously until the oh-so-credible priest provides his insight on the subject... I wonder what it's like to think for yourself?

GenesisAria said:
Read some ancient texts, like Pythagoras, neoplatonic thought, ancient writings of india, study the metaphysics of taoism... Your brain will explode as all this jumbled mess of arbitrary empiricism and metaphysical abstraction will burst into clarity and all make sense as the true state of unified existence.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
It is easy to turn into a dull human being when we watch anime after anime with very similar "fun, dramatic, sudden" things. It is easy to predict that anime characters, especially the protagonists, will keep getting random new powerups when they need them. We can't predict specifically what kinds of powerups but their asspull nature is predictable enough, and that is enough to make the overall process predictable. It is more surprising when it doesn't frequently happen.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Then what you find boring is philosophy itself, at least as a field of study. Anime doesn't usually do philosophy in that sense.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Not liking something doesn't mean that I am unable to notice its components. For example, I can usually see when Code Geass is trying to act seriously, but I have a hard time taking those scenes seriously. That's one of the biggest problems I have with enjoying it, and the problem exists precisely because I have noticed that the show is acting seriously. If I thought that the allegedly heart-wrenching moments were actually part of an elaborate joke, I might even genuinely laugh, and that would be a much more successful parody.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
That is irrelevant to whether it is unique.

LotGH is not only about democracy in detail but it is obviously one of its main topics, and the series has sold fairly well in Japan. Obviously, some people on MAL also like it at the very least.

And this kind of examination of democracy is not very unique, which is why I made the distinction.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You have only watched Die Neue These: Kaikou, which is the intro to the story. They have to establish the premise first. We did already hear some lines about the slide of liberal democracy towards authoritarianism, but there was only time for so much.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I comprehend Lelouch's "lead from the front" belief (I don't endorse it but I comprehend), but I can't see sufficiently reliable tactical means for it to realistically succeed. Lelouch is at his most effective precisely when he uses his mind-control powers with minimal restraint and at his least effective when he exposes himself to imminent physical harm.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Objectiveness has nothing to do with it. I just draw a distinction between subjectively laughing with a show and subjectively laughing at it.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You skipped most of the detailed arguments, actually. The sceptical zero-substance model of empiricism, the variant of Russell's logical constructivism, the difference in logic between a negation and the absence of a proposition, the set theory interpretation of the preciseness of definitions, the way in which the choice of definitions determines the contents of propositions that use those words, etc., etc. You skipped them with broad, unspecific dismissals.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
"Your brain will explode if you read book X," as cited below, does not pertain to logic at all. A purely logical argument is one that only adopts tautological premises.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
That said, when you have appealed to logic, you have included metaphysical postulates (metaphysical in the modern sense) and probably define "logic" in a different way, but the implication then is that your appeals to logic hinge on whether those postulates are true. Those postulates require separate justification, not simply appealing to the postulates themselves.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
And appealing to your personal intuition and ancient texts is not a logical basis in the sense that logic is usually spoken of.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Thinking for oneself is a good idea, and it is precisely why I didn't believe you when you told me to blindly trust particular ancient writings. Here's one example:No, thank you, I won't blindly believe them. I prefer thinking for myself.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
So you are claiming that the truth values of normative propositions, including ethical ones, can be determined with reason and logic alone. Good luck proving that one or even demonstrating it in practice. I won't take your word for it.

GenesisAria said:
Hardly any of it in CG was without foreshadowing; they gave plenty indications most of the time that development was happening on various wunderwaffes.

GenesisAria said:
Also don't accept who's reasoning on Plato's Cave, Plato himself? That's rather amusing and hubristic to say...

GenesisAria said:
or maybe you just don't understand the point of Plato's Cave. Also i wasn't endorsing anything, i was telling you what Gurren Lagann was about and how natural philosophy is woven extremely densely and tightly into the narrative of that story. Plato's Cave is about the principle of being stuck with a dogmatic framework of intellectual ignorance, and having developed a false sense of certainty that your perception of reality is the truth. When someone manages to break free and leave the Cave of ignorance and see the truth and the falsehood of what they thought they knew, they are unable to return to that prior ignorance, because now they know, and cannot see the shadows on the wall as real things anymore, as they understand the shadows to be privations of light from others that exist outside of the scope of view from where everyone else is and you once were.

The added caveat is that people who have not seen outside of the cave have no means to fathom what is beyond, and will be very quick to reject it in favour of the comforting certainty they've grown accustomed to. Plato's Cave is about the graduation from ignorance, but also the refusal to break from certainty. It's a universal intellectual conflict that pervades human thought. This is philosophy 101 shit, come on.

To deny this principle is to basically assume yourself infallible and that you never have revelations, and never escape ignorance... You must be omniscient i guess... or just unable to break from ignorant certainty.

GenesisAria said:
There was never a point in which Code Geass was trying to be serious. It's more akin to a story like Mahou Sensei Negima! (which i highly highly recommend you read, especially in tandem with reading a lot of stuff on tvtropes), in where the story, while serious, exciting, ridiculous etc, it's scenes also actively play a role in being literary experiments. Many things are put in and kept in because the writers thought it was funny or wanted to see what would happen as a result, or wanted to try illiciting certain emotions or make points with them. I think your issue has been watching Code Geass in a vacuum and not realizing what was happening when it was airing. Code Geass was a massive conversation between creators and consumers, memes were created by the show and ascended into the show as it progressed. The creators acknowledged what it was first and foremost: entertainment. The show was for everybody to have fun, and the staff included, while keeping it interesting and compelling. If you even just listen to the commentary track from the dvds etc, you pick up on bit and pieces of what was going on amongst the staff. When i say things were intentionally left in as a joke, that's not just a fan theory, it's a fact.

GenesisAria said:
I assure you everything in LotGH will 100% be regurgitation of existing philosophical discussions between many minds on the various political philosophies that exist. It may be uncommon in fiction, but the discussion is old-hat and stale and based on political ideological debates that were had and done with ages ago. I'd rather see new takes on old ideas, or new ideas altogether (or at least have entertainment that has it's joy value in experience rather than content).

GenesisAria said:
If your tools and subjects were robots, then your reasoning would be concrete, but you seem to have missed the lesson that Lelouch learned right from the beginning: and that is not to neglect the human element. You are't just doing logic equations of arsenals and attack vs defence etc, you also have to consider the cooperation of the subject, the morale, the psychology, sociology, etc. As shown in anime like Eureka Seven, ideas are as much if not more effective of a weapon than a gun.

GenesisAria said:
I referenced sources for "read X if you want to know more about subject Y and beyond". Also, lolwut tautological? This is the problem with having your head too far up your own ass of your own ideas; you aren't understanding what others are saying from their perspective and on their terms, you're looking at it through your own tinted shades.

GenesisAria said:
Subject=subject, 1=1, universe=universe, god=god. Everything in the universe is 1. You cannot prove that there is more than 1 of anything, because to count similar entities neglects the fact that they are not perfectly identical, and also occupy individual spaces. Everything=1. 1=universe=god=1. God cannot say 1=1 or universe=1 because god synonymous with 1, and therefore does not need to say.
ps: i'm not religious.

GenesisAria said:
For two, it's not about appealing to postulates, it's identifying the inescapability and reality of something. Subject = subject, you cannot avoid this. You don't need some external factor to prove it, because it's self-evident and universally true. You could logically say that 1=1 because 1=/=(not 1), but that's just circular reasoning, and therefore redundant and irrelevant. To say that A=A because B, is inferring arbitrary premises that can quickly become disastrous. 1=1 because god says so. What makes god say so? How does god say? What is god? You see the problem here. 1=1 because 1=1, it's simple as that, and do not shoehorn on convolutions that distort truth.

GenesisAria said:
For one, talking about physics and metaphysics is the biggest mistake any philosopher can make and is the primary crime of academia. Physics and metaphysics are but 2 sides of one coin: the subject is the coin and what it's made of, the sides are merely properties, or attributes even.

GenesisAria said:
You must talk about everything as a whole in terms of what is and what appears to be, not in terms of what fits within a certain circular criteria of physicality or non-physicality. When you reall start getting into the deepest trenches of scientific discovery, you eventually arrive at an inevistable conclusion that physicality is an illusion of subjective interaction, and that this is completely inescapable. Physicality is metaphysical, and metaphysicality is represented physically.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Theories like Hume's bundle theory and Russell's logical constructivism don't assume the existence of matter in a strict sense. “Matter” without explanation is a vague term. To take this line of thought further, I'll describe it like this:

What physicists (in the sense of the modern field of science) call matter is really only a collection of sensory experiences. According to this theory, the desk in front of me is a collection of sensations of touch and vision that I interpret as a desk because of my subjective systems of classifying sensations. Now, does the desk have material substance? Who knows? Do other types of substance exist? Who knows? No stance taken either way. No stance on the number of substances or their forms.

GenesisAria said:
Getting into the logic indepth takes an exorbitant amount of time, so i make reference to where people smarter and wiser than either of us provide the logic in better words.

GenesisAria said:
Thinking for oneself does NOT mean blindly believing everything one's own ass shits out. You MUST understand how easy it is to derive false conclusions without the initial information being incorrect. This is especially so in mathematics where you can construct a mathematical model that appears to match something in reality, yet be completely unrelated to the phenomenon it's attributed to. I'm dead serious, i had to learn this the hard way.

The suggested readings aren't just "oh somebody says X and people believe it"... The shit they say is so profoundly undeniably true in the most hardcore sense, that you have no choice but to admit, as to deny it would be to turn your back on truth in favour of fantasy. Also, in honesty, it was a bit of an unfair request, because barely anyone is able to fully understand Plotinus, as even i have been hesitant to try tackling it in full. Just for some context, there are only 2 translations of plotinus that i'm aware of, and neither were completed. Most people trying to translate it lose their minds because it's so goddamn dense and potent subjectmatter. If you went up to anyone who is well read on ancient philosophy as well as other philosophy and is any worth their water, they would be very quick to facepalm or otherwise show pity for volunteering to avoid some of the most relevant writings of all human history.

To refuse to read the works of the greatest minds is to volunteer ignorance, and to assume you are better than them, which is hilarious. It's like saying "i'm smarter than Tesla!" fantastic... show me your life accomplishments with your super-brains. Show me your genius logical solutions to questions, even if you are not fortunate enough to be an active experimenting scientist testing them. Go read stuff by people smarter then you, then disagree if you like. And by go read, i mean as close to first-hand source as possible. No college level bastardized layman philosophy, the real shiz.

GenesisAria said:
All subjects and views must be considered accordingly in order to gain sufficient enlightenment, as without them you cannot apply proper logic (ideally retroduction) to determine what is true vs what isn't. That doesn't mean you need to ingest every bit of information that exists in the universe, as there are ways to shortcut this. If you gained a classical philosophical education or otherwise learned how to use the tool that is the mind, without restraint or delusion or bias, you wouldn't have any issue, and you would understand where all the traps reside. Unfortunately for you, you've fallen into a number of pseudo-logical traps, also; known as fallacies; the worst being lack if recognizing fallacies.

GenesisAria said:
The difficulty is having everyone disconnect from their ego, not unifying conflicting beliefs. You don't understand logic and high anciend philosophy at all if you think that what i said refers to bringing everyone under one ethical doctrine. Morals, ethics, ideologies, all of it is human fabrication, human creation. What you agree with or disagree with is entirely choice, which is biased by personal experiences and peripheral thoughts which lead to requisite conclusions for those ideals. All you have to do is stop attempting to force your subjective view into the objective world; if everyo;ne did that there would be no conflict, difficulty or dissonance. Everyone would be albe to solve every problem dialectically without investments or conflicts. The solution that can solve any conflict is to agree it's not a conflict. If you don't fight over something then it isn't a problem. If you stop talking about something so much, people will stop caring so much. For example, racial differences; if everyone had their minds wiped to forget any reason to prejudice another race, theat conflict would vanish instantly because there is no longer an emotional impetus to engage in it. You just notice their skin is a different colour or face a different shape as a trait and move on to things that matter. If one country believes in capital punishment and another does not, LET IT BE, it doesn't matter, there is no reason for you to give a shit. If you don't agree with your nation's philosophy, just MOVE, it's that simple. All that needs to happen is make immigration easier and less expensive, and more options of places to go. That said, if everyone was wise, capital punishment would be irrelevant because nobody would be dumb enough nor have reason to do anything that would require that. If someone dreams of say being able to rape without consequence, maybe there'sa place in the world with legal rape, if not, give them VR and stop attacking fiction ideologically like morons. There's always a solution to every problem; necessitating that it is possible to solve all problems, including ones of apparent contradiction, eventually arriving at truth. This is the original purpose of philosophy, the relentless quest for truth and solution to every problem faced. Irony is that most problems are entirely man-made, and therefore also man-dissamntleable. Study up on dialectical converse for mutual discussion and subjective synthesis which aims for objectivity, as opposed to generating conflict with rhetoric which is just subjective debate for a victor rather than a truth.

GenesisAria said:
If one country believes in capital punishment and another does not, LET IT BE, it doesn't matter, there is no reason for you to give a shit. If you don't agree with your nation's philosophy, just MOVE, it's that simple. All that needs to happen is make immigration easier and less expensive, and more options of places to go.

GenesisAria said:
At least in my case i have SOMETHING to show for it, that being an in-progress unified theory, and pending experiments that are seldom done or not been done yet, and a massive work of fiction also in progress, as well as many years worth of research behind me.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
The more philosophically relevant interpretation of the cave (indeed in Philosophy 101) is that Plato believes in ideas existing as genuine metaphysical (in the modern sense) substance in another world that is in some sense more profoundly real than the physical world. The ideas do not merely exist in people's minds but in a genuine, metaphysical world of ideas. These ideas are also in some sense more perfect than their material counterparts, which are flawed imitations of the ideas. The problem is that he doesn't provide any way to demonstrate the primacy of different forms of existence, the existence of substances in general, or the superiority or perfection of particular things compared to others. There is no particular reason to believe him. You mockingly talk about armchair philosophers. Well, here is one: Plato.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
"1=1" is indeed tautologically true in conventional logic and mathematics. Why? Because people have adopted it as an axiom (and seem to have a hard time thinking about things otherwise). With the help of logical rules (which are also axiomatic), you can use it to derive other propositions. That isn't particularly controversial; what are controversial is the existence of substances and their number and nature. "1=1" doesn't help much with those.

"1=1" doesn't need any particular substance to exist as a concept in people's minds. If you treat other logical statements similarly, that is all that is needed for logic to work inside people's minds (where logic demonstrably operates). Do you think that "1=1" demonstrably exists as actual substance or otherwise outside people's minds?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I tried to make clear in the other thread that I objected to assuming the existence of substances in the sense that modern metaphysicists speak of them, not particular other forms of existing. That's why I said in the other thread that "matter" and "existing," among others, without further explanation are too vague to be useful. For instance, this is the variant of Russell's logical constructivism I presented in the other thread:Do you object to this kind of existence? If not, then great: we can eliminate physical substance from the model without weakening natural science at all.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You tried to prove real-world empiricists wrong by defining "empiricism" in a different way than they do. This doesn't work because they don't actually believe in the things you claim they believe in. Among other things, unlike you claimed, they don't necessarily believe in the existence of matter in any profound sense, and the key here is defining "matter" and "existing" more precisely.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
There are also logical fallacies, such as the "god = universe" argument below. Something being an element of a set is not the same as it being the entire set.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I will tackle these arguments from the inside outwards.
In your notation, the number X is seemingly the set of all X-sized sets. For instance, Russell also used the notation when deriving arithmetic from logic and set theory.

I am going to assume that the universe (which is apparently defined as "everything") in this case can include things other than physically observable entities because it doesn't make sense otherwise. For example, it can include things that can be imagined but do not exist.

The problem here is using "equal to" in situations where the correct operator is "belongs to." The conclusion would rather be "Every individual thing belongs to the set that consists of all things." That is why the universe and god need not be identical. In your terminology, god is part of the universe, not the entire universe.

You should also define "god" in some independent way for the statements related to it to be more relevant. Now it simply seems to be some arbitrary thing.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Furthermore, properly defining a set of everything is mathematically challenging. You need to adopt particular variants of set theory to avoid paradoxes or simply inventing even greater sets. But that isn't the most immediate problem here.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You tried to prove real-world atheists wrong by defining "atheism" in a different way than they do. This doesn't work because they don't actually believe in the things you claim they believe in.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
1) You shouldn't have written at such length because I was more interested in the part about objectively true ethical propositions. So where is it in all this? The descriptive world might be objective (debatable but for the sake of argument, let's say it is), but that world by itself says nothing about good and evil. Hume's law. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise with some kind of evidence.

2) As I noted before, it is a separate problem that even perfect altruists may be unable to coordinate their activities well enough to completely replace the market. They have to find out who needs or deserves what and when and how to produce all the necessary goods and services without market forces. That shouldn't be hand-waved away either.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
So if a person doesn't agree with any existing state, are they supposed to jump into the ocean and drown? (Hume also famously asked this.)

International politics is also kind of required to solve mankind's problems.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You claimed that the original definitions of words are the only ones that people should use, but that is only your preference. It doesn't change the contents of what people believe in. Even if you dislike how real-world empiricists define the word, it doesn't change the contents of what they believe in, so your arguments miss their target.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
The debate on the details of democratic theory and other political philosophy was never "done with." It is alive and well today. The journals have plenty of this stuff. Of course, it is usually more detailed than in LotGH, but it is still more philosophical on this particular field than most of the alternatives. If they want to go even further, sure, why not? Have at it.

Also, you go after democratic theory and other political philosophy for being old-hat and stale, yet praise other anime for Plato's cave of all things? That is one of the most old-hat, stale theories in philosophy.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I dislike calling any philosophy "high," "profound," or "refined." Overselling philosophy like that is very pretentious, just like claiming to have "true knowledge," "true wisdom," "profound understanding," etc. without any firm basis other than saying so. It doesn't seem like it can be reliably demonstrated. To me, philosophy is simply people trying to figure out what they can.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I am working on a doctoral thesis and a novel, but I don't find either relevant to any of this. Neither are yours, unfortunately, unless they pertain to these particular arguments.

GenesisAria said:
Plato is not wrong. It is known in all areas of science that aren't subscribed to the atomist (quantum) doctrine. The entire electrical world we live in today, invented by the geniuses of the late 19th and early 20th century, all denies the materialistic atomistic bs, because none of it complies with the real behaviours of electricity, which require the metaphysical æther to exist. There is no physical phenomenon without a noumenon to define it. There is no atom without a field; there is no electricity without a wave. Fields and waves are noumena that cannot be directly observed but are undeniable necessitative patterns which define physical reality. If you dig far enough into atomist quantum, like QED and so on, you will eventually run into the 0 result, that being 0 physical quantitative anything present, and that everything is in terms of fields of influence - and this is where the holographic principle came from. Fun fact: Plato released the forbidden formula for phi, which was derived into the golden ratio etc, which was Pythagoras' secret; phi is inescapable and perfect in every aspect of a dielectric field (electromagnetic field by faraday's term), and you can observe and measure this under a ferrocell (psst, it's a spiral). Fields are phi, phi is present everywhere in the universe, fields are phi, fields are everywhere. The greek philosophers had a general grasp of this even in their time. Again, your conclusion here is a product of your ignorance.

GenesisAria said:
1/φ⁻³
You can derive all aspects of spatial geometry using that expression. Everything can be derived from 1 without escaping 1 and always arriving back at 1. That's the nature of phi.
To get the relative magnitude, is simply Φ(field) × Ψ(dielectric) = Q (electrification).
I just essentially handed you the unified field on a silver platter.

GenesisAria said:
What scientists call matter is actually a series of mathematical equations which they correlate to empirically sensed phenomena with mechanical instrumentation to filter inconsistencies.

GenesisAria said:
Someone experiencing a hallucination due to drugs or mental whatever, can feel a real desk just as real as anyone else feels a desk, without anyone else being to observe it. To that person, that desk is made of matter, but that matter is really a construct of mind, completely indistinguishable from the "real" thing. You can't define something by terms which have contradictions or details which disprove them. The only way you can define physicality which is universally applicable is to define it as a manifistation of metaphysical principles, which are constructed in the mind.

GenesisAria said:
The study of fields in field theory is to understand the patterns of that manifested form without the assumption of physical things being concrete.

Physical substance is not necessary to explain empirically detected phenomena; the belief in the 'concreteness' if substance is atomistic belief that can't be fully substantiated and is easy to dismantle.

GenesisAria said:
How they subjectively connotate the definition of a world is competely irrelevant. Regardless of what you think they believe, they do. Anyone under any of the consensus models believes in the fundamental premise of atomism; that is the idea of there being some kind of fundamental particle or object which mechanically forms the building blocks of reality. This is only understood to be not the case in models built on field theory.

GenesisAria said:
That is not a logical fallacy, you just strawmanned that. God is the name/term of the universe in existential terms in the oldest texts. It is literally the word for universe that existed before anyone coined the term universe. To identify god as something within the universe or an attribute of it is absolutely your own ignorance of the subject; that's like New Testiment and beyond type stuff where the divine is trivialized into anthropomorphic jokes.

GenesisAria said:
You are confusing the concept of the thing with the thing itself. The thought of a rock in your brain is independent from any actual rocks. The idea of god is not god. The idea of god is part of god. The idea of universe is part of universe, but not universe itself. You should study the meaning of logos in as much depth as possible to get a sense of understanding of the convievement of ideas and consciousness.

GenesisAria said:
You cannot explain the universe with mathematics, only describe things in quantitative terms. You'd be more successful with old greek arithmos, but even that is a projection.

GenesisAria said:
But they do, your conclusion of it may be in writing somewhere, but it is not what actually happens. For example mgtow is written as an independence and non-involvement thing where men go their own way... In reality this couldnt be farther from the truth because most mgtow are actively anti-women. The irony is that the etymological denotation for a term like atheism is exactly how it ends up being in practice,which differs from whatever the high-brow connotation is.

GenesisAria said:
None of this really tackled what i was saying. Also once again misunderstanding what i'm saying as if it's some kind of prescribed doctrinal collection of through processes. Having sufficient understanding, wisdom, mastery ofthe mind allows a level of adaptability that exceeds the rate and severity of problems that can arise.

GenesisAria said:
For every problem that arrises, there is always a way to solve it. If there is a problem with that methodology, find a way to solve it.

GenesisAria said:
All you have to do is have a free option. If the world existed in a sense in which nations were more like companies than nations that own land and draw borders, then if you don't like the way anyone else does it, start up your own nation/company with its philosophy advertised for others to join if they agree with it. Geez, a child could come up with that. For every problem that arrises, there is always a way to solve it. If there is a problem with that methodology, find a way to solve it. The only difficulty is how to get to that reality form your current reality. It's not that some form of quasi-utopic reality is impossible, because they often are far from impossible if they aren't completely magical, it's the factor of how to break out of the current macro uniformity. By that i mean the western way of living, philosophy, and civiliation conquered the world, and that way of life became the primary, and necessitated others join it, for the system was degined in a way that others are impoverished until they play the same game. It's not because of human nature, it's because of how history played out, and how difficult it is to break free of the western industrial machine. It's an opium.

GenesisAria said:
start up your own nation/company

GenesisAria said:
That is not my preference, the etmlogical denotation from source is what the world actually means.

GenesisAria said:
If you slap whatever the hell definitions you feel like on words, you create an incoherent mess whree everyone is using different definitions for the same words, and this is exactly what happens everywhere, where nobody can agree on definitions.

GenesisAria said:
That's why the distinction MUST be made. For example, layman philosophy is just "i live by this system cuz i think it works best for me"... That's barely definable as philosophy. High philosophy is engaged by people who dedicate their entire mental power to investigating and understanding the deepest aspects of existence and so on. Living by a philosophy of say being nice to people so that they will be nice in return is not a real philosophy, and is extremely minute in comparison with the investigating of the nature of existence. The fact is true wisdom CAN be reliably demonstrated, and always is being so. Your lack of understanding of the subject is why you don't know how to recognise it.

GenesisAria said:
A unified model has to do with everything, because it's basically reconstructing all of ontology and metaphysics and physics under one explanative model that is provable and logically true; again with many years of highly efficient research.

GenesisAria said:
I'd honestly be more respecting of a novel you write than a thesis written within a broken education system, due to it being more of a real accomplishment rather than a boot-kissing for a piece of paper.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
They wouldn't use the word "metaphysical" here, but otherwise many modern empiricists (like Russell) believe this. For instance, why do you think Russell's logical constructivism is named that way? The hint is right there in the title.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Many modern empiricists (like Russell) don't believe in physical substance or concreteness. That is a central part of their theories.

That doesn't require endorsing particular physical theories though. They treat particles as mathematical concepts used in theories, just like fields, waves, etc.

Basically, you are a standard modern empiricist who claims not to be one because of conceptual confusion. Sure, you believe in fringe physical theories, but that is a difference in physics, not empiricist philosophy.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Where are the modern empiricists who actually believe in fundamental particles or a mechanical worldview? Any examples? Maybe some high-schoolers who read physics textbooks think that way, for instance, but let's not blindly assume that modern empiricists think so.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
As stated, what you are calling high philosophy modern people simply call physics.

GenesisAria said:
I don't know this Russel fellow, being honest,

GenesisAria said:
but you keep referencing a single figure, which is mildly concerning.

GenesisAria said:
That couldn't be farther from the truth. Nuclear physicist and Quantum physicists, and the bulk of the mainstream genuinely believe in the corpuscular nature of atoms and subatomic particles as descrete concrete entities that are physical and real. Like little bb billiard balls that bump into eachother.

GenesisAria said:
You can go to professors and ask them "if light is a photon particle, how then when light slows down within say glass (and this is a fact that it does), how then, without defying the law of conservation, does light then "speed back up" upon leaving the glass?" they will never have an adequate answer.

GenesisAria said:
#NASA #CERN all of academia.

GenesisAria said:
All in all, it doesn't help either of us to converse or improve in any way if all you are doing is arguing against terms instead of discussing the subjectmatter itself.

GenesisAria said:
It's called Natural Philosophy, which is the all-encompassing study of both physical phenomena via empirical deductive analysis, AND the ontological via retroductive logical analysis. Science is ONLY an offshoot method of the PHYSICAL and EMPIRICAL studies (physics), which is only HALF of natural philosophy

TheDeedsOfMen said:
So let me get this straight. You say that empiricist philosophers are horribly wrong in their empiricist philosophy, yet you haven't ever heard of one of the most famous empiricist philosophers? (I mean "philosophy" in accordance with the contemporary demarcations of science, not physics.) You haven't heard of one of the most famous philosophers in general?

Wow. Have you studied any modern philosophy at all? Ever read any of the works of modern philosophers? Commentaries? Even textbook summaries? Or even Wikipedia articles? You go around calling people ignorant in philosophy, but you have never even heard of the well-known philosophers whom you keep bashing? Really?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Regardless of whether NASA and CERN believe that, they do not work in the field of philosophy...

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I am not the one trying to argue about modern empiricist philosophy by presenting long, unrelated physics rants. You are. The subject matter of modern empiricist philosophy is not what you think it is. How do I know? Because I have actually read about modern empiricist philosophers.