Forum SettingsEpisode Information
Forums
Poll: Kanata no Astra Episode 12 Discussion


Sep 22, 10:45 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 753
Holy fuck, I can't believe they manage to make the ending even better than the manga. That was a lot of extra original content we got. The ending literally just makes the whole series 10x better. Easily a 10/10.
 
Sep 23, 7:19 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
To be fair, one of the main points of LoGH is that people are often ignorant or outright idiotic in many ways, especially of tactics, history, and politics. This is stated pretty blatantly, though it arguably rubs it in a bit too often.

By the way, I don't know if you're aware, but the early stages of the remake only cover most of volume 1 and even then there is a lot of information lost from the novel (just like in the original anime also).
I'm aware, and people talking about it said it was at least as faithful as the original anime, but on some different aspects. I've never heard of it portrayed as idiotic. People are always going on about how it's some amazing commander vs commander clash of strategic minds yadda yadda. "Omg look at all of the amazing tactics and strategies and formations! It's so sophisticated!"
GenesisAria said:
The atmosphere of the series sells itself to appear intelligent and high-brow.
GenesisAria said:
Strategy and tactics IS absolutely a battle of minds, which is what LotGH sells itself as, but fails miserably at, only thinks and pretends it is.
More than anything, LotGH sells itself as a showcase of political philosophy. 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. The anime openly says that, the novel even more so. They also say that for people to call you a genius, all you need to do is to be superior to whoever else was in charge and that historians will sometimes praise people for minor things. Of course, the way it is handled is far from perfect, but calling tactics the main focus is misleading.

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.

How often are people going on about "amazing tactics"? Maybe some people somewhere. When I have browsed through conversations on MAL, people have been talking more about the plot, characters, political messages, and various memes. When tactics in Die Neue These: Kaikou are discussed, people are not afraid to call out bad tactical decisions. Meanwhile, people also point out that there are clear narrative reasons for some of the most obvious tactical mistakes in early volume 1. Maybe that was only my impression; again, I haven't conducted any polls.

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

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
It is difficult to comment on your ideas because we don't know enough about their technology.

A few tactical points are known though. They already use EM jamming. Apparently, that's why their communications are such garbage. They use guerrilla tactics sometimes, not with single ships though.
Well for one, even in present day we are verging on or already have unjammable fractal analog signals.
Here is a crude example of something i did a while back as abuse of FTL in an rts game (a tactic i thought of years before i actually tried it): https://streamable.com/0kr8w ...
I am not sure if they are normal communications or normal EM jammers, or whether there is additional technobabble involved. They also have a limited capability to send simple signals, and they understand that it is smart to agree on encryption beforehand. It is really hard to comment more on this without knowing more about the technology. Maybe there are some lines in the novel that I am not remembering off the top of my head.

GenesisAria said:
Surprise attacks from blind spots happen sometimes in the show, diversions too. They also split fleets into smaller units and attack from various angles. It is worth mentioning that Die Neue These: Kaikou only has a handful of major battles because it is basically the early intro section.

That said, there may be technical limitations to how stealthily you can approach and how nimbly you can manuever, and judging by their sensor reports and movement in the show, this may be the case. Also, I am not sure how precisely small FTL leaps can be made and how it affects their systems. You can't handwave all of this away with "technology doesn't matter." Saying that "there's a way of working around and solving every problem" is not enough.

The fact that they don't usually go through ship-by-ship orders might just be for the sake of narrative. I wouldn't like to sit through that, at least. That's just my personal speculation though. Maybe that is an argument against huge fleet battles in general. I wouldn't even mind if LotGH had fewer.

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
People are into poshness and "the connection to the symphonies"? Who? I always had the impression that people like the plot progression, political philosophy, semi-realistic human behavior, and the somewhat grim view of humanity. And some memes, of course. I haven't conducted any polls though, so I guess I could be wrong.
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"
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.

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?

Or does not liking something like Kanata no Astra make me an elitist? If so, I am guilty as charged. It still wouldn't make me a hipster though. A hipster would like or dislike it because of trends. I dislike it for other reasons.

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).
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.

The arguments in LotGH on ethics and political philosophy tend to be very sceptical and reluctant to take any firm normative stance, and they go very far to reject any profound truths. A pretentious argument would be of the kind that makes wild claims without any evidence and pretends to hold profound truth. Sure, LotGH is far from perfect in this sense, but it is more careful with its argumentation than most anime, light novels, etc.

GenesisAria said:
The symphonies, i dunno people talk often about how the plot and orchestral music are related. I think it was something about it all being structured in a similar way to particular pieces of music or something. That is a neat gimmick, but doesn't make it godly or anything for doing so.
I had never even heard about this one.

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
"Satanist"? What are you even on about?
Satanism is the belief that humanity is inherently sinful, and if left uncontrolled, they will default to the most horrible of behaviours and actions. It's literally religiously secularized pessimism. They will always use war and crime and such as their "proof" but this is just confirmation bias and only looking at the negative aspects.
Satanism is secular? That's a creative one. That is another highly unconventional definition. Moving on.

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
"A fair bit" is a ridiculous understatement. Humanity rarely agrees even on less politically charged things, let alone suddenly abolishing existing states and traditional religions and somehow living peacefully afterwards.
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:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
The narrative suggests that the transition happened peacefully and voluntarily.
A peaceful story to promote a peaceful outcome built on ignorance...?
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?

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
Astronomers witness asteroids collide with planets all the time.
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.
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?

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
The narrative doesn't suggest any of that. At least I can't see enough signs of it.
The anime is full of twists, and the anime may not have gotten the whole story.
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.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Sep 23, 7:43 AM
 
Sep 23, 12:54 PM
Top Fan

Offline
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 429
Kimurah said:
Anime-is-King said:


Can we see your literary works? I just assumed you had some since you must know whats good to be calling this "very bad writing". I would guess you're just a pretentious dweeb with no clue what constitutes "good writing" based on how you typed that out in list form rather than a coherent paragraph.


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...

Nim0174 said:


I like sci-fi and good writing, and i like this show.
I think you are just being too harsh, the writing is not that bad.
I do agree that Kanata losing his hand was bullshit. And sure it had more moments like that. But Vinland Saga also has moments like that, does that mean its written badly? No.
I agree though the writing isn't near perfect. But the Show is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be, at least imo.

When all is said and done, your statement is false, because here i am i like sci fi and good writing, and i love this.
It doesn't need to be Ginga Eiyuu, it has its own unique Heart and Atmosphere, and i think it did well enough and is above average.


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.


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?
Modified by --Toshi--, Sep 23, 12:59 PM
 
Sep 23, 1:19 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 656
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.
 
Sep 23, 5:40 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1467
Anime-is-King said:
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.


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?


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

I mean is anything that Kimurah wrote here wrong? :
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)


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.
 
Sep 24, 2:46 AM

Online
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 678
i am glad that i stick with this, despite the shitty science and coincidental things, the journey and emotion every character feel wholesome, i will miss this series.
◕‿◕)♡ Check my guide to rate\(^▽^)/Check my modded list ♡(◕‿◕
٩(๑❛ᴗ❛๑)۶ Check and vote up my review ٩(๑❛ᴗ❛๑)۶
 
Sep 24, 3:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 48
Whoa, that was some fuckin bad finale. So embarassing I stopped watching around 25 min mark. The tension which where nowhere to be found in that show vanished completely. A "they lived happily ever after bullshit". I thought it was an average anime, which was interesting enough to stick with it. Nah, ultimatey it's a bad show I wouldn;t recommend to anyone.
 
Sep 24, 6:21 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 509
Heart warming anime until the end.
I like it, I really felt the "crew" side as if I were part from it.
Some predictable plotwist and bullshit coincidence but even with those flaw I had a good time on Kanata.

Aries best girl ❤

5/10
 
Sep 24, 1:39 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 357
It was a beautiful happy ending. It's so satisfying to see all the characters having a nice life. They're all good people that deserve the best, really.
 
Sep 24, 2:05 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 48
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.


Wait, what? Cowboy Bebop and this weak ass high school space opera - what do they have in common except space setting? Cowboy Bebop's "vibe" and it's coolness can not be measured by human standards (only by Corgis'), whereas Kanata no Astra is lame as much as a quickly forgotten seasonal show can be. Please, it's a blasphemy to compare this two shows.

Oh man, it looked so promising after 1st episode and quickly turned to shit thanks to bad writing, weird pacing and cliche characters.
 
Sep 24, 2:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 656
jurekjurek said:
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.


Wait, what? Cowboy Bebop and this weak ass high school space opera - what do they have in common except space setting? Cowboy Bebop's "vibe" and it's coolness can not be measured by human standards (only by Corgis'), whereas Kanata no Astra is lame as much as a quickly forgotten seasonal show can be. Please, it's a blasphemy to compare this two shows.

Oh man, it looked so promising after 1st episode and quickly turned to shit thanks to bad writing, weird pacing and cliche characters.

Where you read that I compared this two series? I've only spoken about a sensation I've felt while watching this show ahaha.
 
Sep 24, 2:48 PM
Top Fan

Offline
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 429
Lylaaz said:
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?


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

I mean is anything that Kimurah wrote here wrong? :
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)


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.


I'm not targeting people like you to argue dumb points, i'm doing it to ridicule you. Your kind is toxic and you shit up these forums constantly with your pathetic moaning about what's wrong with an anime and how it doesn't live up to your standards... like we give a damn.

"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"

That last sentence says it all...... talk about egotistical.
 
Sep 24, 4:12 PM
Offline
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 4
Well, this forum has turned into a shitfest. Guys, if you hate this anime, then fuck out of these forums because we don't care about what you think. Yes, we get it. This show has goddamn flaws and shit, but it's pretty enjoyable for us and that's all that matters. Don't bother making a long wall of text because there's no changing our minds. You don't contribute to anything worthwhile, and I think you're just wasting your time by being bitter.

Constructive criticism is welcome here. Being an ass isn't.
Modified by Nikki24, Sep 24, 6:24 PM
 
Sep 25, 2:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
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.
This automatically makes it unrealistic, because warfare is pretty much always studied and expanded upon. It would be like putting Trump in command of a naval battle fleet... Nobody does that. Even feudal warlords are almost always smart enough to appoint at least one strategist.

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.
They would only work if you were lucky enough that the enemy happened to be retarded enough, and you were stupid enough to assume your enemy was retarded enough.

Even in the show they were playing it up like it was this sophisticated 'game of chess' type thing, and appriasing adversaries for their abilities and stuff, selling it on high, while doing some laughably stupid swarm tactic formation.
btw my statements of people talking about the tactics responses and orchestral relevance etc comes from various blogs and articles and conversations around them etc.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
If you want to see a better depiction of intelligent strategists conflicting eachother, watch the chinese film duology Red Cliff.
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.
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. The anime Vanadis, as far as medieval stuff goes, had the most emphasis on formations and such that i've seen even though the story was meh. Having bad tactics etc is one thing, having bad tactics and playing it up like it's some sophisticated high-brow thing makes me cringe. If you want to play that card, you should be a lot more well studied on logic and tactics and so on, not just take some jrpg strategy video game or board game mechanics and throwing them into a story thinking it represents real warfare. 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. 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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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"
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.
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.

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?
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.


TheDeedsOfMen said:
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).
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.
"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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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...?
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?
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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?
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. 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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
The anime is full of twists, and the anime may not have gotten the whole story.
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.
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.
Modified by GenesisAria, Sep 25, 2:30 AM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Sep 25, 5:42 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 427
I thoroughly enjoyed this anime, I liked the characters, the story and just the atmosphere.

I see a lot of hate about plots holes and the likes and sure there could have been more tension but to me that was never what this was about. There was just enough tension but it was mostly lighthearted. The plot twists and story I found very well done and it was wrapped up perfectly even if a little too perfect.

I also found it amusing with the AD Astra reference as I watched the finale the day after watching the AD Astra movie in the cinema was was just utter trash.

If you want a boring as realistic style drama with characters with no emotion go and watch that, if you want to be entertained, this was brilliant imo.
"When everyone else is about to give up, the fighter who becomes the role model, is the true Leader."

 
Sep 25, 7:28 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
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.
This automatically makes it unrealistic, because warfare is pretty much always studied and expanded upon. It would be like putting Trump in command of a naval battle fleet... Nobody does that. Even feudal warlords are almost always smart enough to appoint at least one strategist.
GenesisAria said:
Even in the show they were playing it up like it was this sophisticated 'game of chess' type thing, and appriasing adversaries for their abilities and stuff, selling it on high, while doing some laughably stupid swarm tactic formation.
When it comes to fiction, realism alone isn't everything for me, especially in terms of combat. Detailed RTS-like battles would be a bonus but not really a deal-breaker for me.

The commanders in LotGH have received formal military training, but obviously many of them haven't learned what they should have, in part because of their own incompetence and in part because their education emphasized the wrong things. Some of them were promoted for political reasons. Sure, it is an exaggeration.

Yang, Reinhard, etc. usually call the more successful tactics pretty obvious. The most incompetent fleet commanders are labeled as idiots, especially in the intro (kind of the reason why it mostly takes place in the intro). I would prefer if they toned down the incompetence of a few of the worst fleet commanders. Now, you call almost all of it incompetent, and I could come up with many improvements, but as I said, I am not sure if all of your ideas can be applied without technical assumptions.

GenesisAria said:
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.
They would only work if you were lucky enough that the enemy happened to be retarded enough, and you were stupid enough to assume your enemy was retarded enough.
I was referring to your ideas. I am not sure if all of them would work without more technical knowledge.

GenesisAria said:
btw my statements of people talking about the tactics responses and orchestral relevance etc comes from various blogs and articles and conversations around them etc.
I can believe that comments like that can exist.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

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.

And, of course, plot realism is stretched very thin because some events require heavy coincidences. People show up precisely at the wrong time and make terrible decisions because the plot can't move ahead otherwise. A good example is a turning point in which Lelouch happens to make a poorly worded joke with dramatic consequences.

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.

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.
I am usually pretty indifferent towards historical accuracy too. What themes is the story actually about though?

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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

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.

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

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

GenesisAria said:
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?
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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?
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.
Astronomers were able to detect the crater caused by the impact into the moon in 2013. It was moderately big news for astronomers because it was such a clear observation. The rock was not repelled. There was no crater before but there was after the flash, which you have called impossible.

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.
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.

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:
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.
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.
I already read the manga before the anime finished, and it is almost identical.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Sep 25, 8:06 AM
 
Sep 25, 10:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 163
--Toshi-- 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?


Dweeb? Triggered?

I thought your pathetic strawman retorts were just momentary childish tantrums, but now I'm realizing that you were actually a 12 year old all this time.

You checked every single post of mine? really? every single one? Oh ho ho, I feel flattered, poor little me got all your attention.



 
Sep 25, 11:01 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3362
I'm actually surprised at this. The beginning seemed like your typical boring slice of life with some BS added in to propel the plot.

But oddly enough everything to explained even the ship just sitting there for them and the wormholes. Pretty much all of it. It even made sense.

Everything even wrapped up nicely with the time skip and such. Though I think the "parents" being arrested and such went a little too easily and wrapped up fast. The main plot was the kids and their survival though and not as much the political stuff.

So they mostly ended up being similar to their originals just .... not corrupt.

Somewhat satisfying conclusion though. I almost thought someone would happen and even hint at another season. Wondering how everything gets wrapped up but they actually did it and ended it in one long episode.
 
Sep 25, 1:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1467
--Toshi-- said:
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.


I'm not targeting people like you to argue dumb points, i'm doing it to ridicule you. Your kind is toxic and you shit up these forums constantly with your pathetic moaning about what's wrong with an anime and how it doesn't live up to your standards... like we give a damn.

"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"

That last sentence says it all...... talk about egotistical.


The only reason I am replying is because i feel sorry for you.
You don't seem to understand a few things.

Moan - "a complaint which is perceived as trivial and not taken seriously by others."

To my mind, illogical inconsistencies in story are not trivial. They basically break the immersion for people who think critically. We are free to express these points as solid arguments why we don't see some shows as "good".

You, on the other hand like to as you said yourself, ridicule such people who give solid arguments. I think the most toxic people are those who attack others. Instead of defending why you like a show, you attack other people. That is wrong, and that is toxic.

That's why i feel sorry for you - you don't see that you are basically doing the same thing which you hate.
 
Sep 25, 8:49 PM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 1
Not a bad plot twist. I just think it wrapped things up too abruptly in the last two episodes. They made the plot on Earth so important, but the selling point of the show was the space adventure. I think that's why once they were on Earth, they decided to wrap up the whole story in one episode. I would have enjoyed more episodes and a longer conflict on Earth to resolve the story.
 
Sep 26, 1:09 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
TheDeedsOfMen said:

Yang, Reinhard, etc. usually call the more successful tactics pretty obvious. The most incompetent fleet commanders are labeled as idiots, especially in the intro (kind of the reason why it mostly takes place in the intro). I would prefer if they toned down the incompetence of a few of the worst fleet commanders. Now, you call almost all of it incompetent, and I could come up with many improvements, but as I said, I am not sure if all of your ideas can be applied without technical assumptions.

It just felt extremely forced and pretentious to me.

GenesisAria said:
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.
They would only work if you were lucky enough that the enemy happened to be retarded enough, and you were stupid enough to assume your enemy was retarded enough.
I was referring to your ideas. I am not sure if all of them would work without more technical knowledge.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Err, Britannia vs either the EU or the asian alliance was more or less the same as the 2 factions in LotGH. 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. CG decided to keep it as exciting and campy as possible without sacrificing other layers and aspects too much. LotGH is EXTREMELY dry.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I am usually pretty indifferent towards historical accuracy too. What themes is the story actually about though?
Themes are irrelevant because they are subjective. Anyone can pick all kinds of themes out of any fiction. It's more about the clash of minds and the way Liu Bei & Sun Quan defeated Cao Cao, a significantly superior enemy. It's when the Three Kingdoms era began. It does some extrapolation from the history, and adds in personal and romantic stories into the mix.

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

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

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

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I didn't mean it so literally. Not everything remains exactly the same.
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:
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.
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.
Expecting too much of it haha. You saw how many times it ass-pulled with hardly any freshadowing.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Astronomers were able to detect the crater caused by the impact into the moon in 2013. It was moderately big news for astronomers because it was such a clear observation. The rock was not repelled. There was no crater before but there was after the flash, which you have called impossible.
A crater doesn't mean it impacted. You can make craters with explosions and with electrical arcs as well. Most of the "impact crater" models don't accurately reproduce what is observed of the crater's topography without fudging numbers of contriving equations using conveniently attributed values that does'n have a reason for being there. They haven't even been very successful in replicating them experimentally (psst, electric universe has). The same way they shoehorn dark matter into astronomical equations, assuming that there must be some magical substance creating more gravity (that is conveniently located exactly where they need it without an explanation for it being there), instead of suggesting "oh, maybe there is something more the the picture," or "maybe our understanding of gravity is wrong" (psst, if you use normal electrodynamics, that is like lorentz force, right hand rule, etc, stuff that is extremely well established physics, and apply it to space knowing that magnetism cannot exist without electricity creating it, you have zero need for dark matter, plus it's experimentally testable in small scale, and already had some success in doing so)... Tunguska event and Chelyabinsk meteor are the only 2 cases of meteor events within recorded human history that have any sufficient data or account behind them. Neither were able to touch the ground, and both had nuclear yield airburst. It's not that they necessarily CAN'T impact the ground, it's that there was never any reason to believe this, because there are no cases that demonstrate or prove the notion without question. In fact almost all cases say it doesn't happen. If one were to manage to physically impact a surface it would be the exception.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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). 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.

gonna spoiler this next part cuz it's long:

I merely say it's unfortunate you are not aware of the facts, because you wouldn't be making such misinformed statements. But that's a common problem.

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

ps: done editing finally bleh
Modified by GenesisAria, Sep 26, 1:37 AM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Sep 26, 9:23 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2016
Posts: 163
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.


I'll have to butt-in this particular paragraph and claim that your'e completely off the mark in this comparisson, and also if someone actually took the time to analyze and create youtube videos of the Terran's society in order to stablish how flawed/farfetched their society was, it's only a fool that wasted his/her time on a title that was meant to be a SATIRE of military and sci-fi action films.

Starship Troppers is more in the ballpark of meme space/sci-fi titles like Spaceballs with the big tonal difference that Spaceship troopers is more viceral where Spaceballs is lighthearted and ridiculous with Mel Brook's style of comedy.

I haven't seen much from LOTGH because it delves too much into politics wich is not my cup of tea, but from the gist of what I got their societies must have a more grounded start as a civilization that was able to reach the stars and conquer other societies.
 
Sep 26, 9:59 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
Kimurah said:
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.


I'll have to butt-in this particular paragraph and claim that your'e completely off the mark in this comparisson, and also if someone actually took the time to analyze and create youtube videos of the Terran's society in order to stablish how flawed/farfetched their society was, it's only a fool that wasted his/her time on a title that was meant to be a SATIRE of military and sci-fi action films.

Starship Troppers is more in the ballpark of meme space/sci-fi titles like Spaceballs with the big tonal difference that Spaceship troopers is more viceral where Spaceballs is lighthearted and ridiculous with Mel Brook's style of comedy.

I haven't seen much from LOTGH because it delves too much into politics wich is not my cup of tea, but from the gist of what I got their societies must have a more grounded start as a civilization that was able to reach the stars and conquer other societies.

It was just an arbitrary example, it's extremely common in sci-fi.
This is the youtube videos i was referring to, but i've been looking at sci-fi idiocy for most of my life.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkBkenX_AgQyzcZ_3-zTz_n6ucFBb2FcU
Yes, the Galactic Empire is included in the pantheon of sci-fi space morons. Star Wars was loaded with exemplary military retardation, and LotGH is very Star Wars (when considering the galactic narrative and expanded universe etc).

Sorry if my example caused a misunderstanding of what i was getting at.
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Sep 26, 10:17 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 607
For all the twists and talk about having your own view and doubts of the world the ending was kinda naive' and underwhelming, I expected them to face more trouble but everything was solved easily.
Still it was a fun ride, the twists were interesting and executed well, the characters were fleshed out and developed properly, the adventures were fun, and the directing was great.
This show is my favorite of the season and the most underrated of the year so far in my opinion, I wish modern writers would take notes from it.
 
Sep 26, 11:03 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 52
I just finished episode 12 just now. And I'll be damned they nailed it. I read the manga when the anime was just releasing episode 8 since I can't wait for the next episodes. I can say that they adapted it really good.

9/10 for me because I really don't watch adventure genres anime but this series is really good but underrated.
 
Sep 27, 6:01 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 2748
I liked the concept of them being clones, the bad guys going to jail and them living independently from their originals. The romance was a little too much for my taste, I love romance when it's done tastefully and not forced but the romance in this series felt really forced. That Ulgar x Polina hint towards the end was kind of weird. The Zack x Quiterie one was the best for being fucking hilarious. I can imagine them having sex and Zack just stating weird facts while doing the deed.

It was still very shounen-ish with its nakama power trope but it worked well. Even Yunhua, who I didn't like initially, grew on me. I felt sorry for them because when I thought about it, none of them asked to be created or born. They were forced into that world because of the selfishness of the originals.

7/10 for me.
There is no such thing as an Anime elitist. You watch Anime, therefore, you are trash by society's standards.
 
Sep 27, 9:25 AM
Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 210
Okay so first half of the show was pretty bad. I hated the dialogues, they were insufferable. Pacing felt very off. I didn't like the characters much. Animation looked very generic especially when the idea of vibrant planets is so enticing, it didn't do that justice.

The 2nd half was much much better. Really digged the twists one after the another. But still the BIG twist felt kinda rushed to me.

1st half =4/10
2nd half=8/10

overall=6/10
 
Sep 28, 2:36 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

"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.

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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
Err, Britannia vs either the EU or the asian alliance was more or less the same as the 2 factions in LotGH.
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. The Chinese Federation gets slightly more attention but still not enough, and it is very little like the Alliance anyway. We know more about Lelouch's high school festivals than these countries. The Britannian Empire is somewhat similar to the Galactic Empire but only in terms of the premise. You didn't even watch past the intro yet but are somehow trying to "extrapolate" (blindly guess) the entire plot without much success.

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.
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.

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

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!

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

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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?
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.
So it is your personal speculation.

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.
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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.
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.

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.
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:
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.
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.
Clearly, reading most scientific studies in the field wouldn't be enough for you either, at least unless I by some strange accident reached the same conclusions as you. After all, most of the scientists who have read those studies still disagree with you. So I can't take the rants about "headlines" and "wikipedia" seriously.


Kimurah said:
I haven't seen much from LOTGH because it delves too much into politics wich is not my cup of tea, but from the gist of what I got their societies must have a more grounded start as a civilization that was able to reach the stars and conquer other societies.
Just a note here. I am not entirely sure what you are referring to by "societies" but if you mean multiple intelligent species, I'd like to point out that LotGH only has human beings. There is plenty of conquering but only between humans. And all humans originate from good old Earth.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Sep 28, 3:12 AM
 
Sep 28, 9:31 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
Lelouch makes intelligent successes broken up by genuine failures and mistakes, emphasizing his character as human and flawed. Not unrealistic and persistent stupidity.

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.
Something tells me you didn't understand any of the intellectual subjectmatter in CG. Scenarios like predicting word conversations are not impossible, nor rely on probability. If you are an extremely clever conversationalist you can manipulate the other side's responses exactly as you see fit. Every scenario they ever showed the conversation prediction, it started off with a slightly awkward topic shift, enough for the observant to notice, but not enough to set off red flags immediately. Hardly any of it relied on coincidences, and coincidences often fucked up his plans. I know this can be done because i have done it myself multiple times, and seen it happen plenty, it's like entry level con artist charisma skills. It also happens in real war.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
You completely missed the point of what i was saying. I suspend disbelief for an alternate universe with unrealistic technologies and mystic powers. I do NOT suspend my disbelief for extreme largescale moronic 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. 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. At least it is extremely rare and is usually completely unavoidable after every attempt to win the war WITHOUT engaging in face to face idiot battles. We learned that by the end of WWII, and even in medieval times they did everything they could to avoid attrition battles, making them very rare (most warfare happened in raids on supply routes and such).


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.
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. 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 or stupid idiot gambles. 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.
...I recommend watching lindybeige videos in your spare time.

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

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.
Watch Akito.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
There's literally as many political philosophies as there have been nations in human history. Code geass was more about ideologies and conflict, not spending absurd amounts of time showcasing dry discussion over the nuts and bots of specific political systems, which anyone could just read about from primary source in their own time. As with most stories along these lines (most sci-fi war stories), it tends to be based on WW2, meaning there is combinations of american-like, european allies-like, axis-like, and/or soviet-like. People will tangent it and modify it and so on, but the base archetype remains the same.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Obviously you haven't seen any of the meme-generating, comedic scenes in LotGH then.
They must not be that great else they'd be on the internet and make their rounds and people would know them.

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!
This was a completely 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; a very 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. If everything is permanently dark and grim all the time, wha tyou get is Battlestar Galactica, where everything is doomy and shitty and heavy drama, and it's bloody exhausting. BSG is a great show, but i can only watch it in bites. I don't think you understand human psychology or fiction writing at all.

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

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
I just told you the reason.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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. 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 because of action and craziness and manliness and being Gainax, never heard of Plato's Cave, nor understand 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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
So it is your personal speculation.
It's not speculation, it's deduced reasoning via inducted principles. Go learn psychology my dude.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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. What is good it not determined by popularity or obscurity... It's when people go saying that their obscure thing is SUPERIOR to the other things, that it becomes hipster.

Liking B over A is fine, but claiming B is actually superior to A despite plenty logical reasons to disprove such a claim, is completely dumb.

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.
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 otherwise 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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

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.

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

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

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:
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.
Your ignorance deems it unrealistic due to your quasi-satanist ie unwavering pessimistic view on humans as rabid 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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
So these are at least in part conspiracy theories.
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. Do deny this is dogmatic cultist behaviour.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

...Unless you never assume anything to be true without perfect logic and complete information, where being right or wrong is irrelevant; there's nothing to admit.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Clearly, reading most scientific studies in the field wouldn't be enough for you either, at least unless I by some strange accident reached the same conclusions as you. After all, most of the scientists who have read those studies still disagree with you. So I can't take the rants about "headlines" and "wikipedia" seriously.
Ironically i actually reference from source material. If i wanna know about electricity, i listen to what Tesla, Steinmetz, and others have to say, not some fuckwit graduate from the last couple decades using recycled and misrepresented information. Most don't disagree with the perspective i come from, because peers in my paradigm don't even get read by the mainstream wankers hardly ever, they're just flat out ignored. When they do actually read it, it's admitted to be correct, or at least likely (it isn't adopted by mainstream because it doesn't fit into relativity or quantum, which are both provably false and/or baseless btw). That is changing right now though, again look at SAFIRE Project. I don't give a fuck what all the armchair academic retards write in editorials, nor do i care what crackpot conspiracy theorist or free energy freaks have to say, i care about REAL science and FACTS.

ps: claiming my statements as conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory... you are constructing a "theory"(conjecture) in which i am a supposed conspirator of misinformation. just thought i'd point out your hypocrisy.

I've said pretty much everything i care to say here on this stuff... unless you want to try admitting to your own flaws and/or engage in constructive conversation, then i'm open arms.
Modified by GenesisAria, Sep 28, 10:14 AM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Sep 28, 3:39 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
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.
Lelouch makes intelligent successes broken up by genuine failures and mistakes, emphasizing his character as human and flawed. Not unrealistic and persistent stupidity.
I think even Andrew Falk might have figured out that he can use his Geass more effectively. At least on a good day. Even he would probably turn people into his slaves one by one, not go for open military confrontation.

Lelouch is often standing in the open where any stray bullet can end his plans. Lelouch relies on everyone surrounding him acting perfectly, including enemy commanders and soldiers not deciding to shoot him on the spot, which is a distinct possibility. The alleged genius military tactician stands there ready to get shot even though he has OP mind-control powers and could easily have chosen an easier option. Again, even Falk might avoid this one on a good day.

GenesisAria said:
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.
Something tells me you didn't understand any of the intellectual subjectmatter in CG. Scenarios like predicting word conversations are not impossible, nor rely on probability. If you are an extremely clever conversationalist you can manipulate the other side's responses exactly as you see fit. Every scenario they ever showed the conversation prediction, it started off with a slightly awkward topic shift, enough for the observant to notice, but not enough to set off red flags immediately. Hardly any of it relied on coincidences, and coincidences often fucked up his plans. I know this can be done because i have done it myself multiple times, it's like entry level con artist charisma skills.
You are not completely wrong because Lelouch's replies were vague to some extent, but they still fit in the conversation with Schneizel unrealistically neatly. At least have him speak over the other party more often or go on even longer rants to waste time. It was way too perfect. If you can do this as perfectly in real life, good for you. I won't take your word for it though.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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?

1) People already loved Lelouch and his actions. This is literally stated in Code Geass itself. He was incredibly popular at home, abroad, and already implementing the changes he wanted to. People already had an enemy: the old empire he was tearing down. There was almost nobody left opposing him, except for one faction, and without outside support they would have been easier to deal with. It was practically "GG" when Lelouch made an own goal and made things harder for himself.

2) Launching a new war and wave of oppression may unite people temporarily, but there is a very good chance that afterwards the old divisions pop up again. This has happened often in history. It is not a very reliable plan in that situation when Lelouch is already in a good position and doesn't have to risk it.

GenesisAria said:
Ugh it's painful how much you didn't comprehend any of the philosophy behind the entirety of the conclusion arcs.
To be precise, I was complaining about the tactical decisions towards Lelouch's stated goals. Tactics are not philosophy.

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

GenesisAria said:
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.
You completely missed the point of what i was saying. I suspend disbelief for an alternate universe with unrealistic technologies and mystic powers.
Well, there you go. Unrealistic technology.

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

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.
Prove it. They could have unrealistic technology: unrealistic FTL, unrealistic shields, unrealistic lasers, unrealistic navigation, etc., etc.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
Normally, yes, but in CG the weaker units are so weak that they are useless, and the strongest are godlike.

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.

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.
CG emphasizes megabattles whenever Lelouch is in them and small battles whenever Lelouch is in them. The pattern is obvious. They like portraying Lelouch as a capable genius by making almost everyone else in the world useless.

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.
1) Stark technological superiority makes combat tactics less important, at least on-site. You praised CG for combat tactics, and presumably this doesn't include sitting in a lab to come up with more mecha parts. The on-site combat tactics actually don't play a big role. That's my point.

2) If in a few years everything starts flying with energy wings, is equipped with impenetrable scifi shields, death lasers that can scatter in many directions, and can destroy a seemingly unlimited number of the older models, I would call it unrealistic. I also argue that it makes the battles more boring, but that is a separate thing.

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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
There's literally as many political philosophies as there have been nations in human history.
More than that. You don't need a nation (or a state, I suppose) to come up with a theory in political philosophy.

GenesisAria said:
Code geass was more about ideologies and conflict, not spending absurd amounts of time showcasing dry discussion over the nuts and bots of specific political systems, which anyone could just read about from primary source in their own time.
There is a big difference between existing political systems and the philosophical arguments that involve politics.

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.

The ideologies in CG are left relatively vague precisely because they don't talk about them that much.

GenesisAria said:
As with most stories along these lines (most sci-fi war stories), it tends to be based on WW2, meaning there is combinations of american-like, european allies-like, axis-like, and/or soviet-like. People will tangent it and modify it and so on, but the base archetype remains the same.
Not with these plot developments. This is what you get for only watching a small part of LotGH and trying to "extrapolate" the plot (blindly guess).

Also, the characters wouldn't argue about democratic theory so much.

GenesisAria said:
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.
Watch Akito.
Maybe later.

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
Obviously you haven't seen any of the meme-generating, comedic scenes in LotGH then.
They must not be that great else they'd be on the internet and make their rounds and people would know them.
1) They are on the internet. Some people on MAL know them at the very least, judging by the forum and Discord.

2) You argue in the same post that popularity does not imply superiority when it comes to natural science. I will say the same for comedic value.

GenesisAria said:
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!
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
If everything is permanently dark and grim all the time, wha tyou get is Battlestar Galactica, where everything is doomy and shitty and heavy drama, and it's bloody exhausting. BSG is a great show, but i can only watch it in bites.
I dislike Battlestar Galactica, and one reason is the excessive misery, though not the biggest reason by a long shot.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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?

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
That is very vague as far as philosophical theories go.

GenesisAria said:
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.
I just told you the reason.
You told your personal speculation of the reason. You did not present any firm evidence.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
So it is your personal speculation.
It's not speculation, it's deduction. Go learn psychology my dude.
[Citation needed.]

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
The obscure thing could be superior for reasons other than obscurity itself. I already explained that. By "hipster" people usually mean a person who likes obscure things for the obscurity itself, not coincidentally.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
Most of this also applies to the Galactic Empire in LotGH. For me, the genre name and being spacefaring are not very relevant. If those are so important to you, then that's your choice.

Also, I have never seen anyone call Code Geass a fantasy. Can you cite any independent source for this?

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.
In CG, the super-units are usually able to sweep the floor with weaker ones to an unrealistic degree. That is the problem. Send in Suzaku's god-machine against no matter how many normal mecha, and he can usually take them. The events of CG are my proof. Look at him go.

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.
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.

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.
Without those two qualities (read: writer powers), he would be toast, which is precisely why he would fail in real life. A society of Lelouches would pick a very convoluted, unlikely-to-work plan in any given situation. I say so because that is how he operates. It just wouldn't work because the writers can't bail them out.

GenesisAria said:
ps: many of the most effective soldiers in wartimes are the younger ones (teenagers and young adults). do some research.
They don't get to command entire armies or make important political decisions.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
I don't believe that everyone always acts egoistically. That was never my argument. That is a strawman. It is not as though the only options are being fully egoistical and being fully altruistic. People sometimes act egoistically.

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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
So these are at least in part conspiracy theories.
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.
You wrote "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" and "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)." Those suggest organized resistance on purpose.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Hey, you are the one who is constantly beating on laymen, not me. I listened to your philosophical arguments even though I am a philosopher and didn't laugh you off because of that. I didn't call you an idiot either while you sure called other people idiots and praised yourself all the time.


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.

I am suspicious of people who call themselves wise and knowledgeable so easily. You don't need to smugly praise yourself and bash other people all the time in every post. Completely regardless of whether I am right or wrong, you are making yourself look bad. Chill.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Sep 28, 4:59 PM
 
Sep 28, 5:17 PM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 691
Really enjoyed this anime from beginning to end.
It's been a while since I have. The only thing is,
in the end I wanted not only Ulgar, but all of them
to confront their parents...I mean originals.
Other than that, it was wonderful.
writingstumblrbooksanimemangaprofile picture by ME
 
Sep 28, 10:41 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I think even Andrew Falk might have figured out that he can use his Geass more effectively. At least on a good day. Even he would probably turn people into his slaves one by one, not go for open military confrontation.

Lelouch is often standing in the open where any stray bullet can end his plans. Lelouch relies on everyone surrounding him acting perfectly, including enemy commanders and soldiers not deciding to shoot him on the spot, which is a distinct possibility. The alleged genius military tactician stands there ready to get shot even though he has OP mind-control powers and could easily have chosen an easier option. Again, even Falk might avoid this one on a good day.
Missing the entire point.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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?
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.


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


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

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Prove it. They could have unrealistic technology: unrealistic FTL, unrealistic shields, unrealistic lasers, unrealistic navigation, etc., etc.
None of that shit matters. Unless you had a magic field of magic in which you had to shoot more than a million rounds per second to penetrate and do damage to enemy ships, it makes zero sense by the established technology in the fiction. Even if you did need that many shots, just make ships covered in gatling guns... rotary barrels with insanely high rof... There's always a better way than just charging face-first into a wall of pikemen with your pikemen. There is NOTHING that can justify it, and your trying to hand-wave it to try and save your ass doesn't work.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Normally, yes, but in CG the weaker units are so weak that they are useless, and the strongest are godlike.
They are never useless, it just seems that way when they get beaten by the aces... This happens in aviation even. Even Tamaki was more than useless.

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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
CG emphasizes megabattles whenever Lelouch is in them and small battles whenever Lelouch is in them. The pattern is obvious. They like portraying Lelouch as a capable genius by making almost everyone else in the world useless.
You must be blind.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
1) Stark technological superiority makes combat tactics less important, at least on-site. You praised CG for combat tactics, and presumably this doesn't include sitting in a lab to come up with more mecha parts. The on-site combat tactics actually don't play a big role. That's my point.
False. Baseless ignorant statement.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
2) If in a few years everything starts flying with energy wings, is equipped with impenetrable scifi shields, death lasers that can scatter in many directions, and can destroy a seemingly unlimited number of the older models, I would call it unrealistic. I also argue that it makes the battles more boring, but that is a separate thing.
Yeah and that's exactly why the opponent had to quickly come up with something to counter it. The star players were usually busy fighting their own battle, while the soldiers and grunts fought eachother. The show even fucking commented on it with one battle where each side's tactical advantage was stalemated and the Victory of the battle was then to be decided on the skill of the bulk of the troops. Again, something that happens in real war; one side has a plane incoming, oh fuck, our troops are toast, hey we got our own plane reinforcement, hell yeah, planes take to dogfighting while soldiers do what they can on the ground.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
That's a mighty fine opinion you have.

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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You argue in the same post that popularity does not imply superiority when it comes to natural science. I will say the same for comedic value.
Schadenfreude is the mark of an unsavoury person.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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?
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.
That is very vague as far as philosophical theories go.
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. It's passively present in many many anime, and rarely addressed as good. I guess you haven't noticed.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
I just told you the reason.
You told your personal speculation of the reason. You did not present any firm evidence.
Nope.avi
ps: i provided more of everything than you did.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

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.
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?

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.

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)

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
It's not speculation, it's deduction. Go learn psychology my dude.
[Citation needed.]
Go read the Harvard Classics, and then go from there. Clearly you need a complete beginner's course on logic and reasoning.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
The obscure thing could be superior for reasons other than obscurity itself. I already explained that. By "hipster" people usually mean a person who likes obscure things for the obscurity itself, not coincidentally.
[Citation needed.]
eksdee.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Most of this also applies to the Galactic Empire in LotGH. For me, the genre name and being spacefaring are not very relevant. If those are so important to you, then that's your choice.

Also, I have never seen anyone call Code Geass a fantasy. Can you cite any independent source for this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy
If you know the definitions of words you don't need bloody sources. Why the fuck do you need some asshat to SAY it's a science fantasy, WHEN IT IS EXACTLY UNDER THE DEFINITION OF IT. NOBODY NEEDS TO SAY IT, IT'S INHERENT FACT.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
In CG, the super-units are usually able to sweep the floor with weaker ones to an unrealistic degree. That is the problem. Send in Suzaku's god-machine against no matter how many normal mecha, and he can usually take them. The events of CG are my proof. Look at him go.
Have you ever seen foot soldiers go up against a tank? How about foot soldiers vs a plane? How about a tank vs a helicopter gunship or A-10? Yeah it's a curb stomp. When tanks were introduced to the battlefield, they were destroying everything and seemed invincible until they found ways to fight against them.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Without those two qualities (read: writer powers), he would be toast, which is precisely why he would fail in real life. A society of Lelouches would pick a very convoluted, unlikely-to-work plan in any given situation. I say so because that is how he operates. It just wouldn't work because the writers can't bail them out.
Nice baseless speculation, hypocrite.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
ps: many of the most effective soldiers in wartimes are the younger ones (teenagers and young adults). do some research.
They don't get to command entire armies or make important political decisions.
Go study history before making ignorant statements about what you think did or didn't happen in the past.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I don't believe that everyone always acts egoistically. That was never my argument. That is a strawman. It is not as though the only options are being fully egoistical and being fully altruistic. People sometimes act egoistically.
It's not a strawman, it's exactly what you made clear many times⁠—that you think it's impossible to keep humans from doing bad things or harmonizing. Irony is there have been civilizations like that in history, and the only reason they aren't still around is because they were obliterated by barbarians. One example is the old Hindu culture.

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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

Protip: If you go into stuff without any expectations at all you can't have them betrayed or unmet. You will find yourself more able to appreciate and enjoy things without needing to be a pretentious pedant about everything.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
You wrote "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" and "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)." Those suggest organized resistance on purpose.
They're autonomous systems collectively constructed by human sociology, there is no puppeteer, therefore no conspiracy. China makes cheap shitty goods, people buy them, china keeps making cheap shitty goods, quality products inflate in price or die off because everyone buys the cheap shit instead. If you think that's a conspiracy you are a nutcase. It's just socioeconomics; same goes for the peer review and journal market. The modern scientific institution is a business first and foremost, and scientific second; meaning it sacrifices diligence to the scientific method in favour of business. WELCOME TO POST-WW2 CIVILIZATION.
Humans are fallible and often fail to perfectly adhere to the logical system of the scientific method.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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).

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Hey, you are the one who is constantly beating on laymen, not me. I listened to your philosophical arguments even though I am a philosopher and didn't laugh you off because of that. I didn't call you an idiot either while you sure called other people idiots and praised yourself all the time.
I didn't call actual You an idiot, i called the psychophysical you an idiot, as an observation. If you understood basic fundamental principles of the oldest and most relevant philosophy; that being You are not your beliefs/thoughts/consciousness/body etc. The moment you separate the real You from the psychophysical perceived you, you can dissociate with the ego and all of that nonsense will vanish. I also never praised myself, i simply stated truths. Whether or not you accept them is your problem, not mine. The solution is simple; stop being dumb.
I wonder if you even know what metacognition is... I gave a number of indicators for that too.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I am suspicious of people who call themselves wise and knowledgeable so easily. You don't need to smugly praise yourself and bash other people all the time in every post. Completely regardless of whether I am right or wrong, you are making yourself look bad. Chill.
You think i earned my position and stature and confidence easily? Fuck you, hahaha. Oh man, what audacity... The hubris, the projection...
You think i give a fuck about being right or wrong? Your ignorance and wrongness keeps you from truth, it has nothing to do with me.
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. 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?

ps: humility is not proportional to wisdom and understanding; it's merely to social posture. being overly humble is nihilistic and unproductive because people will ignore your existence until you say something they choose to recognize. voluntary non-involvement achieves nothing.
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.

We're not even on topic anymore, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm done here. Have a nice day.
Modified by GenesisAria, Sep 29, 5:12 AM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Sep 30, 6:32 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
I'm done here. Have a nice day.
I don't mind for the most part, but I still want to point out a few things. I skip some of it, including some of the angriest rants. And yes, I do think that you should chill. I stand by that.

A general observation:
If a disagreement is about subjective preferences, then it isn't really about knowledge or intelligence. If you think that I have bad subjective taste and want to bash me for it, you should at least say something like "You have trash taste!" and not what you are saying now, which is "You don't comprehend aspect X of Code Geass. You are not intelligent!" It is possible to comprehend the components of something without liking it because of subjective preferences.

GenesisAria said:
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?
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.
Most of the citizens accepted it willingly, and there was no apparent oppression. No peace lasts forever, but that seems like a good starting point.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
1) He achieved some of his other goals, but the country is still run by a monarch. The same problem of future rulers remains, and that's what we were talking about.

2) I didn't say he factually abolished the monarchy. I am saying he could have done so and it would have been a good idea if appointing a new ruler is the problem at hand. That is one of the areas in which democratic government often works better because there are firmer institutional mechanisms.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
Based on the the context, I assumed that we were talking about spinning magic cubes like in Code Geass, not joints. Even with better joints, there would be other potential designs than always strict humanoids, so it still wouldn't make sense.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
That's a mighty fine opinion you have.
Of course it's an opinion. Arguments about meme quality are opinionated.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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?
You didn't watch the older version either. You watched the version that was aired last year.

GenesisAria said:
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.

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

GenesisAria said:
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.
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?
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
It's passively present in many many anime, and rarely addressed as good. I guess you haven't noticed.
And this kind of examination of democracy is not very unique, which is why I made the distinction.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
So you agree that Kanata no Astra does not live up to its praise, then.

If you are trying to say that Kanata no Astra should be forgiven or treated more lightly because people rate it too highly for possibly somewhat different reasons than LotGH, then it isn't up to logic but subjective preferences.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

Suzaku was trying to change the Empire by honestly working within its military. He wasn't using mind-control powers to brainwash its members. Mind control is much more effective than asking people nicely.

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

GenesisAria said:
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.
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).
There are multiple ways to "start fresh" and adopt a new paradigm that better fits the observations, and formal logic doesn't say enough about which one should be pursued. The problem remains.

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.
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.

And appealing to your personal intuition and ancient texts is not a logical basis in the sense that logic is usually spoken of. It has more to do with your personal beliefs than logic as a field of study. "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. 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.

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?
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:
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.
No, thank you, I won't blindly believe them. I prefer thinking for myself.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Sep 30, 8:32 AM
 
Sep 30, 7:15 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 14
This show is a masterpiece in the Sci-Fi or Space anime genre. Excellent writing and story with memorable and relatable characters. Gotta give credits to the production, directing, and soundtrack of this show. Overall an excellent and underrated series.
 
Oct 1, 3:10 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 495
It was good but just that.
The series has a lot of troubles science related and the last episode is pretty bad in the Kingdom realism perspective (have you read Maquiavelo?) but I guess is fine.
I enjoyed but don't thing is really good like an anime that is good at cliffhangers but just that.

But... BUT...
The thing that bother me the most was the child name... Seira? Really?! Instead of your mother name... *sigh*

7/10 for me.
Modified by LastLuminescence, Oct 1, 3:14 PM
 
Oct 1, 7:22 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 998
Quite a wrap-up. I thought they were going to get back to Astra with a whole new set of troubles and a season-2 announcement but quite the opposite happened. Fun show. 7+/10
 
Oct 1, 7:44 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 4
I REALLY LIKED THIS ANIME!!! 9/10 for me and not a 10 cause I reserve that honor to true flawless masterpieces like FMA or 20th Century Boys.

I want to point out why I had such a good time watching this.

This anime had so many obvious things going on that I figured beforehand:

- The little girl was a clon of Quitter
- The traitor was Chares
- Seira being an anagram from Aries (come on, even the opening spoiled it!)
- They being from another planet than Earth
- Aries being a pilar for the villian (could've been skipped easily but they decided to make it happen)
- Everything turning up to end happily

It was really satisfying for me to crack things before being said. It didn't feel stupid (for my personal taste) to know everything above. In fact, my attention was caught enough to make me think about all those things, so why would it be a flaw? on the contrary, I felt involved and wanted to know more.
It's not a perfect anime (I know, I know!) and some things were just to perfect to fit the perfect ending.
But it worked just fine for me. It's a work of FICTION, guys... and it had 12 episodes to resolve a whole 'History of the Mankind as we know it' plot to deal with in JUST a few episodes.
I like to sometimes watch an anime whose pieces fit perfect and close-ends this good. It's entertaining and not a tiresome kind of show IMO.
Yes, it was a rush to put people on jail just like that, we all know that this doesn't happen in real life but that's a thing I want to tell to haters: IT'S A WORK OF FICTION. And don't get me wrong: I don't want to defend this series to the guts just because 'I liked it'.
I know what I felt while watching and after doing it and that's the magic of this show: I won't be able to forget it cause it was good enough for me to remember all that happened and recommend it to my friends.
Of course, I don't mind if people don't like it... We all have different points of views and I don't get mad if people say it's shit. You're free to say it. What I don't like is when someone's a hater and want to be right just because it's them.

If you really want to take yourself the time to explain what could have been better, do it. What's more: I'll laugh with you with the flaws and probably tell you're right (if you really are xD)

I agree it's a dark horse from 2019 but only time will tell if I'll be relevant forever or not in anime fandom.

BYE XOXO
 
Oct 2, 4:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
I'm done here. Have a nice day.
I don't mind for the most part, but I still want to point out a few things. I skip some of it, including some of the angriest rants. And yes, I do think that you should chill. I stand by that.
I wasn't particularly emotionally invested in the argument, so there wasn't angriness or whatever, more just frustration with what you've seen saying, due to logical flaw.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
A general observation:
If a disagreement is about subjective preferences, then it isn't really about knowledge or intelligence. If you think that I have bad subjective taste and want to bash me for it, you should at least say something like "You have trash taste!" and not what you are saying now, which is "You don't comprehend aspect X of Code Geass. You are not intelligent!" It is possible to comprehend the components of something without liking it because of subjective preferences.
Ah, see now we are getting somewhere that can break free of pointless rhetorical debate and engage in some dialectical synthesis, so i'll contribute a bit more out of appreciation.

I wasn't critiquing your perspective or opinion on CG at all. If you understood everything about it an still didn't like it, fine by me. But what you were doing is blaming it on false conclusions formulated from insufficient deduction. I was criticizing the incompleteness of your understanding of the subjectmatter only.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Most of the citizens accepted it willingly, and there was no apparent oppression. No peace lasts forever, but that seems like a good starting point.
The solution provided overcompensating closure to the things that have been troubling the populous; he found out what the fundamental issue was underpinning it all, and devised a means to orchestrate a reversal. Killing a ruler and taking their seat doesn't provide emotional closure for the psychology of the citizens. Redirecting all their emotional distress towards a monstrous enemy, instead of at their neighbours reduces internalized conflict for as long as the memory & hate of that villain remains.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
1) He achieved some of his other goals, but the country is still run by a monarch. The same problem of future rulers remains, and that's what we were talking about.

2) I didn't say he factually abolished the monarchy. I am saying he could have done so and it would have been a good idea if appointing a new ruler is the problem at hand. That is one of the areas in which democratic government often works better because there are firmer institutional mechanisms.
1) Distributing it to anarchy or an american-style pseudo-democracy would not have solved anything, and caused more chaos and corruption.
The point is not to destroy unified leadership, but to enforce noblesse oblige to that leadership to prevent fascist tyranny.

2)


I could write an extensive paper on all the intricate aspects of stories like Code Geass, Gurren Lagann, and even Clannad, respectively. It's in your best interest to know a subject before you try and argue about it.

But yeah, that's just another example of why akiba-culture is not particularly pro democratic capitalism. In anime, villains are usually corrupt politicians/businessmen seeking money and control and the tensions within the sins of bureaucracy and so on, vs the idealized noble/non-tyrannical king/queen ruler with a free people that live in abundance. Honestly i agree with this view, an ideal monarch is better than any democratic-like system, though a tyrannical monarch is worse than any democratic-like system. Democracy allows some conflict against corruption, but also breeds more than it kills. Monarchical rulership can breed corruption if it causes in-fighting for succession, and in some senses makes it easier for them to remain, but it's also a lot easier to assassinate one monarch for their corruption, than it is to assassinate entire political parties or senates for their corruption. This socio-political dialectic is quietly woven into many anime etc.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Based on the the context, I assumed that we were talking about spinning magic cubes like in Code Geass, not joints. Even with better joints, there would be other potential designs than always strict humanoids, so it still wouldn't make sense.
THe cube thing is just a power source. Some kind of sakuradite resonator core or someshit i dunno if it was even explained. My point was that the specific technologies are different. Say you put one of those spinning magic cubes on a super missile, how are you going to hit a flying ninja-robot with it? Putting shitloads of thrust doesn't improve maneuverability, even if you add thrust vectoring, it still has to combat inertia. An organically inspired frame can commence in elaborate gymnastics in which much less inertia has to be combated in order to reorient or reshape the body. You can use other parts of the body to move a leg out of the way, or if timed correctly, even roll or flip around the missile, which in a way is what real jet pilots do today to avoid missile locks without wasting flares.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
Maybe you should stop watching bad shounen series then. You're mistakenly equating sudden revelations to plot convenience or deus ex machina... What if you were conflicting with one antagonist, and suddenly you were hit by a nasty storm? That is a sudden change which alters everything, is realistic, interesting, and dramatic. The story shifts from char vs char to char vs environment in ths example. A character suddenly pulling a power out of their ass to solve a problem is a literary trope called deus ex machina, and is usually a sign of lazy or bad writing. I put that in emphasis, because deus ex machina can be used correctly and intelligently, it's just challenging to succeed satisfactorily. Also, just a ps: the sudden new weapons and superweapons were there to emulate real war and the innovatiosn that happen during the arms race. Sometimes you come out with something that can turn the tideof battle, and sometimes it's the enemy, and you have a new threat to contend with. Hardly any of it in CG was without foreshadowing; they gave plenty indications most of the time that development was happening on various wunderwaffes.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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?
You didn't watch the older version either. You watched the version that was aired last year.
Yeah, and i went in with an open mind completely curious about this anime people don't shut up about. I, like everyone else, had the initial "this anime is considered the greatest thing" bias upon looking at it. If i hadn't had that bias i probably never would have bothered that much. Actually that's a lie, i half watched it cuz i just wanted to watch some space opera. It didn't match up to Yamato, so i was like meh, enjoable but weak. And then i moved on. I'll watch the sequel movies when i can.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Then what you find boring is philosophy itself, at least as a field of study. Anime doesn't usually do philosophy in that sense.
No, intelligent writers incorporate high philosophy seamlessly into their narrative and characters and themes. If what a piece of fiction does mostly is conversate about various very particular arbitrary philosophical frameworks, then it's more of a dialogue with a fictitious shell than a piece of fiction that actually presents the philosophies in a more organic way. LotGH is almost exclusively political philosophy... You seriously understate the scope of philosophy. I want to SEE philosophy play out in an intelligent and refined manner, i don't want to sit around while people exposition-dump their asses off all day on what they say they think.

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

Go watch BestGuyEver's indepth review on TTGL (spoilers obviously) for a summary of the key points (minus plato's cave):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIiX4TL2_vg
Ironically TTGL is also a giant analogy for the unified field.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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?
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
It's passively present in many many anime, and rarely addressed as good. I guess you haven't noticed.
And this kind of examination of democracy is not very unique, which is why I made the distinction.
It sounds like you are saying whether or not it's unique is what matters. 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).

For example, Dog Days, although is extremely simple and doesn't skim on any of the philosophy, it does present a relative utopia, and lends the question of how this could be plausible given the condition of the story's premise. Tho Dog Days utopia is not something i've seen before in fiction and interests me.

I just finished rewatching Steins;Gate for the who knows how many times i've seen it now, and it randomly sparked a new idea in the discussion of time travel conjecture and thought experimentation (the show does cover my idea here in detail but not sure it was actually intending to come to this conclusion)... And that is the existence of any time machine (that is by the premise assuming if it were possible to time travel), that the creation of time travel would always and inevitably, eventually if not sooner, result in some kind of micro or macro conflict in which the existence of time machines allows one to travel back to the origin of time machines, and eliminate them as the only way of defending against an undefendable weapon such as time travel. The result of this is that any created time machine will ultimately result in it being erased from time by time travellers to prevent whatever comes of it existing, making time travel never existing. It's a closed loop and can only exist intrinsically but not extrinsically. Granted this was all my inference, it is still an example of a story that is nesting with countless possible epiphanies given a slightly new/fresh take on classical time travel fiction.

I should also point out you can infer socio-political commentary in basically any fiction if you want to. That's the issue with people trying to quantify themes.

And another thing is that, i don't need my fiction to be intelligent for me. I'm more than capable of pondering the nature of the universe to a level most people don't bother, and i don't need fiction to pretentiously flail it's epeen around by boasting how clever it is. I appreciate stories that are humbly brilliant in their constructed ideas, and not in their content or dialogue. This is why i usually find "smart" characters to be cringy, and that is because they usually aren't smart at all, and it's another character not given much credit that is actually the clever one. The "smart" character is just a pretentious academic almost always, if not a character that just ass-pulls improbable inventions without any basis and babbles off unnecessary jargon (ie jimmy neutron). Episteme (empirical/academic knowledge) is not gnosis (true knowledge/understanding). I generally find fiction that tries too hard to be intellectual and send messages to be particularly tiresome.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
So you agree that Kanata no Astra does not live up to its praise, then.
Of course. It's rated too highly for the reasons i stated. If it were up to me Clannad, Gurren Lagann, Code Geass, Kimi no Na wa (for reasons i've said in a plot-hole filling forum thread i made a while back)... I'd maybe put Happy Sugar Life up there, but that one takes a fair bit of high-brow and lack of bias to make adequate sense of... I haven't seen anything like GitS, so can't speak on that... Dunno what to say about FMA. Madoka Magica has issues in the tv series, but the Rebellion movie is seldome understood and significantly better than the rest of the story... Sora yori mo Tooi Basho deserves a fairly high position, along with Eureka Seven, Koe no Katachi, and (this may surprise some) Glass no Hana to Kowasu Sekai. Shinsekai yori has a some interesting things to say but the narrative is a bit of a bloody mess (pun intended). Shoujo☆Kageki Revue Starlight is severely underrated, mostly because nobody nows wtf it's actually about without a bit of background research on Takarazuka Revue, as well as doing some individual character study. AKB0048 also massively underrated and shockly seldom known, despite it's lore density and relevance. KanColle movie, also way better than given credit, due to it's artistic merit... This turned into a rambling tangent, my bad.

It's hard to say what is the "best" of anime without too much opinion involved, but rest assured that the top listings on almost every site (except ones with proper weighting which are marginally better) are skewed to all hell. For example, Gintama later seasons get rated insanely high, but the reason for this is fan-bias. It caters to it's fans and the desies of those who watch it excellently, but ONLY those who like it enough to be willing to watch it all through to the later seasons are going to be rating it. Same way with LotGH, only those who go back and watch it because they think it's gonna be good, or were told to watch it are going to be rating it; this is called sample bias.

>ps: TTGL isn't even in my top 10 anime, nor does it possess any favourite characters of mine. Clannad didn't used to be my top favourite, but i decided to bump it up because of depth of the story.
>pps: i also think Steins;Gate is overrated, despite the fact i could praise it for days. i've found plenty of holes in it, even in the first season, and can rip it's time travel theories to absolute shreds both in physics and metaphysics. Mahou Sensei Negima! manga, oddly enough, has one of the best and tightest depictions of a time travel plot i've ever seen during one of the story arcs, and which doesn't defy causality in any way nor propose multiverse nonsense.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
If you are trying to say that Kanata no Astra should be forgiven or treated more lightly because people rate it too highly for possibly somewhat different reasons than LotGH, then it isn't up to logic but subjective preferences.
It's not that simple. On an individual psychological level, it's subjective preference. On a sociological level it's a measurable and logically discernable pattern based on influences and precursive factors.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Suzaku was trying to change the Empire by honestly working within its military. He wasn't using mind-control powers to brainwash its members. Mind control is much more effective than asking people nicely.
Suzaku would not have succeeded. Even if Lelouch were to take on te Suzaku philosophy, he likely would not have succeeded. He may clean up some of themonarchy, but he wuld not succeed in preventing war. The only way to unify everyone is to have common enemies. The asian alliance in CG required the Brittannians as a superpower they could only succeed in stopping by unifying; and the britannians needed an enemy of their own to unify them with the other alliance, and between blood and ratial discrepencies. How do you expect him to unify everyone? Bainwash them all? Oshit now he's a tyrant, better kill him and then splinter into subfactions and war with eachother again. Study some more history of how these things happen in real life.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Objectiveness has nothing to do with it. I just draw a distinction between subjectively laughing with a show and subjectively laughing at it.
Your internalized subjective opinion is your own and matters not to anybody else. There is nothing to discuss if you merely state an opinion. It's when you try to take a philosophical quasi-scientific approach to dismantling subjectmatter for an intellectual conversation that you are leaving the territory of opinion into the territory of relative subjectivity.

Let me clarify an error you seem to have made on the nature of subjectivity and opinion:

An opinion is a subjective isolation which consists of a melting pot of personal experiences, conclusions, emotions and instincts. Opinion is not syonymous to subjectivity, it is merely a subcategory. All opinionsare subjective, not all subjectivity is opinion.

Subjectivity is contextual relativity. My room is 10 degrees warmer than outside. That is a subjective statement which refers to the subject of my room as relative to the outside.

Objectivity can only be defined one way, and that is Law of Identity. Nothing you observe think or sense is ever objective, it is a subjective representation of objectivity, and the seeking of objectivity is an asymptotic curve. That said, dropping a rock on the ground is more objective than talking about dropping a rock on the ground being boring; even though it is still subjective.

Whether or not YOU laugh at it is only relevant to you and nobody else. To define your experience as superior to anyone else is egotistical and strictly self-serving, in a direct denial of anyone else's experience, which to them is just as real as your own. Ironically this even applies to hallucinations, of which are just as real to THEM as normal reality is to you, and for you to assume your reality is more real is a problematic bias, and has been observed as extremely counterproductive in psychology. You can't get anyone to agree or cooperate if you cannot acknowledge views other than your own. This is again why shedding the hubrisic biases of marriages to ignorant ideologies allows mutual solutions to be found. Once again, this is the dialectical method of subjective synthesis. Sufficient wisdom CAN solve all human problems, and enable them the capbility of solving any external problem as well.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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).
There are multiple ways to "start fresh" and adopt a new paradigm that better fits the observations, and formal logic doesn't say enough about which one should be pursued. The problem remains.
That is not correct. The scientific method, which is a logical system, already has a deciding factor in these instances, and that is to change to whichever model is more accurate and more predictive with the least complications, and transitioning without any unecessary resistance. Throw out all models that do not work, or at the very least widely, openly, and publicly INSIST that the flawed models are flawed and merely tentative until better ones arrive. This is contrary to the current estalishment which unwaveringly insists that is it totally correct and refuses to acknowledge problems or flaws any more than enough to hand-wave it without serious enough consideration. The problem is that the scientific method doesn't fit well with human nature, human nature is to seek certainty for personal comfort, which is a danger to pursuit of truth, and if left completely unchallenged, turns into cults, and eventually religions.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
Excusemewut? You didn't get into anything indepth conversationally, you just made statements and references, then accuse me of doing same. I've provided reasoning, basis, anecdotes, examples, deductions etc. Everything i've heard you say is primarily opinion without much reasoning presented (and preemptively dismiss mine in favour of yours without adequte discussion), and make arbitrary statements naming off generalizations of political philosophies.

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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
It has more to do with your personal beliefs than logic as a field of study.
I, like any philosopher worth their bones, do not subscribe to beliefs of any kind, at all, period, of mine or any other. I merely weigh probabilities of accuracy of each conclusion/perspective as compared to every other conclusion/perspective. With a retroductive methodology, one can reverse engineer logical prnciples to find the causal solution to a problem with very limited information. Got a needle in a hay stack? Use a strong-ass magnet, or just burn the hay stack to get your needle.

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.
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.

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.
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. 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. 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.[spoiler=bonus]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.[/quote]

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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?
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:
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.
No, thank you, I won't blindly believe them. I prefer thinking for myself.
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. 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.

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.
Modified by GenesisAria, Oct 2, 5:11 AM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Oct 2, 11:57 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
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.
Maybe you should stop watching bad shounen series then.
I usually don't. It is sometimes hard to tell beforehand though, for instance in the case of CG. Kanata no Astra I expected to some degree but not entirely.

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.
Sometimes, yes, but even then it is still convenient how their development progresses enough just when they are needed at critical plot points.

GenesisAria said:
And another thing is that, i don't need my fiction to be intelligent for me. I'm more than capable of pondering the nature of the universe to a level most people don't bother, and i don't need fiction to pretentiously flail it's epeen around by boasting how clever it is. I appreciate stories that are humbly brilliant in their constructed ideas, and not in their content or dialogue. This is why i usually find "smart" characters to be cringy, and that is because they usually aren't smart at all, and it's another character not given much credit that is actually the clever one. The "smart" character is just a pretentious academic almost always, if not a character that just ass-pulls improbable inventions without any basis and babbles off unnecessary jargon (ie jimmy neutron). Episteme (empirical/academic knowledge) is not gnosis (true knowledge/understanding). I generally find fiction that tries too hard to be intellectual and send messages to be particularly tiresome.

GenesisAria said:
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.
No, intelligent writers incorporate high philosophy seamlessly into their narrative and characters and themes. If what a piece of fiction does mostly is conversate about various very particular arbitrary philosophical frameworks, then it's more of a dialogue with a fictitious shell than a piece of fiction that actually presents the philosophies in a more organic way. LotGH is almost exclusively political philosophy... You seriously understate the scope of philosophy. I want to SEE philosophy play out in an intelligent and refined manner, i don't want to sit around while people exposition-dump their asses off all day on what they say they think.
Then it makes perfect sense that LotGH not only talks about political philosophy but has a political plot that goes on at a decent pace. There is very little outright filler.

Not focusing equally on every area of philosophy is no problem.

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.

GenesisAria said:
Also don't accept who's reasoning on Plato's Cave, Plato himself? That's rather amusing and hubristic to say...
Let's not worship people and assume that they are right.

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.
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.

I already presented loosely similar arguments several times before. You should have seen coming that this is what I meant.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
I got the impression that I am supposed to take the more dramatic plot developments in Code Geass seriously, especially when the characters become absolutely devastated by the events. The narrative is screaming at me to be sad, angry, etc. on behalf of the characters. And in CG these things happen almost every few episodes, often several times in the same episode. This results in much of the entire run taking place in a heavily melodramatic tone. True, there are allegedly comical moments as well, but because much of the comedy is overly simple slapstick, it works especially poorly right before and after the melodrama. It wasn't all bad, but generally speaking the tonal shifts usually didn't work. At least go with black comedy or something.

GenesisAria said:
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.
It sounds like you are saying whether or not it's unique is what matters.
I was only referring to your earlier statement:
GenesisAria said:
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.
That's not anything new, unique or special.


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).
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
The difficulty in predicting human behavior makes Lelouch exposing himself all the more dangerous and makes his predictions all the more unrealistic. That was the whole point. Using his mind-control power more extensively decreases that threat.

GenesisAria said:
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.
Your internalized subjective opinion is your own and matters not to anybody else. There is nothing to discuss if you merely state an opinion. It's when you try to take a philosophical quasi-scientific approach to dismantling subjectmatter for an intellectual conversation that you are leaving the territory of opinion into the territory of relative subjectivity.

Let me clarify an error you seem to have made on the nature of subjectivity and opinion:

An opinion is a subjective isolation which consists of a melting pot of personal experiences, conclusions, emotions and instincts. Opinion is not syonymous to subjectivity, it is merely a subcategory. All opinionsare subjective, not all subjectivity is opinion.

Subjectivity is contextual relativity. My room is 10 degrees warmer than outside. That is a subjective statement which refers to the subject of my room as relative to the outside.
For the sake of clarity, my enjoyment of Code Geass is my subjective opinion. There is nothing controversial about that.

GenesisAria said:
Whether or not YOU laugh at it is only relevant to you and nobody else.
Other people could still care. On these forums, they often do, which is fine.

GenesisAria said:
To define your experience as superior to anyone else is egotistical and strictly self-serving, in a direct denial of anyone else's experience, which to them is just as real as your own.
That was not my intention. I just wanted to express my opinion.

GenesisAria said:
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.
Excusemewut? You didn't get into anything indepth conversationally, you just made statements and references, then accuse me of doing same. I've provided reasoning, basis, anecdotes, examples, deductions etc. Everything i've heard you say is primarily opinion without much reasoning presented (and preemptively dismiss mine in favour of yours without adequte discussion), and make arbitrary statements naming off generalizations of political philosophies.
You refer to many things and at great length, but your definitions of concepts are too vague and don't consider what choosing particular definitions entails. If you fixed those problems, shorter replies would suffice.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And then there is a clear absence of evidence in some cases, such as in what you wrote about objective morality.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
Why are you even angry? Tautological statements are true in all possible worlds aka regardless of contingent circumstances (according to the particular logical system in use, at least). Even you are trying to start with the tautological "1=1" below to call it a purely logical argument. And it is a purely logical argument; I just claim that it relies on a fallacy.

I will tackle these arguments from the inside outwards.
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.
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.

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.

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.
"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?

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
Whether this is true depends on what "being" something and "representing" something mean in this context, as well as what counts as an illusion. You say you want to avoid circular criteria, but there is no avoiding the task of defining words more precisely.

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:
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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:
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.
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.
There is no reason to assume that any particular ancient philosopher is a great mind on any particular issue unless they can demonstrate it somehow. Whether a particular philosopher (or any other person) is right on something can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Tesla was able to demonstrate things by building machines that functioned. On the other hand, he was empirically demonstrated wrong on some of his beliefs on physics. Meanwhile, mathematical propositions can be proven mathematically, at least within the system used. Especially problematic are propositions that 1) are too vague to be proven one way or another, or 2) whose truth values can't be measured or deduced in any immediate way.

If appealing to life accomplishments is a sound argument, I would also have a long list of modern philosophers with impressive-sounding CVs who starkly disagree with Plato. Can Plato match their CVs? What a dysfunctional line of argument. What happened to thinking for oneself?

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Oct 2, 12:23 PM
 
Oct 2, 8:45 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 2052
This was an interesting watch overall. The relationship building and overcoming obstacles were the biggest pros. A few slow episodes early on and a number of eyebrow raising plot holes were the biggest turn offs. Could have been much better if they put more thought into some of the explanations.

To name a few which still bother me; 100% of population just keeping true history a secret was simply unbelievable. Then there was a great coincidence with their fully functional abandoned spaceship an arm reach away from where they were initially thrown out to in space. I just couldn't buy that, space is pretty big you know. Could think of more, but I'll leave it at that.
 
Oct 3, 5:35 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Sometimes, yes, but even then it is still convenient how their development progresses enough just when they are needed at critical plot points.
You literally cannot avoid that. It will always be contrived to some degree, whether obvious or not so obvious. But there are plenty of aspects of actual history you could say played out in a contrived manner if it was someone writing a story. That's kind of a weak argument to dismiss something on. One case of a story i can think of was painfully contrived, was because it was a contrivance from start to finish, in it's entirety, and that is Plastic Memories, where they told you the ending from the start, and the entire premise of it's nature makes no sense other than to force the plot to happen; even though literally anyone with half a brain and some determination could solve the problem. Halo has the same issue with it's magical "rampancy" that AI always results in, for no logical reason, and for some inexplicable reason is an unavoidable condition. Having stuff show up at useful times, while is a plot contrivance, is a very standard and common application, and it's more just you bothering yourself over it instead of not caring.

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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
Also don't accept who's reasoning on Plato's Cave, Plato himself? That's rather amusing and hubristic to say...
Let's not worship people and assume that they are right.
Let's not be fools and assume we know better than people who have been demonstrated and known to be much more capable thinkers than most who live today. People like Plato changed the world. It's not about worshipping or believing them out of hand, it's that what they say is so potently relevant and correct, given sufficient understanding of the subjectmatter. With enough deep and clear unbiased independent thought, you will eventually arrive at similar conclusions due to the inevitability of their nature. The only way not to is to subscribe to many erroneous premises that populate modern academic thought.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

That said, that may be the particular context, but that is not the fundamental principle of the Cave model, which is a demonstration of a revelation which is then denied to all whodo not see it. If you saw the greater universe, the unity of the physical and metaphysical, and the factor of the physcal being a shadow/manifestation of the more real and important metaphysical, you wouldn't be in denial. If you disagree with the logic, then you are the one in the Cave denying there is an out. As much as it is a logical trap, it's also a reality.

It's a filter which instantly detects those who believe in "this-is-all-there-is-ism" (sarvastivada); anyone denying there could be out is a materialist. It also points out the error of confining oneself to rigid doctrinal premises that don't have room for knowledge outside of it's scope.

Getting to the root of of the purpose of something said is far more important than whatever the academic interpretation of it is; as that makes it far too easy to strawman.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I got the impression that I am supposed to take the more dramatic plot developments in Code Geass seriously, especially when the characters become absolutely devastated by the events. The narrative is screaming at me to be sad, angry, etc. on behalf of the characters. And in CG these things happen almost every few episodes, often several times in the same episode. This results in much of the entire run taking place in a heavily melodramatic tone. True, there are allegedly comical moments as well, but because much of the comedy is overly simple slapstick, it works especially poorly right before and after the melodrama. It wasn't all bad, but generally speaking the tonal shifts usually didn't work. At least go with black comedy or something.
Almost all fiction feels exacly like this for me when i focus on the mechanics of the story too much. As a fiction study & designer/writer, it's quite the challenge to overcome this issue of being over-critical and dismantling everything you see. This behaviour can and will sabotage your ability to enjoy things. It is difficult but always in your best interest to just set aside (or lower the priority) your analytical mind when you sit to enjoy a piece of fiction. if that's too hard, just detatch your emotional investment from the analytical mind; run the enjoyment mind process and analytical process as separate isntances in your mind instead of integrated. Honestly, the first step is accepting that it's someone else's story and therefore not going to be perfect.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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).
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.
That wasn't what iwas getting at. They've been argued to death and nothing new is said about them. The problem is that all of these political philosophies are full of problems, and what people are doing is arguing over which one they prefer, not actually innovating new philosophy. No currently existing political philosophy is true. Plato's Cave is true, and will be so timelessly. By the way that was just one random example and TTGL had way more than just that, plus ontological shit is hardly ever in anime. Politics are quite often in anime. I can only name a couple anime off the top of my head that employ ontological philosophy... Ironically the first 2 that come to mind are Madoka Magica and Soushin Shoujo Matoi (very subley), both magical girl shows. There are some that have the occasional ontological question, but that's about it.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
The difficulty in predicting human behavior makes Lelouch exposing himself all the more dangerous and makes his predictions all the more unrealistic. That was the whole point. Using his mind-control power more extensively decreases that threat.
You way overstate the unpredictability of humans. People are EXTREMELY predictable, with rare exception. Predicting a rigorous thinking like some of his adversaries is an extremely difficult gamble, but that was the point. For most people, predicting their actions is not hard. The belief that humans are chaotic and unpredictable is as foolish as the uncertainty principle; it's choosing to give up on the attempts to investigate further to find the patterns and assume probabilistic randomness due to insufficient information. I'm not particularly special or talented, nor an expert on sociology, and yet i was able to predict the entire evolution of the community within VRChat upon various modifications the developers made to the game and the conrequences it would result in. If you believe it cannot be done, you will not be able to do it. A character like Lelouch would be smarter than i am, more charismatic, more socially aware, with far more determination and guts to take on such frightening gambles (laoding the odds) and succeeding.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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

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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Why are you even angry? Tautological statements are true in all possible worlds aka regardless of contingent circumstances (according to the particular logical system in use, at least). Even you are trying to start with the tautological "1=1" below to call it a purely logical argument. And it is a purely logical argument; I just claim that it relies on a fallacy.
I'm not angry, sorry if it seemed that way. Just gruff terminology.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I will tackle these arguments from the inside outwards.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
"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?
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Whether this is true depends on what "being" something and "representing" something mean in this context, as well as what counts as an illusion. You say you want to avoid circular criteria, but there is no avoiding the task of defining words more precisely.
Technically everything is illusion, so what is defined as illusion is kind of irrelevant. What matters is to what degree something is relevant on a macro scale. A physical experience by a normal person isn't any more or less real than someone's hallucinogenic episode. The only difference is that one is relevant to other interactions in a phsical sense, and one does not. It is also easy to delude an experience, making it a blend of illusion and "reality", which puts it somewhere on a gradient, not a "this is illusion and this is not".

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

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. 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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
There is no reason to assume that any particular ancient philosopher is a great mind on any particular issue unless they can demonstrate it somehow. Whether a particular philosopher (or any other person) is right on something can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. Tesla was able to demonstrate things by building machines that functioned. On the other hand, he was empirically demonstrated wrong on some of his beliefs on physics. Meanwhile, mathematical propositions can be proven mathematically, at least within the system used. Especially problematic are propositions that 1) are too vague to be proven one way or another, or 2) whose truth values can't be measured or deduced in any immediate way.

If appealing to life accomplishments is a sound argument, I would also have a long list of modern philosophers with impressive-sounding CVs who starkly disagree with Plato. Can Plato match their CVs? What a dysfunctional line of argument. What happened to thinking for oneself?
I was pretty clear that thinking for oneself doesn't imply ignoring thepotency and relevance of various thoughts and ideas and understanding. The ancient world, long before athens, had wisdom well beyond what hardly anyone knows today, and that's largely because nobody adequately studies the material anymore. For example if someone goes back to study the bible, how many people sufficiently study the original Hebrew? Not many. How about the origins of buddhism, who studies theoriginal doctrinal texts in ancient Pali? Basically nobody.

Tesla was not demonstrated to be wrong on physics at all. Unless you can provide some example i'm unaware of... But all the electrical scientists of his time agreed that æther was necessary (which it is, and this hasn't changed, and the Michelson-Morley experiment did not kill it, nor did Relativity; Einstein just renamed it and tweaked some properties), that the notion of charge carrying particles is absurd, and many other things. Many of Tesla's beliefs have been proven empirically to be correct, especially in more recent years as his stuff has been resurfaced into the noosphere. I've seen working models of Tesla's energy reception system (the actual purpose of the Wardenclyffe tower), i've seen an example of a crude wireless directed vortical electrical current (don't ask for this one, i'm still trying to find it again to experiment on it myself), which actually differs from the interpretation of wireless power and is closer to a Birkeland Current. You're barking up the wrong tree lol.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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. My work of fiction (if i spent the time to explain to you or you got a hint of it from places like my profile etc you'd know), is an extremely indepth and complex construct and an accumulation of all my knowledge in philosophy, physics, psychology & sociology, engineering, biology, cosmology, politics, strategy/tactics, and tons of other stuff... 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.

Going to be honest, i find a lot more non-obstinate intelligent free-minded people who aren't part of nor have been notably educated by the system. The more time someone spends buried in academia, the more they come out the other side with a very constricted and unrelenting worldview, and a side of arrogance.

edit: seriously though, watch that yt review of TTGL if you haven't.
Modified by GenesisAria, Oct 3, 10:36 AM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Oct 3, 11:12 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
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.
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:
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?
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.
Regardless of whether the physics stuff is true or not, that doesn't answer the main point. Do you believe that fields, waves, and aether-like mediums exist not only as mathematical concepts in theories but in some other form? Do they exist in a world of ideas that has a higher form of existence?

Your physics-related statements say nothing at all of whether fields, waves, etc. exist in Plato's world of ideas. I argue that you are misinterpreting Plato to shoehorn him into unrelated theories. He wouldn't be satisfied with fields, waves, and aether as mathematical concepts in people's minds. They are too closely tied to this lowly physical reality that he found inferior, even if they are not traditional particles. According to Plato, the world of ideas is something more distant, profound, and difficult to reach than simply typical mathematical formulations of empirical observations in people's minds. He believes that empirical theories in the mind are trying to emulate the perfect ideas but only in a flawed, imperfect way.

What you call metaphysics or high philosophy most people today simply call physics. Plato's world of ideas has little to do with it. Yes, they called some of it metaphysics in ancient Greece, but that was back then.

Particles are no different than fields, waves, etc. in this sense. They are also mathematical concepts used in theories. That is a common stance in modern empiricism.

GenesisAria said:
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.
What scientists call matter is actually a series of mathematical equations which they correlate to empirically sensed phenomena with mechanical instrumentation to filter inconsistencies.
They wouldn't use the word "mechanical" here, but otherwise many modern empiricists (like Russell) believe this.

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.
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.

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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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:
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.
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.
I thought the point was to prove that god is the same as the universe. If that is your definition, then the whole addition of the term "god" is pointless. It is redundant and brings nothing new to the table. "Universe" would have sufficed.

If you had a set of everything (that actually contained everything), one of the elements would indeed be the idea of everything. A set of everything is problematic, but that is not the main issue here.

If you define that "god = universe" from the get-go, the whole exercise seems uninteresting. Your conclusion is that the universe consists of all single, unique things. The uniqueness of things and whether the universe can be defined this way can be contested, but the more relevant question is this: how is all this relevant in any way? It doesn't seem to have much to do with what Plato's world of ideas means, whether it exists, or the definition of metaphysics.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
We don't need a complete explanation here. All I am trying to show here is that your mathematical notation doesn't make sense. "Universe=1" etc. are not the best way to express these things because they are mathematically problematic.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
How many atheists actually believe that god does not exist (instead of not believing that he exists)? Do you have any statistics?

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
That is even less specific than what I was expecting. Basically "just do it." That also doesn't answer the objectivity part at all.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
I am sure a child could come up with that, indeed. That is the problem. Your system of sovereign states facilitates the things you are complaining about. Some states can ruin the lives of people abroad with pollution or by economically undercutting them in standards. And if people split up into tiny groups with very limited cooperation, good luck getting anything complex done.

GenesisAria said:
start up your own nation/company
Why the subtle addition of companies here? Are they sovereign too?

GenesisAria said:
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.
That is not my preference, the etmlogical denotation from source is what the world actually means.
So you say, but you have no way of demonstrating that some definitions are right or wrong in any profound sense.

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.
Your way leads to lengthy arguments because you keep insisting that everyone must use your definitions that almost nobody else does or otherwise confusing people with statements that are difficult to decipher. If you are worried about unclear conversations, you should adopt more popular definitions.

GenesisAria said:
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.
That wasn't what iwas getting at. They've been argued to death and nothing new is said about them. The problem is that all of these political philosophies are full of problems, and what people are doing is arguing over which one they prefer, not actually innovating new philosophy. No currently existing political philosophy is true.
They don't have to be true. An absence of objective, universal, normative ethical truths doesn't mean that all analysis of ethics is meaningless. People can also commit logical errors.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
Provide objective, universally verifiable evidence that some fields in philosophy carry more normative value than others. Emphasis on "normative." If not, I will call it your opinion and move on. Even if a descriptive proposition is objectively true, its normative value need not be.

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

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
Protip: if you keep calling it metaphysics or ontology, you will just pointlessly confuse people. What you call metaphysics and ontology almost nobody else does nowadays. It is just physics. Yes, they called some of it metaphysics and ontology in ancient Greece, but that was back then. If you write like that, modern people will probably dismiss your paper before even getting to the empirical part.

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. Don't bother submitting those papers to philosophy journals; that is not even the right field.

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.
So you arbitrarily claim that regardless of content or circumstance any thesis involves boot-kissing. Wow.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Oct 3, 2:12 PM
 
Oct 4, 3:50 AM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 407
their adventure finally end. come hoe with the big sectret about the world,,
and their purpose to stop their original body is complete to.. and their reach their goal in life and became the something what they want,,
yeah happy ending after the hard adventure,,
the ending for me is very satisfied and the ending what i want,,
is good anime from start till the end..
8/10
 
Oct 4, 9:46 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Regardless of whether the physics stuff is true or not, that doesn't answer the main point. Do you believe that fields, waves, and aether-like mediums exist not only as mathematical concepts in theories but in some other form? Do they exist in a world of ideas that has a higher form of existence?
To say "higher" would be misleading. They don't exist as mathematical concepts, they are arithmetic logics. You cannot have a wave without something that is waving... Greeks talked about this stuff tirelessly. There is no belief, it's necessitative, unavoidable, it's ἀναγκαίη (anankaie). You cannot deny waves, fields, or æther without denying logic. The Law of Identity IS the æther. The æther or quintessence is not some mystical netherworldly force or energy, that would be illogical.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Your physics-related statements say nothing at all of whether fields, waves, etc. exist in Plato's world of ideas. I argue that you are misinterpreting Plato to shoehorn him into unrelated theories. He wouldn't be satisfied with fields, waves, and aether as mathematical concepts in people's minds. They are too closely tied to this lowly physical reality that he found inferior, even if they are not traditional particles. According to Plato, the world of ideas is something more distant, profound, and difficult to reach than simply typical mathematical formulations of empirical observations in people's minds. He believes that empirical theories in the mind are trying to emulate the perfect ideas but only in a flawed, imperfect way.
You misunderstand the greater "pantheon" so to speak. They're not Plato's ideas, they passed along via Plato and neoPlatonism, but originated in Pythagoreanism and prior. I told you that phi came from Pythagoras and Plato revealed it. To talk about phi is to talk about fields. They are one and the same and unavoidable. There's also terms like the aoristos dyas in neoplatonism which was a hotly discussed topic in trying to understand the nature of substance.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
What you call metaphysics or high philosophy most people today simply call physics. Plato's world of ideas has little to do with it. Yes, they called some of it metaphysics in ancient Greece, but that was back then.

Particles are no different than fields, waves, etc. in this sense. They are also mathematical concepts used in theories. That is a common stance in modern empiricism.
No, that's MAXWELLIAN FIELD EQUATIONS, not fields themselves. Nobody has mathematically formulated an actual field, simply effect over a vector with a given time; description, not explanaton.

Seriously, this is why you need to actually dive deep into understanding the bigger picture of what they are saying. You have to learn how to think, learn how to be a philosopher, learn how to understand things in the ontological perspective. Following their advice and perspective, you will be able to understand the greater narrative of classical philosophy, which has been LOST in modern day, where physics, metaphysics, and philosophy are utterly trivialized.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
They wouldn't use the word "mechanical" here, but otherwise many modern empiricists (like Russell) believe this.
What are you talking about? Do you know what machines like mass spectrometers are? MECHANICAL. They are mechanisms. The use of physical instrumentation to measure physical phenomenon. Also, yes they believe this, it's a BELIEF, called materialism, and it's inherently not scientific.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
I don't know this Russel fellow, being honest, but you keep referencing a single figure, which is mildly concerning. But seriously, anything not physical is metaphysical. Anything that doesn't have a material presence and direct observation is not physical. Concepts are not physical, fields of influence are not physical, they have physical effects, but they themselves are not physical. There is no debating this; to argue against this is to void logic.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
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. You will only find people who don't believe this when you dig into some exceptional logically clear minded individuals, or if you lean into Quantum Field THeory territory. But in terms of most of quantum, which is inline with QED, they believe in particles as real existences. Many of them aren't even fully understanding of the whole "atoms are 99.999etc empty space", nor how that works. You know what fills all that empty space? MAGNETISM, the dielectric field. You know who doesn't understand this? Literally anyone studying quantum mechanics. They believe that there is electron bb particles spinning around the nucleus at unimagineable speeds; particles never seen or been input or output of any experiments, and so on. If they didn't believe in the cult of atomistic particalism, they would not call them PARTICLES or describe them as MOVING or FLOWING or being able to PAIR, as they would simply be UNITS OF MEASUREMENT; electron FIELD units.

Forgive my reactions there, but my irritation is that this shit isn't hard to understand, yet people are so resistant to understand and learn things that dismantle doctrine.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
#NASA #CERN all of academia. 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.

However, if you ask the same question to someone who knows acoustic physics and is familiar exclusively with wave phenomenon, they would know that the density/resistence of the medium dictates the wave transit velocity, and upon passing the transversal plane between mediums a reflection & refraction process takes place.

Watch this video to get a sufficient grasp of why quantum physicist crackpots actually believe in particles (relating to double slit experiment) and why it's completely insane due to the factual nature of the detected grains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJjO2J7HTF8

I could go on and on and on about quantum theory and all it's problems in immense detail if you really want me to. Even say quantum entanglement, by t's concept and theory REQUIRES discrete particles, AND some kind of superluminal connection. When in reality it is just this. Not superluminally connected, merely inversely parallel correlation.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I thought the point was to prove that god is the same as the universe. If that is your definition, then the whole addition of the term "god" is pointless. It is redundant and brings nothing new to the table. "Universe" would have sufficed.
Your statement here is redundant and illogical. If god is another name for universe, then god is the same as the univers, these aren't independent arguments. The point is anything attributed to god in old text is referring to the natural world.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
If you had a set of everything (that actually contained everything), one of the elements would indeed be the idea of everything. A set of everything is problematic, but that is not the main issue here.
No it's not. Once you understand incommensurability, that is to say the nature of being fractal (speaking non-cartesian), then a set of everything is present everywhere all the time and always. Every reference frame of a fractal contains the entire image infinitely. To seek the data you simply need to adjust perspective.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
If you define that "god = universe" from the get-go, the whole exercise seems uninteresting. Your conclusion is that the universe consists of all single, unique things. The uniqueness of things and whether the universe can be defined this way can be contested, but the more relevant question is this: how is all this relevant in any way? It doesn't seem to have much to do with what Plato's world of ideas means, whether it exists, or the definition of metaphysics.
All you have to do is imagine the properties of a fractal and then it all becomes simple. Fractals cannot exist in physical cartesian space, and are thereby inherently metaphysical. Phi itself is a fractal expression, and you can observe this in actually playing with the numbers. This is why it fascinated the greeks so much.

fyi: the aoristos dyas (indefinide dyad) in neoplatonism is a direct parallel to incommensurability.
https://archive.org/details/IndefiniteDyadPlotinusMetaphysicsMysticism

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
We don't need a complete explanation here. All I am trying to show here is that your mathematical notation doesn't make sense. "Universe=1" etc. are not the best way to express these things because they are mathematically problematic.

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.
How many atheists actually believe that god does not exist (instead of not believing that he exists)? Do you have any statistics?

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.
That is even less specific than what I was expecting. Basically "just do it." That also doesn't answer the objectivity part at all.
There is no true objectivity... Everything is subject to conditions and context, which is exactly why an approach which is conditionally and contextually adaptable in an ideal sense is, well, ideal. It's not hard to grasp. Give a boy a fish, feed him for a day; teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

You are making this way more difficult than it needs to be.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I am sure a child could come up with that, indeed. That is the problem. Your system of sovereign states facilitates the things you are complaining about. Some states can ruin the lives of people abroad with pollution or by economically undercutting them in standards. And if people split up into tiny groups with very limited cooperation, good luck getting anything complex done.
No, you're thinking like a set-in-their-ways adult... You are thinking in terms of everything being static except for the defined terms. Ironically i did define the terms that cover this: sufficient wisdom and understanding of consequences. Don't bother your neighbour lest it cause conflict which results in detriment to both parties. Again, a child could think of this. Also leads me to think we need more children advisors.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
start up your own nation/company
Why the subtle addition of companies here? Are they sovereign too?
That was kind of the point. I didn't say they WERE companies, i said they were nations or societies set up similar to a club or company.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
That is not my preference, the etmlogical denotation from source is what the world actually means.
So you say, but you have no way of demonstrating that some definitions are right or wrong in any profound sense.
It's not so i say, go fucking look it up, holy hell man. Wiktionary is a great source for etymology. Follow the etymological chunks, not the point form definitions beneath.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Your way leads to lengthy arguments because you keep insisting that everyone must use your definitions that almost nobody else does or otherwise confusing people with statements that are difficult to decipher. If you are worried about unclear conversations, you should adopt more popular definitions.
No. They are THE ACTUAL definitions. If everyone uses the SAME ACCURATE definitions, then these lexical arguments (logomachy) would be completely nonexistent. These semantic argument exist because everone is forced to define their terms (this is the case with writing papers, you have to define your terms), and the lack of these definitions leads to conclusions due to people having different connotative interpretations of the words, which is why cmmunication like this becomes a mess.

I repeat, these are not MY definitions, they are the REAL definitions. If they wereMY definitons, you would be in the right arguing the lack of reason mine should be better than yours, subjectively speaking. However, this is not the case here.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Provide objective, universally verifiable evidence that some fields in philosophy carry more normative value than others. Emphasis on "normative." If not, I will call it your opinion and move on. Even if a descriptive proposition is objectively true, its normative value need not be.
"I will call it your opinion" that's called the subjectivist fallacy.
Your argument is completely nonsensical.
TheDeedsOfMen said:
As stated, what you are calling high philosophy modern people simply call physics.
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 and utterly neglects the ontological as mere flights of fancy and thought experiments. If what you were saying was true, science would not be what it is today. There would be no particles, there would be no quantum bs, the æther would have been superficially denied, the idea of bumping particles never would have been born.

Physics and science are not this ideal that it pretends it is and sells itself as in media. No matter how much it tries to present itself as open-minded and quick to jump on new discoveries, it still takes MINIMUM 5 years to adopt new evidence into models and distribute it, and up to 1500 years (how long it took to break geocentrism, despite contrary evidence). They are humans like anyone else, and are JUST as prone to tribal tendencies and obstinacy. I have watched data and models that have come in for decades and have been REPEATEDLY denied with the utmost prejudice and refusal to even give the time to look. Consensus does not define truth, it defines cult agreement, regardless of how many are involved or how many details are constructed to enforce it's certainty; argumentum ad populum.

ps: the scientific method does not allow anything metaphysical or ontological, as these are not part of physical sciences. to postulate that metaphysics and ontology has a place in science and physics is not only oxymoronic but completely contradictory in a logical sense. remember Law of Non-Contradiction. to apply anything metaphysical to physical sciences is what leads to delusional theories that include "virtual photons" and "entanglement connecting particles instantaneously across vast distances"... that's like saying picoscopic leprechauns and teleporting unicorn farts... metaphysical it may be, but it's insane and illogical.
>"virtual photons" is the Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) solution for magnetic fields, in case you didn't know.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
Protip: if you keep calling it metaphysics or ontology, you will just pointlessly confuse people. What you call metaphysics and ontology almost nobody else does nowadays. It is just physics. Yes, they called some of it metaphysics and ontology in ancient Greece, but that was back then. If you write like that, modern people will probably dismiss your paper before even getting to the empirical part.

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. Don't bother submitting those papers to philosophy journals; that is not even the right field.
False and false. I don't care who takes or dismisses my writing. What i refer to metaphysics and ontology is NOT physics, by anyone's definition, and if it's ignored, that's their own stupidity. I am not an empiricist in the traditional sense nor in your definition. I don't believe in anything, regardless of how apparent it may seem... however you believe in consensus theories and arbitrary connotations. Journals are a waste of time - it's asking for the approval of the group to partake in their club activities. I won't play their idiot game of cult agreement and elitism. I will write on my own terms and share with the free-minded who are willing to consider premises by their own terms and assess logically.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
So you arbitrarily claim that regardless of content or circumstance any thesis involves boot-kissing. Wow.
Being in the system and seeking it's approval is inherently boot-kissing. I wasn't trying to insult you and saying you were going out of your way to suck off superiors for your goals. I meant you were doing it without realizing it simply by taking part in the system.


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.

I'm gonna call this a wrap for real this time, nice chatting.
Modified by GenesisAria, Oct 4, 10:27 PM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Oct 5, 5:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 385
I doubt religion can just be removed, some other values too don't seem that easy either.
lol in Polina's case, age really is just a number. She's still 28 years old, no need to be so worried about it.
Zack and Quittorie were like "smooth Kanata, but we are on a whole another level."
The bliss Arie's mom must have felt when she finally got a message after 139 days, not to mention such a detailed one too with lots of pictures. and a whole revelation about the world tho I suppose she knew some stuff about it)
The look of joy on Charce's face when Ulgar actively talked to him, he always wanted him to do that.
Wow they really got the king and the advisor arrested (lol the adviser just got introduced to be a mastermind of some sort yet)
"you really did well coming back home!" true, that was some journey.
When they kept mentioning Kanata's arm, hope he gets a good cyber one soon.
Kanata saying let's meet cheerfully at school and Polina raised her hand like she's the youngest lmao. Though I guess Funi raising her hand is a bit weird too but less considering she's still a child and could be just imitating. Ah, now that I think it makes sense considering she became a part-time teacher there so maybe she had considered it already by then and Funi was planning to go there eventually.
Getting that kind of news on social media and television would sure be something.
Oh nice Kanata got a good arm.
Quittorie modeled and Charce ended up becoming even more popular than her and "What's with this guy?!" lmao. Also becoming the king. "It's enough already!" I laughed. Wait did he do that all while being in high school? Whoa.
Older Ulgar looks like his brother.
Older Funi looks cute. Nice Polina has gotten over the age thing and says she's 36 right away.
Older Quittorie and Aries, could have a more stand-out look I feel. Older Luca's hairstyle is very nice.
Aries and Kanata got canon, nice. But in the spaceship, he's with Charce. The guard clapping in the background on hearing the marriage news lol.
Charce being father in law tho.
It'd be funny if Seira (II) named her daughter Aries again lol. (actually nevermind it'd be unsettling.)
Nice to see Yunhua with long hair (tho my favorite hairstyle from her is still her very first)
Zack's new hairstyle is pretty cute
"Putting that aside." lol
Charce with that flashy entry.
Neat stuff. I really enjoyed this show so I feel like giving it a high score. Liked many characters but I guess Quittorie is my favorite though Charce grew on me quite much. And Kanata and Aries too of course are very likable. Zack as well. Wrapped up very nicely.
 
Oct 5, 3:01 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
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.
I don't know this Russel fellow, being honest,
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?

I suppose it makes sense because you barely ever talk about philosophy as it is usually understood. You pretty much only talk about physics because you don't even know what modern philosophy studies and what it does not. For instance, philosophers don't go around conducting empirical experiments, at least as far as their philosophy is concerned. They are not doing the same job as physicists.

GenesisAria said:
but you keep referencing a single figure, which is mildly concerning.
I did so for your sake because he is one of the most likely to be recognized by people. The fact that you did not says a lot about how much you have studied modern philosophy. It would also take a lot of time to explain a greater number of theories.

There is no shortage of philosophers that are usually called empiricists: Ayer, Carnap, Neurath, Reichenbach, Peirce, Quine just to name a few classic examples. They don't all believe in the same forms of empiricism, and they belong to various schools of thought, so explaining all of their respective philosophies would take quite a while. There are plenty more of them, and their more recent counterparts are split into even more factions. You should know these people at the very least if you consider yourself an expert in empiricist philosophy like you have been implying.

GenesisAria said:
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.
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.
I am not really sure if even physicists believe in that, but regardless: it has very little to do with empiricist philosophers. You make it even more obvious by talking about physicists specifically.

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.
This is a prime example of a physics question. Modern philosophers don't study questions like this.

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

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.
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.

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
As stated, what you are calling high philosophy modern people simply call physics.
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
Not since the 19th century. Now it is pretty much only you.

That's the problem. You should have said from the start "I plan to rant about physics" and gone on to badger physicists, whose field this actually involves, while leaving the philosophers alone. If you want to convince people that your theories are correct, the first step is presenting them to people from the fields that are actually involved.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Oct 5, 4:02 PM
 
Oct 6, 3:35 AM
なのだ

Offline
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 4356
Now that's what I call a satisfying epilogue. It was perfect way to end this.
 
Oct 6, 6:51 AM
Offline
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 918
Just finished this anime. Glad I watched this even though I didn't check this out when it first aired. Definitely a hidden gem and a good story overall. Will really miss this anime.
 
Oct 6, 1:02 PM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2792
TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
I don't know this Russel fellow, being honest,
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?
I have no problem with the actual concepts. Knowing the individuals and their particular terms is not philosophy, it's a study of history with a "philosophy" subject filter. Epistemology (empirical knowledge) has nothing on wisdom or understanding. It's like trying to compare arbitrary trivia factoid accumulation with intelligent reasoning. Modern philosophy isn't really relevant, especially if they completely butcher the meanings of all the terms due to their incompetence to understand the origination, or thought they were at their freedom to alter it to their liking. You are ignorant in REAL philosophy and only seem to know the academic epistemology of textbook philosophy.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I suppose it makes sense because you barely ever talk about philosophy as it is usually understood. You pretty much only talk about physics because you don't even know what modern philosophy studies and what it does not. For instance, philosophers don't go around conducting empirical experiments, at least as far as their philosophy is concerned. They are not doing the same job as physicists.
What i talk about is ACTUAL philosophy, philo-sophia, being a philosopher, a truth seeker, not the study of philosophical texts and converse.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
but you keep referencing a single figure, which is mildly concerning.
I did so for your sake because he is one of the most likely to be recognized by people. The fact that you did not says a lot about how much you have studied modern philosophy. It would also take a lot of time to explain a greater number of theories.
Again, not relevant. If the understanding of the term is distorted and then popularized, that doesn't make it correct, it makes it a popularized conceptual bastardization.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
You should know these people at the very least if you consider yourself an expert in empiricist philosophy like you have been implying.
See the problem i have here, is like say for example a word like gnosticism. In modern day it's referred to as all this biblical christian whatever crap, and has nothing to do with what gnosis or even gnostos actually means. It's just some twisted bastardized idiocy where people slap all kinds of connotative requisites onto a term fallaciously.

What they say might be in line with what you are trying to say, but that makes both you and them incorrect. Not because i think i'm more right, but because what they say does not obey the Law of Non-Contradiction, it's paradoxical. It is impossible to assume that only the observed is real or knowable without necessitatively stating that the observed is physical and real in the concrete sense. To contrast this requires you to admit things outside of empirical knowledge MUST exist; this is what metaphysics is. It's not hard to grasp bud. This is the difference between understanding and deconstructing the subjects and just regurgitating what is said by their terms and acting like you understand.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
I am not really sure if even physicists believe in that, but regardless: it has very little to do with empiricist philosophers. You make it even more obvious by talking about physicists specifically.
They really do. The ones that don't believe that are a rare breed. It's an alarming shocker when you realize this; itos a harsh reality check of the fallability of the scientific institution.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
This is a prime example of a physics question. Modern philosophers don't study questions like this.
It's a lot bigger than just physics. It's about the entire error in equating a realness or concretness to physicality. Maybe it'll help you reading some of the debates and stuff that went on during the "quantum revolution" (not sure if that's a real term) during Einstein's time and the WWs. The discussion of particles and such was very real, and it was all highly philsophical debate. Much of modern philosophy came out of questioning the nature of the "quantum realm". Think Schrödinger or Heisenberg for example; the entire philosophy of probabilistic randomness uncertainty ontology came from that branch of thought. Tesla, Steinmetz, their peers at General Electric, and countless others throughout time denied the absurdity of particles, especially charge carrying particles or photons, yet they were completely denied in favour of the cult of quantum; mostly because their math managed to make a big damn bomb, so they made the fallacious conclusion that if they managed to create something profound with their mode of thought, that it meant all the other postulates and interpretations peripheralto it must be correct, when in fact they weren't... but it stuck anyway.

This is natural philosophy, which is the major branch of philosophy that covers empirical and ontological etc study of the natural world and nature of existence.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
GenesisAria said:
#NASA #CERN all of academia.
Regardless of whether NASA and CERN believe that, they do not work in the field of philosophy...
I literally explained to you that science is a method of study within the empisical/physical branch of natural philosophy. ANY investigation into the patterns & functions of the natural world is philosophy, inescapably. Your definition of philosophy is distorted; your definition of philosophy is extermely trivialized and irrelevant. It's like comparing logic to creative imagination. True philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, the study of the natural world and existence through logic and investigation. Your philosophy is just thought experiments and imagination.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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.
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.
I honestly don't care what modern empiricist philosophers think because it doesn't really matter. I was talking about empiricism itself, that is the ISM of the empirical, belief in the empirical as primary or sole means to truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
"In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."

TheDeedsOfMen said:
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
Not since the 19th century. Now it is pretty much only you.

That's the problem. You should have said from the start "I plan to rant about physics" and gone on to badger physicists, whose field this actually involves, while leaving the philosophers alone. If you want to convince people that your theories are correct, the first step is presenting them to people from the fields that are actually involved.
No, you are entirely mistaken here. Again you are falling entirely on your sources of what other people say instead of understanding the subjects and principles at their core, not how peope interpret them, or how they are connotatively applied. What you are doing is called presentism. You are insisting that modern connotations and bastardizations and interpretations are prescriptive and denotative, when they are infact merely descriptive and connotative; they are colloquial and incorrect.

REEEEEE stop making me have to come back and correct things T.T
i keep forgetting i said i'm done.
Modified by GenesisAria, Oct 6, 1:07 PM
❀桜舞う空〜                   Cute is Power.           🔗CosmoGenesis Project
“You cannot know what you do not know.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
“A truth seeker has no patience for BS.”

I seek only to improve myself and others.
 
Oct 6, 3:10 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 144
GenesisAria said:
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?
I have no problem with the actual concepts. Knowing the individuals and their particular terms is not philosophy, it's a study of history with a "philosophy" subject filter. Epistemology (empirical knowledge) has nothing on wisdom or understanding. It's like trying to compare arbitrary trivia factoid accumulation with intelligent reasoning. Modern philosophy isn't really relevant, especially if they completely butcher the meanings of all the terms due to their incompetence to understand the origination, or thought they were at their freedom to alter it to their liking. You are ignorant in REAL philosophy and only seem to know the academic epistemology of textbook philosophy.
You specifically called out modern academic philosophy and called its philosophers ignorant and their theories terrible. Sure, you include physicists, but your definition is so broad that it also covers modern philosophers. You reached the conclusion that modern philosophers (in the sense of the modern field of science) are ignorant by... not reading anything about them or their theories. You haven't even heard of them by name. What an absolute joke.

Basically, you come across as a dishonest actor. That is the natural conclusion here. You knew that you had no clue about what the people you are bashing have written or not, yet you called them ignorant anyway. And you kept hidden the fact that you hadn't read about them or even heard of their names until it was specifically dug out. Judging by this, you would call yourself an expert on the theories of any field completely regardless of actually studying their contents. Why should anyone ever debate you in good faith?

GenesisAria said:
TheDeedsOfMen said:
Regardless of whether NASA and CERN believe that, they do not work in the field of philosophy...
I literally explained to you that science is a method of study within the empisical/physical branch of natural philosophy. ANY investigation into the patterns & functions of the natural world is philosophy, inescapably. Your definition of philosophy is distorted; your definition of philosophy is extermely trivialized and irrelevant. It's like comparing logic to creative imagination. True philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, the study of the natural world and existence through logic and investigation. Your philosophy is just thought experiments and imagination.
What a deeply dishonest and fraudulent thing to say. Modern philosophers use logic all the time. Not being physics does not imply that logic is not used. Have you ever read a single paper in modern philosophy? Do not pretend that you know a field that you are not familiar with.

GenesisAria said:
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.
I honestly don't care what modern empiricist philosophers think because it doesn't really matter. I was talking about empiricism itself, that is the ISM of the empirical, belief in the empirical as primary or sole means to truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
"In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."
Reading one broad, vague, unspecific sentence from Wikipedia doesn't make you an expert in empiricist philosophy. That sentence says very little about what empiricism means in detail. The sentence is trying to summarize a large number of theories in a very concise form, but it can only do so much. That is why philosophers have come up with specific theories to begin with: to explain in greater detail. What you'd need to refute is the detailed contents of those theories, not one unspecific sentence that was formulated on the basis of those theories. If that is your idea of being an expert, reading a single sentence on Wikipedia, I don't see why anyone should ever debate you in good faith.
Modified by TheDeedsOfMen, Oct 6, 3:45 PM
 
Top
Pages (6) « First ... « 3 4 [5] 6 »