What is the most intelligent anime you've seen?

renders said:

it doesn't matter if I tell you or not since you already said you didn't enjoyed it.that's like somebody trying to tell me hotd is intelligent which I hated.
the show had it's mind games,cases,tests and philosophical matters that get explored better in the manga but as I said it's ok if you didn't like it.the anime had a good first half but the fillerish 2nd half ruined it

Tavor said:


At no point did he say he didn't enjoy the shows you've listed, he just wants an explanation on your thoughts of why the anime you've listed would be considered "intelligent".
Basically, if someone came in and said Acchi Kocchi was intelligent, I would be curious of why he/she thought it be the most intelligent anime they've seen, even though I enjoyed it.

renders said:
it doesn't matter if I tell you or not since you already said you didn't enjoyed it.that's like somebody trying to tell me hotd is intelligent which I hated.
the show had it's mind games,cases,tests and philosophical matters that get explored better in the manga but as I said it's ok if you didn't like it.the anime had a good first half but the fillerish 2nd half ruined it

renders said:
nah I had a discussion with him before about the show he said he hated it,the art style,the characters,the story everything...you can't force somebody to like a show

renders said:

that's your opinion

IntroverTurtle said:
Well then tell me what is intelligent about the show, that no other show does?

KaminaVX said:
Death Note was but it ended -.- and the ending was really bad too .

abrams said:


Sorry to rain on your parade but intelligence is not a mater of opinion. The perception of it can vary, as perception is a matter of experience, and relative. But that's perception not the truth. It might be hard to measure objectively, but that's the fault of the observer, not reality being subjective.

The title suggests sharing of personal experience, so a subjective view and opinion, that's why we can argue about it, trying to get closer to the objective truth. But not all opinions are equally good. Nor do the numbers matter. The best argument does.

Now taste, whether something is boring, scary, moving, entertaining, exciting, sexy, that's a matter of opinion (highly subjective).

Getei said:
If, by intelligent you mean what the author wrote and what he though the effect of what he wrote would have on people, as for the well build history I think Gungrave would fit.

I mean come one, who wouldn't get the urge to shed one tear or two in the final episode?
#notapussyjustmanlytears

Slyr3do0n said:


This. Though intelligent may be too dumb of a word to accurately describe it.

DementedOtaku said:
Certain tidbits of information from novels and latin were posed from Ergo Proxy.

abrams said:
Oh, I guess this arguing about which ones are intelligent and which ones are not turns sort of pointless. People want the anime they liked to be intelligent/deep/high-brow and in good taste (sophisticated) so they will argue the point to no end, no mater what. It's too emotionally charged and emotions have no room in such deliberations. It's "was it", not "did it feel/seem like it was".

Just change the title to "What do you think is the most most entertaining/best anime you've seen?" and add it has to be above 3rd grade level, so no one will suggest Pokemon (then again, scratch that, why keep'em out). Then all the opinions will be just as valid.

Still, not like we couldn't argue about taste. Even purposeful bad taste can be considered good, like Pink Flamingos. "It was great, but I never want to see it again".

DementedOtaku said:
Well taken straight from the title "Ergo" and "Proxy". Not latin, but french there is the meaning of Raison D'etra. Oh not to mention the "Cogito" Virus. I believe there was a small bit spoken in the book store eoisode, which is a draw for me in the series. Im rewatching it now to be sure [Meditatio Xi - Anamnesis] (unlike the Ad-Lib episode and the episode where they are strandid on the boat). Dammit man you're rekindling my fondness of Ergo Proxy, and im trying to watch Steins;Gate haha.

Red_Keys said:
What makes an anime "Intelligent"?

Red_Keys said:
What makes an anime "Intelligent"?

Red_Keys said:
What makes an anime "Intelligent"?

Tavor said:


Gained knowledge, yippe! ^^

3miL said:
Death note because of L and Light

Kami nomi because of Keima

Bleach because of Aizen and Urahara

Tavor said:

At no point did he say he didn't enjoy the shows you've listed, he just wants an explanation on your thoughts of why the anime you've listed would be considered "intelligent".

Red_Keys said:
Basically, if the writer has an agenda different than "get money and entertain", and is trying to actually say something, I would consider it intelligent.

Tachii said:
I don't believe this type of argument has no ending. If one side can offer a logical and understandable response (at the same time not being aggravating or aggressive) then the other party should at least come to a respectful understanding of the other party's opinions.

I'm sure in a specific example, one side can point out the +s of Death Note in what makes it intelligent and another of -s that points to the contrary. I'm sure such a level-headed discussion have occurred before.

But alas, most MALers are so used to just list their fav/worst/[insert adjectives] x's that when someone actually want them to defend their opinion things can get ..."emotional". Not just to the one defending, but to the one that's opposing as well.

PS: I'm not trying to argue with you by any chance in this reply. Just a continuation of my thoughts in regard to your post. From our last few exchanges I believe you could offer that level-headed discussion if you tried.

Silion said:
Monster
Death Note
Code Geass
Steins Gate

I still like them and still learn something ^_^

k11chi said:


Like what lol

DementedOtaku said:

I discussed it somewhat in my post, however some points would be literary techniques, foreshadowing, moonlighting, philosophy, a background of foreign languages and Books, symbolism, "hitting close to home", and refer back to my post above.

abrams said:
I'd hate to be "that" guy

Ineptia said:
I will quote Reuenthal here, "What sophistry!"
"Check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." Or maybe more to be honest.

abrams said:


If you won't even bother to make an argument, why take you seriously.

Takuan_Soho said:


We actually need more of "those" guys. Not the one's who are smug in their intelligence and come here to "prove" it (which come to think about it, shows how unintelligent they are), but people who actually think about a response, then explain why they think the way they do.

abrams said:

The quote is originally from Marquis de Sade's Justine by the way. And the second quote is from Ayn Rand, and not meant in this context.

Ineptia said:
I would like to think it takes some intelligence to "prove things". In fact, you might even need to think about the response! " hold these truths to be self-evident," though proving it means you explained it.

Takuan_Soho said:


No, it honestly doesn't take "intelligence" to "prove things", common sense in a lot of instances is more than enough for people. Though of course "common sense" is getting to be pretty rare these days....

As for proving it means you explained it. Not necessarily. One can prove something without being able to explain it. There are a lot of things that one can demonstrate to be true (prove) without being able to explain why it is true.

Takuan_Soho said:


No, it honestly doesn't take "intelligence" to "prove things", common sense in a lot of instances is more than enough for people. Though of course "common sense" is getting to be pretty rare these days....

As for proving it means you explained it. Not necessarily. One can prove something without being able to explain it. There are a lot of things that one can demonstrate to be true (prove) without being able to explain why it is true.

Ineptia said:

Intelligence is the faculty to use reason. This is the definition. I thought you would have understood it when you claimed that intelligence is not simply knowledge. However, you then claim that skillful storytelling and complexity are not [signs] of an [author's] intellect. The art of writing and weaving ideas is one of reason and definitely of intellect.

Ineptia said:

You then go on to say that wit must be spontaneous or original to be intelligent. Spontaneity is not the soul of wit, it is brevity. Wit is a sign of intellect because, again, it is reasoning. All the things in the list are products of intellect and it is how they are used that constitutes intelligence.

Ineptia said:

By philosophy, I subscribe to the Western variant which is the use of reason. It is objective and does not depend on how much someone else contemplated it.

Ineptia said:
Common sense is simple perception but still a use of reason and intelligence. We are not talking about those cases, we are talking about writing. I will however, agree with you.

abrams said:


Never claimed they were not a sign, just not a measure. Yes, a machine can't write a good story, we can agree on that point. I said they don't require extraordinary intelligence. I'm sure most authors posses only an average level of intelligence and that includes many of those that pack their stories with complexity (plot devices, references, symbols). The ones that do so skilfully are talented, and that's a different thing.

abrams said:


Consider a situation where you have a conversation with someone and he is quoting a witticism of Oscar Wilde. Does that mean that he is a wit himself. He might not be capable of coming up with such a witticism on his own. Is that a sign of his high intelligence then. It has to be original. I'm willing to concede that wit does not have to be spontaneous, but it's much less of a mark of intelligence (i.e. thinking speed) when someone spends hours coming up with it, only to be used later.

abrams said:


You have missed my point, which was that you yourself have to be the one contemplating it, NOT someone else (ex. a film contains a reference to Wittgenstein and then explains the meaning). It's the same difference as between an artist and an art historian (referencing work of others). Again, you have to act as the philosopher, not simply hear a reference to one's work.
The only thing on the list that has to do with intelligence is philosophy, and that, only if it contains philosophical themes that you have to contemplate yourself. If the show simply references this or that philosophy, or more or less provides an explanation/interpretation for you, then you don't have to do a lot of thinking. Or if they are issues that are really easy to figure out, then it's not an especially intelligent show, just above average.

Ineptia said:

Since "What sophistry!" is just two words, I'm sure many different peoples have said it throughout time.
I did not reference Rand's name because it holds a certain stigma. The context is fine.

abrams said:


I'm sure about that as well, at least since 14th century when the word sophistry originated. If you read Justine however, you'll know why I mentioned it as the source of the cry "What sophistry!" as you have used it. Although a similar argument can be found as early as the Satyricon. Both are a good read, I recommend.

As for the Ayn Rand quote, I don't mind the stigma, like every human she was right about some things, wrong about other. Just pointing out that you used it out of its original context, where it had a different meaning (concerning contradictions).

And I wouldn't be so uncivil about it if you hadn't been in the first place.

abrams said:


I'm sure about that as well, at least since 14th century when the word sophistry originated. If you read Justine however, you'll know why I mentioned it as the source of the cry "What sophistry!" as you have used it. Although a similar argument can be found as early as the Satyricon. Both are a good read, I recommend.

As for the Ayn Rand quote, I don't mind the stigma, like every human she was right about some things, wrong about other. Just pointing out that you used it out of its original context, where it had a different meaning (concerning contradictions).

And I wouldn't be so uncivil about it if you hadn't been in the first place.

Ineptia said:

I cannot abide by the idea that they are not both talented and of great intellect. The idea of talent is too centered on natural ability and not the effort they made to become great. Artists spend a great amount of time honing their technique; I know naturals exist but they shouldn’t be evidence against those who were not! The best ideas are in the head and are only made worse by transcribing them to paper. It takes artists a keen mind and intellect to present us with their ideas and I hate to see it cheapened as a product of nature..

Ineptia said:

I believe it is a sign of their intelligence if they used it accurately. Intelligence does not always have to be original.

Ineptia said:

I apologize if I am mistaking your “point”, but I am saying that it can be intelligent without needing the audience to spend hours figuring it out. A lot of people think it needs to be hard for the audience to figure it out to be an intelligent show. I disagree. All works are the interpretations of an artist and are still intelligent; I agree they should not randomly quote of course.

Ineptia said:

It may strike you as surprising, but I am not arguing to get on your nerves. I really disagree with you.

Takuan_Soho said:


Sophistry actually goes back to 500 B.C. They were a class of people who taught rhetoric and other skills in the Greek cities. Collectively they were called "sophists. Today they are usually called "pre-Socratic philosophers". The word "sophist" comes from the Greek word for Wisdom. The term "sophistry" became an insult in the writings of Plato.

The negative connotation comes from them being relativists, as opposed to Plato who was an idealist. Plato disses them in several of his dialogs, including Gorgias, Protagoras and the Sophist (the first two were actual sophists) for not having actual knowledge, but rather using rhetorical tricks to win arguments.

Ineptia said:
I thought your writing contradicted itself, that is why I said it. It is not out of the original context. She often says it in interviews to people who argue an opposing point that she thinks is wrong. Even in the context of the novel itself, I am vindicated.
I never thought you were uncivil, and I didn't think I was either.

abrams said:


Why so sentimental, humans after all are a product of nature. And thoughts, even if they are just a manifestation of the physical processes in our brains, are not cheapened by that fact. As I've mentioned before, intelligence is an emotionally charged word and prone to being misused.

It is simply a mental characteristic of a capacity for learning and reasoning. The old fast/slow analogy is a bit simplistic but works. It's not how far you can go but how fast. Given the same (life)time of course, it would translate into maximum range, maximum being the keyword. It is a potential, not a guarantee. It can go to waste, even almost completely, for instance if someone is illiterate. Consider the story of Srinivasa Ramanujan, a man of great intelligence that could have easily gone to waste.

As such people overemphasize the importance of intelligence, as opposed to other characteristics. This misconception is a result of simple-mindedness with which we are told how important it is since childhood. The truth is that not all writers, even the good ones, have to be extra intelligent. It helps, I'm sure but it's not necessary. If anything work ethic (hard working) is more important, but again as with anything, there are no guarantees (i.e. can't squeeze blood out of a stone).



Only original thinking can be a sign of one's own intelligence. If you're quoting/referencing someone then you're appropriating their thinking and say nothing about your own. Other perhaps then the possibility of finesse with which you used it to illustrate a point, but not the content of the reference itself. You can try to argue with that if you want.



Yes, its the problem with the use of a word intelligence. Is an intelligent show one that shows the high intelligence of the author OR the audience, in requiring it to have it in order to enjoy it. That might be a source of the misunderstanding. Intelligent is not a good word to use when describing a piece of art (hence me arguing against its use). This has been pointed out a number of times I believe.

I prefer high-, mid- and low-brow as descriptions of mental sophistication and taste. Little to do with intelligence I'm afraid.



Yes, that is not the impression I got from the first post. Came of as derisory. Hence my initial response. But I'm sure we can agree there is no need to be uncivil.

Ineptia said:

If original thinking is the only sign of one's own intelligence, I think you forget that language is an invention as well. The meaning of words are created by others but can still say something of your own. Using the intelligence of others, such as their mathematical theories, can very well mean that you understand the reference and can apply it as part of your own dialogue.

Ineptia said:

My point has been that a show is intelligent by showing the intelligence of the author. When you apply the titles high, mid, or low-brow, it is just being insincere. You very well mean less intelligent or more intelligent.

I apologize if it came off as derisory. It was a result of my shock to your impressions.