Genuinely philosophical vs. pseudo-philosophical anime

bitchassdarius said:
Since the beginning of this past summer, I have watched anime almost exclusively. I seem to enjoy them more than other shows largely because they have far superior metaphorical significance and thematic impact that make one think critically on human nature. For example, NHK, Kimi No Na Wa, Spirited Away, OreGairu, Shinsekai Yori, 5cm/s, FMA

Pullman said:
and when used to analyze literature or film or anime, philosophy needs to be put into the service of literary analysis and not just be applied in isolation. That's pointless since we are talking about literature, about art here.

Pullman said:
As I always say on this topic, somebody's ability or lack of ability to get interesting, thought provoking ideas out of an anime says more about them than it says about the show. A genuinely philosphical person doesn't need references of the highest degree to get inspired or find an interesting interpretation.

If you didn't find Tex or Lain thought-provoking, that's on you, not on the show. I know how many fascinating and thought provoking interpretations of those shows I've read, how many interesting conversations and debates they sparked. You just didn't manage to acquire the perspective needed to appreciate them, maybe because you didn't even try or maybe because you genuinely failed at it.

But I have no respect for people who try to use their 'credentials' to objective their opinions in a context like this after they failed to extract anything interesting out of shows that obviously inspired thousands of others to very interesting and thoughtful interpretations. My first instinct in such a situation is that I missed something or approached the whole show from the wrong angle, but then again I wasn't blessed by a superhuman ego that tells me whatever I think of a show is how it can be objectively classified.

It is pretentious, quote-hungry, ever-referencing-the-classics-and-never-thinking-for-themselves people like you that made me quit my Philosphy major 7 years ago. The level of depth, or how interesting and philosphical something is doesn't get defined by how many namedroppings you can quote in relation to it. But under those parameters it's no surprise you see Psycho-Pass as 'genuinely philosophical' because that is what it does for the most part. Anything else in the show is just really badly executed and screams of Urobuchi's edgy and biased worldview. It doesn't try to explore, it doesn't ask questions, it thinks it already knows all the answers and just gives them to the viewer in very transparent and predictable fashion.

On the other hand you discard something like Tex which doesn't give you any conclusions and is deliberately very open to interpretation to force the viewer to think about it, come up with an interpretation. It relies on the viewer being able to think interesting thoughts on their own by allowing them a lot of freedom in exploring the themes and meanings behind the show. That's probably why you didn't get it, because you seem obsessed with finding links to existing big-name philosophers and schools of thought while never adding any interesting thoughts of your own to the mix. With that mindset you're gonna make a perfect academic, but your interpretations are always gonna be boring and unoriginal and uninspiring.

jal90 said:

Well, the narrative of the series is about that. About the relationship of Lain with the internet, about the impact on and of social media, and about Lain's self and identity. Note that I'm not saying that it's good or enlightening at presenting its themes, but that they exist and not merely on a theoretical level, they define the character's path. Like how her struggle with identity affects her emotions and her position in the storyline, and how this doubt is raised in the narrative as a specific point of conflict.

Also, @simonephone, I think you are far better than me at explaining this stuff, in fact I feel like my views on the show are quite simple and straightforward, and I lack the body of knowledge to go beyond that.

CHC said:
Fate/Zero Of the many philosophical facets in F/Z, three of them are the most interesting: Gilles de Rais's (Caster's) Dostoevskian nihilism, Kiritsugu Emiya's utilitarianism and Saber's chivalrous ideal.

(...)

- Kiritsugu believed in sacrificing the few in saving the many. Once this self-justifying thought pattern is fixed he has lost the vision of a better world in which the few doesn't have to be sacrificed for the many. As his conversation with Grail has shown, he doesn't know how the world could be made better. He had only bureaucratic calculating reason, but no political imagination. (Cf. Frankfurt school)

aLotQuestion_ said:


How about Monogatari-series?
What is your insight?

To me, it is a total garbage.

But since I completely ignore all those pointless conversations and pointless wall of texts, I might miss something.

DumpsterKing said:


Most of the dialogue is character building and gets recontextualised the more you watch, so yes by skipping dialogue in a show that is 90% dialogue you miss something. It makes some exploration into the idea of whether something fake can have as much meaning as something real and while not exactly philosophical Bake in particular talks a lot about saving yourself. Lots of more educated people than me have also talked more about actual philosophies that Monogatari explores. For instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GshRfLKw0Z0&t if you're interested.

aLotQuestion_ said:

By the way, apart from dialogue, what is with the pointless wall of texts and so-called abstract art in the anime?
Are they even serve something to the plot?

aLotQuestion_ said:


So, in that case, there isn't really a need to make an anime for this series, isn't it?
If you are going to bring the contents, plots and whatever in dialogue form.
I could have just listen or just read much shorter summary of actual plot.

I am in much more regret watching first season now that I knew this...

By the way, apart from dialogue, what is with the pointless wall of texts and so-called abstract art in the anime?
Are they even serve something to the plot?

simonephone said:

I understand where you are coming from but I think that's a bit of.a close minded path to go down. Especially for something like Lain, Utena, or Angel's Egg the fact that they are open to interpretation is part of the point. You are supposed to think about these shows and derive your own unique experience and meaning from them. Why do you think these people are trying too hard? Putting a lot of thought into these works is an inherent part of enjoying them. Dismissing other people's interpretations like that is pretty limiting imo. I do think Lain is philosophical but @jal90 explained it better than I could so I won't go into that

jal90 said:

Well, the narrative of the series is about that. About the relationship of Lain with the internet, about the impact on and of social media, and about Lain's self and identity. Note that I'm not saying that it's good or enlightening at presenting its themes, but that they exist and not merely on a theoretical level, they define the character's path. Like how her struggle with identity affects her emotions and her position in the storyline, and how this doubt is raised in the narrative as a specific point of conflict.

Also, @simonephone, I think you are far better than me at explaining this stuff, in fact I feel like my views on the show are quite simple and straightforward, and I lack the body of knowledge to go beyond that.

CHC said:

Almost every show that involves decent amount of character development would involves those themes. For example, OreImo is about the impact of otaku culture on teenagers, about Kirino's self-identities as an otaku and as a normy. How Kirino dealt with her double life also defines the character's path. Even the most cliched drama about graduating from high school and making decision for future path involves "self and identity". That's not philosophical. It would be philosophical if the show went deeper into questioning some of the basic assumption we take for granted about self-identity. Lain having a double life or having dissociative identity disorder does not really challenge any conventional assumption about self-identity. It is psychological rather than philosophical.

DepravedMagi said:
Anime is entertainment
Its a severe waste of time to over-analyze and act like a philosopher when it comes to fiction

Pullman said:
As I always say on this topic, somebody's ability or lack of ability to get interesting, thought provoking ideas out of an anime says more about them than it says about the show. A genuinely philosphical person doesn't need references of the highest degree to get inspired or find an interesting interpretation.

If you didn't find Tex or Lain thought-provoking, that's on you, not on the show. I know how many fascinating and thought provoking interpretations of those shows I've read, how many interesting conversations and debates they sparked. You just didn't manage to acquire the perspective needed to appreciate them, maybe because you didn't even try or maybe because you genuinely failed at it.

But I have no respect for people who try to use their 'credentials' to objective their opinions in a context like this after they failed to extract anything interesting out of shows that obviously inspired thousands of others to very interesting and thoughtful interpretations. My first instinct in such a situation is that I missed something or approached the whole show from the wrong angle, but then again I wasn't blessed by a superhuman ego that tells me whatever I think of a show is how it can be objectively classified.

It is pretentious, quote-hungry, ever-referencing-the-classics-and-never-thinking-for-themselves people like you that made me quit my Philosphy major 7 years ago. The level of depth, or how interesting and philosphical something is doesn't get defined by how many namedroppings you can quote in relation to it. But under those parameters it's no surprise you see Psycho-Pass as 'genuinely philosophical' because that is what it does for the most part. Anything else in the show is just really badly executed and screams of Urobuchi's edgy and biased worldview. It doesn't try to explore, it doesn't ask questions, it thinks it already knows all the answers and just gives them to the viewer in very transparent and predictable fashion.

On the other hand you discard something like Tex which doesn't give you any conclusions and is deliberately very open to interpretation to force the viewer to think about it, come up with an interpretation. It relies on the viewer being able to think interesting thoughts on their own by allowing them a lot of freedom in exploring the themes and meanings behind the show. That's probably why you didn't get it, because you seem obsessed with finding links to existing big-name philosophers and schools of thought while never adding any interesting thoughts of your own to the mix. With that mindset you're gonna make a perfect academic, but your interpretations are always gonna be boring and unoriginal and uninspiring.

Pullman said:


Yeah that is the next thing. It is just very narrow-minded to try and interpret and judge art or entertainment solely from the perspective of a philosophy student.

Gorochu said:
Philosophy itself is a totally worthless subject(at least in this modern age). It serves no contribution to human society.

CHC said:

I think many of them are trying too hard because their interpretations are often not compelling and reading too much of their own thought into the show. I'm not against having private, personal experiences with a show, but when it comes to interpreting a show, it is quite necessary for any analysis to be grounded on the show itself, even if interpretation can be multiple. Otherwise you may as well make up any wild association you want. Besides, part of the mythical charm of shows like Angel's Egg comes from its ambiguity. Trying too hard to decipher a clean, coherent, logical meaning would simply dispel the magic.

syncrogazer said:

Very compelling, coming from a person seeking validation from those more successful than him.

Gorochu said:
LOL!No need validation from anyone. Just try to see how far you can get in life with philosophy.

syncrogazer said:

Ok, pal. So I guess it was just an accident that you pointed to the recreation of billionaires in order to make your point. You sound like middle-aged high school guidance counselor. Peoples interests go beyond making a living.

jal90 said:

No, that's not true at all. Almost every show doesn't tackle one's awareness of their existence in a broad metaphysical context, this is not about discovering what you truly want to be in life, Lain's path is about her relationship with both the virtual and the real world, the impact she makes in both worlds, and questioning what exists and what is a social/mental construct, including herself. This is not about Lain deciding what kind of person she wants to be, this is about Lain encountering a situation which ultimately defies her own subjectivity. Please don't dumb down a narrative in such a way with a comparison that misses every context necessary.

And again, you are missing the point: if you want to talk about Lain being pseudo-philosophical in the terms you created, you should notice a disonance between the themes it evokes or references and the themes the storyline actually tackles. There's no such disonance, therefore there is nothing pseudo about it. And whether this is "psychological" or "philosophical" (because philosophy never dealt with self and identity, apparently) is another debate that is not being had.

Deathko said:
@Gorochu Dude, you're literally going around with a Musk signature to tell everyone how intelligent you are. On an anime site. Who's seeking validation?

I bet Musk has at least 250 IQ to think about funding Paypal and taxing online transactions. Trump looks like a genius too, I bet he puts Einstein to shame. All those intelligent people!

Gorochu said:
Who give a shit about your interest if it pointless.

syncrogazer said:

This is rich coming from someone who supposedly doesn't need validation from anyone. Don't worry, you're a special snowflake just like me.

Gorochu said:
This coming from someone who need validation from anime.

Vorpality said:
You know what the best part of being a "a post-grad student of philosophy" is?

Philosophy is subjective, and you are so off the mark that I don't even know where to start with this.

Deathko said:
@Gorochu Because there's Kimi no na wa in your favs, obviously, but I think this whole exchange tends to disprove your signature.

syncrogazer said:

Ya got me dude. You mus be one of those high-IQ individuals I keep hearing about.

SpectrumDT said:

Since you bring up Emiya Kiritsugu I have to go on a rant.

I found his portrayal in Fate/Zero downright insulting. He is an utter strawman used in an attempt to discredit utilitarianism. He is placed in contrived situations that highlight the unpleasant-looking facets of utilitarianism. At the end, when he has a change of heart and realizes the glorious virtues of Being A Nice Guy, he apparently abandons utilitarianism entirely and resolves to just Be A Nice Guy.

That is not philosophy. That is FAKING philosophy in order to reach some pathos which the author likes.

There ARE legitimate arguments against utilitarianism, but Fate/Zero does not bring them up. The show merely discredits it using plot contrivances and appeal to emotions.

It is not even remotely creative or original. Utilitarianism has ALWAYS been discredited by media and fiction, especially anime. The person willing to make sacrifices for what he beleives to be a greater good is ALWAYS demonized in favour of the Nice Guy who prefers to save the photogenic crying children and puppies whom the audience can easily see and sympathize with. (And by virtue of plot armour, Mr Nice Guy usually ends up ALSO achieving the greater good, thus eating his cake and having it too.)

So Fate/Zero sets up a strawman in order to reach the exact same cliched emotionally gratifying conclusion that hundreds of fictional works have done before. That, if anything, qualifies as "pseudo-philosophical" in my book.

simonephone said:


Eh, that's a pretty bold statement coming from someone with honestly a very bland and shallow interpretation of these shows. Both Lain and Angels Egg are extremely complex, you both want to dismiss the interpretations of others while not diving very deep with your own criticisms. How about a reply to my much longer post about the philosophical implications of Lain hmm? What's your rebuttle for that.

CHC said:

Philosophy does deal with self and identity, but from a quite distinctively different perspective than a psychological or sociological one.

You have been characterising Lain with a lot of general description like "relationship with both the virtual and the real world", " the impact she makes in both worlds", "questioning what exists and what is a social/mental construct, including herself", but what exactly makes that relationship a philosophical one? What exactly makes that impact a philosophical one? How exactly did Lain question what exists and what's a construct?

Let me be more precise: being philosophical is not about evoking themes that philosophers may deal with. Philosophy basically deal with everything in life. Everything can be a topic for philosophy, but not everything is philosophical. Being philosophical is about the way you treat the subject matter. Shows like The Wind Rises is philosophical because it put us into a situation that if we want to judge the character, we need to philosophise (eg. was Horikoshi right to pursue his dream of aircraft-making which contribute to many deaths in the war?) We don't need to philosophise to understand or judge Lain's skepticism about personal identity. The narrative is that she seems to have dissociative personality disorder and so she had a growing difficulty of understanding what she had done and why she was in the situation she got herself in. You can perfectly understand her skepticism without philosophising, because her skepticism is rooted in a psychological disorder. She didn't become skeptical because she found out that God doesn't exist and there is no one to ground our reality, or anything like that.

CHC said:

If that's referring me, you have got me all wrong.
I said in the post that I love Lain for its art style. It's just that I don't find it philosophical as many fans claim.
Nowhere did I say an anime is only good if it is philosophically deep. One of my favourite show is K-ON.
I'm just focusing on the philosophical aspect here because it is the point of the post. If you're uninterested in that you can ignore me and enjoy anime in your own way.
By the way, one of the benefit of studying philosophy is it helps you learning to resist from making inferences that is not clearly grounded what people've actually said.

CHC said:

The Chrysanthemum and the Sword is the classic work you need to read if you want to understand the Japanese ethical culture and how it contrasts with Western/American culture.
If you want something even deeper you can read some of the Masao Maruyama's works. He did a brilliant job in analysis the Japanese society from historical, political and philosophical perspectives. Though I'm not sure how many of his works have been translated into English.

Pullman said:
There also seems to be a grave misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what is 'thought-provoking', which your example of how many people treat open-ended, or open-to-interpretation works (like Texhnolyze, where the creators themselves have stated that the meaning of the show is up to the individual viewer and their interpretation) examplifies. To me those kinds of shows are the ultimate thought-provoking works of art because they literally require the viewer to think themselves, to come up with an interpretation, come up with their own meaning. It provokes you to think yourself, so to say. While shows like Psycho-Pass that tell you clear as day what their message is from the first episode on and then just add an ornamental storyline on top of it, don't provoke any thought. It provides you with thoughts. It doesn't make you think, it makes you recognize at best.

I don't get how that can be what people want out of a 'thought-provoking' show. What's so thought-provoking about getting clear answers, obvious messanges and heavy-handed references? About simply being able to put parts of the story into pre-existing (philosphical or otherwise) categories where you can mentally store them and be done with those elements. That's not thinking, that's just mental organizing at best. Approaching literature like that doesn't make you think. It becomes more of a self-serving way of recognizing and categorizing elements that not everyone might be able to do, as a sort of justification for feeling like you have such a better understanding than the rest of the people and therefore can disregard anything they have to say. It's lazy. And it's boring, unproductive and often adds nothing interesting to the conversation about these shows.

CHC said:

I don't know why you can make so many assumptions about my personality for a single post you've read.

I've read people interpreting Lain and Tex. I don't find their interpretation convincing or deep. I'm not even a bit against the idea of avant-garde. I love films made by Tarkovsky, book written by Kafka, etc. I don't mind reading extremely difficult text if it's indeed worth the effort.

By the way, if you think one can be a "perfect academic", yet at the same time always boring, unoriginal and uninspiring, then that may shows how deep you're trapped in the Dunning-Kruger effect. Most of the mind-blowing ideas in human history comes from academics, who develops their own idea based on a thorough study of the pre-existing literature. And that's how they've become those "big names" you seem to despise. You seem to think you're being original when you avoid referencing to those "big names". The truth may be you're either being incoherent or simply repeating cliches that you don't know are cliches.

I referenced to Kant, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky precisely to drop the self-deceiving pretence of absolute originality. It also made understanding more efficient when the reader knows the references. I believe people who have understand those references in enough depth would understand what's the thing that's "my own" subtly hidden between the "big names" I quote. For example, the association I made between moral progress and Kantian conception of morality is not something that I have seen in the existing literature I've read. It's also pertinent to Psycho-Pass the show because there was a scene showing people couldn't recognise a crime was happening because Sibyl didn't recognise it as a crime. It shows how important it is to understand morality not as pre-existing rules given to us by God or by Nature or by Science, but rather as what we give to ourselves and bind ourselves into following it. Only in this way we could make new moral judgment on a unseen situation when the rigid rules of the book aren't helping. Well, it isn't really a conventional interpretation of that scene nor of Kantian ethics as far as I can tell (thus I'm also risking misinterpreting/over-extrapolating Kant's idea), but you'll have to be pretty well-versed in Kant to recognise that.