Genuinely philosophical vs. pseudo-philosophical anime

Energetic-Nova said:

I am going to assume you didn't watch Revolutionary Girl Utena through a feminist philosophy lens so honestly, you missed the point.

And most of the "Philosophical" anime you listed are ones I don't connect with, mostly because they feel like they hand you the answers and that goes against philosophy. Philosophy is supposed to teach you how to think, not hand away answers. Psycho Pass and Madoka Magica liked to quote a lot of things without really leaving you any real questions. Quoting philosophy instead of being philosophical ....

Satyr_icon said:


Thanks, that book seems precisely what I was looking for lately. Do you have any other recs on the themes of japanese culture, aesthetics and impermanence? Stuff like Hojoki or The Book of Tea.

@KreatorX thanks for the explanation, I'll look more into it.

hypocrite_tenma said:
you make some good points though.
I have realized the reasons for me liking texhnolyze and logh are not because of the philosophy, more of the jungian psychology that deals with archetypes.
I love good deconstruction of hero archetypes and texhnolyze and logh explore them really well; also the relationship between age and archetypes. All the characters in texhnolyze and logh exhibit varying gradients of age/masculinity/manhood. Some are machiavellian types with pretty-boy faces while others are more father-type guardian figures, and some in between.

But again, you are right this doesnt make them philosophical, more like poetic or psychological. But fans of these series can advertise them as philosophical, and they might have some philosophy, but not enough to grant them a status of genuine philosophy. I can see why some people would be turned off from texhnolyze for advertising as philosophical.

Zekerets said:
What is your opinion on Neon Genesis Evangelion?

Vulze said:
The gist of what I had to post has already been said by others and more clearly than I could have hoped to.
But! There is still this one thing I cannot let go untouched.


This is a jarring statement. Makishima is almost the embodiment of all Kant is against. Kant's deontology focuses on the action or decision, not on the consequences. And it is meant to find moral laws, i.e. to universalize a determined action or decision (imperative) in each certain kind of situation (category). His deontology, unlike most moral systems, is not directed towards happiness but in the fulfilment of duty - and yet Makishima has killed people among other atrocious deeds and is explicitly acting in accordance with his own self-interests. Moreover, another fundamental rule is you ought not to use other people as means to an end. Makishima is not only using people but also toying with and disposing of them in the process. It's not just contrived to state Makishima is Kantian, you are basically throwing his whole deontology out the window.

LightningSoul said:
Interesting read @CHC, what would your thoughts be on the Monogatari Series despite how much I enjoyed the show, I'm having some doubts whether its trying hard to be intellectual or it really is with its multiple references to Japanese literature.

katsucats said:

Psycho Pass -- perhaps Urobuchi had in mind certain philosophies when he chose the quotes uttered by characters, but it is precisely that trite ending, the naive message of the narrative, that exposed it as inauthentic (you clearly have a different idea of Kant than I do). Behind Psycho Pass is a long history of destruction for the sake of creation villains, which was never as deep as it's supposed to be.

Texhnolyze, on the other hand, was probably less explicit about its philosophic intent, although I suspect it says that the "drama" of the human condition is what holds us together -- perhaps best depicted by that villain half way through, who admitted that he could only find meaning in life by instigating conflict. In the end, when the surface was exposed as a sham, there was nothing else to live for. It's certainly more nihilistic than existential, since hope was fleeting. But its philosophical prowess lies in the consistency of its narrative, and not what any individual character or event, in isolation, represent.

Aure0lin said:
what i've always found interesting about logh is the scale to which it presents its world, even though it relies a bit too much on great man theory or shows really dubious population statistics it still presents an entire world to an extent that you can't really find in any other anime

CHC said:

How is RGU related to feminist philosophy? It's about female's independence and I get it, but that alone doesn't make it philosophical.


What's the "answers" you have got from those shows? I have never got any answer from them.

Energetic-Nova said:


Makes me wonder if it is because you are stupid....

Like Evangelion uses Christian symbolism to create mystery and an othering factor(because Japanese people don't know much about Christianity other than it being western). It doesn't "mean nothing" like many people try to assert. Evangelion doesn't just quote psychology, it makes psychology it's entire thesis. Similar to how Revolutionary Girl Utena does. But Psycho Pass isn't much more than an action romp. And it would probably be a better show without shoe horning in quotes from better writers.

What I am saying is, Urobuchi kinda sucks for me. I never connect with his stuff because it always feels like I am reading a textbook rather than something that is actually supposed to make me think. His characters talk like textbooks instead of people.

Vulze said:

This comes off as a contrived effort to attach Kant to Makishima by focusing on certain aspects and overlooking others, thereby misrepresenting both. Let’s start with the character, Makishima. He wanted a world without the Sybil system where people would fully express their individuality. Kant didn’t want people to express their individuality in the moral sphere. In fact, he understood reason to be a priori and believed perfectly rational beings would also be perfectly moral, meaning they would make the exact same decisions. Makishima and Kant are going in opposite directions. And there is no reason to assume the world Makishima was leading to was Kantian. If you really wanted to mention a philosopher to juxtapose with the Sibyl system, Aristotle would’ve made more sense.

Omkar_Nagwade said:
Well I don't give a shit about philosophy and I watch anime for entertainment.

Zelkiiro said:

You don't think learning and thoughtful discourse are entertaining? That shit takes a good show and elevates it to addictive levels.

Omkar_Nagwade said:


Well, I'm not smart enough or well read to understand philosophical topics or themes. All my tiny brain needs is cute girls and chill SoL anime.

Omkar_Nagwade said:


Well, I'm not smart enough or well read to understand philosophical topics or themes. All my tiny brain needs is cute girls and chill SoL anime.

Vulze said:

What you are describing is a moral rationalist, not necessarily a meta-ethical Kantian. When the rationalist premise is taken but the rest gets stripped off, you remove the ‘Kantian’ component. All that rests is moral rationalism. Now, is there any suggestion in the series that Makishima is a moral rationalist? I don’t have this interpretation. Fundamentally, he wanted people to express themselves, i.e. bear responsibility and decide the course of their own lives. I recall he refers to people as livestock a couple of times - precisely because people have abandoned their agency, they have handed over their wills to a higher power in exchange for security. And Makishima wants to set them free. I wouldn’t consider him a romanticist, either. In this sense, he’s more of a humanist. First, it appears contrived to make claims on his meta-ethics and, secondly, misleading to associate them with Kant’s.

Energetic-Nova said:
Like Evangelion uses Christian symbolism to create mystery and an othering factor(because Japanese people don't know much about Christianity other than it being western). It doesn't "mean nothing" like many people try to assert.

Satyr_icon said:


That's like saying throwing random shinto symbolism in a western movie automatically makes it meaningful just because it's mysterious to the audience. It doesn't make any sense.

If all the Christian stuff is there just for style, then it doesn't mean anything. And it doesn't need to mean anything. It still works, because crosses are cool.

Phantomnocomics said:
that set of thinking died since the post structuralism lad

just because the maker thinks it means nothing does not mean it is

CHC said:


It's not a philosophical idea. It's an idea or a fact about human psychology. The ethical consequence of that might be philosophical, but Lain didn't really dealt with that.

Vulze said:
However, I would argue your portrayal of Light doesn't do him justice.

Vulze said:

Those individuals are not Kantian with respect to his ethics. This is where we go separate ways. If you speak of morals, you ought to refer to his deontology. There is a disconnect when you equate Makishima's morals to Kant but not on the basis of Kant's ethics. There may be some overlap between Makishima's and Kant's rationale, but Makishima is not interested in Kant's maxims, in fact, he actively goes against them.

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:
As a post-grad student of philosophy, I've found three types of "philosophical" anime: one that really has philosophical content, one that merely makes references to philosophy without being genuinely philosophical, and one that is middlebrow attempt at being deep without any challenging insight to offer. Example for discussion (I'm ready to be converted by sound argument):

Genuinely philosophical:

The Wind Rises, Planetes both ask question about the competing priority between humanitarian-egalitarian values and the value of human excellence. Nietzsche was perhaps the first philosopher who set two kind of values against each other --

(https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/friedrich-nietzsche-truth-terrible/?fbclid=IwAR2MsR9wM0SVx7xaM7v7ScvEYJK4GnDbT_38VYboJ2Vl_Ri2qRrcybVJzyY)

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.

- Gilles de Rais was shocked by how much evil and injustice God has permitted. He went on committing evil for evil's sake to spite his old God (or the absent of).

- 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)

- Saber believed in the idea that the strong protects the weak, the King serves his subjects. She later found out that even if she could protect her subjects physically, she nonetheless had left them spiritually empty, lacking a higher value to strive for. Her conversation with Alexander the Great was a Nietzshean counterposition of slave morality and master morality. Alexander embodied the master morality of antiquity: he as the leader was the self-sufficient source of positive values, like the sun which relies on no one but is needed by everyone else who needs guidance. Saber, the embodiment of the slave morality of Christianity, provided no guidance. She needed her subjects more than her subjects needed her. She was not a source of positive values, but simply a protection of whatever values already existed in her community.

From the New World Aside from the most obvious themes borrowed from Brave New World, what's most interesting about it (while rarely mentioned) is the critique of the politics of empathy. Many liberals believe that social conflict and inequality can be solved through encouraging empathy for each others. The idea of Monster Rats is precisely to remind us that empathy is an easily manipulated thing. We can be manipulated to see people of marginalised groups as subhuman, either by genetic engineering, or more realistically, by media.

Psycho-Pass In certain sense Makishima is a Kantian. He believed that moral law is what man legislates for himself. Man is free when he obeys the moral law he himself, instead of an other, imposes on himself. What's wrong about Sibyl system is not that it had this and that technical flaws, it's that it has destroyed human autonomy and thus our ability to make judgment for ourselves. The idea of making the whole legal system into a calculating machine makes it impossible for moral progress. Some of the moral beliefs we have are mistaken. Many of the most talented minds in 18th century Europe believed black people and native Americans are inferior and it is morally acceptable to enslave them. We challenged those ideas and revised our moral belief. If moral truth was something that is merely given by the Church, or Sibyl system, we would not have made any change. We will forever stuck at whatever the Bible or Sibyl tells us about race, woman, and gay people. We have made progress because we take ourselves to be our own law-makers. (Cf. Kant's What is Enlightenment?)

(I have a mixed feeling about it as an anime, precisely because the the show (season one) later revelation distracted its audience from the deeper Kantian theme for a rather superficial discussion about the technical flaws or the ironic secret of Sibyl system, which usually ended up with an extremely trite conclusion that all systems have flaws so utopianism won't work. It would have been more thematically interesting if the show had just focused on what might be wrong about the very idea of handing over our moral responsibility to a computer.)



Pseudo-philosophical:

Serial Experiments Lain I love its art style but honestly I don't understand why it is regarded as one of the most philosophical shows by so many people. It does question the unity of our different social persona and asks what would become possible in the era of internet anonymity, but not in a very interesting way. It wasn't really ahead of its time either. Discussion about the impact of internet was already plentiful before this anime was made. Its message is even far less radical than postmodern philosophers who commented on the era of information in the 80s. (Eg. Baudrillard, whose idea are still fresh even today.)

Revolutionary Girl Utena Again, I like its style but I think thematically it's just a cluster of random adolescent issues. No interesting philosophical question is asked.

Texhnolyze It did ask question about whether human society would descend into a lifeless bureaucratic dystopian with nothing to strive for, if mankind has finally got rip of its propensity for violence and power. (Cf. Nietzsche's Letzter Mensch) But narratively it just never went deep enough into the life of the surface world. It offer very little intellectual stimulation for its entire 22 episodes run.

Ergo Proxy It's just a cluster of random themes and references. I have yet seen anyone who's able to formulate what exactly is the philosophical content it is claimed to have. Being tedious is not the same as being deep.



Middlebrow

Legend of the Galactic Heroes I'm only about 40 episodes into this series but for what I've watched, the politics in it looks like it was directly transposed from a Politics 101 course or a 20th Century History 101 course. It's good for educating the general audience I guess. But for people who have read a few academic books on history and politics, the show provides very little intellectual stimulation. Artistically it also relies too much on expositional dialogue.

Ghost in the Shell I generally enjoy this franchise but I just don't think it is as deep as many people have made it to be. It does have a lot of post-humanist themes in it, but they were never made to pose any real challenge to our conventional, humanist, essentialist outlooks.

Black_Sheep97 said:
it's funny I find the shows that you have labeled as pseudo and borderline to be better written and made in comparison to the ones that are genuine. My reason being is that the shows are more experimental and metaphorical in their approach to expressing their ideas as in they only the visuals and symbolism to the job whereas the others like fate/zero and psycho pass are more upfront about it and at times will spell it out for you what idea it's conveying and not live much open for interpretation, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that I just find the experimental way to be critically better in comparison.

Now not trying to be disrespectful, I'm not a graduate in philosophy but I have read and studied alot of it as a hobby, so I couldn't disagree with you more on your take especially with regards to ghost in the Shell and ergo proxy.

a_-ian_readingOf said:


Note that the OP focuses specifically on whether or not the subtext of x brings any philosophical musings to bare. This doesn't necessarily have to do with 'better written' as that is a more encompassing evaluation that doesn't really follow here.

As for Ergo Proxy being open for interpretation, it sure is... But there's nothing grounding the form and theme. I find this strange because what exactly would 'it being more well-written' entail here? To just present a very recalcitrant piece of media that openly admits it has nothing to say, better written than something that actually tries to say something?

Oh, look plato reference! Neat. Wait isn't that the thing that Aristotle guy said about tools doing things for us? Awesome! Oh hey, isn't that a reference to Nietzsche? This is like a philosophy trivia game. Guess who this statue refers to? Ah, forgot his name, it's thing-y guy who says the thing about the duality of meaning... Oh yeah, this totally gives us, human beings, a through-line. Berkeley, Husserl, Lacan, Derrida statues? Why in the world would these guys be put in charge of admin in the city of Romdeau? Who cares, it's open-ended! This stuff is deep as all hell. Genuinely philosophical, metaphorical and experimental!

Ergo Proxy has nothing to say about philosophy. But, it at least shows signs of having searched some names on wikipedia. I guess in that sense, I could get something out of it, a game of Guess Who? This has a negative impact on the writing of Ergo Proxy, ofc... but that leads into a different topic.

Black_Sheep97 said:
I thought the very nature of the plot was validation for the thought process of trying to understand the philosophical undertone present and as for looking up the references from Wikipedia a bit unconstructive but a understandable claim, but I also think it serves to the shows benefit of properly appreciating the principles behind the symbolism evoked and understanding how to integrate them into the story.
I can understand why it's so divisive it relies heavenly on showing not telling especially when it comes to it's themes and methaphors and it's really up to the viewers whether they want to dwell deeper or not.
I think thats the reason for the distinction the admin makes both psycho pass and fate zero are pretty upfront about the ideas they are trying to convey whereas the others rely heavily on speculation and are open in comparison.

a_-ian_readingOf said:


That is true, but 'better written' entails more than just arriving at some exploration of a philosophical consideration. Writing can point to continuity, or more negatively, continuity errors; it can refer to character dialogue; it can point to explicit characterization or indirect characterization. The different meanings and whether or not they were properly conveyed, are they logically consistent? etc, ofc none of these require a universal right answer, it's a case by case basis. The work itself determines its end.

Ergo Proxy has a lot of 'symbolism' sure, but I feel like you're mistaking symbolism as merely a presenting of arbitrary nudges and winks, as opposed to symbolism used to convey something. EP is science fiction, it binds itself to a type of expectation, a type of controlling idea, that it presupposes before it even starts. All the references to all the different philosophers, the references to Blade Runner, isn't this supposed to be a directing, a leading of the viewer to understand a kind of message? All this symbolism somehow being considered as less direct as in Fate/Zero? EP is literally non-stop drenched in pretentious window dressing, it isn't subtle. EP is very on the nose, much more so than F/Z. Psycho Pass makes some explicit statements, some quotes by x, y, and z, sure. But that is simply explicit meaning. Explicit isn't inherently worse than something implicitly meant. This sounds patronizing to me, all I need to do is imply things and now I'm in the big boy leagues of writing and storytelling? This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The symbolism in EP is experimental in what way exactly? This implies that it does something new, or innovative, right? When you say the show benefits from having these references, from having symbolism with respective principles that integrates with the story... does this equate to it being genuinely philosophical, or does it just tie in with the narrative? While I'm sure it does tie with some message being conveyed, EP isn't nearly as philosophical as all these myriad of philosophical references suggests. Having Derrida as a statue doesn't 'mean' anything... Is this somehow trying to include his concept of deconstruction? Maybe something more specific like his view the 'différance in the same'? What is this referring to? Isn't EP just being purposefully cryptic, banking on window dressing to seem like symbolism allows one to arrive at some grander interpretation?

If a show wants to dabble in philosophy then I'd much rather take a few explicit lines of dialogue than a splatter of philosophy references all with the same opacity. I recall a quote from Stephen Greenblatt, where he states that great writing is the product of a heightened sense of the grammar of cultural codes... it's a special type of cultural exchange. If you want to be subtle or on the nose, it doesn't really matter, as long as you successfully convey what it is you want to convey. Ergo isn't philosophical. And if it was or is, the peppering of references to this dude, and that guy every now and then, has obscured whatever musing it 'might have possibly' brought to the forefront, because that guy and that dude didn't just say one thing, but many things. If EP has a target audience, then it surely isn't the uninitiated in philosophy, and yet, those who do know mostly see through its sophistry. All it has left is its seemingly open-ended nature and lack of craftsmanship that allows for interpretation of cues that aren't grounded in any authority; not in the work itself, nor in its creator.

Black_Sheep97 said:
from your first statement I thought the story was coherent for the most part.
Second guess I just interpreted differently than you.
Thirdly like I said before it's up for intepretation for me it felt like 2001 experience rather than bladerunner.
Forth philosophy as the definition stands means relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. As that it is , ergo proxy accomplished that for me at least.

a_-ian_readingOf said:


First statement was about quality of writing. I've been trying to tell you that quality of writing means many things... and so no, the OP isn't talking about quality of writing here specifically. This is a non-sequitur, is what I'm saying essentially. This wasn't me making any argument against or for Ergo Proxy's writing. I openly said that to talk about the writing and how good it is would be a different topic. So you saying I interpreted it differently doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, as I have said absolutely nothing about its plot nor its characters. I have simply focused in the later paragraphs on its use of references. These references aren't devoid of direction, are they? So when you simply give the definition of 'philosophy' did Ergo Proxy simply see its references as vague pointers to existence, reality, and knowledge? You're making it look worse in that sense, worse than even I think it is. In this sense, you've said that it merely restated a dictionary entry...

Black_Sheep97 said:
I find your argument more confusing than ergo proxy itself.

When did I bring up the quality of writing in my previous statement, I simply stated that I understood the narrative( if that is what you're referring to) and in order for me to get something from the narrative I have to understand it first.
The fact that you're saying "So you saying I interpreted it differently doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, as I have said absolutely nothing about its plot nor its characters." doesn't refute anything cause I'm not referring to the characters , I'm talking the integration of religious and philosophical symbolism and how it's integrated into story and these references are what give it , it's depth.
And with regards to the last part I'm completely confused.
This just seems like a joke or is purely unconstructive.

a_-ian_readingOf said:


You said from my first statement, you thought the story was coherent for the most part. Coherency being ascribed to a story is a value judgment, everything from plot, down to minutiae with the characters is involved. <--- you did bring up the quality of the writing. You called the story coherent... When we talk about story, as you did, we are simply referring to the plot organized into chronological order, an abstraction of the original story. This has not just to do with 'the integration of religious and philosophical symbolism into the story' So, you weren't referring just to the integration of symbolism, you were talking about story. Story = everything from characters to plot. You seem to be confused, I'm not the one using terms interchangeably to refer to the same thing here. You are. Writing = umbrella term. Story (storytelling) = umbrella term. How does claiming that a 'story' is coherent, not include the characters?

I think I've made my side pretty clear, I was focusing purely on the arbitrariness of its philosophical references, and how they all seem disconnected from actually conveying anything philosophical. It just has it as window dressing.

I still don't understand your dictionary entry... what were you trying to prove through it, other than Ergo Proxy's philosophical references symbolized something of reality, or knowledge, existence... Do you even understahow nebulous that is? 'Reality' is a pretty fricken broad topic, if you didn't know. This seems to me to be a joke, and not constructive whatsoever... it amounts to saying the symbolism does things, and it's deep. Don't project that onto me, please.