Report blueskyten's Profile

I like anime

The ending is a bit difficult to interpret, but I would think it's Nakoshi's self riddance of identity. His hyperfocus on himself is sort of a representation of his ego. When he realizes that he has no sort of self-image, he adopts the background as himself. There is no egoic representation where there is no ego. Sort of like where there is nothing, there is everything. That's why he sees himself everywhere, and the subsequent "Am I in Heaven or Hell?" where it sort of proposes to the reader two options. One where your life is nothing but a conscience with no identity (Nakoshi, who goes from absolute existential and identity crisis and suffereing where he is superfixed on devising a sense of self to being egoless) or identity with suffering (Ito, who goes from identityless to absolute suffering with an identity.) It proposes two options to the reader where on one side you are incapable of having any real goals, whereas the other is nothing but suffering, yet so many people consider the ending to be a "sad ending" for Nakoshi, even though he is completely neutral. Nakoshi achieved his true dream, the moment he realized he desired nothing. Once he associated himself with nothingness, he became everything and found his true sense of self. Nakoshi became unable to suffer, so why would people consider Nakoshi's loss of id and ego as a sad ending? It's because it's human nature to associate ourself with identity. The moment you disassociate yourself from identity, it's equivalent to death. There is nothing but a consciousness. So the final say is basically providing two options and reasons. Why should we live and why should we die. If you can achieve your true goal (Nakoshi found his true self) in death, then why is living worth it? And similarly, if you are unable to find any goal or amount to anything, then is ditching suffering and identity worth it? The final say is that life is worth living. You need to suffer since that affirms your existence.

Konnichiwa