Submitted by linosan t3_11j6ckv in philosophy
[deleted] t1_jb23rn4 wrote
Reply to comment by realrdr in Philosophy is everywhere in Neon Genesis Evangelion by linosan
a work’s meaning can go beyond the authors intentions
mirh t1_jb2dex4 wrote
No it can't. It's just reading tea leaves after a certain point.
Then of course you can argue that it helped with your mental health and whatever else you want, but it's not the same of a cogent explicit argument.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb2n1rj wrote
A big part of art interpretation is "reading tea leaves" though. How else does abstract art even exist?
MajorTim1100 t1_jb3cchs wrote
art is not the same thing as philosophy, though a lot of art has ideas from philosophy.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb3d1n1 wrote
How we have the capacity to make and share art is a subject of philosophy, and pertinent to how we can share any ideas including any practice of philosophy. Epistemology is kind of meta-philosophy.
MajorTim1100 t1_jb3jilo wrote
Hmmm, I can't claim to be too knowledgeable on the topic, but I'll try. Epistemology in this discussion about christian motifs in evangelion is about interpreting how we interpret an art piece ourselves, sort of? From what I know of art, it starts from a perspective, or their view of other people's perspectives, and tries to express that through some medium through various elements. And then how clear it is or isn't is up to author to let the reader reflect whatever perspective they have on the art as they choose. Personally from what I think I hear others say of the christian and other religious stuff in evangelion is them extrapolating every other thing related to a cross when there isn't anything else really in the story about christianity, and if I were to apply that to other things, you'd get lost in the reeds real quickly examining lines and circles, but that's my perspective. idk
FlyingApple31 t1_jb3n3fy wrote
I think the fascinating thing about Eva is that it borrowed deeply meaningful symbology from a different culture, and did so in such a successful way that even those from a cultural background where those symbols have deeper meaning saw it their use still overwhelmingly resonated with them. That likely included in ways that the author could not have predicted or completely understood bc... Not his culture.
The reason this worked undoubtedly has to do with the author successfully reflecting an authentic human experience. That is the essence of good art, and that perhaps gets more into "what is art" rather than "what is philosophy".
Regardless, someone who watched the series and understood it in a way that imbued a different or deeper meaning from the symbols than the author meant did not experience the series "wrong" - no more than someone seeing a mouse in the face of the moon is wrong when someone else sees a face there.
MajorTim1100 t1_jb3s2i4 wrote
Yeah I sort of agree with you, anything more I can think of is really in the realms of how we look at comparing art to each other, and trying to quantify excellent, good or the like by how well they show the human experience or whatever other metrics there are. I'd agree there is nothing wrong with seeing the mouse on the moon and others interpreting something the pile of rocks didn't mean to be, otherwise there really wouldn't be beauty or the like. I just think a lot of the debate gets a little lost when people try to discuss their subjective opinions on good based on their subjective view of the rocks rather than a more objective view that is more accessible for others to understand and interact with. And then that's like getting into pyschology and how people react to shit on the internet or whatever lol, but I think mice are cute.
I've heard the animation and art for Evangelion is more of driving force on how Evangelion has been such a classic, and not so much on the philosophy, though admittedly I haven't watched Eva, and have only read critical reviews and the like. But especially for the anime scene and the time, the way they animated stuff was very well done and artsy for lack of better word, apparently borrowing a lot from traditional movie techniques and effects when its all animated, and not shot from a camera lens. And then all the imagery and stuff looks cool af too, even if it may or may not have some deeper meaning or not.
All my views on Eva are basically a summary of this really cool essay I read that dealt more in the art stuff from a good writer/reviewer. It's the first essay I found that wasn't a fan/casual review, and it helped clear up a lot of stuff about Evangelion that gets debated for me. https://alexsheremet.com/neon-genesis-evangelion-place-animation/
crankyfrankyreddit t1_jb4mwmw wrote
Philosophy experiences similar inexhaustible interpretations and debates.
mirh t1_jb2pmro wrote
Mhh, that's a good aesthetics/psychology question I guess. But regardless, then the topic that you were covering isn't "philosophy" anymore.
It's something even worse than the "telephone game", where not only you trying to get other people to understand your every own intuition is very likely to fail.. but even your yesterday self with your current one could disagree.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb2t9h1 wrote
Yikes, your assessment is akin to saying the Delphic boat question is simply a manufacturing curiosity. The "death of the author" question is typically considered closely related to post-modernism, which I don't think anyone would claim "isn't philosophy".
mirh t1_jb31ivi wrote
Postmodernism isn't "philosophy", in the same sense that you wouldn't really say "the enlightenment" to be that either.
But semantic riddles aside, are you even still following what the point is?
I didn't say that "debates over authorial intent" can't be philosophy. Or that a work of fiction couldn't develop meanings that hadn't been foreseen.
But then that's not something you can use as a reference for any kind of serious objective question? You have examples because they are "starkly obvious" and help dispel ambiguities. If they are themselves an abyss of contention, what the hell are you even doing?
p.s. the ship of theseus is probably the more famous example you wanted to bring up
gwynnegr t1_jb40zbo wrote
Person in a philosophy subreddit "yeah here's a definitive statement on how art can't say anything past what the creator intended. Why? That's for me to know and you to find out."
mirh t1_jb4is0v wrote
Art can't make an example about an arbitrary human construct by accident.
skilledroy2016 t1_jb40tt7 wrote
Shakespeare would still be Shakespeare even if it was written by a trillion monkeys smashing keys on typewriters.
mirh t1_jb4j2jf wrote
Yeah, except you would never find it in that case.
So appealing to shakespeare's authority as a quick determiner of "good work" wouldn't fly.
crankyfrankyreddit t1_jb4mroh wrote
Debatable -
But I think the real question is whether Anno is being dishonest or excessively modest about his background knowledge, or if some other contributor to the work impacted the meaning.
Textual interpretation is difficult to pin down just to an author’s mental states. If a text can be effectively used to advance an idea, even one the author didn’t intend, people are liable to do so.
There’s plenty of value outside of authorial intent that we throw away if we narrow acceptable interpretations down to ones the author plausibly or likely intended.
mirh t1_jb5kd7f wrote
> the real question is whether Anno is being dishonest or excessively modest about his background knowledge
I don't think so. Even putting aside that I see no reason or way for somebody to be "modest by lying" the real question first and foremost is how whatever we are talking about fits in the context of the broader story. Of course.
But since most of it really gives you no fucking clue about the symbolism (excuse my french, but there's just so many loose threads, including main plot devices like the spear of longinus) you must eventually grasp at some straw behind the fourth wall.
Like, most people don't even seem to be aware that a lot of the tone shift mid-way throughout the series was due to extraordinary measures taken after budget and production constraints.
> or if some other contributor to the work impacted the meaning.
He has been pretty open about the fact its absolutely biggest inspiration has been previous animes like gundam tbh.
Then it's not like you have to have studied psychology to talk or portray depression (for as much as he really goes down hard trying to push certain BS concepts) but you wouldn't argue that you can have good takes on plato or hegel without even having read anything from them.
> If a text can be effectively used to advance an idea, even one the author didn’t intend, people are liable to do so.
Yes. But as I said in another comment, it's one thing to "accidentally" come up with some new wholesome character or world dynamic.. Like, anything can happen in a fictional reality.
It's very much another to "accidentally" come up with some profound meaning/reflection (let alone if then you want to pretend that it's a direct inspiration or a clear example of a certain famous thinker) about something real and factual of academical interest.
Maybe if you lower the bar to "just something more trivial" it's not really impossible, but good god... Even in this entire post I couldn't read once somebody arguing for the material merit of the christian symbolism in context. It's just automagically assumed to have to be meaningful, like in the infamous "student of philosophy" example by Reichenbach, and then everything else is just trying to defend the "possibility" that it could be valid.
> There’s plenty of value outside of authorial intent that we throw away if we narrow acceptable interpretations down to ones the author plausibly or likely intended.
Yes, but we are trying to do philosophy here, not (for the lack of a better word) gossip or HR.
Unless you want to claim that despite X intentions of the writer, then Y came to happen in-world anyway, then they very much matter. Here people want to have it both ways: anno is simultaneously some kind of genius for having created this work, yet anything and everything can never be ascribed to his will.
[deleted] t1_jb2hsiz wrote
[deleted]
FlyingApple31 t1_jb2mncj wrote
I mean, you are free to disagree but there is a ton of theory on that particular question so it's not really a "ha of course not" question. Check out anything related to "death of the author".
AdvonKoulthar t1_jb371g6 wrote
And I wish to piss on the grave of the guy who came up with that. Death of the Author is the Death of Communication, if you divorce yourself from the meaning others try to convey, why interact with them on that level at all?
You may as well take a lesson from a stone if you’re willing to ignore a creator’s intent and invent your own theories.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb3b5ns wrote
The theory is more damning than that - you can believe that you have an idea what the creator meant, but it will always be contrived.
There is no perfect communication, and I think there is an important epistemological truth in that worth grappling with -- especially at a pragmatic level.
You can be annoyed with it all you want, but it is important to realize the limits of senses and information -- all models are models, approximations with limits that breakdown.
But once you know that, there is some freedom in existence to be had -- especially with interpreting art.
AdvonKoulthar t1_jb3d5o2 wrote
It’s not simply being uncertain of what’s being communicated, it’s that Death of the Author is intentionally a rejection of the idea someone is communicating anything. The whole premise is ‘it doesn’t matter what the author means’ which goes far beyond ‘we can’t be certain what the author meant’. It’s refusing to engage, not being limited in how you engage.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb3f16c wrote
If what the author meant is not and can't be what is overall received, then I don't know how anyone can argue that what the author meant can have much importance.
AdvonKoulthar t1_jb401h6 wrote
Thank you for changing your mind and agreeing with me that death of the author is a terrible idea.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb439iu wrote
LOL -- is this a meta-reply? Are you applying your definition of "death of the author" here to decide to interpret what I said as whatever it is you want it to mean?
That is funny, and makes an interesting point, but I don't actually believe you read my response to have an opposite meaning to what "I intended". You might interpret it slightly differently than how I might have written it, but death of the author doesn't give carte blanche to willfully lie about how you received it.
[deleted] t1_jb36e7m wrote
thank you i felt like that had to be the case but im in no position to argue as im pretty new to this stuff. unsurprisingly you’re the only one who elaborated when i asked :)
lupadim t1_jb6n4r2 wrote
Death of the Author is just one more tool among many you should wield when analyzing a work. It is not the be-all and end-all. It can be misused. And this is one of the cases of misuse.
It's like when the author writes that the curtains are blue because he thinks it's a cool color. Then people theorize that the color "blue" symbolizes depression, and when the author comes and dispels this, they invalidate the author's intentions. This is not a good application of "Death of the Author".
It takes a lot of modesty to claim that the curtains are blue. You'd have to admit that when you personally interact with the work, you feel that the curtain's color reinforce the feeling of dread and depression in the story. Now that's a good application of "Death of the Author".
But to claim that the author symbolizes depression with the color blue would be objectively wrong. And people try to get around this by saying not that "the author symbolizes..." but rather that "the story symbolizes..." as if the story, a combination of words, had sentience and agency.
There are only two sentient agents. The author, and you (the reader). Any interpretation must be the product of the voluntary effort of one of these two agents.
This thread is a combination of bad applications of "Death of the Author". The scenes in Evangelion may be interpreted as materializations of complex philosophical concepts (just like any story), but it must be made clear that the author has no background on philosophy, did not write the story with philosophy in mind and did not consciously inject any philosophy in it. The reader is free to experience the story however they want, of course.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb6s8s8 wrote
>The reader is free to experience the story however they want, of course.
I think this is the crux of the matter. If an artist creates a work of art with one intention, but the majority of the audience receives it in a different manner -- one that is highly poignant to them -- at some point it does not matter as much socially what the author intended. What is received has far more impact.
Like it or not, Eva was the first effective introduction that many people have with important philosophical concepts. It gets the audience to engage with existential questions in a meaningful way, even if it does not do so in a manner as intellectually rigorous or with all of the historical attributions an academic may find important. To say that the series has no relationship to philosophy is simply very closed-minded.
[deleted] t1_jb2kof3 wrote
i’ve never studied literary criticism so i admit i’m a dummy here. do you care to expand?
mirh t1_jb3ill1 wrote
It's totally possible to send some big "special vibe" even without having meant it (just think to MLP). Just like good intentions could end up capsized even just by the wrong lighting or whatnot (boy haven't I heard hot takes on the movie passengers).
But you can't write about some specific aspect of reality (be it physics or psychology) completely out of your ass, it would be akin to the famous monkey writing a poem by blindly typing on a keyboard.
This is only seldom a problem for fiction, since most of times you are writing about something completely made up happening to somebody completely made up (you just have to clear the bar of understanding basic human interactions) but if you shift the focus from the story itself to how it could relate to an irl topic, the lens is dramatically different.
In this case we know the author's understanding of christianity to be basically nonexistent (to the point that if it had happened the other way around, we'd be calling for that to be insensitive and trivializing). The symbolism was literally there just as a sort of clickbait. You can argue the cross that was originally drawn with no particular meaning suddenly has one given the context of the scene, but... uh, what's even the meaning of that meaning then? How much are you actually still analyzing the medium itself, as opposed to just your own experience?
FlyingApple31 t1_jb2mttl wrote
Not who you are replying to, but there is some interesting theory on this related to "death of the author". It is not a clean-cut question, with lots of fascinating implications.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments