Submitted by linosan t3_11j6ckv in philosophy
mirh t1_jb2dex4 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Philosophy is everywhere in Neon Genesis Evangelion by linosan
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments