Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FlyingApple31 t1_jb2mncj wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Philosophy is everywhere in Neon Genesis Evangelion by linosan

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".

7

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.

2

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.

5

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.

4

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.

−1

AdvonKoulthar t1_jb401h6 wrote

Thank you for changing your mind and agreeing with me that death of the author is a terrible idea.

1

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.

0

[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 :)

1

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.

1

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.

1