Good point

And didn't actually do anything with the vast majority of it.

Even in Rebuild there are so many random one liners and plot threads that are just there to add mystery and don't actually go anywhere at all. Eva is a classic for a lot of reasons but the writing is straight nonsense

This. Thus spawns 3 generations of depressed kids who obsessively divulge and analyse each vague symbolism or buzzwords

Think about how we wouldn't hesitate to put a Ying-Yang on screen in a movie... Most East Asians treat Biblical/Christian iconography exactly the same.

I agree with you with about 90% of intent here.

Scientific Information can never truly be proven at it is a subjective of the individual perceiving it. However after enough replications of an instance it can be generally regarded as ‘true’ or ‘proven’ which in this sense means an outcome almost always occurs when set conditions coincide.

the statement you listed is less factual (funny, given the article we’re discussing), and more a healthy mindset based in curiosity.

[deleted]

It's even worse than "surface level" actually.

The author literally admitted to just throw in everything and the kitchen sink he could come up with, just because it sounded/looked cool or mystic.

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.

Life is too short to bitch and not play games worth playing

Life is too short for that

>True. The last decade or so I've seen an argument emerge around the value and role of emotions as a source of truth with most proponents seemingly more interested in validating emotions as equally valuable, equally capable, as reason. I've always been wary of these argument as they seem like an attempt by emotionally indulgent people to justify being indulgent, especially if they aren't considered particularly intelligent in the normal sense.

i mean separating the two isnt possible.

what one considers rational and logical comes from emotion, so much so that anyone who successfully separates the two would have no opinions on anything other than simple cause an effect.

is it ok to hurt people? is welfare good? is abortion ok? is morality useful? what defines 'good' or 'bad'?

literally all of these start in emotion and use logic to justify it (its how all human cognition works, emotion first and logic to justify it)

I don't know, anyone can call any piece of literature pretty basic philosophy. One thing I will say in counterpoint is I've seen more in depth discussion of NGE on forum.evageeks.org than I've seen online for most or all of the fiction I've seen read as part of university philosophy classes. But I'm not sure that matters either. If even one person finds the ideas of the first ancestral race more interesting than Meursault or some much deeper fiction than I can imagine, who is anyone to say they are wrong?

> It just wouldn't make much sense for reality to be made up by just myself right now and nothing to exist.

this is why no one takes Solipsism seriously at all.

I could definitely have misinterpreted the author’s intent, but don’t think so. I think all three of us mostly agree, we’re just calling it different things,

“There is [no/some] [omitted context: direct/circumstantial] evidence of UFO’s”

That’s my best understanding of how he argues that fact is constructed

We both agree that some evidence exists, but no direct evidence. Yet we still have been debating it because using the fact metaphor, as he calls it, has lead us astray. Actively looking for differences instead of common ground.

Some truth conditions are extremely straightforward to verify, like "the sky is blue" or "holy shit come outside the sky is fucking purple wtf". The choice to share certain information might be loaded with implicit context and ulterior motives.

And after all, when two people talk, there's normally some context that both people are operating in, some common set of topics that are being discussed, and both sides would notionally agree about what would support of refute a claim.

It just seems that the article was written with an eye towards beliefs and facts asserted within large sprawling worldviews, and didn't stop to consider the opposite extreme of everyday, extremely mundane and tangible statements.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

not sure why you put emphasis on "direct evidence". obviously nobody is denying that some people claim to have direct evidence of UFOs. or more precisely, direct evidence of UFOs not only existing (nobody denies that unidentified flying objects exist), but they themselves being evidence of extraterrestrials visiting earth.

i feel like you are significantly misrepresenting the argument made in the blog post and as a result are misinterpreting my critique. again, nobody is denying that some evidence that supports UFOs exists (in the sense of them being aliens). nobody is saying that subjectivity plays no role whatsoever when determining something as fact or not.

the blog concludes with "Seeking truth is great — but mingling truth-seeking with ambitions about consensus is one twitch away from the belief that “forcing my truth upon others is a good thing”". lets look at the context (which the author seems to value so much) in which this statement is uttered: fact checking trump tweets (which the author seems to deem highly problematic) and extraterrestrial aliens visiting earth (which the author seems to say is as reasonable to belief as the opposite). if you do not see the issue here, i don't know what to say.

But he's right. The ideas are pretty basic philosophy but they are very well executed in the anime medium.

Spoilers below!

One of the most interesting things about the show is how it starts off in a world that is actually relatively normal in spite of the catastrophic global events that have both taken and continue to take place. High school drama / love affairs, “slice of life” shared living arrangements etc. At the start of the show, when everyone has clocked off for the day from saving the world, there’s comfort and familiarity to come home to.

By the end of the show, though, their world has collapsed into complete psychological ruin, in a way that is quite a surprise to the viewers. We’re all hoping for a happy ending, and the closest thing we get to that is in End of Evangelion where at least Asuka and Shinji survive, albeit in a world that is going to be harsh and perhaps unliveable.

It does feel like the show is a reflection of Hideaki Anno’s struggles to hold his own world together throughout the course of its production. In the end that appears to be part of what makes it a cult classic.

It’s interesting how there have been repeated attempts of a do-over of this show; re-tweaking the storyline, blending original parts of the story with new ones and even sandwiching new characters into the original narrative. It’s almost as if it’s done out of a sense of apology for how twisted and weird the original show got.

These remakes have always seemed to confuse viewers even further, and with modern Evangelion it can sometimes feel unclear what the message even is.

I was obsessed with the show as a teen and still can’t say I really understand why fully. I loved how unique a world it was set in. The fact that they had to rebuild Tokyo not once but twice, that the entire city’s buildings could retreat underground at a moment’s notice. The geofront was so cool, and the intent of the angels a complete mystery.

Gendo Ikari and Fuyutsuki were the ultimate good cop / bad cop corporate fatcats, driven to power by love and loss and balanced out by the classically and stereotypically feminine energies of strong-willed almost-heroines Misato and Ritsuko.

Asuka is the embodiment of people’s inability to come to grips with their angers and frustrations. Shinji is a morally conscious person who wants to do good, but is trapped in a web of insecurities about his own value in face of the huge challenges laid out before him. Rei embodies depersonalization and identity struggle - she doesn’t really see herself as anyone at all.

You’re rooting for them all, but they’re all total fuckups at some point on their quest to do what’s right, which makes them very human. It was my introduction to Japanese culture and I will always love it. Having since been to Japan a number of times, I’m always happy to see Evangelion themed stuff everywhere you go.

You wouldn't get it

I'm into old Japanese movies so I've heard about Atarashiki Tsuchi before, but I didn't know about this reference. Pretty interesting!

not necessarily saying it’s the case here but i think many good stories stumble into their meaning without great intentionality

NDT is saying there’s no direct evidence of UFOs.

But it’s interesting you say credible, which describes a subjective evaluation if trustworthiness

This context about different types and strengths of evidence is the omitted context

To some people those bits of circumstancial evidence may be significant enough to say that there is some evidence that supports UFOs. That determination is subjective and it can still be true even if UFOs don’t exist

a work’s meaning can go beyond the authors intentions

https://twitter.com/petsuchan/status/1330285942658248711 The iconic Angel explosions are a reference to a 1937 film.