Elocuence. Ty

Completely. Monster hits some deep elements of the sickness that comes from us.

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

Yeah.

I use NGE as an example of what I call "Shallow Themeing." There is nothing deeper to what you see it's purely there to look cool and add a false sense of mystique.

It's related to the more common "Shallow Proper Nouning" which NGE also does this with all the Judeo-Christian proper nouns.

However I use Roy Batty's death monologue from Bladerunner as the principal example for that cause there more of a history of the fandom going "what does it all mean!?"

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?

Factual error in the first line:

"Released in 1995 and based on the manga of the same name"

The TV anime series was conceived first. The manga was written and drawn by SADAMOTO Yoshiyuki, the character designer for the anime. The manga was intended as a supplement and promotion for the anime. Duee to anime production delays, the manga started to be published almost a year before the anime started to be broadcast.

You should watch Monster then

Exactly. The real plot is the characters' journeys towards self-actualization, and the rest of the story (the Evas and angels, the end of the world, etc.) is just a way of pushing the real plot forward in an entertaining way. And I think the last two episodes of the show display that perfectly. Literally none of the action matters; what matters is that the characters come to terms with who they are.

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.

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.

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.

art is not the same thing as philosophy, though a lot of art has ideas from philosophy.

Yeah I agree, I loved everything until the last or last two episodes. It was really about to be one of my favorites and I Really didn’t think the ending was any good. People can really dive into it but it was just repetitive imo and the deep analysis is just copium.

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.

It's from Neon Genesis Evangelion

I mean that is true, Hideaki anno was supposed to make an anime not a contemplating philosophical study, he still does a pretty good Job integrating philosophical elements into a mecha story. Also I'm pretty sure everyone knows that anno was depressed and going through an existential crisis when he was making Evangelion, unlike how the article mentions he never even read kierkegaard. It still does a pretty good job even with the basic philosophical elements that it uses, like the instrumentality project, I think Evangelion is more of a character study with underlying philosophical themes.

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.

Is the first ancestral race supposed to be philosophy? As a quick google search, it's just a creation myth about how that universe came to be right? Not like a Camus character that involves ideas of absurdism that he also wrote essays on separately?

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 :)

Yup. I wish I had seen it when I was 12 instead of 35.

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

It stood the test of time because of Red Oni vs. Blue Oni. Rei vs. Asuka. The Eternal Waifu War.

It's built upon Rule of Cool. Almost all alternate interpretations are incidental. There's cross-shaped explosions because the creators thought Christian iconography was the bomb.

Soon we’re gonna have a post saying Religion is every in NGE.

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".