What you describe is the big elephant in the room nobody of these fools want to address. If we take their own rules and use them on everything then we could make an arguments like:

• No non-european human being is allowed to play classical music from a few hundred years ago because it was invented there, not in Africa, not in Asia, not on the American continent.

• Should people not originating from a certain continent be prohibited to wear clothes that were invented on another continent? What about the usage of computers, which weren't invented in Africa but in Europa and the USA, basically?

[deleted]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may 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.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may 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.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen 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.

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.

People talk about trying to "find themselves" or to figure out what they inherently want, what their inherent values are, etc., which all requires having the sort of "self" you're insisting people don't believe in.

[removed]

I understand that historically there have been social aspects that have been co-opted away from the black community, but at a certain point I feel confused about what the goal is supposed to be with pointing it out in forms like this. It's a meme based on Oprah's facial expressions. If we have to not do anything that was/is from a different culture that our own then we're going to find ourselves with some very troubling implications. Should only those with British heritage speak English? Should only those who are Arabic use numbers? Of course these are absurd questions but I really don't see how complaining about people using a meme does anything to push against real harm caused by actual malicious racism

Sorry, are you under the impression that legislation in the UK is being dominated by trans rights activists? Given what's currently happening to the GRR in Scotland and that plans to ban conversion therapy don't include trans conversion therapy, how are you possibly claiming this?

[removed]

[removed]

There are some depressing philosophies that argue life should not exist at all due to suffering.

This is their arguments, see if you can counter them.

1. Life has many suffering due random bad luck, some humans and animals will always be suffering terribly and die in agony, living a life that is horribly not worth its existence by most standards.
2. Since suffering is perpetual for the unlucky, therefore they argued that it is not fair for the rest of existence to continue at their expense, meaning if SOME have to suffer, then NONE should exist.
3. So in order to permanently prevent future unlucky sufferers, it is our moral obligation to find a way to painlessly and instantaneously "Remove" all life from earth, think Thanos snap but with all life on earth. lol
4. Basically, if suffering is perpetual or takes a long time to be solved by future technology, then life on earth should not continue, because the unlucky suffering of some lives far outweighs the "decent" lives of the rest. (ex: Negative utilitarianism)
5. Since nobody asked to be born (animals as well), then nobody consented to their suffering and sacrifice, thus it is doubly immoral for life on earth to keep existing at their expense.

Ok, what is your counter for these arguments? lol

Division among communities cultures and demographics are always the best answer for equality and acceptance

You can never truly know yourself, results vary from individuals to individuals, case closed. lol

I spent a couple years getting a bachelor's and took some classes in Existentialism (as well as some other stuff), and one dedicated solely to understanding Nietzsche (though I still misspell his names sometimes).

[removed]

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.

I think the site said you have to forgive the first time they screw you over, then retaliate if they screw you twice

Alan Watts says you can’t know yourself, Jordan Peterson says watch your every thought & action to know yourself. Can you know yourself or not? What is the verdict

What did the hospital scene represent

> 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]

I think I understand where you're coming from now.

There's plenty of information out there that shows the evolutionary benefits of social mimicry, an off-hand example being shared expressions used to alert others in our social circles of danger, and in turn them using the same behaviours to alert us of danger.

Outside of a traditionally evolutionary context, the use of spoken language itself can be considered to be, or at least to be borne of, social mimicry and I think it'd be hard to argue that spoken language isn't beneficial to human interaction.

Social mimicry, however, is merely a part of what most consider the 'self'. It could even be argued that the true 'self' is a representation of the individual in the absence of these external influences.

Could you explain how you define the 'self'? This will allow me to have a better understanding of your concept of 'glorification of the self' and explain why, if I am already understanding correctly, my opinions differ.

Yes, it is a "retelling" in that the events are different, but the events of the rebuilds could not have happened without Shinji already having completed at least one loop beforehand.

In 3.0+1.0 he sees all the different possibilities that have played out on the "movie screen" during the instrumentality portion of the story. He realizes that even if he stops instrumentality that things will just keep playing out the same way over and over again. He chooses a future in which Evangelion do not exist. The angels do not exist.

The reason this was a big step forward is that even though Shinji is scared of politing Evangelion, it has also become his purpose for existing. In deciding to move forward without them, he is forcibly removing his "reason" for existing.

It is heavily hinted at that both Mari and Kowaru are somehow aware of the loops and have several pieces of dialogue that seem to imply this.

[deleted]