Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FlyingApple31 t1_jb2n1rj wrote

Reply to comment by mirh in Philosophy is everywhere in Neon Genesis Evangelion by linosan

A big part of art interpretation is "reading tea leaves" though. How else does abstract art even exist?

28

MajorTim1100 t1_jb3cchs wrote

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

4

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.

10

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

1

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.

4

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/

1

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.

−6

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".

7

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

−4