Submitted by linosan t3_11j6ckv in philosophy
Comments
linosan OP t1_jb1mwf1 wrote
Make sense, I agree there's a lot to dive in specially when it comes to shinji
angry_jotaro t1_jb1ni33 wrote
I noticed you wrote the article, it's pretty good keep it up! And maybe also write one on monster? It's not as philosophical as Evangelion but definitely a philosophical anime, Johan is a very interesting character to study.
Character-Computer-8 t1_jb3l66p wrote
Completely. Monster hits some deep elements of the sickness that comes from us.
icaaryal t1_jb1oayf wrote
Out of curiosity, did you refer to the evas as robots for simplicity’s sake?
linosan OP t1_jb1pydh wrote
Yes, it was just for the sake of simplicity. I wasn't sure whether it would be good to explain what Evas are or not as the first paragraph was already getting long enough and this wasn't the article's intention (or it would take too long until the reader reaches the actual theme of the article), so I just refered to them as fighting robots believing this would be bo problem (unless it was a full Evangelion's analysis; if this was the case, of course it wouldn't be possible to do so).
FurryAlot t1_jb4e6ws wrote
Always good to put something like "let's call them robots for now" at the start of the article. Avoids the "ActHuAlLy" ppl
Quixotegut t1_jb1p0wz wrote
Unless I'm forgetting my Eva... Rei is the clone.
MultipleHipFlasks t1_jb1pn0i wrote
In the Rebuild, Asuka is also from a series of clones.
Quixotegut t1_jb1qknk wrote
Ah. Shame she was properly fucked up enough in the original series.
z0nb1 t1_jb1q6r8 wrote
What film was that mentioned? I don't recall anything about Asuka being a clone in the tetralogy.
MultipleHipFlasks t1_jb1qznb wrote
Thrice Upon a Time. She is referred to as being from the "Shikigani series", there is the scene with all the different pictures of that series being whittled down to one, she sees the original when she is absorbed by Unit 13.
z0nb1 t1_jb1u120 wrote
I do recall that line. That scene makes more sense now, ty
angry_jotaro t1_jb1qg12 wrote
Yes you are right, I meant rei
the-cschnepf t1_jb1t2hi wrote
I agree with the premise, but Evangelion’s themes and philosophy explored are very surface level. It comes across as a work written by someone who took one college philosophy course and had an existential crisis.
angry_jotaro t1_jb37ds4 wrote
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.
mirh t1_jb2dk2m wrote
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.
Mindestiny t1_jb2fcm3 wrote
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
mirh t1_jb2gp2h wrote
I wished ghost in the shell had half the fame.
Mindestiny t1_jb2kato wrote
Right? So much anime from before Isekaipocalypse was heavily inspired by the exploration of philosophy and does a much more coherent and poignant job of it. It's kind of a head scratcher how Evangelion has stood the test of time while so many others fly mostly under the radar. I guess the others just didn't have enough big robots lol.
vulcanfury12 t1_jb30bht wrote
It stood the test of time because of Red Oni vs. Blue Oni. Rei vs. Asuka. The Eternal Waifu War.
AwakenedSheeple t1_jb4ahu8 wrote
Everyone knows Penpen is the real best girl. Just a penguin that likes to take baths and drink beer, none of that trauma.
JackedUpReadyToGo t1_jb3y1np wrote
I think it’s because Evangelion really resonates with the depressed, or at least people who have been depressed at one point. I’m not an anime guy but I happened to stumble across it at a low point in my younger years and it is etched onto my soul in a way no other media ever will be.
chromeless t1_jb422dq wrote
This is essentially accurate. Eva is about the mindset of a depressed person, that is its fundamental topic and what it focuses on portraying above all else. Things like philosophy, plot and character development are incidental elements and are at best handled in heavily ambiguous ways, but are preceded by a dedication to showing a particular state of mind wracked by guilt, uncertainty, stress and melancholy.
Artixe t1_jb4734z wrote
Yes. I recognize all the criticisms people have here because it is super fucking true. Actually, my first thread here where I don't feel completely clueless abt the subject. NGE doesn't cut very deep into actual philosophy or anything like that, despite that it indeed does resonate in an amazing way with people who were/are depressed, myself included. I would say that despite all NGE's flaws in writing and it's confusing and random lore it's one my favorite pieces of media. Etched in my soul too!
Rbespinosa13 t1_jb5b3a3 wrote
It’s also because Evangelion popularized a ton of common tropes in anime.
kalabungaa t1_jb4f5l2 wrote
Anno has always been a more intuitive filmmaker. He nailed the feelings of the characters in the show.
makeitabyss t1_jb45bn9 wrote
Outside the scope of this post, but would be interested in hearing some of your other anime recommendations that do have deeper philosophical characters/stories.
NotSuluX t1_jb4tyce wrote
Tatami Galaxy is very good. Can't describe it, you gotta watch it
Shouwa Genroku Rakugo Shinjuu is a masterpiece of storytelling with a ton of metaphors and symbolism, but it's a slow paced drama show so not too popular (although very highly rated)
lupadim t1_jb6jp44 wrote
Because ultimately it's an anime, not a philosophy essay
Evangelion is more entertaining than other series even if it is lacking in philosophical depth
mirh t1_jb2mz3s wrote
Ngl even sword art fucking online had my ass in gear (ok perhaps that was more like about sociology than philosophy, but still).
But I suppose that even 10 implicitly thoughtful conundrums are nothing compared to a cross shining in the sky after a bomb or something...
Professional-Noise80 t1_jbaiqdy wrote
I enjoyed sword art more then Eva (which I found both boring, meaningless and frustrating, but still watched because people said it's one of the best animes ever smh...)
celerym t1_jb2kd2d wrote
That always get brought up about Hideaki Anno, but it’s a red herring.
mirh t1_jb2mbc0 wrote
I mean, I still have respect for the man I guess. Nothing wrong with baiting "history channel" people, and at least he's being honest about it.
rookie_economist t1_jb2eo18 wrote
This. Thus spawns 3 generations of depressed kids who obsessively divulge and analyse each vague symbolism or buzzwords
mirh t1_jb2gm8g wrote
I guess that's better than 3 generations of depressed kids who.. do other more ill-advised activities, though yes.
It's crazy how damn hard apophenia can stick.
thisthinginabag t1_jb52dts wrote
I’m pretty sure he just said that they used Christian iconography because it would be more interesting to a Japanese audience. But I like through telephone his statement has now become "yeah I just threw some shit together idk."
mirh t1_jb587jj wrote
> because it would be more interesting to a Japanese audience
And that's a statement about "appeal", not meaning. Or about form as opposed to substance, if you will.
thisthinginabag t1_jb59md6 wrote
Yeah, exactly. It was a comment about a stylistic choice. In no way does that imply the show didn’t hold some particular meaning for him.
mirh t1_jb6wiv0 wrote
Uhm? Of course the show has a meaning for him. Just like anybody that has even heard about it will have attached some judgement.
But that's not what we were talking about?
If some element was added just exclusively for the purpose of impressing the viewer (as in: without any connection whatsoever with the plot or even just the worldbuilding) then it's meaningless.
I suppose even then it's not physically impossible to discuss how "by chance" a certain theme could still nevertheless be identified... but you can't avoid the elephant in the room that what is being depicted was completely posing.
Meanwhile people in this thread are not only doing that, but they are even starting from the presumption that something must be there, and then from that they work backwards into how it would be configured.
thisthinginabag t1_jb70mi9 wrote
It's not that deep. I'm saying the show does in fact contain themes reinforced through symbolism, plot points, real world references, etc. Like most shows do. It was written to convey certain themes. The Christianity stuff was done for stylistic reasons, but that does not imply that all of the writing was decided the same way. I don't know why you're so hung up on that idea. Literally no one involved has claimed that and its obvious to anyone who's watched the show knows that's not really the case.
mirh t1_jbotckq wrote
> It's not that deep.
Did we even read the same article?
I do know it's not deep at all. Yet there really is this aura of not just "philosophical curiosity" but even "academical relevance".
> Like most shows do.
Most shows have lots of inspirations and references, yes. But that's it then. Fans may then write whatever they want, and perhaps a few of them reach really thoughtful levels.
Yet it's always only NGE that you hear. Like, I get it's also the most popular (for as much as this is kinda a circular explanation) but this is totally despite its shallowness. And wrongness (because jesus H. christ anything that mentions freud should have a disclaimer)
It's almost as if people were working backwards from some kind of need to validate/romanticize/elevate the characters (as opposed to them only being the eventual object of the analysis) if everything and the kitchen sink is good enough to throw at the wall just because they have been named once.
> The Christianity stuff was done for stylistic reasons
I mean, that's seemed to be the topic you were focusing this comments tree on.
vulcanfury12 t1_jb304p7 wrote
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.
stoicsilence t1_jb3ipdc wrote
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!?"
poirotketchup t1_jb33p6o wrote
Yup. I wish I had seen it when I was 12 instead of 35.
samsharksworthy t1_jb3rrj4 wrote
Plus it’s not woven in so much as they just make speeches scour their philosophies.
NGEFan t1_jb29hw1 wrote
You wouldn't get it
Spyrith t1_jb2a2g2 wrote
But he's right. The ideas are pretty basic philosophy but they are very well executed in the anime medium.
NGEFan t1_jb2cpr7 wrote
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?
MajorTim1100 t1_jb36ss1 wrote
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?
NGEFan t1_jb38g29 wrote
It's from Neon Genesis Evangelion
brokenmessiah t1_jb1qesb wrote
The religious mystery aspect kept me watching the show and by the end literally no questions I had were answered. I liked the show but I wish they didnt even bother with the great plot for all they did with it.
TakerFoxx t1_jb1t5qj wrote
Evangelion works better when you view it as less of a deliberate philosophical statement (like you said, all the religious iconography is there just to look cool) and more of an accidental allegory for its creator's struggles with his mental health, as his frequent breakdowns and battles back toward recovery are continuously reflected in the production of the show and the subsequent movies.
virtualjimbo t1_jb29p44 wrote
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.
[deleted] t1_jb3qgrt wrote
Thanks for this write up. There’s a handful of media that left me confused but with undefinable emotions and interest when I finished, and Eva was obviously one of them. So I always love reading different peoples’ interpretations. Even if there’s not some canon or definitive explanation for the show, the way people reacted to it is interesting and part of what made the ending so hard for me to pin down originally.
Character-Computer-8 t1_jb3lfn1 wrote
Elocuence. Ty
Goodestguykeem t1_jb1qv0q wrote
Fair enough but tbf I think the show doesn't hesitate to hide that it's a character study and clearly focused on the examination of their mental health rather than the greater world and it's events.
brokenmessiah t1_jb1r5wu wrote
I read somewhere the writer literally only did the bible stuff because it would sound cool lol IDK if misread that but that was essentially all it amounted to, a cool backdrop where we say cool things and reference stuff out of thin air
Death_Walker85 t1_jb1ufv2 wrote
You're not mistaken. I read that he referenced the bible because he thought it would be mostly unfamiliar with the Japanese audience.
JCPRuckus t1_jb2dyh0 wrote
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.
brokenmessiah t1_jb2giqa wrote
Good point
[deleted] t1_jb24am2 wrote
not necessarily saying it’s the case here but i think many good stories stumble into their meaning without great intentionality
skilledroy2016 t1_jb3zyep wrote
Yeah, but there is meaning in stylization. Anno picked the religious iconography because it matched the vibe he was trying to create. He understood how including that imagery would affect the audience emotionally. Religion is the tool that some people use to answer the philosophical questions posed by the show, so including that imagery puts the audience in the right mindset.
timothymtorres t1_jb1xwgk wrote
The descriptions of the angels in the Bible probably looks similar to the creatures In the show.
Fred_Foreskin t1_jb3fr90 wrote
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.
C2H4Doublebond t1_jb3uec4 wrote
I think this is such a good point: re character's journey vs actual plot.
How often would you find the 'bad guy' 's motivation is alllow human unified so there will be no more loneliness?
Some comments here dismiss the complex desires and human conditions the characters portrait, because the use of mecha and christian symbols. Anno already made it clear those are just smokes and mirrors to get the story flowing.
jiquvox t1_jb4lu8x wrote
Not sure what else you want : I think overall they answered every questions…. Although to be fair, you have to watch the OVA end of evangelion too. But I pretty much consider it part of the show.
-
What is Gendo plan ? Answered
-
What is Seele plan/human instrumentality project ? Answered
-
What are the Angels plan ? Answered.
-
What caused the 2nd impact ? Answered
-
What is the being crucified in terminal dogma ? Answered
-
What happened to Naoko Akagi ? Answered
-
What happened to Yui Ikari ? Answered
-
Who is Rei ? Answered
-
What are angels ? Answered
-
What are evas? Answered
The answer are sometimes a bit obtuse but that’s pretty much a given in any mystery/conspiracy show. In fact Evangelion is actually pretty straightforward compared to True Detective, X-Files,. It’s all within the show, they wrap it up in 26 episodes of 23 minutes + one 1h30 ova, it’s relatively coherent as long as you accept the show premise. In several case they give you point blank the answer.
I guess the only thing that isn’t “answered” is “who” killed Kaji… and that’s because there is no real who. It’s a nameless seele operetive. I’d say it’s more poor storytelling than anything else. There was no big mystery to it. The director confirmed it. Kaji went against their plans and was terminated as a result. The “oh it’s you” was simply to show it was someone who worked within the organization. Poor storytelling that fed conspiracionist reading.
I suppose you can consider the meaning behind the religious iconography is unclear …but it’s pretty much because there is NO deeper meaning. They picked a few Christian symbols that tied in their mythology without much care for coherence. Angels explode as cross of fire because it looks cool. The Dead Sea scrolls are talked about because it’s old as fuck and it gives gravita. They talk about Adam and Lilith because they were the first beings created by God and again they wanted a mythological tone/show we were dealing with the origin of time. The Sepiroth tree gave a roadmap to the Battle with Angel/gave them names and looked mystic/cool as fuck (and also tie in with the divine creation aspect which is the canvas of the plot : I mean the show IS called a new genesis…). The Longinus spear was simply the most mythical weapon used in the Bible and it again tied in the whole cross motif.
The iconography of evangelion is shallow as fuck. The meaning is twofold : does this christian iconography tie in with the conceptual idea we’re trying to convey ( old book, old being, weapon, etc…) ? Does is sound/look cool ? Yes to both ? Then it’s in. Simple as that. You didn’t miss anything.
If you really REALLY want to nitpick, the “first ancestral race” is a piece of lore never included/explained within the show. And I find it almost useless. I learned about it years later and it barely changed anything to the big picture. Sur it adds some background but the show mostly works without it. Only the lance “sort of” requires it.
If you can bear the tedium of the last two episodes of the TV show/complete with the OVA end of evangelion , you’re left with a show that has interesting dynamic between flawed characters, deal in a fairly crude and realistic way with themes such as depression and trauma but also explore other theme like the difficulty of communication in general and specifically parent/children relation in a slightly sophomoric but overall honest way, has original and relatively coherent lore, awesome soundtrack and cool battle with mechas. As far as pop culture goes, I’d say that make the show a timeless classic. Anyone who wants more than that is not only looking in the wrong book but in the wrong library.
skilledroy2016 t1_jb3yrcp wrote
It's not about religion
therealnai249 t1_jb3bbo4 wrote
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.
Sabado2 t1_jb3lqx5 wrote
Did you watch End of Evangelion after the initial series run? It works as an accompaniment to the final two episodes.
JackedUpReadyToGo t1_jb418z4 wrote
It’s weird how End of Eva is able to work equally well as either a complement to or a replacement for the original ending depending how you felt about it. Personally I loved the TV ending. I’ve never seen anything else bold enough to dive completely off the rails at the finish line, and yet it somehow felt appropriate.
clydesan t1_jb3i4af wrote
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.
linosan OP t1_jb4kmt4 wrote
You're right and this is something I'll actually have to quickly edit and correct there. Thanks
realrdr t1_jb1tco7 wrote
I think you're reading too much into it. Even the show runner admits he had only a superficial understanding of Christian motifs.
[deleted] t1_jb23rn4 wrote
a work’s meaning can go beyond the authors intentions
mirh t1_jb2dex4 wrote
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.
FlyingApple31 t1_jb2n1rj wrote
A big part of art interpretation is "reading tea leaves" though. How else does abstract art even exist?
MajorTim1100 t1_jb3cchs wrote
art is not the same thing as philosophy, though a lot of art has ideas from philosophy.
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.
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
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.
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/
crankyfrankyreddit t1_jb4mwmw wrote
Philosophy experiences similar inexhaustible interpretations and debates.
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.
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".
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
gwynnegr t1_jb40zbo wrote
Person in a philosophy subreddit "yeah here's a definitive statement on how art can't say anything past what the creator intended. Why? That's for me to know and you to find out."
mirh t1_jb4is0v wrote
Art can't make an example about an arbitrary human construct by accident.
skilledroy2016 t1_jb40tt7 wrote
Shakespeare would still be Shakespeare even if it was written by a trillion monkeys smashing keys on typewriters.
mirh t1_jb4j2jf wrote
Yeah, except you would never find it in that case.
So appealing to shakespeare's authority as a quick determiner of "good work" wouldn't fly.
crankyfrankyreddit t1_jb4mroh wrote
Debatable -
But I think the real question is whether Anno is being dishonest or excessively modest about his background knowledge, or if some other contributor to the work impacted the meaning.
Textual interpretation is difficult to pin down just to an author’s mental states. If a text can be effectively used to advance an idea, even one the author didn’t intend, people are liable to do so.
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.
mirh t1_jb5kd7f wrote
> 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] t1_jb2hsiz wrote
[deleted]
FlyingApple31 t1_jb2mncj wrote
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
AdvonKoulthar t1_jb401h6 wrote
Thank you for changing your mind and agreeing with me that death of the author is a terrible idea.
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.
[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 :)
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.
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.
[deleted] t1_jb2kof3 wrote
i’ve never studied literary criticism so i admit i’m a dummy here. do you care to expand?
mirh t1_jb3ill1 wrote
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?
FlyingApple31 t1_jb2mttl wrote
Not who you are replying to, but there is some interesting theory on this related to "death of the author". It is not a clean-cut question, with lots of fascinating implications.
skilledroy2016 t1_jb40jsf wrote
It isn't about Christianity.
danmilligan t1_jb4vm6m wrote
The article is going into the Philosophy mostly, not the religious mystical motifs.
mirh t1_jb2jtw2 wrote
Mhh look, even the first line of the article is already wrong. Yes, the manga was released almost a full year before the anime, but that was just due to "production hitches". NGE was always first and foremost meant to be a TV series.
Also, honestly... Maybe 5% of the discussions I have ever heard is about robots, fighting and whatnot (the usual mecha stuff). Almost the entirety of the fandom is neckdeep into exactly these things.
As for the content itself: the characters are a parody of real human beings. Psychoanalysis is fraud. Anno said laughing that he never read Kierkegaard. And I guess a question about consciousness isn't half bad.. but the one quoted is a platitude, which I don't think the series really explores.
What else? Of course when the responsibilities you are running away from are literally "doomsday", there isn't exactly much of a choice. But in the real world, escaping to south america or siberia is usually a pretty effective way to dump all your problems. The other definition of freedom seems instead a botched attempt of explaining negative and positive liberty.
p.s. the great majority of animes can pass the bechdel test.. but even if a harem could challenge certain prudish stereotypes, I wouldn't exactly imply them to be progressive
GingerGerald t1_jb4cozk wrote
It's not bad, but there's so much unrealized potential.
Just from Sartre and Heidegger and Kierkegaard there's more that could be explored. You mention Schopenhaur, but you could even take it a step further with Nietzsche!
Sartre's Bad faith: Shinji chooses not to act because he's afraid of the responsibility of freedom, but denies his refusal to act by claiming he's powerless. Asuka gets Shinji to 'act out' a kiss because she has some level of emotional attachment or attraction she doesn't want to address. Misato realizes the cruelty of forcing children to go through war and her role in it, as well the acknowledgement that she could refuse to force the children, but rejects the responsibility by claiming she's following orders and then attempting to act like a parent. Gendo attempting to bring about Instrumentality is a way for him to avoid the responsibility and knowledge that he is still a being capable of love, and what he 'owes' Shinji as a father.
Sartre's Gaze: So much of this show involves Gaze, the fear that comes from being objectified by another and having the totality of your existence reduced to a single facet as well as people using Gaze to promote images of themselves. Asuka has basically spent her entire life trying to use Gaze to convince everyone (including herself) that she's an excellent pilot and thus deserving of love. Rei, primarily in Rebuild, concerns herself with trying to 'appear' and thus be human like others by attempting to mimic the proper affect. Shinji has spent his whole dang life being subject to the Gaze of others, especially Gendo and Asuka in multiple situations where his humanity has been reduced to his ability/willingness to pilot an EVA.
Heidegger's Anxiety and Dasein: "A human being is an existence that is aware of its own awareness," is a simplified example of how he describes Dasein - a Being that is capable of contemplating its own existence with the ability to shape that existence with the knowledge it will one day end. Dasein is a being that can experience Anxiety, the temporary disruption of everyday existence in the Fallen word in which an individual must choose how to live their life and create meaning in the face of the knowledge they will one day die. And they must choose whether to become Authentic by creating their own set of values or return to Fallenness by letting themselves be absorbed by (in Shinji and Gendo's case, music as well as) everyday living.
Shinji and Gendo (as revealed in the Rebuilds) are both individuals who experience frequent bouts of Anxiety, but in their youth they reject Authenticity and Fall into just doing everyday tasks without care and isolating themselves because that's easier than being Authentic. Shinji's attempts to be Authentic, to choose for himself what he desires and how to live his life are what lead to his departure from NERV (after he tries to destroy it) and the (partially realized) Third Impact of the Rebuilds - and eventually the decision to remake the world.
Kierkegaard's Either/Or: There's a whole section in Either/Or about how choice is required of living beings, how personality can be crafted from choice or subsumed when the individual refuses to choose out of the belief that regret is inevitable. In addition, the section includes how an individual who rejects choice while living attempts to delude themselves into thinking both options remain available, but in so doing only makes himself miserable. This is Shinji (and Gendo when he was younger). He rejected the act of choosing for himself because he doesn't really have goals or desires, because he's not Authentic, and in so doing ends up in a lot of bad scenarios or ends up acting impulsively and seemingly without reason because he thinks his actions will always end in regret.
Nietzsche: There's so much potential here, the aphorism about how being loved can be disgusting or unsettling because the person being loved is full of self-loathing (Shinji, Gendo); because they see themselves as unlovable. The idea that every philosophy (and anime) is an attempt for the author to justify their own existence and that 'all writing is done in [the] blood [of the writer]', (Anno's 'journey' through depression). The idea that being known by another, and their attempt to understand is painful because understanding and empathy are their own forms of suffering (the hedgehog's dilemma and why Gendo/Shinji/Asuka/Misato put up so many emotional barriers).
The entire dang series could be seen as a promise/threat of Eternal Recurrence and the problem of Nihilism. Shinji and Gendo have built their lives on a basis of fear and rejection of life, a desire to never do any of it again, a rejection of pain and in its essence life itself - they become Nihilistic in a negative sense seeking only the end. Kaworu accepts the pain because of the love and joy it enables, he accepts life, and has literally lived his life repeatedly without end (until 3.0+1.0) in pursuit of helping Shinji learn how to do the same - Kaworu recognizes that while there is no definite objective meaning in the universe, meaning can still exist and creates/seeks his own. It is only in 3.0+1.0 after Shinji learns how to accept his life, to accept life and wish to do it all over again, to will the Eternal Recurrence, that he becomes able to literally break into a new reality. And the idea that acts can exist beyond good and evil (especially when they come from 'love') comes up repeatedly, it's why Shinji tries to save Rei and causes the partial Third Impact, it's the idea behind Gendo's pursuit of Instrumentality, it's why Kaworu spends who knows how many lifetimes trying to save Shinji.
Even after all of this, there's still stuff - just in the authors presented here - that could be further explored.
linosan OP t1_jb4k70l wrote
You wrote a lot and I agree these things would add much valuable information that was put aside. Thank you!
GingerGerald t1_jb6b54p wrote
I think Evangelion (and a bunch of other media) have a lot of potential for philosophical analysis, and while this is no means a bad start, there are more concepts that could be incorporated or be applied.
Come to think of it, we could even bring in some more Heidegger to talk about ready-to-hand vs present-at-hand in regards to piloting EVAs and (I can never quite remember what it's called) the totality of objects/tools/referential totality.
The EVAs appear both as present-at-hand objects observed passively from a distance that people study and ponder about, but to pilots after some exposure they appear ready-to-hand objects; not merely objects, but tools. One of the greatest revelations of the series comes from how the nature of EVAs as humanoid entities is revealed by a transition from ready-to-hand status to present-at-hand status when an EVA 'breaks' and part of its body is revealed. Like in Heidegger's example of the hammer, it is when the tool 'breaks' (becomes nonfunctional) that we begin to question/observe/postulate about what it is and how it functions; the answer of 'what is an EVA' only becomes relevant to the audience and the pilots when our perception of the EVA transitions from ready-to-hand to present-at-hand.
This can also be tied to referential totality, and the idea that all objects (and people) are connected to each other through a series of implied references. If there are EVAs, there must be someone who pilots them and there must be someone who makes them, tools, research, scientists, engineers, support staff, etc.; a complex web of human interaction that all connect to the EVA - and thus the EVAs serve as both physical manifestations of human interconnectedness and as a symbolic manifestation of human connectedness. That symbolism is of course only further enhanced if one takes into account the with the knowledge of what EVAs really are.
We could even talk about Phenomenology and the idea of the body schema, and the way physical objects can allow one to 'extend' their perception of their body. EVAs (like all 'mechs') are perfect example of this through the way LCL fluid and plug suits allow the pilots to synchronize with EVAs; to experience the EVA's body as their own. We could talk about the body-subject, the acknowledgement that the body is its own kind of conscious entity with instinctive desires, reactions, and own sense of rationality; the pilots train to instill in their bodies the (muscle) memory needed for piloting; to have their body which is a subject in itself to remember and react to the world around them. We could maybe even bring in AT fields as a product of the spiritual body's (or soul if you prefer) memories, actions, and reactions within the physical world; how the memories of pain and fear the spiritual body has suffered are used to create literal barriers for protection.
There's just so much opportunity.
Edit: I think I should clarify that I don't think you (or anyone) has to include all these other elements, just that I personally think they're interesting and would have been delighted to see them discussed.
NotSuluX t1_jb4wb61 wrote
Great writeup, how did you study philosophy?
GingerGerald t1_jb5we9i wrote
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).
[deleted] t1_jb2dmg3 wrote
[deleted]
skilledroy2016 t1_jb40ib2 wrote
To be honest the movies barely make any sense at all if you have not watched the original series.
[deleted] t1_jb410vb wrote
[deleted]
skilledroy2016 t1_jb42kz9 wrote
AT fields are a metaphor for the emotional barriers we put up between ourselves and others. Barriers that help us feel safe but also prevent us from achieving true intimacy. This ties in to Shinji's arc. There is even an episode of the original series titled "Hedgehogs Dilemma" which is what some philosopher called this dilemma. What the AT fields actually "are" is never really explained but it's also irrelevant to what the show is trying to do and say.
[deleted] t1_jb43k4t wrote
[deleted]
malinoski554 t1_jb4vygo wrote
By "original ending" do you mean the ending of the series, or the movie End of Evangelion which is an expanded/alternative ending to the original series?
Also, I have to disagree that the ending of the quadrology is better. Honestly, I hated the last one.
[deleted] t1_jb4wnvk wrote
[deleted]
punchbricks t1_jb52i5t wrote
The movies are not a remake, they are a continuation of the plot. You need to watch the original series l, then End of Evangelion, THEN the RE movie series for the full story
[deleted] t1_jb538jj wrote
[deleted]
lupadim t1_jb6j7qg wrote
There is no point in seeing the "differences" if they are different stories with different events and different endings. There are also strong indications that the rebuild movies take place in a post-instrumentality world, the main one being the many statues scattered around the world.
punchbricks t1_jb58ddm wrote
Again, the movies are not a remake of the series. The events of everything after movie 2 are 100% different and are what lead to the eventual final loop which was the rebuild movies.
[deleted] t1_jb5a0vx wrote
[deleted]
punchbricks t1_jb5alb9 wrote
The fact that you still think the rebuild movies are a retelling and not a continuation of the story says otherwise but that's fine, we can drop it lol
[deleted] t1_jb5e775 wrote
[deleted]
punchbricks t1_jb5fzko wrote
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] t1_jb5hw43 wrote
[deleted]
Hideo-Mogren t1_jb21pzi wrote
https://twitter.com/petsuchan/status/1330285942658248711 The iconic Angel explosions are a reference to a 1937 film.
linosan OP t1_jb271uj wrote
I'm into old Japanese movies so I've heard about Atarashiki Tsuchi before, but I didn't know about this reference. Pretty interesting!
Ni_Go_Zero_Ichi t1_jb3zhoc wrote
A literal Nazi collaboration too? Nice
gerryw173 t1_jb2pi5l wrote
Imagine if English teachers got their hands on Evangelion
Skyreaper71 t1_jb49k95 wrote
Philosophy can manifest in any form of art or media. After all, anime is just an animated story. No different than a book made into a documentary. It's up to the writer.
shadowmage666 t1_jb2nhvu wrote
No it’s more like pseudo-religious contrived nonsense than any coherent philosophy
Untinted t1_jb436cw wrote
Philosophy can help in analysing the concepts behind the characters/episodes, but the core is that everyone is flawed with varying levels of awareness rather than philosophy being front and center.
Because every character has a similar relationship to their flaws (that’s the relationship the author had with himself at that time), even aware characters cannot work through their flaws but somehow begrudgingly make it a non-fixable part of themselves.
The movie about death is the most fascinating one as that’s the moment he must face his demons and comes the closest to pure philosophical analysis, but you have to see the whole series before that to understand the context, and even then, reading about the background story that happens behind the scene (because the story focuses mostly on what shinji is aware of) is almost necessary.
mg_ridgeview t1_jb4pxt0 wrote
I don't think there's much philosophy in it at all. It's like philosophical free associative writing. To quote Macbeth: Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing. I think the writers got the last laugh though, because the incoherency of the plot and the ambiguities of it kept people talking about it.
[deleted] t1_jb1pic4 wrote
[removed]
VinsmokerSanjino t1_jb1zwkv wrote
The title is like saying the sky is blue
BernardJOrtcutt t1_jb2n54w wrote
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.
criscrunk t1_jb2wxo1 wrote
Soon we’re gonna have a post saying Religion is every in NGE.
Ni_Go_Zero_Ichi t1_jb3zkcm wrote
Anno admitted he never read Kierkegaard despite naming an episode after Sickness Unto Death
ARX7 t1_jb4gcwz wrote
Like I agree with the statement... but it's a little late to the party...
andariel_axe t1_jb4m30k wrote
did anyone else watch that like hours-long analysis of every eva property ever omg
Rapierian t1_jb4zo5f wrote
Is "philosophy" the new euphemism term?
destructor_rph t1_jb5p71x wrote
What did the hospital scene represent
[deleted] t1_jb9syi5 wrote
[removed]
Professional-Noise80 t1_jbahmbz wrote
This show is helpful to me when I analyze a work of art because when people say that something is deep and interesting, and I don't think it is, I can just think of the Eva fandom and rest assured that a lot of people agreeing on something doesn't make them right.
I call these kinds of shows "all-aesthetics". All they're doing is trying to look cool and all people are doing when they say it's deep and interesting is also trying to look cool.
Works like Berserk, Eva, Cowboy Bebop, Bladerunner, just aren't as deep as people adamantly make them out to be. They're visually interesting or even great but that's it. I guess the issue is a relative lack of culture, leading to mistaking things that sound deep for things that actually are.
[deleted] t1_jbhg2jg wrote
[deleted]
Giam_Cordon t1_jcjbbii wrote
Greatest show and film of all time
cryforabsolution t1_jb2mq0o wrote
The hospital bed scene in End of Evangelion is a reference to Georges Bataille
mortal_penguin t1_jb3i1md wrote
You should watch Monster then
Irina_Phoenix t1_jb3mkmo wrote
https://youtu.be/IxEof-XHg68 How to pronounce Evangelion
DropKickSamurai t1_jb4w9gr wrote
Yeah that's cool, but TRUTH is in the King James Bible so...
italexi t1_jb4yp97 wrote
it's fucking everywhere everywhere
dbx999 t1_jb41are wrote
Get in the goddamn robot Shinji
SvetlanaButosky t1_jb1mf7t wrote
Its everywhere in Pong too.
angry_jotaro t1_jb1mjk0 wrote
A pretty good read, wish the article went deeper into the characters tho, especially with shinjis hedgehog dilemma and rei struggle with her own identity as she is a clone and replacable