Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mirh t1_jb6wiv0 wrote

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

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.

1

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.

2

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.

1