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.

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

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.

1- Your pure ice is not at -10 to -20 C, this is impossible

2- Yes adding salt does cool it

Lmaooo this reminds me of that girl in Hell's Kitchen that started a boil with cold water because "I thought cold water was supposed to boil faster" (since more heat transfer).

It doesn't matter that the colder-than-0 mixture absorbs more heat. It will eventually heat until 0c and at that point it'll be at the same starting point as pure 0c water... Except for it also had the extra time before 0c, thus it took longer to heat up. Same reason why starting a boil with hot water will obviously be faster than cold water...

That's not even the right quote.

Redding trying not to be triggered by Tate for 5 seconds:

1. Unlike what reddit loves to say, politics are not as simple as "conservatives want to keep things frozen in time, progressives want to advance society". Both sides want to advance, and I'd say the main difference is that conservatives tend to prefer cautious bottom-up changes while the progressives love radical top-down changes when it is for what they consider a good cause.

2. It's not true that conservatives don't care about climate change. It's just that on a political level in North America the left has dominated that field for so long that the right can't even set a foot in it.

But if you look at global conservatism (in Europe for example), they do care about climate change, they just disagree with the left about how to approach it. The left usually poses that capitalism and consumerism are the problem, and propose global treaties that attack it on a global scale. Conservatives disagree that capitalism/consumerism are to blame and propose that instead of letting the problem rest on the hands of international committees, you approach it on a community level, fostering local sovereignty, holding ordinary people accountable while also empowering them to act better and protect the environment in their own neighborhood. See "Green Philosophy" by Roger Scruton. He explains that sometimes we are stuck thinking about global co2 emissions while not realizing that we are destroying our own homes.

Conservatives are also rarely fans of solar energy and the likes. They usually push for nuclear energy.

I can't grasp how this overly complex system can come to exist without intelligent design