#'first existentialist philosopher'

[rearranging-deck-chairs]

bad wolf soda <3

[thepastisalreadywritten]

“People settle for a level of despair they can tolerate and call it happiness.”

— Søren Kierkegaard (5 May 1813 – 11 November 1855)

[willknightauthor]

What happens in the Dolorian church in Martinaise is a profound bit of worldbuilding. At first Elysium seems like a normal, secular world, and if anything it's surprising how absent religion is from it. Liberalism has become the religion. The only real reminder that Moralism was once a fully functioning world religion is the abandoned and broken church west of the lock.

But learning about the pale point, the history of the churches, it makes sense now. The pale is directly interacting with human thought and society because they are both manifestations of information in the universe, in an evolving dialectic. Dolores Dei pulled information from the future and literally expanded the world by inspiring others with her dream. She was, by the standards of our world, a prophet. The churches, built around nascent points of pale particles, are a social attempt to control the pale through the collective act of ritual dreaming. By dreaming the divine, humanity pushes back the death of the world, for a moment.

By the time the game takes place, that side of Moralism is long dead. The churches have been abandoned and their function forgotten. Moralism has degenerated into liberalism. The Revolution was a moment of mass dreaming, of the future manifesting itself. It was the best hope to push back the Pale, but the MoralIntern crushed it, and restored global stagnancy. Growing entropy is accelerating the consumption of the world by the Pale, and no-one knows what to do because there is no future, only past.

Harry though, depending on how you play him, has the potential to start the reversal of this process, if just in Martinaise. The man who has effectively dedicated himself to a kind of monastic worship of the Pale (unknowingly) is the first one to start the process. (Never give anyone too much credit, even Harry.) But if Harry helps the homeless ravers start a club in the Church, he is effectively helping to start a new ritual community with the same properties as the old Moralist Church, right under the pale point.

If you get Noid to warm up to you, you learn he's a kind of organic existential philosopher. He even discourses with Tiago. He and the others don't just party as a hedonistic act, they maintain partying as a kind of ritual act of life affirmation and contemplation, an attempt to transcend themselves and realize something new and powerful. In short, they are reaching into the future to create something new. It's ridiculous 90s Euro club music, but the way they do it it's as ritually powerful as any church service.

This ties into the more general theme of Disco Elysium, that the human power to dream of a new future and then collectively act to bring it about is a powerful act of creation that pushes back the boundaries of the universe, and is necessary for our species to even survive. To crush the revolution, to crush democracy, is to crush the future. Elysium has killed God, but they haven't gotten to the next stage of becoming gods.

Dolorian humanism ironically does not end up elevating human beings. Only the communards had a chance at elevating humanity to a level of creative consciousness that would allow them to tame the Pale the same way they used to with religion. And the revolutionaries, even though the Moralists never recognized them as such, were likely pulling from the future as much as Dolores Dei. Kras Mazov will never be recognized as an Innocent, but in terms of prophesying and inspiring people with a dream which could push back the Pale, he effectively was.

Now with the revolution at a low point, the world is in a kind of existentialist limbo, lacking the conviction of faith in either the divine or the future. The old is dead, but the new cannot be born. What happens in Martinaise is the beginning of the return of that faith.

[linkspooky]

Hello, good afternoon. How are you? I would like to say that I find your analyses extremely cohesive and that you are one of the few I have seen so far who can analyze the work of Jujutsu Kaisen beyond the surface. The question I would like to ask is, what does death represent for JJK? What is its function within the manga and also what is the function of the way it is treated in the work through the fatalities that occur in the plot and with its characters? I haven't read all of your analyses, so forgive me if you have already talked about this subject before. If you see it, I appreciate your attention, and if you can't answer, I apologize for the inconvenience.

So I think at it's core Jujutsu Kaisen is a very existentialist manga. The central question that the literal main character is trying to answer himself is how can life possibly have meaning, if it always ends in death? For the first half of the manga, the fight between the main character and his villainous foil have completely opposite answers to that question. Yuji is continually searching for meaning in death, because it HAS to mean something otherwise how does life have meaning if it always ends in death? Whereas, Mahito believes that because life always ends in death it has no meaning.

I don't think one is necessarily right over the other, it's just conflicting philosophies. Yuji believes life has to have inherit meaning, and Mahito believes life has no inherent meaning. More under the cut.

Death is a Mirror

So, I believe the entire concept of Death in Jujutsu Kaisen can just be summarized as the panel I posted above. Of course I'm going to elaborate on that, but basically Death is a mirror. Humans try to find meaning out of the short life they have, because life always ends in death.

The philosopher Camus was quoted as saying once:

“There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Camus says, “and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that” (MS, 3). 

All philosophy is therefore, an attempt to justify whether or not life is worth living. Why are we alive? As I said above, Yuji cannot accept that life always ends in death so he tries to search for meaning in death. His grandfather's curse (telling him to save people so he can die surrounded by people) and his concept of a "meaningful" death for the first half of the manga is Yuji debating with this philosophical concept.

Yuji is introduced to the danger of the world when he is thrown into the world of sorcery. Much like Geto, he has heroic notions of being a sorcerer which are challenged when he realizes both how easily people can die, but how easily his fellow sorcerers can die as well.

This is the philosophical question that essentially broke Geto's brain. What is the meaning of young sorcerers like himself fighting and dying for an uncaring public, especially since the cycle will never be broken and sorcerers are basically sentenced to a life of continually exercising curses until they meet an early death. Then the next generation of sorcerers just continue the vicious cycle.

For Geto, death ends up negating all meaning to life. When he realizes that there's basically no meaning to the lives of sorcerers who constantly throw their lives away, he becomes completely unable to enjoy life. He accepts death at the hands of Gojo, because he couldn't continue living in the world, couldn't smile in the world with the way it was.

 In some ways, Geto and Yuuta were the same. Geto was too sincere. To someone like him, the reality that the world of sorcerers presented to him was just too cruel. '...that in a world like this, I couldn't be truly happy from the bottom of my heart.' To live for the purpose of being yourself. And for that goal, Geto could only continue to pursue his twisted dream, drowning himself in the curse that lies in the gap between ideal and reality.\ This was the final confession of a man who could only choose to warp himself, who had erased himself in pursuit of his goals. The only person who could bear such a curse was Gojo Satoru.

On the other hand Geto loses to Rika and Yuta who's love for each other is able to persist after death. In fact, Yuta's entire arc is starting out cursing Rika because he was too afraid to lose her, but when he accepts that Rika's love can persist with him after death he's able to move on and make new friends.

Of course Yuta proceeds to just be parasitically codependent with his new friends,. but that's just how Yuta is as a person. He's a funny little freak.

Even until the very end, Rika loved Yuuta deeply. It's like loving someone like the other half of your soul, like willingly giving up your life for their sake. It's the true, honest hope that no matter where they may go, there will always be good fortune waiting for them. What happened to Rika is perhaps not so strange after all. 'Death' is a conclusion that falls upon everyone equally. But Rika found someone she loved and remained by his side. All this time - until this very day - she was always by his side. Maki, Panda, Inumaki - it's all the same. Even Gojo will have a day where he dies. Yuuta will die too, one day. But there's no need to hasten it's arrival. He should smile more, explore the world more, see even more new things. That's what Rika hoped for, deep in her heart. Because the end will surely come one day, and after that rightful death - we will definitely meet again. And after that, we will always be together. It won't be too late to make good on our agreement then. So please, before that happens to you - before that happens to the one I love - live blessed by happiness.

So, Geto and Yuta are ideological opposites. Geto can't love the world where so many of his comrades and fellow sorcerers die, and Yuta is able to continue loving the world in spite of death.

When Yuta and Yuji are protagonists of their works they face the same question but with different flavors. Yuta tries to find meaning for life in love, and Yuji tries to find meaning in life by searching for a "role" to play. He states pretty clearly early on he wants to do something thyat no one else could, which is why he accepts his role as Sukuna's vessel. If he helps a lot of people, it doesn't matter to him, if he's executed in the end. If he's able to help as many people as possible.

Of course Mahito challenges this notion of Yuji's. Early on Yuji says that he feels like life will be worth less, if he has to kill people. Then Mahito presents Yuji with people he cannot save, who it would be a mercy to kill because they are living in pain. Before finally being shown that all of his efforts to save Junpei completely failed.

If he can't help Junpei in the end, then for Yuji what was the point of meeting him? What was the point of Yuji trying to sympathize with him, if he failed and Junpei dies such a gratuitous death.

I think Junpei is one of the standout deaths in Jujutsu Kaisen, because in spite of the fact we know him so briefly his permanent impact on Yuji lingers. He's the part of a pattern where every time Yuji tries to play hero and protect life he utterly fails. He's confronted over and over again with what are "meaningless deaths" in his own words.

Until Todo literally spells it out for him. That if he tries to keep searching for meaning in death, he's going to go insane. He was in danger of walking down the exact road that Geto was.

So, Yuji is nearly broken by the meaningless deaths of Nanami, Nobara and the thousands slaughtered in Shibuya in succession, and Todo's advice is basically that if you keep staring at all of the death in front of you it's not going to help at all, you're just going to drive yourself crazy.

Yuji is trying to use Nanami's death as an excuse to give up searching for meaning. If death is the end result of life, then for a moment Yuji thinks it's no longer worth living. He even tells himself to die after the massacre at Shibuya.

Then, there is Mahito who fully believes that because everything dies life is equally worthless. Since there is no meaning you are entitled to do whatever you want, because all life is just competing with each other.

Full rules of the jungle logic. Why does the deer have more right to life than the wolf, when they're both competing for survival? The wolf eats deer not because it's evil, but because it's what it does.

Mahito clearly sees himself as the wolf and humans as the prey. He doesn't need to think about the reasons why he kills humans, that's what curses do, the same way that wolves eat deer. It's just natural instinct. A wolf doesn't ponder the meaning of life. It just eats to fill it's stomach.

Mahito is trying to disprove the notion to Yuji that life has meaning or there's a greater meaning behind his actions. Which is what his speech is about, you save people without thinking and I kill people without thinking. There's no meaning for our actions, Curse and Humans are just different species that are trying to wipe each other out for survival.

What's interesting about them and why Mahito is the true mirror to Yuji, is that after their confrontation, their philosophies completely flip. Yuji decides to accept Mahito's words that there's no meaning to life. He won't search for meaning in death anymore, he'll just play his role. Sorcerers kill curses because that's their job, he's just another part of the food chain too.

In that instant Yuji becomes the wolf and Mahito the rabbit. Mahito also flips his ideals. If he were a true believer in the right of the strongest, then he would have just accepted his death when Yuji was stronger. Jogo did. He even said it doesn't need to be him in the world of curses as long as the world he wants is brought about.

Jogo knows they'll just be reborn anyway, even if they wont' be the same but he can accept that. That's the nature of a curse. However, Mahito who's name literally means "true human" and is the most humanlike of the curses wants to retain his individuality.

Yuji rejects his individuality to become a cog. Mahito runs away to try to preserve his life and his individuality instead of just accepting death and reincarnating and he ends up being turned into a tool by Kenjaku. It's a fun reversal, because as I said above death is a mirror.

In fact Mahito comes full circle in the last piece of dialogue in the entire series to show that even Sukuna was able to accept death as a part of life in the end, and accept that maybe he can change in the next life. Mahito who is paralyzed by his fear of death and believes that death negates meaning however, is the only one who remains eternally stunted as a child.

[crooked-wasteland]

The Anti-Bojack: Anti-Intellectualism and the Death of Substance

In the blog essay “Staging Philosophy: the relationship between philosophy and drama”, Kristen Gjesdal opines on the home of philosophy. Many today would consider philosophy a relic of a bygone era with names such as Keikegaard, Voltaire, and Neitzsche. Many don’t know, however, of the close relationship philosophy has always held with the arts. Gjesdal mentions Ibsen in the article, discussing how many playwrights of the time were avid students of philosophy and how many philosophers regarded the arts highly. Nietzsche spoke of social leaders, specifically the religious leaders of his day in Beyond Good and Evil when he wrote, “Men, not great enough, nor hard enough, to be entitled as artists to take part in fashioning man.” Frankly denouncing the power and influence held by the religious men which he felt was more appropriately left in the hands of artists. In fact, Nietzche considered art the definition of culture and hence why he says that artists are the ones who should be responsible for shaping society and defining what it means to be “man”. As such, the expressions of art, poetry to cinema, is a definition of man and inherently a philosophy.

Bojack Horseman is an openly philosophical series that plays with existentialist schools of thought. Having liked several tweets endorsing the comparison of her work to that of Raphael Bob-Waksberg, Vivienne Medrano demands her work be valued the same way. From being favorably compared to Bojack Horseman to being praised as the “Anti-Bojack”. Which begs to question, what does that even mean? First let’s discuss the Philosophy behind Bojack Horseman, then compare the tweets Medrano liked and her series to that of Bojack directly, and then study the overlapping themes and why Medrano’s style of writing makes her storytelling a mockery to the art.

Existentialism in particular has been the darling of the theater for about the last 150 years, though generally ridiculed by “proper” society. For a philosopher to be labeled a nihilist or existentialist was often a denouncement of their school of thought, often for their general rejection of fundamental social structures like ethics. In 1942, writer Albert Camus published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, rebranding traditional existentialist concepts as Absurd philosophy.

Camus begins his work poised with the question of suicide and whether life is worth living at all. He argues that life is inherently meaningless, an idea originating with Kierkegaard, but while the latter sided with finding purpose in constitutions like religion, Camus argues that religion itself is a philosophical suicide. In the Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy by Charles Guignon, he writes of the criticisms levied against existential and absurdist philosophies in a society awash in moralist anti-intellectualism. He opens this section by saying, “Existentialism has been criticized from a number of different angles. One line of criticism holds that the emphasis on individual freedom and the rejection of absolutes in existentialism tends to undermine ethics; by suggesting that everyday life is ‘absurd’ and by denying the existence of fixed, binding principles for evaluating our actions, existentialists promote an ‘anything-goes’ view of freedom that exacerbates the nihilism already present in contemporary life.” Which comes from this negative misreading of nihilism.

In their video Nihilism: Are We Missing the Point, youtuber Michael Burns of Wisecrack tells an anecdote of his time in grad school where he paraphrases his professor as saying, “This idea of the constant misreadings of Nietzsche’s writings on Nihilism leads to, his words, angry seventeen-year-old atheists.” Which tends to be the issue when discussing concepts such as nihilism, existentialism and absurdist philosophy. Nietzsche, the credited father of the school of thought, is often taken out of context or his views distorted by society’s sensibilities. For one, the quote given earlier extends further into a condemnation of religion by saying, “Such men, with their "equality before God," have hitherto swayed the destiny of Europe; until at last a dwarfed, almost ludicrous species has been produced, a gregarious animal, something obliging, sickly, mediocre, the European of the present day.” Which many an angry seventeen-year-old and moralist has seen as an endorsement of the might-is-right philosophy that nihilism is credited with.

To a lesser extent, Camus writes in The Myth, “I must say what counts is not the best living, but the most living”. It feels like it should be rather straightforward then, the concept of the thought. More equals better, and Camus practically says as much when he later writes “Why should it be essential to love rarely in order to love much?” However, if one follows the first quote to its natural conclusion, he continues, “The most living; in the broadest sense, that rule means nothing. It calls for definition.” His wording may come off confusing as the essay is translated and the theories involved are dense, but Camus clarifies that “most” could mean the sheer number of experiences or the depth of the experience. He is not saying one or the other is the correct answer, but that both are equally valid ways to live one’s life. The focus, then, is not on directing anyone how they should live, but in the manner they should do so. He says, “It is not up to me to wonder if this is vulgar or revolting, elegant or deplorable … Suppose that living in this way were not honorable, then true propriety would command me to be dishonorable.”

Camus, and even Nietzsche, argue that truth is the only ultimate value. It throws back the moralist dilemma by arguing that living to a code of ethics or values when one is not truly that sort of person is to live reprehensibly. Better is it to live authentically “without appeal” as Camus says, than it is to live the lie of following the rules.

Thomas Polzler from the University of Graz in Austria wrote a 2014 article titled “Absurdism as Self-Help: Resolving an Essential Inconsistency with Camus’s Early Philosophy”. Personally, I fundamentally and adamantly disagree with his assessment that there is any sort of inconsistency in Camus’s writings. Camus’s books of The Stranger, The Plague, and The Fall are not inherently inconsistent, but depict his philosophy in layers.

Like water painting, Camus starts with a thin veneer of color, a loose and almost detached protagonist in Meursault from The Stranger. He is a man aware of the absurd as an individual, the story maintaining the focus of a man living aware his life means nothing and thus seems to have an almost neurodivergent disinterested in the world beyond himself. What he feels in the moment is all that matters, so when he commits murder out of feeling uncomfortable from the heat of the sun and the painful blinding of the light, he is then juxtaposed with the ethical society he exists simultaneously within and outside of. Meursault is held up as a sociopath for not wishing to see his mother’s body the night before her funeral and smoking by her coffin. Because he does not cry at her passing, he is deemed a danger to society. Because he goes on a date to a comedy picture the day after, he is denounced as a menace. None of which has anything to do with the man he killed. The trial highlights the absurdity of ethical society and how the moralists demand the appearance of values over actually having them.

In fact, the trial of Meursault closely resembles that of Bojack and Sarah Lynn. The end of season 3, Bojack and Sarah Lynn go on a cross-country drug-fuelled bender to apologize to people Bojack has hurt in the past, stopping at the Griffith Observatory where Bojack has a profound revelation. He talks about living in the moment and how neither the past or future really matters at all. What you did and your legacy don’t matter if you cannot exist now. It is this moment that he realizes Sarah Lynn is not responding. It isn't until season 6 that it is shown that Bojack waited before calling the police and thus played a hand in Sarah Lynn's death. He is taken to civil court by Sarah Lynn's mother and step-father and made to pay them a fine for his involvement. However, is it really justice when Sarah Lynn's mother exploited her in the business and never once supported Sarah Lynn for what she wanted and what her dreams were, or even just who she was? Can one argue that it is justice when Sarah Lynn was sexually abused by her step-father throughout her childhood? Yes, Bojack does have responsibility in Sarah Lynn's death, but so do her parents. The absurdity of it all being that in no way could there ever be justice for Sarah Lynn.

Brief mental health sidebar. While I have to expressly disagree with Polzler’s reasoning, I do agree with his conclusion. Philosophy and especially Absurd existentialism are powerful tools in the journey to self improvement. It is both the line from Bojack where Diane says "That's the thing. I don't think I believe in 'deep down'. I kind of think all you are is just the things that you do." And Dr. Wong in Rick and Morty when she says, “You seem to alternate between viewing your own mind as an unstoppable force and as an inescapable curse. And I think it is because the only truly unapproachable concept for you is that it's your mind within your control … You are the master of your universe.”

It may be shocking to know that Medrano was not a fan of Dr. Wong, considering the scene all about telling and not showing Rick’s problems. However, this is after two and a half seasons of witnessing Rick’s shortcomings and Dr. Wong is not telling Rick’s problems, but rather identifying the solution. In both the words of Diane and Dr. Wong, who we are, comes down to the choices we make. There is no moral argument being made with either of these comments. Bojack asked Diane to tell him that he’s actually a good person deep down. That he means to be good, that despite his actions he doesn’t want to hurt anyone and that his bad behavior is the fault of his emotionally unavailable and narcissistic parents. So really, he isn’t a bad person. Whereas Dr. Wong calls out Rick’s behavior as a choice because Rick knows he is making these choices.

The difference between Rick and Bojack is the level of personal awareness and responsibility. Rick knows he has the power to change, but simultaneously so miserable but is so afraid of change that he turns himself into a literal pickle and risks his own death over confronting his own choice to stay the way he is. It is easier for him to justify his lack of trying by simply claiming this is just what it means to be as smart as he is. Whereas Bojack feels helpless. Bojack was not set up for success as a child, his success was never validated by his mother and thus he never valued himself, and every time he tries to change he has no internal fortitude to keep from backsliding at the first sign of defeat. Rick knows everything that is making him miserable is himself. Bojack externalizes his misery and thus also externalizes the solution to his problems, which is why he lets himself return to square one whenever things don’t go his way.

Absurdism is the recognition that life is meaningless and thus we have two choices: Live or die. But these concepts are not so straightforward when discussed. To live, in Camus’s philosophy, is to live authentically to oneself. That may sound like Rick’s situation of accepting things as they are, but that is only true in the case of the individual genuinely wanting to be that way. Authenticity is a dichotomy consisting of both how we behave and how we feel. In the case of Rick he lies, cheats, manipulates, and behaves cruelly towards his family. However, it is implied and later revealed that Rick genuinely cares about his family, but is too afraid of experiencing loss to really let them in. So he’s abusive and insulting, keeping his family at an emotional distance that keeps them around, but never too close, making Rick miserable. He really wants his family, so his feelings are at odds with his behavior. So in reality, him claiming “this is just how things are/who I am” is just as weak an excuse and removes agency over oneself as Bojack saying “It’s because my mother was never there for me.”

The actions both Rick and Bojack partake in are what Camus would call a philosophical suicide. Concisely put, to commit a philosophical suicide is to remove one’s sense of agency in their own life. How can one claim to be living when they have no effect on anything including themselves? You would exist in a void no different than a dreamless sleep. Your actions are meaningless, your thoughts are meaningless, your feelings are meaningless because you are a passenger to the act of living. Everything else has power, everyone else can influence you, so you may as well be nothing. Camus includes religion in this section of his philosophy, as living for something other than yourself is the same as not living at all. And this encompasses Ethics.

There is a massive difference between being kind because you are supposed to, and being kind because you want to. This delves further into living inauthentically and how that mere act alone results in misery. Even if one is to behave in a way deemed “right” without making the choice, they will inevitably become resentful. There is no such thing as faking it until you make it. One has to actively choose and change themselves on a fundamental level to find happiness, and that takes work. Just as Dr. Wong says, “It’s just work. And the bottom line is some people are okay going to work and some people, well some people would rather die.”

Which gets to the main point.

Medrano’s liking of a series of tweets calling Blitzo the Anti-Bojack has both infuriated and confused me. I suppose that I should be embarrassed at the latter since it's obvious both Vivienne and her fans lack basic media literacy. It’s actually rather spectacular just how badly they misrepresent the situation of the characters in the narrative. I can only break this down comment by comment.

For one, Bojack’s entire character is that he doesn’t intentionally hurt others. He has his reasons that fundamentally comes from a weak sense of self associated with a child who never had the emotional support he needed growing up. Those aren’t excuses, those are the reasons. Bojack has an unhealed inner child who wants to be a good guy, but he is so caught up in his self-loathing and resentment that he doesn’t do anything about that inner child. Instead he indulges these immature emotions through self medicating with drugs and alcohol, lashing out, promiscuity, and careless spending. These are the symptoms of the problem, the problem does lie in past trauma. The issue is Bojack doesn’t see the solution as himself, but someone or something else. In my post comparing Bojack and Todd’s relationship to Blitz and Moxxie, I pointed out how Bojack and Blitz treat their “closest friends” exactly the same by verbally abusing them and tearing down their abilities. While not always consciously intentional for Bojack, it is to keep Todd feeling codependent on Bojack and thus never leaving him which is abusive and manipulative. For Blitz, the narrative says it's because he is aware of his behaviour and is intentionally pushing Moxxie to be better, which is abusive and manipulative.

My point herein being that these are the same people. There is no Anti-Bojack happening here. If anything, Blitz is more malicious in his abuse seeing as he appears actively aware and intentional in how he mistreats Moxxie. Bojack is abusive towards Todd, but in a way that is a reflection of Bojack. And the series acknowledges how Bojack's inability to be alone actively harms his other relationships. Not just Todd.

In one way, however, Blitz absolutely is the Anti-Bojack. Blitz externalizes the source of his behavior to a character failing on Moxxie's part. And the series reaffirms and justifies Blitz's abuse as okay.

The other misconception of this post is thinking that an explanation is an excuse. Creative Screenwriting did an interview in 2019 with Raphael Bob-Waksberg’s process and philosophy of writing Bojack Horseman, quoting him for the title of the article, “Characters should be understandable in their vulnerabilities.” What Medrano’s fans fail to do, fundamentally, is understand. Their opinions and twitter orations are so barren of understanding that one must ask if they simply choose to ignore what does not serve their narrative or if they really are just incapable of comprehension.

They see Blitz’s mother’s death as a reason for his attitude more than his behavior. His behavior then necessitates that it needs to be excusable. As such, Blitz cannot actually make mistakes. Things happen by chance rather than a deliberate choice on any of the characters’ behalf. The fire in Oops wasn’t a mistake made by Blitz, if it is anyone’s mistake, it is the no-named imp who lit the candle before getting to the room. Blitz didn’t intend to bump the other performer, he just happened to turn at that moment. His mistake, then, is one that only makes sense on a metanarrative aspect. His mistake was deciding not to confess his feelings to Fizz. Which… no. As novel as the concept of the butterfly effect was in 2015, the fundamental nature of something inconsequential being attributed to a disaster negates blame. No one is going to blame the butterfly for a hurricane. Similarly, Blitz’s decision to not confess has nothing to do with the fire, in fact the fire itself is not even his accident. His contribution begins and ends with accidentally bumping the other imp; a situation that would have been entirely harmless if not for another character’s unrelated decision made off-screen.

Additionally, Blitz is a heinously insufferable individual who has been nothing but insulting and abusive to his “friend” throughout the series. He sexually abuses Moxxie in Harvest Moon by touching his penis against his will. He threatens to rape Moxxie and Millie in Murder Family. Blitz humiliates Moxxie through emasculation by masculinizing Millie over Moxxie, mocking Moxxie’s anatomy through his weight and genital size, and degrading Moxxie’s hobbies and abilities. Often without any prompting whatsoever and for Blitz’s own personal enjoyment. Blitz simply is a malicious individual, and at one point the series seemed to know that. The issue isn’t that Blitz is an awful person, it’s the lack of acknowledging that fact. The fans and Medrano conveniently ignore who this character is and what he has done to justify him instead of seeking to understand him. This is a running theme throughout the show.

I also briefly compared the scene in Oops to Herb and Bojack in this post, but I didn’t focus so much on the characters and more the metanarrative reason why Bojack worked and Helluva Boss didn’t.

Here, let’s look at why Bojack went to see Herb: Because Herb told him to. Unlike the scenario between Fizz and Blitz where they didn’t see each other for fifteen years and then conveniently run into each other and just so happen to be spotted by Crimson and Striker who, for some reason, know all about Fizz and Ozzie being a thing and they just keep Blitz around because … he’s the main character. Sure, one could argue both Crimson and Striker have a personal thing against Blitz, makes you wonder why they didn’t, you know, do anything to him? No torture or revenge of any kind, he’s just there now. Conveniently tied up and kept with Fizz instead of literally anything else they could have done with him. There is no internal logic to the characters as to why things turn out this way. As seen in the Mammon episode, it's a metanarrative compulsion to make sure Blitz is in every episode regardless of whether it makes sense or goes anywhere, or not.

Another sidebar, but the fact that so much of the series is not able to be explained within the narrative and requires an understanding of how Medrano and her team formulate a script is a huge issue. It removes the ability to properly dissect the characters as individual people and necessitates a reading of them that is how Medrano wants the audience to think about them. When it comes to the character dissections, it is effectively impossible to have a complete or coherent reading in regards to the literary philosophy of the Death of the Author. You have no story or character if you remove Medrano. The world as a whole completely falls apart unless you inject it with her metacommentary and narrative intention like one would preserve a corpse through glycerin. There is absolutely no substance here. And the longer she goes on, trying to compile the whole show into a coherent narrative of its own is like building a skeleton with a human ribcage, an ostrich spine, an elephant skull and the lower half of a barbie doll.

Bojack calls Herb after finding out he is dying from cancer, Herb tells Bojack to come visit him. He refuses to talk to Bojack any other way, and Bojack is compelled to go by his guilt, not ego. Herb calling him to his house obliterates Bojack’s ego, this is Herb’s home and he is the one being summoned. This is where Herb has the most power compared to, say, over the phone. This is not only a move of superiority on Herb’s part, but an act of submission on Bojack’s. Herb forces Bojack to come to him. Once again, this is what power dynamics look like. But, despite the resentment and awkward bitterness, he does want to see Bojack.

I don’t know how many times I can articulate this. Herb is the one in control and he is the one who wants to see Bojack and he is the one calling the shots. Not at all comparable to Fizz being kidnapped, forced to interact with Blitz and then wholly reliant on him due to the narrative in order to facilitate this forced reconciliation. Herb and Bojack are people with complex feelings and agendas. Blitz and Fizz are two dolls being smashed together and held in place by the will of a childish god.

Second, the reason Bojack calls Herb is because he feels guilty, not for abandoning Herb but because he betrayed Herb. He told Herb he would stand with him and walk off the show if they tried to fire his friend, but according to Bojack, he was a coward and didn’t keep his word. He feels guilt for that, he regrets it. But when he apologizes to Herb for it, Herb corrects him. It isn’t because Bojack didn’t keep his word, like the horse man thought, it was because he thought the betrayal was more important than their friendship.

He’s a coward, but not for staying on Horsing Around. He’s a coward because he didn’t believe in their friendship. They were together for years and Herb thought that meant something, but Bojack avoiding Herb and never reaching out to him showed how little their friendship meant to him. And it wasn’t because Bojack didn’t care, Herb knows that. And that fact is necessary to understanding the sequence. Bojack didn’t value the friendship because he thought he was valueless. He avoided Herb because he thought Herb would never forgive him, because that is how little Bojack thinks of himself. Him calling Herb is the active display of him still not forgiving himself, so he needs Herb to do it for him. And Herb knows all of this.

“You know what your problem is? You wanna think of yourself as the good guy. Well, I know you better than anyone else and I can tell you that you're not. In fact, you'd probably sleep a lot better at night if you just admitted to yourself that you're a selfish goddamn coward, who takes whatever he wants, and doesn't give a shit about who he hurts. That's you. That's BoJack Horseman."

Bojack has no value in himself, leaving him extremely fragile. So he took what he wanted, he took their relationship and defined it for both of them. He ran away, protecting himself while determining that this is what Herb would want, and left Herb alone and powerless even in his closest friendship. Which is why Herb demands Bojack come to see him, it’s Herb reclaiming his power in the relationship. And all of this only has any meaning if you clearly define the fact that Bojack apologized for the wrong thing.

There’s an alternate universe where Bojack doesn’t go back and apologize at all, and he and Herb rebuild their friendship anew in Herb’s last days and they simply, quietly agree to start over. Because that’s not off the table. Herb still values the telescope. He still values their friendship. Bojack, once again, takes it away. And Herb, a dying man, fights viciously to keep hold of it. Him not forgiving Bojack is not wanting his friend back, if anything, it’s because he desperately wants Bojack back that he won’t forgive him.

The telescope isn’t just a metaphor when it breaks. It's the symbol of their friendship the entire time, and the physical actions taking place over it are a screenshot of what happened. Bojack took their friendship and left with it. But it meant something to Herb, and you would only know that by how he fights over it now. And when it breaks it shows that, because of Bojack and his cowardly need to run away from his problems, their relationship is now, finally, beyond repair. Not because Herb didn’t forgive him. It wasn’t over when Herb didn’t forgive him. The telescope is literally on the shelf the entire time.

Bojack ended it, not Herb.

But just like Bojack, Medrano and her fans believe that forgiveness is the end all of the story. It’s why so many people were not invested in Fizzarolli and Blitz makeup. Because Fizz just forgiving Blitz makes everything they went through meaningless.  It strips the characters and what they went through of depth and nuance in a single moment. It also validates Bojack's general mindset in the belief that one moment can fix a systemic problem. In this case, Medrano isn't the Anti-Bojack, she just is Bojack.

The issue between Herb and Bojack wasn’t the job, or even the time. It was Bojack. And it is the failure of Bojack identifying the part of himself that resulted in this outcome, and not making the choice to do anything different that results in the end of everything. Maybe Herb would never have forgiven the Bojack who left him. But that’s why Bojack needed to be a different Bojack. And he wasn’t.

Wrapping this back around to the start of the essay and how Absurdist philosophy plays into Bojack intrinsically, Herb says exactly that truth to Bojack. That if Bojack was only honest to himself and lived authentically, maybe he would be able to sleep at night. Because being good is less important than being real.

This reminds me of Jean Baptiste Clamence from Camus’s The Fall. A Frenchman in the seedy center of Amsterdam, a city encircled by canals like the rings of hell. He spends his nights in the bar just outside of the red light district, drunk off his ass, it is uncertain if he is actually telling his story to anyone at all. Over the course of four nights, he tells his story of his fall from grace. His self exile to Hell after being unable to cope with his guilt. He tells so many stories of himself, egotistically claiming he has the lost panel of the Ghent Alterpiece in his apartment, the piece titled The Just Judges. 

Even his name is a plea for repentance. John. Baptist. Clemency. He claims to sleep with Judges looming over him. Words endlessly flow from him and he confesses his sins.

It’s when he fesses to witnessing the suicide of a young woman in Paris that he explains why he ran away to Netherlands. He says how she called for help after jumping into the water, but he quickly fled the scene, hearing the splashing below become eerily silent. One could argue that he couldn’t do anything. In the Paris winter, the freezing water of the canal could kill them both, let alone the dangers of trying to save someone who is drowning. The main concern being the victim drowning their savior in a frenzied panic of keeping themselves above the water. It could be said that he did the only thing he could. However, he knows she was aware he was there, so she called out to him specifically when she came to her senses. No one witnessed the incident or knew he was there but her, and no one could fault him for doing nothing.

But he feels the guilt in himself, and thus runs away.

Jean-Baptiste, Bojack and even Diane all have the same mentality. They fetishize their misery and trauma, making themselves important through the loops of suffering they inflict on themselves. Thinking that because the events happened to them, it must mean they are somehow special. That their damage meant something out of all the other people on this planet who suffer. That because they felt alone and responsible, they are a mythical chosen one selected from the masses to do something. They find value in the negative self-image they have, their pain being their purpose.

Because if it didn’t matter, why did it happen to them?

This is where I normally would keep just ripping apart the arguments, but frankly, there isn’t one anymore. For one, the original poster just blatantly lacks any fundamental understanding of Bojack as a series since the entire premise of the show is every season Bojack tries to change.

On a narrative basis, the lack of intentionality on Blitz’s part absolves him from needing forgiveness. Fizzarolli forgiving him holds no weight because Blitz didn’t intentionally set the fire, he didn’t see Fizz in the explosion when he ran away, he didn’t not try to see Fizz in the hospital and then Medrano puts the cherry on top about how Fizz’s life is actually better because of everything that happened. It’s equal parts boring and vile. The conflict is artificial, the resolution is repulsive and contrived. There is no depth to these characters and Medrano actively removes depth, either because she herself lacks the ability to comprehend it or because she knows her fans are incapable of doing so.

Also, let's just not comment on how this line explicitly overshadows Fizz's trauma. Everyone knows you don't end an apology with "but". That negates the whole apology. This is literally "I'm sorry you got hurt and I can never make that up to you, BUT my mom's dead so you don't even know what it's like being me and feeling responsible for that."

While the writers of Bojack sought to make their characters understandable and thus empathetic, they at no point excused or retconned the behavior. The writers on Bojack didn’t do anything to justify their characters in order to control how the audience felt about them. They were showing that the characters were well rounded, had reasons, why they had those reasons, what core memories made them who they are today. And the audience had the choice in how they responded to the characters. Medrano needs her audience to feel the same way about her characters as she does in order for the story to work, because she has never put forth the effort of actually telling this story.

One does not need the interviews with Bob-Waksberg to understand his cast and their story. Everything a viewer needs to know can be found in the show proper. There are not huge points of context happening just over there, off screen, between episodes and relegated to background details. Everything relevant to these characters and their stories is in the show. That has not and at this point never will be the case for Helluva Boss. So in many ways, yes. Helluva Boss is the anti-Bojack.

That's not a good thing.

[thelastrenaissance]

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard (5 May 1813) was a Danish theologian, philosopher, poet, social critic, and religious author who is widely considered to be the first existentialist philosopher.

“The most common form of despair is not being who you are.”

Søren Kierkegaard

[brunettedelulu]

💫 How to get into feminist literature ?

☆ From margin to center: feminist theory by bell hooks. She is most well known for her feminist theory that recognizes that social classifications (e.g., race, gender, sexual identity, class, etc.) are interconnected, and that ignoring their intersection creates oppression towards women and change the experience of living as a woman in society. In this beautifully written and carefully argued work, hooks maintains that mainstream feminism's reliance on white, middle-class, and professional spokeswomen obscures the involvement, leadership, and centrality of women of colour and poor women in the movement for women's liberation.

☆ Women race and class by Angela Davis. It contains Marxist feminist analysis of gender, race and class. The third book written by Davis, it covers U.S. history from the slave trade and abolitionism movements to the women's liberation movements which began in the 1960s.

☆ One is not born a woman by Monique Wittig. In her essay One Is Not Born A Woman, Monique Wittig interrogates gender. The essay begins with “A materialist feminist approach to women’s oppression destroys the idea that women are a ‘natural group’: a racial group of a special kind, a group perceived as natural, a group of men considered as materially specific in their bodies.” Wittig tries to highlight the importance of questioning and deconstructing the concept and origin of womanhood using a material perspective. She argues that the idea and classification of women as a natural group is the base of the further oppression women deal with.

☆ The Second Sex (i skipped the first chapter bc biology...) by Simone Beauvoir. The Second Sex (French: Le Deuxième Sexe) is a 1949 book by the French existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, in which the author discusses the treatment of women in the present society as well as throughout all of history. Beauvoir researched and wrote the book in about 14 months between 1946 and 1949.

(you can fin all of these references on internet, give them a try !! )

[wheretosearchforsnow]

Destiel in Season 4 and 5 of Supernatural and Death of God

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s well-known phrase “God is dead,” introducing the idea of the missing God, laid the foundation for one of the most important topics in the 20th century Existentialist Movement. The possibility of God’s non-existence means that everything that is possible to happen can happen, and if everything is allowed, how can man choose? How can man know how to live? If everything is allowed, can we define right from wrong?

Such questions are asked on Supernatural, with the character Castiel first appearing at the end of the first episode in the fourth season, which marked the series’ introduction of Christian mythology as a central them ever since. Castiel, an Angel of the Lord, initially shows complete devotion to God and identifies as servant of heaven:

CASTIEL: We have no choice. DEAN: Of course you have a choice. I mean, come on, what? You’ve never questioned a crap order, huh? What are you both, just a couple of hammers? CASTIEL: Look, even if you can’t understand it, have faith. The plan is just. SAM: How can you even say that? CASTIEL: Because it comes from heaven, that makes it just. - 4.07 It's the Great Pumpkin, Sam Winchester

This argument on the morality behind the act of “purifying a city” or “taking one thousand two hundred fourteen lives” between Castiel and the Winchesters is not dissimilar with Danish theologian Søren Kierkegaard’s discussion on Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. When Abraham was told that as a result of God's will that he must sacrifice his son Isaac, he was in a kind of either-or. If the message is genuinely from God, then he must sacrifice Isaac and it is the right thing to do; but if the message is not from God, then he would be committing what would be the very worst possible crime judged on the basis of Abraham's own view of human ethics.

The dichotomy here, between Castiel’s and Dean’s rationales, is that while the former believes there is a God and God and religion (in other words, heaven’s plan for earth) are the most important things, and man must do nothing but obey heaven’s command, the latter insists that there is no God and it is for man to take the total burden of responsibility for the world and for himself upon his own shoulders, with no one to give him any sign.

Though the former seems to suggest a lack of agency or necessity for decision making in moral judgement, as the plot unfolds, we see Castiel demonstrate a sense of uncertainty, the very secret he voices in the conversation with Dean in the episode’s epilogue.

CASTIEL: I’m not a… hammer as you say. I have questions, I have doubts. I don’t know what is right and what is wrong anymore, whether you passed or failed here. But in the coming months you will have more decisions to make. I don’t envy the weight that’s on your shoulders, Dean. I truly don’t. - 4.07 It's the Great Pumpkin, Sam Winchester

This mirrors Kierkegaard’s Abraham in his questions on God’s will. Indeed, how is one to know whether the command is from God or not? If an angel speaks to him, how does Abraham know it's not a hallucination? And if God himself speaks, how is Abraham, or Castiel, to know whether this is really God or whether the command is their own inward evil wishes? Nobody but Abraham, or Castiel, can decide and they cannot tell within his life whether he has done the right thing or not.

Perhaps it is this introspective nature in Castiel that draws him close to Dean, the human in his charge, and by implication humanity. Dean, a firm non-believer and what many, including himself, perceive to be as farthest from being servant of God as possible, detests the idea of God even in face of angels walking the earth.

DEAN: God? CASTIEL: Yes. DEAN: God. CASTIEL: Yes! He isn't in heaven. He has to be somewhere. DEAN: Try New Mexico. I hear he's on a tortilla. CASTIEL: No, he's not on any flatbread. DEAN: Listen, Chuckles, even if there is a God, he is either dead—and that's the generous theory— CASTIEL: He is out there, Dean. DEAN: —or he's up and kicking and doesn't give a rat's ass about any of us. CASTIEL glares. DEAN: I mean, look around you, man. The world is in the toilet. We are literally at the end of days here, and he's off somewhere drinking booze out of a coconut. All right? - 5.02 Good God, Y'all

Dean has no intention of trying to prove that God does not exist, as one cannot prove a negative, but the very specific objection to the traditional concept of God above parallels with the simple objection in many existentialists work that is based upon the injustice of the universe. Albert Camus has given this same type of criticism in his novel, "The Plague", in which the priest, Padalu, confesses that he is not able to understand how there can be any justification so that even eternal paradise could cancel out the sufferings here on earth of one innocent child. Why, Deans asks, if God is all powerful, does man have to suffer? If God is merciful, then how can he sentence man, any man at all to eternal damnation?

There is an optimistic side to this. As the repetitive occurrence of the term “free will” on this show suggests, if God exists, man is nothing; but if God does not exist, then man is free to choose what he wants to make himself. But for Castiel to arrive at this destination, it first takes him to undergo a two-season long crisis.

ANNA: What do you want from me, Castiel? CASTIEL: I'm considering disobedience. ANNA nods. ANNA: Good. CASTIEL: No, it isn't. For the first time, I feel... ANNA: It gets worse. Choosing your own course of action is confusing, terrifying. ANNA puts her hand on CASTIEL's shoulder. He looks at it; she drops it. ANNA: That's right. You're too good for my help. I'm just trash. A walking blasphemy. ANNA turns to walk away. CASTIEL: Anna. ANNA stops. CASTIEL: I don't know what to do. Please tell me what to do. ANNA turns back. ANNA: Like the old days? No. I'm sorry. It's time to think for yourself. - 4.16 On the Head of a Pin

If God isn’t out there, then Castiel has nowhere to turn. This dreadful realization may best be articulated through Hazel Barnes’ analogy that as if one would try to judge a Ford car without any Mr. Ford. So long as there is a Mr. Ford or one of his agents, then one has a model, one has a blueprint and one can say that the car which is coming there off the assembly line is a perfect Ford or an imperfect Ford. But without a plan, one cannot judge a car, and without God, there is no plan for Castiel and there is no final point of reference by which he can judge his values, or right or wrong, or declare that he has lived up to his possibilities or not lived up to his possibilities.

Yet despite “choosing your own course of action” being “confusing, terrifying,” Castiel is not in total despair. Dean, the human equivalent of the burden of a self-creative life, provides reference for Castiel on how to live a life as if there were no God. I have concluded thus that in the context of existentialism Castiel seeks Dean and humanity for answers and view them as his destination.

Note: this article is MOSTLY arguments in Hazel Barnes’ Self Encounter 2: The Far Side of Despair.

[whencyclopedia]

Søren Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was a Danish philosopher and is considered to be the first existentialist, influencing such notable philosophers as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). His works are a reflection of alienation, angst, and absurdity, and include Either/Or (1843), Fear and Trembling (1843), and The Concept of Anxiety (1844).

He was embraced by his fellow existentialists for his belief in the importance of the individual against an apathetic, hostile society. However, unlike other existentialists, his body of philosophical works has a strong theological vein. Denise Despeyroux, in her book The Philosophers, wrote that Søren's life was filled with painful experiences, which colored his works – works that displayed "great dramatic and poetic power. They are filled with parables, aphorisms, fictitious letters and diaries as well pseudonymous and fictitious characters" (110). She added that his struggles with religious questions served as a "potent stimulus" for other writers and thinkers of his generation.

Birth & Education

Søren Kierkegaard was born on 5 May 1813 in Copenhagen, Denmark, to an affluent family as the youngest of seven children. His father, Michael Kierkegaard, was a successful businessman, while his mother, Ane Sørensdatter Lund, had been the one-time maid of Michael's first wife. Søren claimed his father was the most influential figure in his life. Unfortunately, he suffered terribly from anxiety and inner turmoil, and this Søren 'inherited' from his father. Michael was deeply religious, a member of a pietistic form of Lutheranism, and was convinced that because of his past sins – he had once cursed God – none of his children would live past the age of 33, the age of Jesus Christ when he was crucified. Coincidentally, five of Søren's brothers and sisters, as well as his mother Ane, would die before Søren turned 21. Only Søren and his brother Peter survived. To Michael, it was a sign of divine retribution. According to Jeremy Stangroom in his The Great Philosophers, Søren maintained that his childhood was "insane" and "he had come into the world as the result of a crime" (100). Regrettably for Søren, his father passed on his "pessimistic and gloomy religious outlook to his son" (ibid).

Despite a chaotic childhood, his education was "surprisingly normal," attending a distinguished private school – the Borgedydskolen – where he was considered an outsider, "lonely, aloof, and intellectually the superior to his classmates" (ibid). Hoping to become a pastor as his father had suggested, at the age of 17, he entered the University of Copenhagen, where he studied theology, philosophy, and literature. In 1838, while he was attending university, his father died, leaving him with a large inheritance. After graduating in 1840, he began the life of an independent thinker and writer, but it would be a life consumed by inner torment and angst, evident throughout his writings.

Shortly after graduating, he made the mistake of getting engaged to Regine Olson, ten years his junior. He regretted the engagement the moment it was made. One year later, in 1841, he broke off the engagement, believing that his melancholic temperament made him unsuitable for marriage and he considered her to be intellectually incompatible. The affair with Regine had a lasting effect on Søren and would appear in both his journals and other works. Free from an unwanted engagement and with a large inheritance, he was free to begin a career as a writer. Oddly, throughout his life, he only left Copenhagen three times, spending most of his free time walking the streets of the city or attending the theater.

Continue reading...

[nilboxes]

I loved your headcanon of Ratio being a gundam fan. What other media franchises would you think he would geek over and give a 3 hour lecture on why he thinks they're the greatest? (Aventurine and the cats would be his audience) I can definitely see him liking the NieR series with how philosophical they are.

Hello Anon! I'm glad you liked it, I really should watch more Gundam...

He would totally also geek out over the time mechanics in Legacy of Kain series and resonate with the existentialist themes of defeating determinism and being able to control one's own fate. I see him as a Kantian Deontologist though (someone who believes all good actions derive from good intentions in order to be good) so he would be horrified at the actions of the characters and the events that spun from this in the first place, but he'd still appreciate it and talk about it a lot.

I also know he and Aventurine would have a long, long talk about the events of SOMA (very very good game). It's a neat little game that extensively covers what it means to have a "soul" and presents a lot of questions about consciousness, the importance of memories in identity, quality of life, hope after the end etc etc and is an endless trove of thought exercises about stuff he might be pondering on (part of me feels like Ratio is debating between himself to put both him and Aventurine in the divergent universe as a little wish fulfillment for Aventurine to have better outcome in life in some way and for them to meet in another life)

Figure he'd also love Evangelion if he loves Gundam and see a little of himself in Shinji. He'd understand that boy.

And yes, he would also really love Nier. Both Replicant and Automata would really resonate. Nier deals a lot with the crushing weight of meaninglessness of existence, the extent one should pursue one's desires, letting go of what was in order to make room for what could be etc etc. He'd like those things, I feel, very human and very resonant with his own struggle for meaningful pursuits.

(I feel like he'd also like metal gear ngl, but I'm not too well-versed in that, though from what little I've seen it seems a him thing for me hmm he'd like explorations of existentialism mostly)

Imagine both him and Aventurine going through these series/games together in their free time! I like headcanoning that Aventurine struggles with a lot of questions about freedom, and Ratio carefully answers his concerns about them. I write about this a lot in my fics, poor Aven and his struggles, but I like to think by spending time with Ratio like this he begins to get more and more equipped in how to deal with his circumstance.

The cats would also be with them through all these (they'd get mama veri and papaturine to go play horror games with them)

[hopefull-mindset]

Did you accidentally see Odasaku’s last words as Nihilistic instead of Absurdist?

I do plan to write a larger analysis of Odasaku’s character, but I had the realization as to why some see his words as so negative when they were not to me: You do not see living kinder as enough of an answer to the overly sinking feeling of a meaningless life. You try to be too objective, too rational, as to why someone should live, so you’re mad at Odasaku for not saying an answer that doesn’t exist.

The idea that our life is meaningless is not an inherently depressing or negative one to live with, it’s what you choose to do with that mindset that decides it. No matter what branch of Nihilism, Nihilists decide not to engage with life beyond that it is meaningless, so typically they end up stuck where they are and forever feel an overarching, aching loneliness to what they feel as fact.

Although Dazai wasn’t in the most realistic position to be in, his struggle with Nihilism is pretty obvious in his time in the mafia. More specifically, it’s Existential Nihilism he’s trying to combat. He was at his most nihilistic before he met Chuuya, an utterly passive force that refuses to do more than the bare minimum and opts to attempt suicide instead. When he finally joined the Mafia, he tried to find life in the violence and death and why it could matter, but he couldn’t. It was a doomed pursuit from the moment he tried.

Unlike a lot of characters, Dazai is trying to find a rational meaning for why he should live. A Nihilist does not see an Existentialist’s proposition of subjective meaning as enough to justify why they’re still around in an absurd world where they can’t rationalize it as an actual meaning. There is no real truth except what they can be sure of, which is themselves. So he falls back into his most Nihilistic state once again, throws himself into suicidal situations, but keeps living anyway because maybe something would prove him wrong. Eventually.

He doesn’t try anything new or leave the mafia after this expected outcome because nothing other than his own expectations would happen, even in the world of light, nothing would matter. Genuinely, nothing will fill this hole for him in the way he wants it to because his intelligence leaves him trapped in a cage of his own making, worsening his suicidal ideation. When Odasaku confronts him in his dying breaths, he states it as a matter of fact because he’s been in a similar position to him when he was younger, but truly was he able to give him the advice he needed in his last moments, only through him losing this will to live could he understand his ideation to this point. An Odasaku pre-events of Dark Era would not be able to connect with him on this level, so I ask you to please recognize that.

His first few words were so Dazai would be willing to listen to him. It takes much more than to be a friend for him to listen to them. Odasaku does not come from a negative place, he’s stating what Dazai has always been thinking. When Dazai hears those words, he’s not discouraged, he’s thinking that since he understood him in such a specific way, what would Odasaku tell him to do then? He tells him not of what to do about life, an unsolvable case, but about how he could continue living.

Now this is where you need to understand what I meant by Absurdist. Absurdism, to be brief, focuses on the conflict between human beings seeking rationality and the irrational world we live in being meaningless. It concludes that since it is a futile objective to seek, there are three traditional ways to continue this realization that comes from Albert Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus. The first one is suicide, which is a highly discouraged option since it only has us succumb/surrender to the absurd and doesn’t solve a thing. The second is denial of the absurd through faith in a higher power, which is a way to live of course, but is considered philosophical suicide.

The third and final option is to rebel, the heavily recommended option. Not to disregard the absurd, but to acknowledge it and to keep living despite our inherent meaningless life. Accept that these are our circumstances, but that doesn’t mean you have to give up on trying to live a life you want, be content with, and to be happy. Dazai was unhappy because he was trying to find the fucking Fontaine of Youth, Aka something that doesn’t exist, and fighting an unnecessary war with himself as the only solider.

The only way he can be happy is to not search anymore and to live his life despite it. This doesn’t solve his suicidal ideation, nothing can truly solve this dilemma, but it will make his life easier to live. This is what makes this piece of advice absurdist. It’s not overly positive because that would be ignoring their reality, this is advice Dazai desperately needed to hear. Anything else of a different tone or stance would be missing the mark with someone like Dazai.

Now absurdists don’t need to live by a certain moral code, that was more so about saving Dazai’s humanity so to speak. He associates being good to having humanity. That’s off-topic though, but it’s whatever I’m going to keep going off-topic. Real talk, I needed to quickly mention that even though their relationship is important, I think some of you are over-idealistic about Odasaku or that their relationship was much more intimate than it actually was when Odasaku was alive.

He was much closer to Dazai as Ango was, but that’s looking at it by Dazai standards. Every time Dazai talked about himself, Odasaku was like “in all our years of knowing each other, I’ve never heard him speak about this.” Pshh, I’m done now.

"Listen." Odasaku wrapped his blood-soaked hand around Dazai's. "You told me if you put yourself in a world of violence and bloodshed, you might be able to find a reason to live..."

[..]

"You won't find it,” Odasaku said in almost a whisper. Dazai stared at him. "You should know that. Whether you're on the side that takes lives or the side that saves them, nothing beyond your own expectations will happen. Nothing in this world can fill the hole that is your loneliness. You will wander the darkness for eternity."

[..]

For the first time in his life, Dazai wanted from the bottom of his heart to know something. He asked the man before him:

"Odasaku... What should I do?"

"Be on the side that saves people," Odasaku replied. "If both sides are the same, then choose to become a good person. Save the weak, protect the orphaned. You might not see a great difference between right and wrong, but...saving others is something just a bit more wonderful.”

"How do you know?"

"I know. I know better than anyone else."

(You guys should totally read The Myth of Sisyphus, I think it would help a lot of your understanding of Dazai)

[philosophicalconservatism]

Is essentialism a foundational metaphysics for a conservative worldview?

It is telling that the existentialist philosophers, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone De Beauvoir, were firmly leftist in their politics.

I find conservatism more compelling within an essentialist framework, personally.

Note To Followers: This is a technical Philosophy question so the explanation gets slightly technical.

By "Conservative" here I believe you mean to refer to a freedom-centered political perspective, so yes I would agree with you. Such a perspective involves timeless abstract principles of individual liberty. Communism/Socialism however with its roots in Marxian Dialectic rejects the idea of timeless ideals. Here, all things are transitional. Subjects (whether individual or collective) seek out their own self realization through a process of continuous discovery. The truth spontaneously emerges. So we can see an affinity between Marxism and Existentialism there. Of course the focus on the individual ego in Existentialism had to eventually give way to a focus upon the collective in European philosophy (first under Structuralism then under Post-Structuralism).

It should be noted that many people during Sartre's time pointed out the contradiction between his Existentialism's (ontological) theme of individual freedom, and the compulsory nature of state Socialism. Sartre would naturally respond to this charge by asserting the complete opposite. He would trot out Marx's notion of Alienation and insist that it was in fact the free market system ("Capitalism" ) that tramples upon human freedom.

But I don't think that indeterminacy and uncertainty are a solid foundation for political freedom, it requires a stable essence.

[annamariehamilton-unofficial]

Soren Kierkegaard and Hans Christian Andersen: Best Frenemies

Not a hot take this time, more of a fun fact.

So apparently, the two most famous literary Danes, fairy-tale writer Hans Christian Andersen and Christian existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, were best frenemies in real life.

Andersen parodied Kierkegaard as a yapping parrot repeating the pseudo-philosphical platitude "let us be men!" in his 1838 fable "The Galoshes of Fortune". Later that year, Kierkegaard returned the favor by writing an essay in which he accused Andersen of lacking any kind of coherent worldview, insinuating that Andersen "from an involuntary overflow of cleverness in the personality ... totally forgetting the landscape, go[es] on to paint [himself] elaborately in [his] own vain Solomonic pomp and glory, which suits flowers, but not people."

Apparently they made up, because 10 years later, they exchanged fancy first-printing hardcover volumes of one another's most recent work with friendly greetings.

I think it is not much of a literary hot take to say that Andersen is a LOT more readable than Kierkegaard, which is probably why, according to Andersen at least, the only people who actually *read* Kierkegaard's little rant were Kierkegaard and Andersen themselves.

[thepolymathexcuse]

Your family could help you find meaning in life | Bridge Point

"The older I get the more that I see; My parents aren't heroes, they're just like me." — Sasha Alex Sloan, "Older"

Man’s search for a life of meaning might be connected to how they were nurtured by their families. Their upbringing might hold answers for their current problems and the uncertainties of the future.

The Goods

The introductory chapter of the book Religion and the Meaning of Life: An Existential Approach by Clifford Williams talks about some concepts of an existentialist philosophy. One of these concepts reveal that an existentialist's search for a meaningful life must be anchored on two things: first, engaging in worthwhile activities; and second, having good inner states. The first one emphasizes the importance of how we find our daily activities to be worthy of doing. The latter, on the other hand, highlights the importance of feelings, emotions, and desires that have a positive impact on the person and to the world around him. Williams suggests that these two things are critical in one's search for a meaningful life through the lens of an existentialist.

In one of my active projects, one of my key reflections talks about my growing admiration for my parents. They are not the perfect parents—that is a truth I choose to believe. Some of their beliefs don't agree with mine, but they have values that are worthy of emulating. At most, my reflection gave three values: their unconditional love for family which allowed them to make sacrifices and put others first before themselves; their value for education which brings reason to my curious pursuit; and their hardworking and ambitious attitude which ultimately formed the foundation of my current desires in life. I was blessed (or lucky, as others would prefer to say) to have such parents, while others weren't. 

The opening quote of this article are song lyrics, and if you have seen it circulating around Instagram, it was from a reel where a girl was singing these lyrics with such emotion that it was felt by the people who watched the reel, as evident from the comments section. I've seen this reel before, and it made me emotional, but now that it returned to my feed, I am finally able to connect those emotions into the things I'm currently learning.

Transport

Both the reel and my reflection coincided with how existentialists try to find meaning in a world of meaninglessness. Existentialist philosophers believe that we are the architects of our own lives, and that our pursuit for meaning is likely stemming from the virtues that we deeply relate to. It may have originated from our experiences in life, both good and bad, which allows us to craft our personal identity.

Like I said, my parents aren't perfect, at least in my point of view. But the existentialists' sense of individual control to one’s life is connected with the notion that my parents’ approach to life is their own perception of what a meaningful life must be. Their perception paved the way that my brother and I were raised—imperfect, yet meaningful.

They engage in worthwhile activities, even though most of them are difficult and sometimes take too much of their time and energy. 

They continue to work for the family, even though my brother and I have already graduated college, and there's this Filipino value that we're supposed to be giving back already. Most people would say it's not their responsibility because "children are not investments," but I would feel better if they stop working already and enjoy the rest of their lives. 

Feeling better is an example of a good inner state. But there’s more to it than just feeling better. They're getting old and they've already spent a large percentage of their lives helping us figure out our own. I think it's about time they take care of themselves, because we're already old enough to take care of ourselves. However, our financial situation requires them to still work in order for us to survive each day.

They find these activities worthwhile because they value their family so much that they're willing to sacrifice their own happiness for others to find their own. I feel guilty while writing this, and for me, guilt could be a good emotion to feel every now and then, because it makes me realize what I should be prioritizing and valuing more.

Some, if not all, of their values create good inner states that positively impact their children's lives and the lives of other people they're engaging with on a daily basis. 

This is evident with their happy outlook in life. They're generally more cheerful because they think that their values of hard work and determination are essential for a meaningful life. Their daily undertakings are grounded by their ability to love their children unconditionally. Most of their life, they've swallowed their pride and asked favors from different people in order for us to finish our college education. These good inner states became the basis of their daily lives, which resonates in the way they are living now.

Loading

Both my mother and my father continue to engage in worthwhile activities, resulting in good inner states. Because of these, my brother and I were brought up with values that could potentially be used for building our own foundation of a meaningful life.

It also holds true that we do not have the same parents. Some were raised in abusive households. The absence of good inner states and worthwhile activities preceded a family besieged with trauma and abuse. These were unfortunate situations where the parents did not pursue a life of meaning. They were raised in circumstances that prevent them from seeing the good in life. Because of this, it is difficult for their children to pursue and even just ponder a meaningful life. 

Regardless whether we have good or bad families, some existentialists believe that our experiences help us decide which path to take in our future. The choice of a meaningful life or a meaningless life lies within our hands. We ultimately have the freedom to decide. 

We can use these bad experiences and fuel our desire to let the world experience what we experienced. Or, we can use these experiences to fuel our own desire to make the world experience the opposite. Whichever path we are to take is hinged on the set of values we establish within ourselves. It is imperative to think that we as individuals have absolute control of the paths we take next.

As someone who's starting to delve into the philosophy of existentialism, I'm choosing the latter. I've come to experience pain and suffering from the tendencies of my parents to be perfectionistic and overly reliant on achievements. I've already said this in a previous article. I was molded to uphold excellence at all times because they deem it necessary for a good life. By being the best, I can outrun poverty and live a better life than what my parents personally experienced. I don't think it's wrong, it just doesn't align with my own belief system. The saying which goes “The intentions are good, but the actions are not” can be seen reflected by this.

While trying to finish this article, I was called by my father to assist in what he’s doing outside. He was re-building a pole where my mother's plants are hanging. The old bamboo one was already a bit flimsy and it requires replacing. My father doesn't love gardening, but my mother does. It's yet another illustration of how good inner states (in this case, love for his wife) could lead to worthwhile activities that add meaning to one’s life.

We and our parents are human beings. In an existentialist's perception, one must find meaning for life through activities, feelings, and desires that positively affects others. Our families and the values they’ve instilled within us as we grew older might have contributed to our personal identity. This goes the same for the values that we do not want to emulate. This concept of a personal identity as a result of our upbringing could then allow us to find purpose in a meaningless world.

Now then, it is only fitting that I end this article by quoting one of the most influential existentialists of our time, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and it goes like this:

"The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for." (The Brothers Karamazov)

Allow me to ask you three questions. How is your upbringing reflected in your personal identity? How does this relate to your search for meaning? And lastly, what first step are you taking towards your own idea of a meaningful life while using the values that you have acquired from your family?

Stop looking outward because as strange as it may sound, you may already hold the answers to these questions.

-----

Photo Credit: Photo by Daiga Ellaby on Unsplash

[charmedreincarnation]

maya what is your favorite philosopher??

Hii thank you for asking. My favorite philosopher is Immanuel Kant. I find his ideas to be particularly powerful and insight-provoking. His thoughts on morality, logic, and metaphysics have been incredibly influential in my own life and thoughts. He provided a framework for understanding things like autonomy, duty, freedom, and enlightenment that I find really inspiring and thought-provoking.

Kant's theories have been transformative for me in terms of how I think about morality and its ethical implications. He proposed that morality should be based on treating people as ends in themselves, not mere means to an end. This has given me a useful framework for making decisions in my own life and understanding how my actions affect others. Additionally, Kant's concepts of transcendental idealism influenced my thinking about how we understand reality and the power of the human mind to interpret life.

But I also adore many others that I’ll list here.

First up on my list is Baruch Spinoza, a 17th century Dutch philosopher. He was an uncompromising rationalist who believed that all phenomena can be explained by reference to their natural causes. He also held that the universe is an infinitely extended substance that can neither be created nor destroyed.

Albert Schweitzer is another of my favorite philosophers. He was a medical missionary and activist who strove to bring kindness and compassion to all of his interactions. He firmly believed that it is everyone's responsibility to make the world a better place and that it must start with taking care of ourselves and each other.

Lastly I have to mention my girl, Simone de Beauvoir. She was a French feminist writer and existentialist who wrote extensively about gender issues. She argued that society creates roles for men and women based on the idea of biological determinism, which is the idea that biology gives us predetermined roles and characteristics in life.

[athousandgateaux]

thoughts and recomendations on simone weil?

Weil is dope as hell. I think it's nearly impossble to read her work without being moved to some degree. She is simply a fantastic writer and first rate thinker. I know people from a variety of different faiths who find her work inspiring, and have a friend who a kind of religious epiphany and conversion after reading her. I'm an atheist and also not a religious scholar, so I don't feel qualified to evaluate the content of that part of her work, but I've definitely found it interesting ans moving to read, and found myself agreeing with a lot of what she has to say. I also think she's a really interesting existentialist philosopher (she was contemporaries with Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus, and Cioran), though that aspect of her work is often overlooked and underdeveloped by people who engage with her. As a political writer, I think her actions are more noteworthy than her words, tbh. Her convictions were certainly admirable, though I think she is sometimes given too much credit for starving herself and playing proletarian.

As far as recommendations go: Gravity & Grace and Waiting for God are both excellent. G&G is based on unfinished notea she never intended to publish and is much more aphoristic, but I enjoy that style. Waiting for God is a more complete work, but still a very beautiful and enjoyable read. I think the concept of decreation is interesting (and Ann Carson has a good book developing it further), but otherwise, I thonk you just need to experience her writing for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

As far as her political works go: "Abolition of Political Parties" is okay, but not really anything more than what you'd get from anarchist writers of the same period, and quite a bit less, I'd argue. The Need for Roots is shit, imo, and kind of reveals that Weil was not really much of a political thinker. Beyond her strong socialist convictions -- which were largely a product of her religious thought, rather than any real political insight -- her actual political positions are largely incoherent and sometimes verge on the fascistic (the "need for roots" is not far off from "blood and soil" imo).

Definitely give her a read, but I'd stick to her religious/existential works over her political ones.