tv33 wrote:There are countless philosophers who all think different and conflicting things. So to guess which ones Anno is drawing on is a shot in the dark anyway.
So because people disagree on some aspects of philosophy, we should throw out reasoned insight into the nature of the soul (which happens to be practically universal among non-materialists I might add).
tv33 wrote:There is a difference between Descartes thoughts on an abstract concept like a soul, and simple reason.
This sentence alone makes me think that either:
A.) You haven't read Descartes or
B.) You missed his point entirely.
Descartes goal and belief was that we could come to understand the soul and mind through reason and intellect alone.
tv33 wrote:No one brings up fairies as an explanation to the mechanics of LCL because there isn't any mention of fairies. It is completely unreasonable to do so. We do however get an idea if what Anno wants us to know about souls in the universe he created.
I'm willing to base it on Anno's "science" alone. But even in doing so, you're still going to have to point out where it is that Anno even remotely suggests a soul can be in two places at once.
I think if you're going down this path, you're going to find it difficult — as Ritsuko herself says this is impossible.
tv33 wrote:Saying Descartes or any other philosopher thinks differently, so we should as well, is silly because we are dealing with a work of fiction, which is dealing with something that hasn't even be proven to exist!
But did I say that?
Why is it that people keep putting words in my mouth?
I referenced him as one who has great insight and has put much work into understanding the facets of the soul.
And yet, here again is that philosophy so many people here care to use when confronted with something they either don't agree with or cannot refute "we're dealing with a work of fiction" — [basically saying anything is possible, it doesn't need a reason, it doesn't have to comply with reason or intellect or logically follow from its premises]
I don't see how so many people can keep using this sorry excuse for setting aside everything for the sake of their ideal image of what the show should be or what they think it is.
I, on the other hand, again, as I've said in either this post or others (I'm losing track now), am open to hearing defenses.
But all I'm hearing is "It's fictional. Forget reason. Our theories which have no evidence [*writer's note* except for the RCB and .. Newtype is it? — which are sooo infallible] are correct. We don't want to hear about your so-called logic or consistency."
(Sorry, but I'm a little bitter because this same excuse [and that's all it is, an excuse] continues to keep popping up).
Originally posted on: 15-Nov-2004, 01:39 GMT