The Philosophy of Code Geass

[ashlay]

Originally Posted by Austin1

Lelouch doesn't really give a shit about freeing Japan he is just using the Japanese to his advantage so he can accomplish his goals. He is only appearing as a hero of Justice to get more and more support from the community. He is freeing Japan not because he really cares about freeing the Japanese but so that he has a loyal force he can use to achieve his own goals.

Also, yea he does care about his friends at school he is not a heartless bastard but he does follow the exact ideals of the Emperor. Oh, but he does hate when the strong pick on the weak because of his sister's condition.

utter lies. In fact you explained two reasons for why in the second section of your post.

anyway, go do this in the Lelouch thread.

[SteelRat]

War is a quick way to solve the problem (lulu says that to suzaku in Season 1) that's why it's more popular than peace in real life too...

[ashlay]

Originally Posted by SteelRat

War is a quick way to solve the problem (lulu says that to suzaku in Season 1) that's why it's more popular than peace in real life too...

well, it's not like any group in the show actually has peace though. >_>

[SteelRat]

The show is pretty chaotic that makes it look fast but it have been developing kinda slow we still don't know a lot of things and that makes it interesting - keeps us from loosing our interest in it.

well, it's not like any group in the show actually has peace though. >_>

They never will, maybe only temporary treaty but it will probably end in conflict anyway.

[Esper 28]

Originally Posted by Onizuka-GTO

your wrong.

Zero was the one who pledge the student council safety, but it was Lulouch who held them hostage against Suzuku.


You might say it's the same thing, but it's not.

Zero's agenda is to free Japan, protect the weak and up hold justice. So far he has done this.

However lulu is prepared to do anything to topple the Empire and to protect his sister with whatever means possible.

In the eyes of the people they are two separate individuals, thus what they see of each (or not see, as is the case for one)

they both have largely remind true to there goals.

And definitely have not done anything to meet the same level of hypocrisy as Suzuku has managed to do.

Obviously, when you know the man behind the mask, you tend to associate the action of one, to the other personality, thus creating the illusion of hypocrisy.

I thought this was a great post, if only because it brought to light the duality behind Lelouch/Zero. It's great, because Lelouch manipulates his Zero personality in order to achieve what his Lelouch persona wants to accomplish. But, at the same time, Lelouch has his own duality, the same duality that every man faces: a type of Jekyll & Hyde.

Lelouch is the kind hearted and warm person that Nunnally knows and that Shirley knows. However, at the same time, he's got this hidden beast that secretly wants to destroy Brittania completely and utterly. Honestly, I don't want to think that the violent side of Lelouch has taken over, but I can see him doing something so heinous that it will alter the show dramatically.

Zero, in my opinion, is means to an end for Lelouch. Does Lelouch believe in the things that Zero talks about? Perhaps partially, but I don't think he's fully committed to the ideals. It's really just a way to spit in his father's eye (without actually looking at his eye, of course! )

My question is if Lelouch realizes Zero is simply a means to an end. It could absolutely be a subconscious thing. Does anyone know, off hand, what Lelouch calls himself in his head? I can only reference Batman, but Batman doesn't call himself "Bruce" in his head, he calls himself "Batman". I think it'd be really revealing of Lelouch's psychology if he called himself anything other than Lelouch.

And I agree with those people who feel that now, after this whole Zero nonsense, Charles has taken note of his previously considered weak son. You know, Charles' warped concept of like, Social Darwinism is really interesting. How would he feel if someone other than one of his children assassinated him and took the throne? Would that conform to his ideas or would he believe that one's blood has to do with their eligibility. If I were to take a guess, I would bet he would assume anyone without his blood coursing through their veins was too weak to ever overtake him. Perhaps there's a chance for Suzaku to bring in some "fresh blood", so to speak.

[Anh_Minh]

I think both Zero and the kind, warm, and ultimately harmless Lelouch Lamperouge are means to an end for Lelouch. Neither is his true personality, and both are. I certainly don't think you can exonerate Lelouch by saying "Zero did it, not him".

If anything, I think he's closest to his true self with CC, who knows all his secrets. Not entirely unkind, especially with his friends, and very loyal, but also cold, calculating, and ruthless. And that he thinks of himself as "Lelouch vi Britania", as shown when he orders people around with his geass.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I think both Zero and the kind, warm, and ultimately harmless Lelouch Lamperouge are means to an end for Lelouch. Neither is his true personality, and both are. I certainly don't think you can exonerate Lelouch by saying "Zero did it, not him".

The anime goes one step further: every other time Zero gives one of those Big Moving Speeches of Destiny and Fate (tm), they take away the mask and show Lelouch with a funky green-black background. Can't get much more subtle about screaming "this is the real him" than when (literally) strip away the disguises.

Lelouch doesn't need "to be as hypocritical as Suzaku" to be hypocritical: he only needs to continue fabricating two polar opposite personas for different means and purposes. That isn't a character-killing flaw, though; it's what makes him more interesting. It's rather clear he can't keep both forever, so which one is he going to discard, and which one is he going to embrace into his true self? That's the drama of Geass.

If anything, I think he's closest to his true self with CC, who knows all his secrets. Not entirely unkind, especially with his friends, and very loyal, but also cold, calculating, and ruthless. And that he thinks of himself as "Lelouch vi Britania", as shown when he orders people around with his geass.

A fair analysis, and fitting with the show's theme of duality.

[Esper 28]

Originally Posted by Dean_the_Young

The anime goes one step further: every other time Zero gives one of those Big Moving Speeches of Destiny and Fate (tm), they take away the mask and show Lelouch with a funky green-black background.

I can't help but mention my running theory regarding C.C. and her manipulation of Lelouch. I just firmly believe that C.C. is using Lelouch as a pawn while Lelouch is using just about everyone else in the same manner. When you mentioned the "funky green-black background", I couldn't help but put what you're saying together with my theory. If when they show Lelouch in this manner, it is a glimpse at his true self, then perhaps the addition of the green in the background indicates C.C.'s presence? Almost as though when you strip Lelouch down past his Zero identity and any other front he may put forward, you'll find C.C.'s heavy influence.

I wonder how Charles' ranks manipulation when considering his heir...

[Dann of Thursday]

Yes, she is probably just manipulating him as a pawn against Charles in some huge game. Everything he did is pretty much her fault I suppose.

[bbduece]

Right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. That is the idea behind Suzaku and Lelouch. But the script is skewed toward Lelouch thus making Suzaku's ideals the side of the enemy.

Anyways I beleive this world eats the weak, how will you deal with it?

People who seeks results dont stop and deviate from the path so they can make someone feel better.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Esper 28

You know, Charles' warped concept of like, Social Darwinism is really interesting.

I wouldn't call that "warped."


Yes, it's a bit extreme, but not much different from what goes on in the world.

[bbduece]

Social Darwinism bred capitalism. All the major powers of the world runs on capitalism. All 3rd world countries hate capitalism because the weak and helpless always target the reason of thier existence is because the strong cut them out. The weaker always disapprove of the stronger. We may disapprove the ones stronger than us (actually i dont because i choose to follow the path and logic of Darwinism - to a certain extent base on my ideology), but the ones weaker than us disapprove us.

The world runs on stratification. As life/nature, the weak gets eaten and the stronger moves forward.

[Bballmvp4]

Originally Posted by bbduece

Social Darwinism bred capitalism. All the major powers of the world runs on capitalism. All 3rd world countries hate capitalism because the weak and helpless always target the reason of thier existence is because the strong cut them out. The weaker always disapprove of the stronger. We may disapprove the ones stronger than us (actually i dont because i choose to follow the path and logic of Darwinism - to a certain extent base on my ideology), but the ones weaker than us disapprove us.

The world runs on stratification. As life/nature, the weak gets eaten and the stronger moves forward.

Social Darwinism's ideals may have contributed to capitalism, but Social Darwinists did not believe in laissez-faire capitalism. They wanted a strong government that would intervene in the economy or society to weed out inferiors. They did not believe the marketplace could do that.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Bballmvp4

Social Darwinism's ideals may have contributed to capitalism, but Social Darwinists did not believe in laissez-faire capitalism. They wanted a strong government that would intervene in the economy or society to weed out inferiors. They did not believe the marketplace could do that.

Depends on which branch of Social Darwinists you ask. There's the Statist Social Darwinists and the Libertarian Social Darwinists.

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by Bballmvp4

Social Darwinism's ideals may have contributed to capitalism, but Social Darwinists did not believe in laissez-faire capitalism. They wanted a strong government that would intervene in the economy or society to weed out inferiors. They did not believe the marketplace could do that.

^I think you are talking about Classical Economic Theories vs Keynesian Theories.

In short Social Darwinism simply means: the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. Atleast that is what i was using the theory loosely in my post for.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by bbduece

In short Social Darwinism simply means: the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. Atleast that is what i was using the theory loosely in my post for.

...which honestly is a pathetic theory, and its application worse. The flaws range from the core philosophy to the procedural problems, so many that I just can't take Social Darwinism without spilling venom of my own.

First, in the core philosophy: Social Darwinism argues that "the strong would conquer the weak." Then it proceeds to provide a moral quality to this speculative statement, arguing further that "the strong conquering the weak is a good thing -- and should be the goal of governments, individuals, and society." This goes against most conceptions of justice, what are the goals of human society, the idea of human rights, the concept of governments as generally understood by most people, among other things. To take such a controversial position one must be very confident of the firmness of its position -- that, against others' ideas of justice, rights, and such, your position is the one supported by fact.

...which is frankly not so true, because:

There are many issues in the simple claim above. What is strong, what is weak? That question pretty much puts the whole thing into a relativistic angle. Different societies value different aspects of a person's attributes; and at different levels the meaning of strong and weak change with extraordinary rapidity. Is Lelouch weak or is he strong? All his classmates outran him but he alone has the intellectual mind to pursue what entails to Plans of World Conquest. Now, is Orange-kun weak or strong? He seems to have his own share of physical power, now further enhanced by insane modifications. But he is subject to mental breakdowns and manipulations and for all intents and purposes pushed out of society. Then, is Earl Lloyd strong or weak? He can't fight worth a damn, but he invents superweapons all the time. Then again, no superweapon could save him if his boss, who controls all of his superweapons, decide to get rid of him.

See where I'm going with this?

Try this mental exercise: Is the Emperor strong or weak? He is at the top of the food chain...but he is also envied and plotted against by many, many people. The obvious answer would be he's strong, right? He's the goddamn emperor after all. Now then, assume that as the story continues, Lelouch wins in the end, does that mean the strong suddenly becomes weak? What trait is it then that defines weakness? His Wakamoto voice? His outdated hairdo? His son being a cooler character than him? Or because he fails?

If you answer the last question with a yes, then consider more: What makes him fail? Because Lelouch's abilities exceed him? Are you sure? Can you measure that? Of course not, unless you're being facetious, or once again because you measure the inherent qualities by the result they produce... which would ignore a crucial factor: luck. Lelouch lucks out all the time, for every stray bullet it could've been the Death of Zero; so does that mean he's stronger because the element of chance happens to be on his side? Real life -- even anime, which isn't exactly real life -- isn't a videogame. You and I can't go and read, "John Smith has 18 strength, 13 charisma, 11 intelligence, compared to Goblin A who has 14 strength, 8 charisma, and 3 intelligence, so he's stronger." It just doesn't happen that way. Heck, even the mother of all generic RPG's, D&D, has the element of chance. Maybe John Smith rolled a 1 and got murdered by a stupid trap at level 1, while Goblin A rolled a twenty repeatedly and conquered Waterdeep, who's weak now?

It's all murky and funky, and, ignoring even the objective attempt at choosing who would define strong and weak, there's enough holes in it that I think somebody shot a whole magazine's worth of AK-47 at this ideology.

And then there's the application of this theory. Assuming that somehow all the arguments above are ignored, and you accept this idea anyway. How do you apply it? If you help the strong against the weak, well then, the so-called "weak" is actually being penalized from the level playing field isn't it? Furthermore, if you don't help, but create an atmosphere where the strong can do whatever they want, this brings to parallel another phenomenon: the rich gets richer, the poor gets poorer. Is that what you call, with absolute confidence, strong? That the model of social darwinism is working as intended? Bullshit. This ignores a vast number of factors, one crucial one would be wasted potential. Imagine if there's no C.C. and no Suzaku to save Lelouch in the series' very first episode, and then imagine the situation. Maybe that weak Lamperouge kid who got shot by the Britannian thugs has the potential to become Ruler of the World, Conqueror of the East, West, North, Women's Hearts, and Everywhere. Yet because he wasn't even given the chance, he becomes "weak," ignored, villified, pitied by the advocates of the oh-so-impressive social darwinism.

And finally, there's the history. One phrase: Godwin's Law. God's given ideal indeed, His Noodliness knows how many of the weaklings and helpless deservedly died.

P.S. There is a mention of Capitalism. I'd say this: the relationship between Capitalism and Social Darwinism has only limited parallels. First, any decent capitalist would be able to tell you: they weren't getting there only by their ability, no sir, they've been in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing. And second, unless you're one of those loony neoliberals, there's really no moral quality to Capitalism. It's an economic theory, things happen, things go this way and that, the end. Even then there are enough economists in the world who really find the Classical idea of capitalism to be terribly flawed and utopian. Social Darwinism goes much further, it equates this phenomenon, this theoretical model with human and moral qualities: first, the Winner is strong. Why? Because he wins. Yeah right. And second, the Winner is righteous, He is good. He deserves it. Why? Because he's strong...well, fuck that.

In any case, regardless of my long-winded post above, I tend to find advocates of social darwinism -- not necessarily you, mind you, I don't even know you; I'm talking about people I see and talk to in real life -- are either heavily idealistic, in a funky Radical Young Man kind of way, or extremely cynical, in a sad What Can You Do kind of way, or just having fun satirizing more coherent, acceptable in my moral compass, arguments.

[Dean_the_Young]

I feel compelled to point out a very key point about Darwinism here.

Darwin did not say that the strongest, smartest, or fastest were the ones that survived. Darwin said that the ones who survived were the ones who were most adaptable to change.

Strength alone is not the decider in who comes out on top in any evolutionary sense.

(Also, afraid I must point out that capitalism came long before Darwin was a twinkle in his Dad's eye. Darwin was born in 1809. The Wealth of Nations, one of the most influential economic theory books advocating free-market, was published in 1776.

As for capitalism itself, the main decider of capitalism is that most of the means of production are privately owned and done for profit, which to some degree has been common throughout history. It has gotten more and more efficient (a bartar economy can be a form of capitalism), but it's almost always there. If you have a black market, you have a miniature capitalist economy even in the heart of a state-control economy.

It's rather impossible for Darwinism to be a founding part of capitalism, you see, when capitalism started well before he did.)

[Irenicus]

Dean:

There are differences between the two Darwinisms though.

I really have to problems with the scientific theory -- it has its flaws, but it does serve as the base by which more modern evolutionary theories are built upon -- but a big beef with the latter.

[Dean_the_Young]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Dean:

There are differences between the two Darwinisms though.

I really have no problems with the scientific theory -- it has its flaws, but it does serve as the base by which more modern evolutionary theories are built upon -- but a big beef with the latter.

Oh, I completely agree. I was just trying to correct two separate misunderstandings that people seem to have: that (evolutionary) Darwinism was survival of the fittest (as opposed to adaptability to change: evolutionary Darwinism and Law of the Jungle are not interchangeable), and that Social Darwinism somehow had a hand in creating capitalism (when Social Darwinism itself only caught on in the later half of the 19th century).

Rest assured, my comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, and I agree that Social Darwinism has the fundamental flaws inherent in any ideology that is crafted to justify any and all of the actions of those in power.)

However, one might also point out the Rockefeller Corallary to Social Darwinism: that he who dies rich dies disgraced. Though hardly outweighing the flaws in execution, the philanthropy side aspect of Social Darwinism, at least in the Gilded Age United States, can not be ignored any more than the labor injustice of the day.

[Lowell1025]

Ya know....as far as philosophical discussion goes, I found most arguments end up clogged by participant's limited perspectives/ difference in perspectives. It is preventing them from reaching a satisfactory conclusion that truely comprehend everyting about the matter discussed. Duno about you but right now I've just accepted that every person have different experiences in life, lived under different conditions, and have different things matter to them, thus even if presented with the same thing, it'll be no suprise should they look at it differently and responds differently - they are all "right" within their context. What matters, I think, is the communication between them, or a system in place so that they'll either be able to recognize the differences, know their own limitedness and come to an understanding, or decide that they yet to know enough and just drop the damn thing...............................

.....Actually I take that back. Although I know full well that that damn mosquito is only trying to live when it sucked my blood, but I refuse come to an understanding with it or just let it go when my toes are iching and hurting like &*#(%@^!!! Where's my insect spray!!!!!!