The Philosophy of Code Geass

[anselfir]

1 shitstorm per ep for maximum aggravation. the target audience is so easily abused this way

[dom33]

Originally Posted by Onizuka-GTO

...or maybe the real reason is that we should just buy pizza and collect token for cheese-kun and limited edition CG merchandise.

yes. i have a strong gut feeling this is the underlining philosophical message. eat well from a 18" cheese stuff deep base pizza will stimulate a healthy well-being for all.

being hungry while musing deep ideas is bad for you.

pizza hut is your friend. call now.

*logs online*

*_*

I think that's the only thing code geass is actually saying. also I'm hungry.

(calls pizza hut)

[bbduece]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

...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.

I used to think like that, something along your line before, but i see a different reality now. I consider my old train of thought idealistic and carefree. Lowell1025 convey it very well, everyones thought and ideals are different, there is no one right way of thinking. To tell you the truth i prefer my old ways than what is now, but once "pandora's box" has been open it can not be undone.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

-Snip-

A potential answer to your thoughts, from a Korean idiom:

"There is always a flying person above a running one."

[Lowell1025]

Originally Posted by bbduece

I used to think like that, something along your line before, but i see a different reality now. I consider my old train of thought idealistic and carefree. Lowell1025 convey it very well, everyones thought and ideals are different, there is no one right way of thinking. To tell you the truth i prefer my old ways than what is now, but once "pandora's box" has been open it can not be undone.

Reality is reality, but there is also the possibilities. Although I do accept "reality", looking that things happen before me as have their inevitability - thus does not feel particularly annoyed or irritated about them happening, it doesn't mean I've accepted them that I'd just sit comfortably and let the boat take me to wherever it goes. If you look at things from a historical perspective, some societies today have developed systems that are much more stable and "fair" than those of the old. We really have came a long way in improving the world we live in, and I believe there's still much that can be done. I can imagine people live in a "world" that's completely different from what it is of today and be happier, more productive, more creative, more adventurous, even more ambitious and more greedy. To me Capitalism, along with its numerous variants from the past, in the present, and into the future - is just a small region humanity will travel in a world that will keep on expanding, along with our knowledge of both the universe and ourselves......................................... ...............

uhhhhhhh, I think I have gulped down an issue thats more than my ability to present to others at the moment I'll stop now, but feel free to express your thoughts

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by bbduece

I used to think like that, something along your line before, but i see a different reality now. I consider my old train of thought idealistic and carefree. Lowell1025 convey it very well, everyones thought and ideals are different, there is no one right way of thinking. To tell you the truth i prefer my old ways than what is now, but once "pandora's box" has been open it can not be undone.

Of course everyone is shaped by his or her own experiences (philosophers who assert otherwise are often victims of scrutiny by later generations...with the most likely conclusion being that they are shaped by their own experiences after all ), but surely that isn't an argument in favor of social darwinism really.

Besides, if you are going to brush away attacks on social darwinism with a relativist argument (ironic, since I was pointing out that one of the biggest flaws of social darwinism is exactly the relativistic nature behind many of its assertions), then we can't debate very far, as such an argument puts us on no certain floors at all; and, well, I'm not quite "in" with the whole metaphysics part of philosophy. It is easier to conclude then that, since everyone sees the world from his or her own perspective, and there is no certain falsehood, that all Lelouch really needs to justify his actions on is absolutely nothing, except whatever he decides to believe in. I think it's called Nunnalism.

Oh, and cynicism, while often a necessary product of age and experience, isn't always right. As the cliché goes, there's a lot that a little girl can teach an old man on.

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

"There is always a flying person above a running one."

And indeed a wise idiom, except that it does not necessarily challenge my argument, since its gist, if my interpretation is correct, is not that the strong ought to conquer the weak, but simply that, however strong one thinks he or she is, there is always someone stronger.

As far as social darwinism goes, the Flying Man will try and oppress the Running Man, and he will argue that it is righteous and proper, and when the Running Man gets his vengeful, "weak" hands on a shotgun, the Flying Man's philosophy will be blown to bits together with what used to be his internal organs.

Or maybe there is pollution up in all those clouds, and the Running Man achieves evolutionary advantage over the Flying Man. And all the world is turned upside down.

Twisting metaphors is fun.

[Anh_Minh]

I think the Running Man will beat up the Flying Man as soon as he lands, because hollow bones aren't very tough. The problem is if the Flying Man drops rocks on the Running Man.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

And indeed a wise idiom, except that it does not necessarily challenge my argument, since its gist, if my interpretation is correct, is not that the strong ought to conquer the weak, but simply that, however strong one thinks he or she is, there is always someone stronger.

As far as social darwinism goes, the Flying Man will try and oppress the Running Man, and he will argue that it is righteous and proper, and when the Running Man gets his vengeful, "weak" hands on a shotgun, the Flying Man's philosophy will be blown to bits together with what used to be his internal organs.

Or maybe there is pollution up in all those clouds, and the Running Man achieves evolutionary advantage over the Flying Man. And all the world is turned upside down.

Twisting metaphors is fun.

Indeed, twisting metaphors is fun.


And that's the beauty of Social Darwinism: It shows that if one doesn't improve, one will fall behind.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Indeed, twisting metaphors is fun.


And that's the beauty of Social Darwinism: It shows that if one doesn't improve, one will fall behind.

Well, this then leads to current beliefs in the evolution modle; the RED QUEEN EFFECT.

RQE is the effect caused by everything being forced to change because everyone else is changing and evolving themselves. Anyone who didn't constantly evolve falls behind, but those who do evolve never actually win anything; they just get to stay exactly where they are.

"You got to run as far as you can to stay exactly where you are".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen

The reason for RQE is because in evolution, your goalpost isn't fixed, but is determined by the relative position of everyone else. Hence it is a race that can't end. You can't stop.

[Lowell1025]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Indeed, twisting metaphors is fun.


And that's the beauty of Social Darwinism: It shows that if one doesn't improve, one will fall behind.

The problem is, in our contemporary societies, improving towards what?

To be ever more capable via technological advancement and knowledge acquisition , so that we work more to consume more? Throw more devastating weapons around? Find better ways for a few people who believe they know better to control the rest?

Aside from written language and some methods of perception, people today are largely still just animals living on the same instincts. The only difference is the manifestation of those instincts comes from different soil and thus blossomed differently.

[Dann of Thursday]

If there is one type of myths I think Taniguchi has a thing for, it may be Norse myths. He has done references before in the past and I think he has done the same with CG.

In that sense, which characters appear to be which figures in Norse mythology?

For starters, I'd say Lelouch=Odin. I'll post why later.

[KrimzonStriker]

Lelouch=Fenrir I say!!!

Schneizel can be Odin if the Emperor isn't >_>

[Blue_Mercy]

I'm more interested in the ruins, Bardley speculated it was related to why they had been invading certain countries, and as they have been studying these ruins more advanced technology has become available such as the Hadron cannon, and the flight wings.

[Ronin Aquila]

I said "Dammit What A Series..." Catching a cold has allowed me to finish this Masterpiece in a mere 3 sittings...

And my two yen on the Norse Symbolism:

C.C = Loki.

"A heartlessly whimsical and egotisctical sadist of a trickster god who hands out irresponsible gifts like so much poisoned candy on Halloween, uncaring of the consequences or whether the person can bear the agony of the gift; just that it gets used."

This fits both Loki and C.C to a tee. Yes, I'm of the opinion that the blood of 200 Thousand Innocent Japanese: And that of the Only Other Truly-Good Hearted British Girl beside Nanali-Chan, is stained on the hands of this most callous, heartless, and burn-worthy witch. (Why the blazes did I vote for her popularity BEFORE I watched Episode 22, WHY OH WHY!!)

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

I said "Dammit What A Series..." Catching a cold has allowed me to finish this masterpiece in a mere 3 sittings...

And my two yen on the Norse Symbolism:

C.C = Loki.

"A heartlessly whimsical and egotisctical sadist of a god who hands out irresponsible gifts like so much poisoned candy on Halloween, uncaring of the consequences or whether the person can bear the agony of the gift; just that it gets used for what she wants."

This fits both Loki and C.C to a tee. Yes, I'm of the opinion that the blood of 200 Thousand Innocent Japanese: And that of the Only Other Truly-Good Hearted British Girl beside Nanali-Chan, is stained on the hands of this most callous, heartless, and burn-worthy witch. (Why the blazes did I vote for her popularity BEFORE I watched Episode 22, WHY OH WHY!!)

Actually, I put V.V more in the category of Loki myself, because he seems far more mischievous then C.C is while demonstrating basically the same abilities, and he is technically the one trying to 'slay the gods' alongside Charles. Maybe C.C can be Fenrir's giantess mother Angrboda? >_>

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

I said "Dammit What A Series..." Catching a cold has allowed me to finish this Masterpiece in a mere 3 sittings...

And my two yen on the Norse Symbolism:

C.C = Loki.

"A heartlessly whimsical and egotisctical sadist of a trickster god who hands out irresponsible gifts like so much poisoned candy on Halloween, uncaring of the consequences or whether the person can bear the agony of the gift; just that it gets used."

This fits both Loki and C.C to a tee. Yes, I'm of the opinion that the blood of 200 Thousand Innocent Japanese: And that of the Only Other Truly-Good Hearted British Girl beside Nanali-Chan, is stained on the hands of this most callous, heartless, and burn-worthy witch. (Why the blazes did I vote for her popularity BEFORE I watched Episode 22, WHY OH WHY!!)

Here we go again...

C.C. is in communication with the spirit of Lulu's mother. Things are not that simple.

[Ronin Aquila]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Here we go again...

C.C. is in communication with the spirit of Lulu's mother. Things are not that simple.

Huh?

Please put "spoiler" for such a cool piece of plot line!! Not up to there yet!!

[Blue_Mercy]

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

I said "Dammit What A Series..." Catching a cold has allowed me to finish this Masterpiece in a mere 3 sittings...

And my two yen on the Norse Symbolism:

C.C = Loki.

"A heartlessly whimsical and egotisctical sadist of a trickster god who hands out irresponsible gifts like so much poisoned candy on Halloween, uncaring of the consequences or whether the person can bear the agony of the gift; just that it gets used."

This fits both Loki and C.C to a tee. Yes, I'm of the opinion that the blood of 200 Thousand Innocent Japanese: And that of the Only Other Truly-Good Hearted British Girl beside Nanali-Chan, is stained on the hands of this most callous, heartless, and burn-worthy witch. (Why the blazes did I vote for her popularity BEFORE I watched Episode 22, WHY OH WHY!!)

It really is a masterpiece, and with such a large cast of characters many of which not even introduced or have returned yet, the story re-set, and the director saying it's just begun, I can't agree with Ashlay or Krimzon's opinion that the series will end at 50 episodes.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ronin Aquila

Huh!!

Please put "spoiler" for such a cool piece of plot line!! Not up to there yet!!

From what you are up to, you already heard CC spoke to her. What, you think CC was speaking to herself?
(Only CC can hear the person she was speaking to.)

Where do you think "World of C" is? :P

[Ronin Aquila]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

From what you are up to, you already heard CC spoke to her. What, you think CC was speaking to herself?
(Only CC can hear the person she was speaking to.)

Where do you think "World of C" is? :P

Actually, I thought she was like the "Greek Chorus" of the saga, commentating on the foolishness of mortals.

Then again, it could be the nature of the subtitles in the version I got.

World of C? What the heck is that?