The Philosophy of Code Geass

[Dream_Traveller]

Building a bomb that would kill millions because of Nina believing in her own "higher power" was good?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Dream_Traveller

Building a bomb that would kill millions because of Nina believing in her own "higher power" was good?

The US had scientists who were genuinely patriotic and with the best of intentions, developing biological weapons to help the war effort. And young soldiers willingly breathed in samples of the product in the labs to make sure they work, because it may mean less of their own friends will fall in battle. This was before the Geneva convention.

Scale is irrelevant; a weapon is just a weapon. It's for killing people. Who you kill with it is far more important than the weapons themselves.

The Bomb's development was inevitable. Nina was just manipulated by someone else to take all the blame when things went wrong.

[Dream_Traveller]

Except none of the scientists of the Manhattan Project, or, presumably, any other US weapons project, were raving psychotic lunatics who genuinely desired to cause genocide. They only made the bomb, in regards to it, to end the war faster because Operation Downfall was too risky, and, as for bio weapons, well...normal advancements, I suppose. Nina, on the other hand, made the bomb solely so she could kill as many Japanese people as she could.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Dream_Traveller

Building a bomb that would kill millions because of Nina believing in her own "higher power" was good?

I was talking about the Nina after the Fleya incident, and merely stating that I don't think she needs to let go of Euphemia completely in order to genuinley change.

[Dream_Traveller]

Well, since Euphemia was, apparently, her only driving force to make amends- ironic in that she was the driving force to make the FLEIA, too- and construct that lance weapon, I reckon she does need to let go. Becauase if Euphemia and nothing else is her driving force, that's more than troublesome.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Dream_Traveller

Well, since Euphemia was, apparently, her only driving force to make amends- ironic in that she was the driving force to make the FLEIA, too- and construct that lance weapon, I reckon she does need to let go. Becauase if Euphemia and nothing else is her driving force, that's more than troublesome.

Nina only tried to kill the Japanese because she thought that's what Euphie wanted. Euphie's brother said so, after all. And Euphie DID fire a machine gun into a crowd.

There wasn't anything wrong with idolizing someone. Especially since Euphie wasn't even a bad person. The real Euphie was an okay role-model, so as long as Nina found out what Euphie was really like in the end, there is nothing wrong for Euphie to remain as Nina's hero.

[Charred Knight]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Nina only tried to kill the Japanese because she thought that's what Euphie wanted. Euphie's brother said so, after all. And Euphie DID fire a machine gun into a crowd.

There wasn't anything wrong with idolizing someone. Especially since Euphie wasn't even a bad person. The real Euphie was an okay role-model, so as long as Nina found out what Euphie was really like in the end, there is nothing wrong for Euphie to remain as Nina's hero.

exactly who needs therapy when someone could just kidnap Nina, and tell her that Euphie wants her to build another Damocles and to finish what Euphemia started;.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Charred Knight

exactly who needs therapy when someone could just kidnap Nina, and tell her that Euphie wants her to build another Damocles and to finish what Euphemia started;.

The person who did that was also Lulu's brother, who had nearly EVERYONE under his spell, including quite a few audiences watching the anime. So it is rather unfair to claim Nina is THAT weak-willed.

[Charred Knight]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The person who did that was also Lulu's brother, who had nearly EVERYONE under his spell, including quite a few audiences watching the anime. So it is rather unfair to claim Nina is THAT weak-willed.

I still stand by my statement, I knew Schneizel was evil from the time he first appeared. I mean just look at the guy he was either evil, or a pot smoking hippy, and what was more likely?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Charred Knight

I still stand by my statement, I knew Schneizel was evil from the time he first appeared. I mean just look at the guy he was either evil, or a pot smoking hippy, and what was more likely?

I know he was evil too. But as I said, that view wasn't shared by all the audiences. Plenty of real people did believe Schneizel was a pot smoking hippy, as you put it. So if real people watching the anime can believe he was a good guy, why couldn't Nina?

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I know he was evil too. But as I said, that view wasn't shared by all the audiences. Plenty of real people did believe Schneizel was a pot smoking hippy, as you put it. So if real people watching the anime can believe he was a good guy, why couldn't Nina?

I agree with that (except for the "evil" part, but that's merely a matter of definition).
Schneizel had many people fooled - including his own family.
If Cornelia couldn't see what kind of person her brother really was, then it would have taken a miracle for someone as inexperienced, insecure and emotionally unstable like Nina not to fall for Schneizel's deceptions.

[Guernsey]

I now that masks had probably been mentioned before but I want to ask a question and then go deeper on it. We all know that Lelouch was hiding under the mask of Zero and Lelouch Lamperouge but I wonder if it is a metaphor the psychological masks that we put to hide ourselves. We wear "masks" to mask our true selves and our true intentions so that we appear to people as they believe us to be but we know that is not our true selves, only the "mask" we wear that we make believe it "us". I am not completely sure if has anything to do with the ego but I believe that it is probably a metaphor for the ego as well, how it walks, talks and thinks like you but it is not the real "you", just your ego that is pretending to be "you".

Lelouch wears the mask of Zero in order to make the world a better place for his sister Nunnaly and all he cares for but in the end, we all know that the behind the mask is not real "Lelouch" but the alternate persona that he created for himself. Sometimes I feel as though that it is hard to distinguish the two considering that they are so much alike but we all that Zero is just a "mask" that Lelouch wears and even the high school student "Lamperouge" is just another mask as well. It seems that some of the characters in the show wear "masks", Marianne as we know her wears the mask of a caring mother but we now know that she is more sinister and "evil" than she first appeared and Schneizel who appeared to everyone as a charismatic figure who actually cares less about his surbordinates and is just a cruel, calcaluting figure who only wishes to further his own plans.

I am not an eloquent writer and I could be wrong in the following statements but these are my thoughts on the subject of "masks" in Code Geass. I wish I could elaborate more on this but this is what came in my mind and the subject I want to discuss.

[Neku]

Originally Posted by demon_god04

Yes the world is unfair, but what Frost was saying is that leaving aside the fairness of the world, striving for your happiness does not validate one's actions if they ruin another life to do it. You say that Shirley did not deserve her death, but it was Villetta that put her into the middle of things, all for her own personal gain. Sure being a noble would make her happy, but what about people like Shirley who you yourself said did not deserve that outcome.

I guess it is a matter of what you believe to be Nina's lesson to be in all this. If you think that the lesson is that doomsday weapons are bad and kill lots of people then yes I suppose you can say that Nina has learned her lesson. However, it seems that there is something more behind her actions as well. Look at the series itself, the very reason Nina did what she did was because of her single minded obsession with her own image of Euphemia. That obsession drove her to create Fleija and pushed for it's use. But even at the end, she was still focused on Euphemia, she helped Lelouch because of Euphemia, the very crutch she had been leaning against when she created Fleija. Learning her lesson would be to stand on her own, that her actions is not "for" someone else which lead her down the wrong path before. But yet she had not learned that lesson in the end and perhaps she would not send another Fleija out at people but she may yet repeat her mistake in another way.

And it is not about shaping nogitsune's idea of justice. It is clarifying one of the very institutions that define a state level society. The fact that laws, and crime and punishment is one of the very defining features of a state level society all around the world, even in cultures that have no interaction with each other and based in completely different regions means that there is a need for a unified code of law. Crime and punishment is a part of it, to be a deterrent to future crimes. Giving away "free passes" just because they are perceived to have learned their lesson runs contrary to what makes our justice system works, perhaps not perfectly but there is a reason why transgressions has to be punished even on a family level.

Again back to the point of everyone striving for happiness, once again, the point of the series is that no one should trample on others for their own happiness. That is why Lelouch has paid the price for ruining the lives and happiness of others. Lelouch is a poor example because of that very fact. Even though he believes that doing what he did would make the world better, he still understands that what he did was inexcusable and his sacrifice was his atonement for geass and the people whose lives he ruined for his happiness. But really what Lelouch was striving for was not HIS happiness but rather other people's happiness and his atonement.

But really what I have the post problem with nogitsune's point was that Nina somehow deserved a free pass but Lelouch was a selfish bastard. He may have based his plan on what he has said, that those who are allowed to shoot should be prepared to be shot, or something to that effect, it is a declaration of his belief that people should be responsible for their actions, that you should only act when you are prepared for the consequences. He is acting behind that belief when engineering his own death, by accepting what his choices and actions have lead to up to this, and then atoning and punishing himself for them.

Actually, I know all that.
When I stated that everyone is striving for their happiness, I didn't mean that they were all right, neither were they all wrong. Instead, what I want to say is, they have both, and let's just say right is white, and wrong is black; we mixed them and we have grey.

Next, I'd like to clarify. When I say "everyone" is grey in Code Geass', it was a statement given wrongly. In my very first post here, I believe I mentioned that Code Geass is trying to convey that there's not only black and white in this world, there's still the color grey. That said, I would have to admit that I exaggerated the statement that everyone's grey. This, is more of a clarification to Frost.

Finally, I still do not think that Lelouch is a poor example. Yes, he strived for the happiness of the people towards the end. He atoned for his sins, and the ending? He was happy.

I personally think that we can be selfish in many ways.
But that's another issue, and I do not wish to elaborate on that. Off-topic, being one of the reasons.

Anyways, I have no intention of continuing this; I see it's kinda stopped anyway, and I don't think I'm very comprehensible.

However, Guernsey's post is another interesting one. Masks. Everyone has one. Just wanna say: Nice.

[Levy]

I find back the post, she did not delete anything, it's an example (a poor one, maybe, but still and example) inside a much more wide and complex argument you took out of context.
Please take things a little more lightheartedly, and restrain yourself from judging people you really do not know nothing about. And I guess you'd like to edit your post, because none would ban Nogitsune for what are her toughts on such a random argument, but you would probably get infraction to have call her crazy because she likes ArthurXClovis, I guess.

[Charred Knight]

Originally Posted by Levy

Rave, I tried to get back to the point were Nogitsune said that Hitler was a grey petty bastard but can't find, would you mind to point it out for me?

Anyway, I do not see any scandalous in watching an anime without judging characters with a strict moral code. You can enjoy psycomaniacs and dictators in fiction and be still able to recognize what is wrong and what is right in RL.

I think I found it on page 10 we where having an arguement about the greyness of geass, where Nogitsune stated that Charles was grey for doing what he though was right, then Frost Fire pointed out that Hitler thought that what he was doing was right which caused Nogitsune to post

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Saying that someone is grey doesn't mean that he isn't a petty little bastard.

From what I see the problem is that Nogitsune's definition of grey differs from most people.

Also Rave can you calm down with the insults your going to get banned and cause a lot of closed topics.

[Levy]

Originally Posted by Charred Knight

I think I found it on page 10 we where having an arguement about the greyness of geass, where Nogitsune stated that Charles was grey for doing what he though was right, then Frost Fire pointed out that Hitler thought that what he was doing was right which caused Nogitsune to post

I found it, thanks ^^

While I might disagree with my soulmate in the specific point about Charles, I have no problem with Nogitsune's degree of moral relativism, as long as it's still in the context of an anime-related discussion.

I also guess we are not allowed to discuss RL-politics on this board, so we should better stop it here or we'll have the topic close.

@Rave: it's called 'freedom of speech'. As long as you do not insult anyone, you are free to express your thoughts, even the most retarded. If your antifascist feelings are so strong, you should be familiar with this concept.

[Nogitsune]

*hugs Levy*

Originally Posted by rave

Really?Because this seems like the weaker argument i have ever seen.And please there is bad and evil,like white and black.You are shitting morality if you deny this.
Hitler was a grey petty bastard,i mean you should get banned solely for this.

As Charred Knight already mentioned, I wasn't the one who brought up Hitler.
In fact, I stated several times that I do not want to talk about real life here, because there definitely is a difference and I don't see the need to talk about it here.

Originally Posted by rave

She deleted it cause she knew that what she posted was plain shit.
No that person is not able to recognize it,she thinks Lelouch is asexual for example just because she likes to ship ArthurxClovis.She is crazy.

I said Lelouch might be asexual, and I am free to "ship" whatever I want.
But I'm flattered you took the time to notice my lack of sanity. ;P
...Oh, and by the way: my soulmate is right, I didn't delete anything.

Originally Posted by Levy

I found it, thanks ^^

While I might disagree with my soulmate in the specific point about Charles, I have no problem with Nogitsune's degree of moral relativism, as long as it's still in the context of an anime-related discussion.

I also guess we are not allowed to discuss RL-politics on this board, so we should better stop it here or we'll have the topic close.

@Rave: it's called 'freedom of speech'. As long as you do not insult anyone, you are free to express your thoughts, even the most retarded. If your antifascist feelings are so strong, you should be familiar with this concept.

*hugs again* xD

[snowdevil_crow]

So --- Diethard was loltastic and the best author-avatar ever, yes/no?

[incorrupts]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

my point here wasnt to try to get people to hate lelouch
my point was to try and get you to entertain the thought that "maybe, i DO have double standards"
denial is the first step
its a defensive move, because double standards sounds like an accusation (and makes you feel like you need to defend yourself)
but once you get past the defensive stage, you would start wondering about it to yourselves

Lol, is there any way we can win here:
So, we admit we are being double standards = yes, we are
We deny, cause we are not = yes we are again. lol

Srsly though, in fiction, there can be equality, and there can be not, depending on circumstances, charas-actions, development and so on.
In this case, Lelouch compared to anyone else = not equal. He is the mascot of the show, he is the main chara, the one that is leading the series, the one that is getting tremendous development compared to others. [U]There is no equality in this case, thus double standards cannot apply.

So yeah, in a nutshell, like Johan in Monster said, that people are only equal in death, in Geass, charas are only equal in being bishonen and pretty. Definitely not, in the development department..<= yep, philosophy of Geass.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by snowdevil_crow

So --- Diethard was loltastic and the best author-avatar ever, yes/no?

Definitely. xD
It shows that the staff thinks fanfic writers are obsessed.
Errr... or something like that. But I bet it's an important part of the philosophy of Code Geass. xD