The Philosophy of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood – Wisecrack

"

鬼殺し wrote:

you should be wary of believing YOUR take on anything is the ONLY one.

Although technically accurate, your use of emphasis here implies you don't get it.

FMAB doesn't hand out trophies to multiple participants with competing ideologies. At no time does it make the case for multiple contradictory truths; the story arc dealing with multiple truths is resolved not by accepting contradiction, but by synthesizing them into a greater truth. At the end of the day only one path is favored, vindicated by the avatar of the Author in the white void of souls: that of the Elrics. This is not a story of moral relativism nor cultural Marxism. When it comes to The Truth, there is The Only One.

The point of FMAB is that, no matter how hard we as humans struggle, no matter how we band together, our models of The Only One will never equal The Only One. We will never know everything, and it is hubris capable of killing millions to believe we can. FMAB asks of us the courage to know what portion of The Truth we are capable of knowing, the humility not to presume the portion we are not, and the wisdom to know the difference. THAT is why the Elrics win, because Ed recognizes The Truth as a truly higher power than himself — indeed, higher than any possible himself.

Indeed, one should be wary of believing one's take on anything is The Only One; it is, at best, a fraction thereof.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

It's when we're traumatised that we seek the simplest answers, the means of getting beyond it, and those means are rarely rational. FMAB shows us not only individuals in various stages of post-traumatic madness but a country itself, and of course the easiest go-to there is post-WW1 Germany. Japan is fucking *obsessed* with that era, possibly because they were not allowed the sort of fervent post-war recuperation and subsequent resurgence Germany experienced after America soundly put them down...twice, for good measure. Hell, there's almost certainly an entire field of study on that alone.

I recommend "Paranoia Agent" if you haven't watched it, it's short and talks about this a little bit, well, it doesn't go deep on the subject, but it's something. I think the only anime that I know that really addresses this is Rainbow, but I don't have the guts to watch that...

Now, something to think about: Is the japanese love for mechas related to that too? I mean, they have been put down and after that were 'prohibited' to advance their military capabilities, piloting a mecha isn't a way to fantasize about defending their country on their own?


BTW Paranoia Agent's opening is one of my favorites ever.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Simplistic but if that's what you get from it, that's cool.

It is a simplistic childs story. Evil villains, good heroes.
Dont place the blame on me for calling the kettle black.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

As with certain others in this thread, you should be wary of believing YOUR take on anything is the ONLY one. That way lies zealotry. Which is ironic, since that's sort of what FMAB is all about.

In general, sure. There are a lot of things which are completely opinion based with no factual component.

But so much of our media has become all about the opinion the general average IQ citizen grows used to it... and loses sight of the fact that there exists objective truth. This is a very dangerous path. It leads to ignorance and a mindset in which one is always not wrong.

But as for this particular case; it seems clear to me that the brothers are in debt for attempting to pay for their mother to live. Alphonse's body is no longer his own, and he must work to purchase it back. In their quest they see all the aspects of how twisted the system really is.
I never claimed it was the ONLY interpretation. But it is one that fits which seems overlooked.

Much of art is in the relations, whether by design or not. To berate someone on their personal analysis and insight is to be a real prick.

"

SkyCore wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Simplistic but if that's what you get from it, that's cool.

It is a simplistic childs story. Evil villains, good heroes.
Dont place the blame on me for calling the kettle black.

The story draws a line on what is good and what is evil, but not everyone of the good guys are heroes(i.e. Roy Mustang assisted the genocide), and even one of the villains repented(Scar).

You say it's a child story, but somehow it was rated 17+... I don't disagree with you, the humor is child-like, but I don't think this is in the same league as doraemon... or pokemon even... I mean, little kids try to bring their mom back from the dead and they end up making an abomination of flash and bones of which they don't even know if is their mom or not but they still decide to end the thing...

I don't think I would let a child watch this if I had one.

"

SkyCore wrote:

In general, sure. There are a lot of things which are completely opinion based with no factual component.

But so much of our media has become all about the opinion the general average IQ citizen grows used to it... and loses sight of the fact that there exists objective truth. This is a very dangerous path. It leads to ignorance and a mindset in which one is always not wrong.

But as for this particular case; it seems clear to me that the brothers are in debt for attempting to pay for their mother to live. Alphonse's body is no longer his own, and he must work to purchase it back. In their quest they see all the aspects of how twisted the system really is.
I never claimed it was the ONLY interpretation. But it is one that fits which seems overlooked.

Much of art is in the relations, whether by design or not. To berate someone on their personal analysis and insight is to be a real prick.

1.Talks about objective truth
2.Talks about how much his interpretation makes sense
3.Complains that other people doesn't respect his personal opinion

1 and 2 seems to contradict 3.

On 3 you say it's only your opinion, your interpretation, but with the context of 1 and 2 it makes me believe that you think your opinion is the truth or at least closer to it than different interpretations...


Look, I do believe there's objective truth in this world, the thing is: We are talking about a work of fiction here.

Works of fiction have 2 purposes IMO: to entertain, and to incite/stimulate thought.

What do you think it would happen if every author explained what is his message before every work(be it a movie or book or whatever)?

People will be way more likely to only see what the author told them to see and nothing else. Maybe 100 people that watched a movie will leave with the same opinion. Is this good? Everyone thinking the same?



The thing is, if we don't tell people what they should think, 100 different people watching a movie can make 100 different interpretations of that movie, and if the purpose is to stimulate thought then that is a good thing.

Objective Truth is good when it comes to story and other stuff, when it comes to art it could become a burden. And that is assuming your interpretation is indeed what the author meant...

"

soneka101 wrote:

Complains that other people doesn't respect his personal opinion
...
it makes me believe that you think your opinion is the truth or at least closer to it than different interpretations...

So if i were to acknowledge that;
1) ascetics are subjective
2) there exists a reality
3) and say that scarlet johanssan is beautiful
and you punched me in the face for saying that...how is it wrong of me to say you shouldnt have punched me?

Yeah i deserve respect. I assert it. And if you come at me, i promise you wont get away unscratched.
There is nothing wrong with that. And if you think there is, you have some serious explaining to do.

"

SkyCore wrote:

So if i were to acknowledge that;
1) ascetics are subjective
2) there exists a reality
3) and say that scarlet johanssan is beautiful
and you punched me in the face for saying that...how is it wrong of me to say you shouldnt have punched me?

Yeah i deserve respect. I assert it. And if you come at me, i promise you wont get away unscratched.
There is nothing wrong with that. And if you think there is, you have some serious explaining to do.

This is funny somehow...

I will tell you what I think you are thinking right now.

You think it's a disrespect for me to say your opinion is not better than others when "logic and common sense is obviously on your side".

Probably the only way I could have you to agree with me it would be if I explained to you another interpretation of FMAB that made more sense TO YOU than your own theory.

You see, people have their own values, standards, and ways of seeing the world, and it can be different from one to another.

What you are asking here is for everyone to acknowledge your perception of FMAB as the best or to supply another interpretation that is still in tune with your perception of the world.

If I found such interpretation, I wouldn't be changing your perception of the world or your values or anything, you would still be you. I think this is what people mean when they say someone is close minded, it's when people find it hard to understand new concepts that go against their previous reality.

I bet you saw at least once one of those guys that are crazy about atheism. They say: "I can't understand how can someone possibly follow any religion" and it's true, they can't understand, they can't follow the same thought process of someone that follows a religion.

Someone that was religious and became atheist can however.

My point on my previous post was that it's better to have several different interpretations on a work of fiction and that it's meaningless to have "one best interpretation", but you are so accustomed with the idea that there's only one right answer to anything that you couldn't understand that.

P.S. Nobody is punching you.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Meh. The only other for which I've no time is the one that has no time for others.

The only other I don't tolerate are the intolerant, the only other I hate are the hateful, etc. A mindset designed to create two factions, each demonizing the other, then each unleashing their hate only when exposed to the other, thus providing the evidence to justify the initial demonization.

The way to end hatred is to always have an ear for those who talk not to convince themselves or others on their own side, but to convince the other. Now you might say "they've made time for others so they're not on my list," but if you've already written them off, then you won't make the time to notice they're making the time; you would stop listening and be reduced to seeing only what is right in front of you, so to speak. It's easy to continue demonizing the other under such circumstances.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Indeed. No one understands the other more than a former other. But there's still a lot to be said for giving others the time of day regardless. The worst that can happen is you disagree. Bummer. But there's a pretty good chance that your own perspective on a related topic will be enriched by taking into account theirs.

That's the core of learning, isn't it? Learning beyond rote indoctrination, at any rate. Critical thinking and expanding viewpoints. Surely a mark of maturity is grasping the validity of others' perspectives without necessarily sharing them.

Ah, but that's no fun! Where's the trolling in that? Where's the righteous indignation and the defensiveness? Where's the CONFLICT!?

I agree.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Meh. The only other for which I've no time is the one that has no time for others. You can hold your hand out but you can't force someone to take it.

You can just leave that hand out, at least until you get a cramp and figure what's the point. :)

Sometimes we say "I believe in something" and someone pops up saying "Oh! Me too!" and you stop to listen that person trying to figure out the core of their beliefs and you end up finding out that the only thing they truly believe in, is themselves.

Sure, who we are will always affect what we believe in, but if everything one believes is based on who they are(their identity/how they see themselves), then it's a waste of time to delve too deep in a conversation with that person.

I think most of the time this is the type of person that won't take someone's hand. It's easy to understand why, the possibility of change must feel like suicide for someone like that, after all, rethinking their beliefs casts doubt on who they really are.

Well, that is the impression I have sometimes, and when I see this kind of stuff I avoid to engage.

Edit: BTW I just realized that the islands on the movie "inside out" are not only personalities but also identities:

The movie makes a case that it's healthy to have lot's of them, and it makes sense, if your only identity is religion you can end up as a zealot, if it's your masculinity you might end up as a homophobe and etc...

"

鬼殺し wrote:

...and we're back to the idea of balance and moderation...if we even left it.

It always goes back to that...