Adolescent, borderline puerile philosophy

I can tell yallz ppl got dem dat edumacation! (I betcha even got dem strait teeth!)

Mr. Lee has a point that pertains to all artists in general, and not just to Oshii's work, and that is the relationship between Beauty and Truth, a special case of the more general philosophical issue pertaining to the relationship between Appearance and Reality. The concern about the Appearance vs. Reality is what supposedly gave rise to to the birth of Western Philosophy, at 9:00 AM on May 15th, in 578 BC. That was the time, date, and year that Thales, the first Greek philosopher, entered the stage of human history, by predicting the exact time when a solar eclipse would occur. His main teaching was that everything rested on water, that everything consisted of a single substance that was like water in the sense that this single "stuff" could take on solid, liquid, and vapor form. So despite appearances, the reality was that *every* thing was just the appearance of the different arrangements of *one* thing only. Many of the philosophers that followed Thales did not dispute monism, or the belief that everything was just the one thing taking on different arragements; indeed, their major dispute was in terms of *what* that one thing was. To be sure, other philosophers did not agree that Reality was monistic, some said it dualistic (spirit vs. mind, for example), others said it was many substances; nevertheless, most philosophers agreed that the underlying reality of things had far fewer constituents than what seemed apparent to the eye.

This is where the whole issue of Beauty vs. Truth begins to bite. Artists, by distracting people with audiovisual "appearances," tend to cause people to stray from Truth, at least according to both Socrates and Plato, with Plato insisting that they were professional liars, and that they should be banned from an Ideal Society. Needless to say, other philosophers while taken a less jaundiced view of Art, and its role in Society; nevertheless, as a 900 lb. gorilla of philosophy, Plato's view has carried resounded though the ages. The 19th-century Romantic poet, John Keats, equated Beauty and Truth, and both other artists and society at large, have swallowed this tripe whole. By this I mean that too many people think that talented actors, poets, painters, etc., have, solely due to their talent, some unique hold on "Truth" that we mere mortals, do not. PLEASE! Artists have better grasp on Truth than a carnival barker has on "The Mysteries of the East," or whatever grotesque spectacle they are inclined to pimp.

Ok David I disagree on many of your points, but I'd like to focus on one thing as I don't feel like writing for days and days.

The message the major sends Batou in Kims mansion is of a philisophical nature because that is how your supposed to get out of the loop. The aemaeth' 'maeth says a lot about kim, and the world he's built to protect himself. The doll that is the golem reflects Kim as a person, his beliefs and his ultimate planning. Kim himself is a golem - His aemaeth, and his achilles heal, is the fact that he's put his conciousness into a doll only, and lives his life through the eyes of an inanimate creature. He himself is a golem in a sense, and ultimately it his achilles heal. His belief structure is surrounded around this myth and lore, and his current existence is that of a golem. Merely an inanimate object feeding off a word.

Also, this is an extremely complex movie in many regards. Think of it this way - when batou is being shot by seemingly, himself, he doesn't realize that he is shooting himself. His sense experience is governed by the hacker. Thus, any attempt the major could make to send a message that says "your in a trap" would be automatically blocked from batous sense experience. Like the officer who stuns him has to sneak up on him, rather than just say "batou, you've been hacked". The major cleverly puts this note into Kims world without him noticing or being able to prevent it. This suggestion goes beyond sense experience, and fits well within kims mind. To kim, it is a reflection of himself (which this entire realm is), and to him it may seem simply another illusion he's conjured to confuse and disorient. This movie is an illusion in that sense, because often times things are not as they appear, in any sense of reason.


I do agree at times the film does complete cut out any dialogue with pure quotation's, but that's no reason to completely write it off. To me cutting out the chit chat is better than living off it. I'd rather read a quote book than hear another chat between the hero and the damsel that's trite, meaningless and fully unrewarding dialogue. I'd rather hear one good quote that works in a film than 100 statements that I've heard watching tv today.

I read none of this.

[deleted]

It's too bad you refuse to appreciate a movie that, at the very least, ATTEMPTS to be intelligent.
Even if it's adolescent philosophy, at least it's more philosophical than 99% of the mindless mainstream offerings (ie: comedies, action adventures, romances, horror, family, etc)

I don't think Oshii ever claims to have all the answers and I don't think the movies attempts to give that impression...the point is to make you think. And even if you hated it, I still think they were at least mildly successful if they were able to provoke that much ranting from you.

and nothing in the world is totally original, however the random quotes in the movie give it context and intelligence.

One of the reasons the philosophy works for me is because Batou is doing most of the talking with it. This dialogue really fits with his mental state. Time has passed from the first film (I've heard speculation of 3 years) which ends with the Major vaguely communicating with Batou about the transformation that has taken place. Actually, throughout the entire first film the Major brings up lots of existential questions that Batou has not seemingly given much thought too. Also, one aspect in setting up Batou's mental state in Innocence is that he was in love with the Major, but at the end of the first film she no longer exists.
So, what's a single guy who lives alone and has recently had his interest in philosophy piqued by the person he loved to do? He starts researching. We should also keep in mind that Batou has enhanced brain processing capabilities that probably make it easier for him to spout out the so-called "random" quotes. The fact that he's so mechanical comes into play with regards to the fact that he's able to process real-time events and apply them very easily to whatever he's been studying.
I would caution against applying auteur theory so directly. Oshii may have the final word on what goes into the film, but it's still a collaborative process. The fact that the dialogue is written to be spoken by a fictional character acts to distance itself from the direct voice of the writer. If you don't think this kind of dialogue is fitting for Batou (I've just explained why I think it is fitting) that's one thing, but it's unfair to criticize Oshii for giving the character of Batou a philosophical condition. But hey, if you don't like the film, you don't like it ya know. I still think it's odd that you're condemning what you claim to be Oshii's personal philosophy based on the fact that it's a collection of information that he's filtered and prepared for presentation, when you are expecting those who read your post to be enlightened by information that you have to present; information that has been obtained in a similar way. If we are to follow suit with your insights, are we not engaging in "dangerous and witless" behavior?

It's all external reality anyway so it doesn't matter how the philosophy comes off period. If it is adolecent philosophy then all philosophy is adolecent child-like attempts to grapple with external reality. To be fair to art is to just take it however you want and leave it at that. I came away from the fiction thinking neither this or that. Simply because here we are still in some human condition of external reality trying to grapple with the 'veil' only to probably uncover that a chair is a chair if we get over to the external part which we can't because we're human and we're stuck. However, I loved your summary all the same. Cynical, but elegant. That's what makes the 'I' special sometimes as we try to understand each other externally. I found the attempts to grapple with 'Locus Solus' facinating. I left a post to that effect on this board.

There's something to think about there. As for the philosophy, adolecent or not it's all 'external' and fair game. I figure as I told a friend recently that I'm just as dumb as the Universe so I leave it at that ;-)

Brian