Isekai Shikkaku Episode 8 Discussion

This show deserves a higher MAL score

@Sigmar-Unberogen Honestly, there’s no need to take my comment so seriously. That’s all I'll say.

The tree died for good when the villagers chose to exploit the tree rather than revere and protect it. Esche moved on when she left her mortal body to become a spirit. She floated away towards the sky... away from everyone. The only reason she stayed for that long was that she was kept hoping that the villagers would do the right thing and return to the way things were before the otherworlders arrived. She got her answer after the village was liberated and she had no other reason to stay and continue blessing a village that never appreciated the tree (her).

A simple example …

There are two groups of villagers separated by a river.

First village teaches that “stealing” is wrong and there is a punishment for thieves.

Second village does not teach that “stealing” is wrong and people from that village often cross the river to steal from the first village.

It has gotten so bad, that there are talks of going to war.

According to your perspective, neither group is good or evil, they both can do whatever they think.

But we can see that what one village did to affect another village without being stopped, caused an even worse outcome.

Good & Evil are not relative, because we can see that if the second village taught the same as the first, then this would not have happened.

You can say “Oh I meant as long as it doesn’t affect another person”, then you are saying that would be bad, so there is a right and wrong way to be, which means that there is a good and evil that we all need to consider.

Therefore, it would be righteous to not affect another person’s life in a negative way.

“Love your neighbor as yourself”
“Treat others the way you want to be treated”

The reason these became staples in society is because people agreed that these were good and right.

Yes, you are right that each episode did contrast the MC with the other worlders, however this episode was definitely different in that it discussed far deeper social topics than the other episodes, which really stood out to many people in the comments, besides me.

Also, from the beginning they setup the running gag of “I want to die” with the MC doing everything he can to die (to the shock of most around him), so I don’t understand why you are looking for what you are calling “character development” and giving the example of the MC dropping the pills, which is contrary to the running gag they setup from the start, meaning the MC still wants to die. So why should he change his mind?

That seems more like something you want to happen, not something you are getting from following the story being told, so I don’t understand why you’d drop it just because it doesn’t go your way.

If you don’t want to watch it any longer and drop it, I am in no way getting in the way of that, but I think your reasons for dropping are not the fault of the anime.

@ejleon
Sensei wants to find Sacchan to do double suicide with her.
But, he also wants to die alone constantly - he doesn't actually kill himself either, just whines about it, and takes the pills that he already got poison resistance against anyway.
He stays in a coffin as they "travel" and his companions pull him, cause it is comfortable for him - it doesn't help him with dying, nor with finding Sacchan - he actively makes no effort to reach his goal - rather, he keeps sabotaging it.
Despite all this, his companions are attracted to him and literally carry him.

This all makes much sense yeah? No problems whatsoever?
And how is wanting character development ever wrong? Especially against "this".

My reasons for not enjoying the show are logical errors all over, the cheap villians (even including the village in ep8), and the fake-wise smiling mc (it's fine if you don't get it).

I was hoping that things would get better/more interesting, which still did not happen. Also thousands of people have already dropped the show cause they did not enjoy it so go tell them all how wrong they were as you seem to know better.

@ejleon There must be a reason the second village does not teach that “stealing” is wrong.
They would have done it if “stealing” was creating problems in that second village.
Either “stealing” is not possible for them or they believe “stealing” is normal, they don't think it's wrong.
In a fantasy world, “stealing” could be impossible because there is magic that makes it impossible for anyone to enter your house without permission.
In that case, conflict would arise if people in the first village are unable to do magic.
Maybe in the future, people in some cities are part of a hivemind. For them “stealing” doesn't make sense as they are all equals within the city.
For us, assets are a symbol of status, but if status is irrelevant what's the point of “stealing”.
For something more realistic, how about a community of scoundrels? They have rules of their own, but “stealing” or even "killing" could be allowed.

My point is that the second village must be a functioning community without teaching that “stealing” is wrong.
Some people traveling to the first village will respect and adapt to the lifestyle there, but there will also be some who will “steal”.
The problem then is that people of the first village think that they are Good and the second village is Evil for not teaching that “stealing” is wrong, but also people of the second village think that they are Good and the first village is Evil for trying to interfere with their lifestyle.
Conflict in this scenario is unavoidable if an agreement on a compromise is not made between the villages.
It's not as simple as the second village being wrong 'cause they are affecting the other village. Both need to not be absolute if they want to stop a war.


Those are not common because it's the only way to resolve conflict (anarchists would agree).
In fact I would argue that the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction is a more effective way of avoiding, even if temporarily, large scale conflict.
People are not required to follow the above idea, but they WILL be harmed if Mutually Assured Destruction happens.
But I digest... 🙃

Ok so I just watched the episode and I got thinking what’s sensei’s real name because on the description for the anime, it gives him a name so I searched it up turns out to be an an actual poet! Shūji Tsushima (1909-1948) was a Japanese novelist and author. His works include The Setting Sun, No Longer Human, The Flowers of Buffoonery, Villon's Wife, The Beggar Student, and Early Light. Dazai's works are considered modern-day classics in Japan. The Setting Sun is about the destructive effects of war and the transition from feudal Japan to an industrial society. I just LOVE THIS ANIME I wasn’t expecting it to some something like this I thought it was going to be the run of the mill same old same old but it’s just so amazing every episode is just a work of art.

@gorkthe134th

I used the example of the second village stealing from the first, and not stealing from their own village, since this is usually what happens most the time in history and fiction, leading to a conflict between the two parties, with the first village seen as the "good side" and the second village seen as the "bad side", by a majority of people.

- If both groups had taught "stealing is wrong" and had a punishment for thieves, the conflict between the two villages would have never happened in the first place.

- If after talks between the two villages, the second group agrees to teach this and punish those who stole, this could possibly solve the conflict, before war breaks out.

- If the second village does not change, even after talks, war breaks out leading to death in both villages, and logically, this would be the fault of the second village, not the first village, since the actions and words of the second village provoked the conflict between them.

- Or if neither group taught this, as in anarchy, they would steal from each other, inevitably leading to war between them, causing deaths in both villages, and logically, both groups would be at fault.

Hence why I mentioned this ...

• "Treat others as you would like others to treat you"
• "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated"

Which has come to be called the "Golden Rule" in the study of ethics today.

This has been recognized throughout history over thousands of years, as the most common and agreed upon concept in most cultures and religions.

Hence why I used this common understanding to try to explain that this concept is based on the fact that there is a right way and wrong way to live and to treat others, so the concept of "good" and "evil" are not relative, but agreed upon in a majority of cultures throughout history.

With this understanding, one could even say, the concept of "mutually assured destruction" also falls under this category, since both nations do not want to be destroyed, they do not destroy the other, which follows the same principle.

Of course, this was never about judging or condemning a people for how they exist in their cultures.

Yes, the second village functioned, they did not steal from their own people, but the reason could be because of a structure of “strength”, meaning they were to afraid to do so, or internally, each person felt a sense of loyalty, not wanting to steal from their own people, so they stole from other peoples, justifying this in their minds as being ok.

These are two examples of ways peoples have acted in history and fiction.

If the first village by force made the second village change, I would be against it, but if by persuasion and convincing the second village to adopt their ideals, I think this would be fine and improve relations between them.

Hm… when did just “crossing the river” become an issue? Or is this something you were thinking about? Are you thinking about working out trade between the two villages? Or maybe the first village had a better land? Could you explain some more of your thinking?

When I said “crossing the river to steal from the first village”, I just meant that “stealing” was the issue, not that “crossing the river” was the issue.

One way to stop the war would be to disallow crossing the river altogether.
Allowing crossing the river is in and of itself a risk, as anyone who does could disturb the life of the villagers.
That's why I said a compromise needs to be made to allow villagers to move across the river without causing issues to the other village.

@gorkthe134th

Oh I see, I think I see your point now.

Thank you for explaining further.

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss with me in a civil and respectful manner.

Hope all the best for you.