explain to me how danmachi, boku no pico, oreimo, and seitokai yakuindomo have higher ratings than the end of evangelion, the wind rises, madoka magica movie 3, and clannad
With regards to Red Data Girl... it seems like your sentiment of confusion over the anime was shared by others, but I don't see how you could even make sense of anything if you don't even bother to finish a series... I can answer all your questions, but you didn't seem to care about it, at least... the first review I read at least did bother to point out that this was, after all, a Shinto tale... you seemed to approach it like some harem anime.
"Is it really enough for someone to self-reflect in order to have free will? Is that really all? I don't know." That's what I replied to with "Well, no one knows".
I feel like though it's not so much that we have to rely on our intuitions of the external world being real, so much as it doesn't really matter. If we are brains in a vat, it doesn't matter unless the illusion is "shattered". I guess you could just say it's easier to assume because there's simply no way of knowing.
You may say that assuming is the same as believing, and you may even be right in a sense, but I would say that there is no way to operate assuming the external world isn't real, except maybe to die.
I don't believe 1+1=2, I assume it is true. How am I supposed to operate if I can't assume 1+1=2? Frankly it seems like an extension of assuming the external world.
Then again, maybe this all boils down to your definition of belief, which sounds like a super fun discussion.
Well, I suppose that's true. Scientifically it's been sorted, but not philosophically. At the end of the day, being only interested in the scientific part of the argument, the discussion has no more interest to me.
If you describing how empty matter actually is, people often say "solid objects [as we know them intuitively] don't exist" or something similar. Strictly speaking there is more than one definition of solid. Before we knew any better, the scientific and intuitive definitions were the same, but as our knowledge grew, our scientific definition changed to match it.
The difference is with philosophical definitions (i.e. your linguistic games) is that they change without the introduction of new knowledge. I suppose you could say they change with new understanding, but I'd feel that would be a weak attempt to save face. There is something inherently different between scientific definitions and philosophical linguistic games.
Diabolik Lovers for example made me quite uncomfortable. It's basically about a doormat girl being physically abused and mistreated by a bunch of sadistic vampires.
Mirai Nikki also deserves a mention. It was not boring since there was always something unexpected happening but the way the events unfold and the way the characters act was way to illogical and far-fetched for me to suspend my disbelief. In the end it was just frustration and not even funny in a "so bad it's good" kind of deal.
How about shows that make you cringe or make you uncomfortable? Would you say that they delivered more enjoyment than a boring one?
Boringness is a pretty neutral feeling to me. The show might have failed to entertain, but at least it didn't strike a chord. The opposite of enjoyable would be infuriating.
Yes, yes it is. I'm glad to see that someone understands this. Every day I'm forced to wear plain black socks because of my office's dress code. This is a violation of my human rights!
All Comments (784) Comments
People talk so much about it, but it's mostly about the weird use of rotoscope and how ugly the characters are than the actual story. Was it bad?
I feel like though it's not so much that we have to rely on our intuitions of the external world being real, so much as it doesn't really matter. If we are brains in a vat, it doesn't matter unless the illusion is "shattered". I guess you could just say it's easier to assume because there's simply no way of knowing.
You may say that assuming is the same as believing, and you may even be right in a sense, but I would say that there is no way to operate assuming the external world isn't real, except maybe to die.
I don't believe 1+1=2, I assume it is true. How am I supposed to operate if I can't assume 1+1=2? Frankly it seems like an extension of assuming the external world.
Then again, maybe this all boils down to your definition of belief, which sounds like a super fun discussion.
Well, I suppose that's true. Scientifically it's been sorted, but not philosophically. At the end of the day, being only interested in the scientific part of the argument, the discussion has no more interest to me.
If you describing how empty matter actually is, people often say "solid objects [as we know them intuitively] don't exist" or something similar. Strictly speaking there is more than one definition of solid. Before we knew any better, the scientific and intuitive definitions were the same, but as our knowledge grew, our scientific definition changed to match it.
The difference is with philosophical definitions (i.e. your linguistic games) is that they change without the introduction of new knowledge. I suppose you could say they change with new understanding, but I'd feel that would be a weak attempt to save face. There is something inherently different between scientific definitions and philosophical linguistic games.
Mirai Nikki also deserves a mention. It was not boring since there was always something unexpected happening but the way the events unfold and the way the characters act was way to illogical and far-fetched for me to suspend my disbelief. In the end it was just frustration and not even funny in a "so bad it's good" kind of deal.
Boringness is a pretty neutral feeling to me. The show might have failed to entertain, but at least it didn't strike a chord. The opposite of enjoyable would be infuriating.
I do data entry in a office in London. Pretty boring stuff, but it's decent pay.