I really wished psycho pass was a more well known anime because I can't comprehend half of the philosophical themes and questions it presents in a single episode
This is an amazing video on an anime I've never even heard of before! The ideas presented are extremely well thought out and I very much appreciate your interpretation of psycho-pass!
15 minutes on what is to my eyes my favorite anime. Yes! This series changed me! Made me more interested in Philosophy and made me read Do android Dream of Electronic Sheep! And in paper edition if I may add
Congratulations, you have officially completed the anitube rite of passage! People always assume the one show every anime analysis channel has to talk about is eva or something, but my hot take is that it's psycho pass. Can't really blame em either, Gen Urobuchi knows how to tell a story. So glad there's only one season, wouldda been WILD to replace him as the writer just to make a worse product hahahaha. I watched this one during my formative anime years, back when you consume anything and everything just because it has cell shading and big eyes, and i think it might be the first show that, through it's complete lack of chibi and childish interludes, made me realize anime was no different from film. I didn't understand the implications of it's story, but now it's kind of like anime fight club to me. My personal philosophy is geared towards absolute freedom bound within complete personal responsibility. I have a hard time strictly adhering to systems, so Kogami's arc (especially his _ending_) has always resonated strongly with me. I do think it's quite telling that in reality the Sibyl System is made of the brains of _sociopaths._ I can't help but feel like in a society like Psycho Pass there would be even less room for someone as based and autismpilled as me.
Glad to have made it to this rite of passage lol, I've been meaning to make this video for a while now. This show is for sure one of my favorites, though I didn't completely understand why I liked it so much the first time I watched it years ago. Rewatching it over the summer it really struck me how mature it feels and how dense with ideas it is. As for my own philosophical perspective, I think I mostly push for maximized freedom with minimized harm to other people. I really resonate with Akane in seeing the society I live in as having many good underlying values that aren't implemented as perfectly as they could be, though over time I've become more open to exploring the perspectives of people more at odds with the system (people like Kogami and Makishima ig). Psycho-Pass has definitely helped me with that as pretty much every character is unique and great. And yeah, so glad that they totally didn't continue making new seasons of the show without the original creators, that would be crazy!!!
PsychoPass has always honestly skeeved me out. The concept of a seemingly all knowing system that monitors everyone, constantly judges an individual’s mental state based on arbitrary metrics, and ultimately restricts and hamstrings society emotionally in an effort to make things ‘safer’ churns my stomach. The idea that such a dystopian system can be reformed in any capacity outside of burning it to the ground, when the core tenants of its operation are inherently malicious and controlling, feels ridiculous. It was what made watching Psychopass or enjoying it difficult for me. I couldn’t get behind or care for any of the characters, in particular Akane, when things were so bleak and clearly hopeless for meaningful change. Especially given after learning there are 3+ series of PsychoPass and a movie. That being said, your video was very interesting. I don’t know how valid the themes of reformation vs revolution are in a dystopia, but you touched on some things I certainly hadn’t considered. I really enjoy the formatting and cadence of your videos, they feel very genuine.
I understand JFK's original quote is: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." However, I think I prefer it more like this: “Those who make peaceful -revolution- _reform_ impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
If the system confronted the Rumbling, what will be its response? Also, why did Akane never questioned why the lives of strangers are more valuable than the life of her friend? What is she to her? A friend or another brainless human? On the seemingly unrelated but actually connected deep down, is the American Revolution necessary when no diplomatic conclusion with the Parliament in Brtiain is reached and the Tanzimat Reforms issued by the Ottoman Empire a success or a failure? I asked this because the collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to the revolution by the Young Turks and how unstable the Middle East has become while the successful revolution against Britain by the colonists in the Thirteen Colonies led to the Native American tribes to lost their homelands because the colonists desired the freedom to go and annex their lands by using the "taxation without representation" as the pretext for the revolution after Britain passed the Stamp Act in 1756 to levy taxes on the colonists in the Thirteen Colonies to fight a war against France in the Seven Years' War. What I am trying to say here is that when diplomacy and reform failed, is war and revolution the only answer? And if so, does it make the ones who turned crises into conflicts freedom fighters or terrorists, heroes or villains, saviors or murderers?
the sybil system would definitely do its best to stop the rumbling but it would for sure be pretty futile; the public safety bureau has the technology to kill titans but not nearly enough manpower to really make a meaningful impact. as for akane and her friend's death, that moment was probably not completely logical on akane's part. as a still somewhat new inspector she had gotten by by just following sybil's orders, and so we can see it causes her immense distress to see that sybil is ordering her to not kill makishima. she does actually fire the gun that he gives her but misses because she doesn't hold it steady enough, which mostly shows that she did not have enough of a will to kill him there. only later on does her ideology which i discussed in the video develop more fully where she decides to defend the idea of the sybil system (while also becoming more rebellious), though i wonder what older akane would do if she was transported back to the same situation. i would say the american revolution probably became necessarily violent once the british sent troops to confiscate weapons and arrest local leaders. at the point they were pretty blatantly not open to negotiation of the people's rights (and this was proven again when they rejected the continental congress's olive branch petition). can't say much about the ottoman empire situation as i don't know that much about the young turks and stuff. also it's hard to make the calculation of benefits of a revolution vs the destruction and human suffering it causes, but at some point i would say that you have to defend yourself with violence. and as for your last question, the line between freedom fighters / terrorists, heroes/villains, and saviors/murderers often depends on what perspective you're looking at it from. the american revolutionaries were definitely seen as violent destructive rebels by the british and even by many in the colonies, but if you believe in the same stuff they believe in most of the time you will see them as the heroes ofc. very interesting comment as always, lots to think about!
@@chryysanth And did she develop the desire to avenge her friend? Has her friend ever visited her in a dream and called her out for her cowardice and enticed her into avenging her? Also, do you think Akane ever visited her friend's family and apologized for her cowardice? If so, how will they responded? Will they comforted her? Will they hated her? Will they called her a coward? The point of the question about the Tanzimat Reforms and the Imperial Reform Edict of 1856 that came later is that they are the realization of the Sublime Porte that a change is really needed. But when that change is implemented, is it a success or a failure? After all, not everyone in the Ottoman Empire is happy with the the changes brought by the Tanzimat Reforms, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike due to certain privileges have been revoked. And what are we used to judge if the change that has been implemented is a success or a failure? How long did it lasted? How much impacts it made on the society? How much satisfied the peoples in the society are with this change? All three options I said earlier? Or something else? Also, I also heard before that no matter what ages, changed cannot be forcefully applied if they wished not to be changed, especially if they are fine with the status quo at the moment.
These messages of how we all have different perspectives derived from our life experiences fall flat when you pepper them with jokes about contemporary politics that go on to alienate people who have strong beliefs that you *just said* have reason for being there. It comes across as two-faced and manipulative.
this is incredibly silly; acknowledging that people have different subjective axioms =/= not being able to joke about or criticize other people's beliefs. this would make all of philosophical discourse impossible. plus, what political positions do you even think i'm alienating? i'll stand by the position that they: 1) objectively fail to best follow the good axioms they claim to implement or 2) are based on axioms which don't deserve to be defended. please give even 1 example, i would love to talk philosophy with you
My axioms aren't subjective. My morality is based off these axioms: all value comes from minds, and there is no mind outside of the realm of all minds to value one mind. Therefore, all our values are equal. However, we all value one answer to every moral question, and that answer must not be arbitrary. Anyone that doesn't want either of these is accepting of all outcomes, including any proposed morality, because their opinion has no prescriptive power. With just the above axioms and logic, an objective morality can be found by assessing how arbitrary each system is at arriving at one answer to each moral question. Monarchy arbitrarily chooses a mind out of the realm of all minds. Democracy arbitrarily chooses a method of holding elections and counting votes. Ownership seems arbitrary, as choosing an owner for each item that exists requires making a choice based on something. However, ownership of a person can only exist one way, without opening the same questions asked of monarchy and democracy: that is self-ownership. From self-ownership comes ownership of labor, since the use of property is what ownership is about. From labor ownership comes the ownership of property, as it's the purpose of labor. If property ownership was not respected, then laborers would be slaves to thieves, losing their self-ownership. Since everything is something, it can either be a product of labor, or not; thus it can be owned, or not. Protected as property, or not. All moral questions answered. If my axioms are factual, and logic is sound, then my conclusion is objective: self-ownership is the best moral theory to answer all moral questions. Self-satisfaction via eudemonia is just extra; a non-moral pursuit.
I really wished psycho pass was a more well known anime because I can't comprehend half of the philosophical themes and questions it presents in a single episode
the sheer density of ideas it presents every episode is incredible. unmatched by almost any other anime i've seen
Ergo Proxy is one of the few with similar density of idea
@@igorbrown3756 cool, I'll check it out later
You've done an amazing job of presenting why Psycho-Pass is so good, able to present different ideas of how to fix a flawed system. Great video!
thanks!
zoomer W
This is an amazing video on an anime I've never even heard of before! The ideas presented are extremely well thought out and I very much appreciate your interpretation of psycho-pass!
thanks so much, glad you enjoyed. 100% recommend checking out the show if you thought the concepts i talked about were interesting!
its crazy how I just finished this show after you uploaded this today.awesome video dude
oh nice glad you liked it!
You convinced me to watch Psychopass with this video, I like your ideas about it and your presentation of them!
Nice! Hope you enjoy it and glad you liked what i said about it
I often think abt this reform vs revolution thing and it's nice to have someone put out a video plus use anime too
yesss it's been on my mind for a long ass time and ever since i've seen psycho-pass it felt like one of the perfect examples of those different paths
Saw ur Gurren Lagann video, make sure that no matter how dark things can get, you keep going and striving for what u want out of life!
Damn incredibly underrated channel
This is such a great video, you are so underrated
15 minutes on what is to my eyes my favorite anime. Yes! This series changed me! Made me more interested in Philosophy and made me read Do android Dream of Electronic Sheep! And in paper edition if I may add
This series is definitely one of my favorites as well. So many of the ideas have stuck with me ever since I first watched it years ago
@@chryysanth Wondering every color WC is my country
Honestly you just seem like a cool person to get to know
ayy thanks lol
zoomer do be talking fr ong
Congratulations, you have officially completed the anitube rite of passage! People always assume the one show every anime analysis channel has to talk about is eva or something, but my hot take is that it's psycho pass. Can't really blame em either, Gen Urobuchi knows how to tell a story. So glad there's only one season, wouldda been WILD to replace him as the writer just to make a worse product hahahaha. I watched this one during my formative anime years, back when you consume anything and everything just because it has cell shading and big eyes, and i think it might be the first show that, through it's complete lack of chibi and childish interludes, made me realize anime was no different from film. I didn't understand the implications of it's story, but now it's kind of like anime fight club to me. My personal philosophy is geared towards absolute freedom bound within complete personal responsibility. I have a hard time strictly adhering to systems, so Kogami's arc (especially his _ending_) has always resonated strongly with me. I do think it's quite telling that in reality the Sibyl System is made of the brains of _sociopaths._ I can't help but feel like in a society like Psycho Pass there would be even less room for someone as based and autismpilled as me.
Glad to have made it to this rite of passage lol, I've been meaning to make this video for a while now. This show is for sure one of my favorites, though I didn't completely understand why I liked it so much the first time I watched it years ago. Rewatching it over the summer it really struck me how mature it feels and how dense with ideas it is.
As for my own philosophical perspective, I think I mostly push for maximized freedom with minimized harm to other people. I really resonate with Akane in seeing the society I live in as having many good underlying values that aren't implemented as perfectly as they could be, though over time I've become more open to exploring the perspectives of people more at odds with the system (people like Kogami and Makishima ig). Psycho-Pass has definitely helped me with that as pretty much every character is unique and great. And yeah, so glad that they totally didn't continue making new seasons of the show without the original creators, that would be crazy!!!
PsychoPass has always honestly skeeved me out. The concept of a seemingly all knowing system that monitors everyone, constantly judges an individual’s mental state based on arbitrary metrics, and ultimately restricts and hamstrings society emotionally in an effort to make things ‘safer’ churns my stomach.
The idea that such a dystopian system can be reformed in any capacity outside of burning it to the ground, when the core tenants of its operation are inherently malicious and controlling, feels ridiculous.
It was what made watching Psychopass or enjoying it difficult for me. I couldn’t get behind or care for any of the characters, in particular Akane, when things were so bleak and clearly hopeless for meaningful change. Especially given after learning there are 3+ series of PsychoPass and a movie.
That being said, your video was very interesting. I don’t know how valid the themes of reformation vs revolution are in a dystopia, but you touched on some things I certainly hadn’t considered. I really enjoy the formatting and cadence of your videos, they feel very genuine.
I guess I'm gonna have to binge Psycho Pass to understand this.. I will be back!
hope you enjoy it! it's one of my faves
I understand JFK's original quote is:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
However, I think I prefer it more like this:
“Those who make peaceful -revolution- _reform_ impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Im the 667th view! really good video btw, its nice to listen to while studying, makes me want to watch Psycho-Pass
Great take! I hope you've seen Code Geass when I say Akane is the compelling Suzaku
i love ur videos
u make me wanna become a fliospher
I’m here for the Ron desantis slander 🥳
love to see it
If the system confronted the Rumbling, what will be its response? Also, why did Akane never questioned why the lives of strangers are more valuable than the life of her friend? What is she to her? A friend or another brainless human?
On the seemingly unrelated but actually connected deep down, is the American Revolution necessary when no diplomatic conclusion with the Parliament in Brtiain is reached and the Tanzimat Reforms issued by the Ottoman Empire a success or a failure? I asked this because the collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to the revolution by the Young Turks and how unstable the Middle East has become while the successful revolution against Britain by the colonists in the Thirteen Colonies led to the Native American tribes to lost their homelands because the colonists desired the freedom to go and annex their lands by using the "taxation without representation" as the pretext for the revolution after Britain passed the Stamp Act in 1756 to levy taxes on the colonists in the Thirteen Colonies to fight a war against France in the Seven Years' War. What I am trying to say here is that when diplomacy and reform failed, is war and revolution the only answer? And if so, does it make the ones who turned crises into conflicts freedom fighters or terrorists, heroes or villains, saviors or murderers?
the sybil system would definitely do its best to stop the rumbling but it would for sure be pretty futile; the public safety bureau has the technology to kill titans but not nearly enough manpower to really make a meaningful impact.
as for akane and her friend's death, that moment was probably not completely logical on akane's part. as a still somewhat new inspector she had gotten by by just following sybil's orders, and so we can see it causes her immense distress to see that sybil is ordering her to not kill makishima. she does actually fire the gun that he gives her but misses because she doesn't hold it steady enough, which mostly shows that she did not have enough of a will to kill him there. only later on does her ideology which i discussed in the video develop more fully where she decides to defend the idea of the sybil system (while also becoming more rebellious), though i wonder what older akane would do if she was transported back to the same situation.
i would say the american revolution probably became necessarily violent once the british sent troops to confiscate weapons and arrest local leaders. at the point they were pretty blatantly not open to negotiation of the people's rights (and this was proven again when they rejected the continental congress's olive branch petition). can't say much about the ottoman empire situation as i don't know that much about the young turks and stuff. also it's hard to make the calculation of benefits of a revolution vs the destruction and human suffering it causes, but at some point i would say that you have to defend yourself with violence. and as for your last question, the line between freedom fighters / terrorists, heroes/villains, and saviors/murderers often depends on what perspective you're looking at it from. the american revolutionaries were definitely seen as violent destructive rebels by the british and even by many in the colonies, but if you believe in the same stuff they believe in most of the time you will see them as the heroes ofc.
very interesting comment as always, lots to think about!
@@chryysanth And did she develop the desire to avenge her friend? Has her friend ever visited her in a dream and called her out for her cowardice and enticed her into avenging her?
Also, do you think Akane ever visited her friend's family and apologized for her cowardice? If so, how will they responded? Will they comforted her? Will they hated her? Will they called her a coward?
The point of the question about the Tanzimat Reforms and the Imperial Reform Edict of 1856 that came later is that they are the realization of the Sublime Porte that a change is really needed. But when that change is implemented, is it a success or a failure? After all, not everyone in the Ottoman Empire is happy with the the changes brought by the Tanzimat Reforms, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike due to certain privileges have been revoked. And what are we used to judge if the change that has been implemented is a success or a failure? How long did it lasted? How much impacts it made on the society? How much satisfied the peoples in the society are with this change? All three options I said earlier? Or something else?
Also, I also heard before that no matter what ages, changed cannot be forcefully applied if they wished not to be changed, especially if they are fine with the status quo at the moment.
These messages of how we all have different perspectives derived from our life experiences fall flat when you pepper them with jokes about contemporary politics that go on to alienate people who have strong beliefs that you *just said* have reason for being there. It comes across as two-faced and manipulative.
this is incredibly silly; acknowledging that people have different subjective axioms =/= not being able to joke about or criticize other people's beliefs. this would make all of philosophical discourse impossible. plus, what political positions do you even think i'm alienating? i'll stand by the position that they: 1) objectively fail to best follow the good axioms they claim to implement or 2) are based on axioms which don't deserve to be defended. please give even 1 example, i would love to talk philosophy with you
ron desantis has a subjective desire to maximize human suffering, enough said
Do you have a discord server?
My axioms aren't subjective. My morality is based off these axioms: all value comes from minds, and there is no mind outside of the realm of all minds to value one mind. Therefore, all our values are equal. However, we all value one answer to every moral question, and that answer must not be arbitrary. Anyone that doesn't want either of these is accepting of all outcomes, including any proposed morality, because their opinion has no prescriptive power.
With just the above axioms and logic, an objective morality can be found by assessing how arbitrary each system is at arriving at one answer to each moral question. Monarchy arbitrarily chooses a mind out of the realm of all minds. Democracy arbitrarily chooses a method of holding elections and counting votes. Ownership seems arbitrary, as choosing an owner for each item that exists requires making a choice based on something. However, ownership of a person can only exist one way, without opening the same questions asked of monarchy and democracy: that is self-ownership. From self-ownership comes ownership of labor, since the use of property is what ownership is about. From labor ownership comes the ownership of property, as it's the purpose of labor. If property ownership was not respected, then laborers would be slaves to thieves, losing their self-ownership. Since everything is something, it can either be a product of labor, or not; thus it can be owned, or not. Protected as property, or not. All moral questions answered.
If my axioms are factual, and logic is sound, then my conclusion is objective: self-ownership is the best moral theory to answer all moral questions. Self-satisfaction via eudemonia is just extra; a non-moral pursuit.
Hey man, can i have your discord if you dont mind? im trying to surround myself with people who would make me successful and you are of them.