/jp/ - Otaku Culture

None but the protagonist can properly interact with Saya: those who try simply go insane and lose all will, and the only man save Fuminori who did manage to establish a relationship with the girl urged her on to find "her love" — the man without whom Saya would only be a stray fantasy — thus playing the role of her father more closely than most real fathers manage, or strive to manage, to. Keeping this in mind, the scene with the rape was absolutely necessary: it had to be shown that Saya is not simply only for Fuminori to interact with, but that if anyone else invades his fantasy, they will surely ruin it; the world that he created for himself is his world and his only.
But this isn't enough, because as none can enter Fuminori's fantasy, so cannot Fuminori venture beyond it, and he does, does crave to, and the answer given by Urobuchi is mirthfully delightful: the fantasy simply has to spread. Even before the 'seeding' end, there is Yoh. Fuminori could not accept her when she was normal, and even before he rejected the world he could feel nothing about her, only figuring to accept her out of courtesy. But as she became part of his fantasy, utterly cut off from the world and even her own self, a thoughtless beauty with no wishes of her own but to please him, utterly bound, literally so, to be a part of Fuminori's indulgent need, he came to not simply accept her, but to love her, and still then as a piece of his fantasy.

And to the fantasy itself? Gen more than once cares to stress how gentle of a man he is, but in the fantasy he becomes savage, caring about nothing but getting off, and this manifests perfectly in Saya and Yoh: as to Saya, all about her empathises her defencelessness, starting from her physical appearance being that of a child who just entered puberty and her simple white one-piece and long hair nearly dragging to the ground, symbolising innocence and lack of a need to attend to practical matters, respectively, and ending with her childish manners and mistakes (and she was said to be more intelligent than any other life form on the planet); as to Yoh, well, I have little to say but the keywords 'rape' and 'degradation'. (As I drift back to my experience with Madoka, all the attempts at being considerate about the issues of girls and women in the show reeked fake to my perceptions, but with the above in mind they just seem like bitter parody.)
Drawing the end line, I cannot say I hated the writing, but that is because I can barely summon any emotion towards this worthless piece of power fantasy porn that does not deserve a thousandth of fame it has. Of Urobuchi's works save for Saya no Uta I've only became acquainted with Madoka and Fate/Zero, and towards both of these I have the same complaints: they do not have characters, they have plot devices; and they do not have plot, they have Urobuchi indulging in intellectual onanism. Saya no Uta does not escape the flaws of Gen's other works. You could say I am prejudiced, and I would not hesitate to admit it. But the question is, am I wrong?

>>12404692
If you mean those who liked SnU, then yes, I concur, because I have trouble imagining people with a grip on reality who might like it.

Saya is a disgusting monster. That's all there is to know about this shit.

If you see her you should just gouge in the head, gouge in the heart, kill, kill again and burn with acid.

Thanks for your reminder, I'm going to go play it right now, I had forgotten it somehow

>>12404713
I don't see what's bad about being a monster (I mean come on, there are so many life forms natural to this planet that I personally find disgusting that some another octopus form space does not deserve a mention), but escapism makes me sick like little else.

>>12404720
It's worth a read to see what it means to reach a new low for a human being.

>>12404723
>I don't see what's bad about being a monster
I didn't say monster, I said disgusting monster and I meant by that both her real look and attitude.

Saya is just spoiled and selfish. She doesn't care about anything as long as she can reach her goals and obtain the guy she wants. She's just reasoning like any human, a selfish human, so I don't understand all the love about her.

Sure, she does look good and lewd in her human form but that doesn't change the fact that she actually has a very human-like behavior, no dignity at all.

>>12404748
Well, she *is* a manifested fantasy of an ideal mate, a fantasy of a man who gave up on trying to live in the real world, at that, and I'm talking about Urobuchi himself.

Saya is mai waifu

>>12404612
I still need to finish SnU. I finished the Saya good end, and I didn't really go back to it despite enjoying it quite a bit.

I think I'll play tonight. Thank you anon!

>>12404617
Wait, from the way you described this all through your 3 posts, all of what you said sounded positive to me, but then at the end you say this is all a bad thing. I dont see how any of what you described is bad. Also I disagree with your last frw points. I dont think Fuminori becomes a savage that only cares about sex by the end, it more seems that he just wishes to protect the one thing he has going for him, Saya (and his 'fantasy' world in general). I dont think slave Yoh plays as big a factor as you described. Yoh was a gift from Saya and Fuminori even has misgivings about accepting her gift due to the fact he would be unfaithful to Saya in doing so. He only accepts this once Saya explains to him she is nothing more than pet. The love you spoke of when it comes to Yoh doesnt extend beyond that of a pet, I think. You're pretty damn spot on in the first two posts though for the most part.

>>12404748
I honestly think you're wrong about Saya only caring for herself and her goals. I think BAD END confirms this, mostly in the fact that even while being beaten relentlessly by that faggot with the crowbar/bat/whatever it was, she still crawls toward fuminoris corpse so that she can be with him in her last moments. Fuminori may not have been as pure in his motives, but I dont think Saya was insincere in her love.

>>12405023
Saya also couldn't reproduce without being "in love". If she cared about her goals, she would've tried to spore and take over before she even met him.

The books she read while in the Old man's care taught her that birth and such are a product of love, so she needed to love before she could reproduce.

>>12405032
>>12405032
There's nothing that said she couldn't reproduce without 'love'. It was her learning about love that changed her. The books she read taught her about love and that's what cause her not to fufill her original purpose of reproduction immediately. Toward the end when you get to hear her father speak, he mentions something about her gaining a soul, or something along those lines, along with how she had changed from just a mindless flesh blob into something more. Point being, it's said time and time again in the VN that her only goal/reason for existence wasent reproduction after she started to gain human qualities.

It was the human factor that she had to adapt to that made her different from the rest of her species, made her defective even.

>>12405051
sorry for the typos. Tiny phone buttons, big thumbs.

Saya no Uta is nothing more than a love story. You are just reading way too much into this. And if you can't understand the love between Saya and Fuminori, I guess I'm sorry you couldn't enjoy this VN, OP.

>>12405094
Post more Saya pictures.

>>12405114
sure, why not?

Noizi Ito's Saya is fine too

>>12404617
Your analysis is spot on but this
>worthless piece of power fantasy porn that does not deserve a thousandth of fame it has
is a very stupid thing to say. Escapist fiction serves a purpose, it fulfills a desire of the human heart and Saya no Uta is famous because it reached many people. Fantasy and porn aren't worthless, they make quite a bit of money. That is a fact you can't deny.

>But the question is, am I wrong?

Yes, you are. 'Tis a cosmic horror love story, not an in-depth essay on the inner workings of Gen's soul.

Also, you're misinterpreting some things about the story. Funi doesn't live in a fantasy, he lives in a nightmare. He didn't become the way he did by choice, he never decided he wanted to leave the world because he wasn't happy with it. The change was forced upon him. Saya isn't some perfect fantasy waifu, she is the one slowly destroying his life even as she is the only reason he keeps going. She's like a drug addiction, essentially. He'll lie, cheat, steal, and even murder to keep getting his 'fix'.

You're mistaken about Yoh as well. She doesn't become some 'thoughtless beauty with no wishes of her own but to please him'. She is fully aware of every horrible thing that happened to her and hates it all. She begs whatshisface to kill her at the, remember.

>op writes a novel
>people actually take the time out to read it and respond
>fucking vanishes

noice

>>12405493
meh
This is a slow board he has until next week to reply.

>>12405493
Maybe he is just tsundere for Saya and didn't really want to argue with people over the internet, he just wanted to stat a Saya thread.

At least I got some new pics out of this, so thank you OP.

>>12405564
Why is saya so wonderful. If I didnt have my waifu in my life I think I would have long offed myself by now

worst case of pseudo-intellectuals I've seen in a /jp/ thread

>>12405005
Wait, so escapism isn't simply okay in your book, you think it's a good thing? Jesus fucking Christ, you've lost last hints of dignity as a human being, haven't you?
Again, you misunderstood my point: I'm arguing from the point of view outside fiction and look at Urobuchi's motivation and wishes. This way more can be gathered from the story than simply taking at face value any length of words said by author himself can. I don't care what Saya says when she "presented" Yoh to Fuminori, I look at Gen himself and his indulgent desire to please his stand-in in the novel. "Unfaithfulness" is a meaningless concept when we are talking about Saya and Fuminori, since, as said in the novel itself, she wishes for nothing but to keep Fuminori happy and so her jealousy can only be a pretense. And I'm not even touching on the subject of enslaving a human being forever on conceptual level, and that shows the real world really was rejected by Urobuchi, as he sees no value in it save for how he might incorporate it into his sick fantasy.

>>12405023
True, Saya isn't selfish, and it's precisely her selflessness that points to her not being a real person (forget "alien abomination", I'm talking about her not being a character, rather than a human). Saya simply lacks will that is not extension of Fuminori's, and by continuing the logical chain, Urobuchi's.
Also, about Kouji being the one that finally murders Saya: think about how all the people Fuminori kills and is dealt finishing blow by, are all the people who were his connection to the real world — the only people he called friends and the doctor who was helping him adjust to his life post-trauma. If you remember how Gen reminisced about his time in the hospital and how he perceived the world after, this ties in perfectly — and this only dawned on me now, so don't go accusing me — SnU is the metaphor of Urobuchi rejecting reality and retreating to healing world of his fantasy, where he can suffice simply by being himself, even if he has to reduce himself to a parody of a proud species.

>>12405213
I'm not saying SnU is bad because it is power fantasy or because it is porn. I'm saying it is bad because it was written badly.
Again, if your argument is that something is valuable just because it sells, then there is a world of disappointment out to meet you.

>>12405224
> 'Tis a cosmic horror love story
By the way, if you think about it, the plot happened by pure, and very, very unlikely, coincidence: neither Saya nor doctor Ougai had anything to do with Fuminori's condition, Fuminori and Saya met in the hospital only on chance, and only on chance did he perceive her as beautiful.
> not an in-depth essay on the inner workings of Gen's soul
That is a novel written by an author, and therefore categorically is just such an essay, even if most of what is written in there was not in the author's intention for others to know.
> Funi doesn't live in a fantasy, he lives in a nightmare. He didn't become the way he did by choice, he never decided he wanted to leave the world because he wasn't happy with it. The change was forced upon him.
And this is why you do not get it: you do not begin thinking from the point that from the very beginning everything in SnU was created by Urobuchi. It is he who wrote Fuminori as his projection, it is he who inflicted the condition on him, it is he who wrote him meeting Saya, whom was written by him also.
> Saya isn't some perfect fantasy waifu, she is the one slowly destroying his life even as she is the only reason he keeps going. She's like a drug addiction, essentially. He'll lie, cheat, steal, and even murder to keep getting his 'fix'.
You're completely right, and that was my point from the beginning: Fuminori was being killed by his fantasy, not living by it.
> You're mistaken about Yoh as well. She doesn't become some 'thoughtless beauty with no wishes of her own but to please him'. She is fully aware of every horrible thing that happened to her and hates it all. She begs whatshisface to kill her at the, remember.
Did you forget about three and a half (counting the beginning of transformation scene) H-scenes with her, where she was the exemplar of a helpless woman being exploited for a man's need?

>>12405493
Oh, come on, I'd like to respond in time to every reply, but my internet connection's not stable this right now.

>>12406666
Would you be judging SnU in the same way if it was written by some no name author? I think you have a problem with Urobuchi and you are just incapable of separating the man from his work. You should try to appreciate this novel for what it is instead of trying to pseudo psychoanalyze his author.

>>12406674
> Would you be judging SnU in the same way if it was written by some no name author?
Of course.
> you are just incapable of separating the man from his work
This, but for every man that writes. I already said, I analyse books by their authors.
> You should try to appreciate this novel for what it is
So you are saying I should turn off my thoughts and simply enjoy. Now, I'm not adverse to this, by it is troublesome when the author just begs for his work to be taken as an essay on his own worldview.

>>12406666
>where she was the exemplar of a helpless woman being exploited for a man's need

What, Saya is the initiator. How are you this mistaken. She needed the seed to start her terraforming procedure.

>>12406684
I don't see what you are talking about. If it's from the point inside the narrative, then drop it.

>>12406666
>>12406682

Sorry, but I still disagree. You're looking way too much into this. Most of the time, when an author writes something it isn't a critique on anything, it isn't a window into his innermost thoughts and feelings. It's written simply to be entertaining. Sure, you might come to certain conclusions if someone repeats themes across multiple works, but to claim to know and understand an author's soul simply by reading his works is pseudo-intellectual bullshit of the highest caliber.

>>12408470
> to claim to know and understand an author's soul simply by reading his works is pseudo-intellectual bullshit of the highest caliber
You can tell a lot about a person by their posture, by how they walk, how breath, how frequent are the pauses they make while talking and how long, how much they spit as they argue while agitated, et cetera. How is it that you cannot draw conclusions about a person's state of mind by what they write with the intention that it be touching?

>>12408524
Not him but grow up, we don't need edgy fedora wearing teens here.

>>12408524

Except you haven't just drawn conclusions about Gen's state of mind, you've claimed to know it intimately. To use your example, it'd be like saying you know a persons political affiliations, religious beliefs, family bonds etc based purely on the study of their mannerisms.

It is ironic that you're guilty of the exact things you accuse Gen of. You reject reality and prefer to live in a fantasy where you are some all-wise third party able to see the truth of the matter based on the meagerest of details, never realizing this makes you less a person and more plot device, like one of those detectives on the CSI show.

>>12408637
> it'd be like saying you know a persons political affiliations, religious beliefs, family bonds etc based purely on the study of their mannerisms
You're exaggerating. I saw a fantasy of a lonely man, and this is what I'm telling it is. You seem to have trouble with recognising the difference between fiction and reality if you are unable to see how the former derives from the latter.
>>12408578
Hurr, someone cares to point out that a thing I like is shit, they must wear a fedora for sure.

Urobuchi is not a horrible writer. But that doesn't mean he's a good writer. The truth is, he's not one for depth--character, theme, or narrative. His works are very "loud", as is his character: the sunglasses, the "cool" persona, the nicknames and shit.

>they do not have characters, they have plot devices
A little unfair, but not unfounded. This is most clear with Sayaka (Gen's favorite character btw). She has wholly undeveloped motivations, making her character drama predictable and flat. The whole point of her character is to accelerate the conflict of the story. Even Mami, who fulfills the same role in less screentime, has more development. Then you have Homu, which is quite nuanced and developed by Gen's standards. I think she's a fantastic character.

Madoka's depth comes almost exclusively from SHAFT's stylistic choices. All references to Faust are thanks to them. This adds a whole new layer to read Madoka, and all magical girl shows for that matter.

Anyway, I actually really enjoyed SnU because of its central theme of humanity and escapism. Monsters turned human and humans turned monster--it's a very classic horror theme. Only a monster can love another monster, The Other, etc. Also, I really liked Saya's character, but she's loli and all the other characters are whatever.

>a fantasy of perfect femininity: perfectly beautiful, perfectly petite, perfectly compliant, perfectly bound to him, a simulacrum of an ideal mate
This describes all eroge heroines. This is the point. Unfortunately Urobuchi is not sophisticated enough to use this and the theme of escapism to create a grand narrative about eroge, or really elevate his writing at all. Actually, his themes are never fully explored. He's a painfully shallow writer. All his works boil down to: dark, edgy, cool, some pseudointellectual shit about "humanity", and people needlessly dying.

Honestly, people who praise him for his "depth", especially citing Madoka as an example, don't know shit. Embarrassing.

>>12408695
>has more development
Actually, that might be the wrong word. Mami isn't really "developed," but she has more subtextual weight. Her character is more subtle simply because of what is not directly expressed. Watching Sayaka's arc just made me feel embarrassed.

>>12408695
> This is most clear with Sayaka (Gen's favorite character btw). She has wholly undeveloped motivations, making her character drama predictable and flat. The whole point of her character is to accelerate the conflict of the story.
Holy shit, a thousand times this. This is exactly what I felt when I was Madoka for the very first time.
> Then you have Homu, which is quite nuanced and developed by Gen's standards. I think she's a fantastic character.
What? She's Sayaka turned up to twelve, none of what she does is done even by a fictional character, she's a plot device ultimus who, if perceived like an actual person, looks like a repulsing psychopath with no concerns but her desires, willing to murder indiscriminately and condemn any number of lives for the sake of friendship with the first person who spoke to her as a friend.
> Monsters turned human and humans turned monster--it's a very classic horror theme.
But that is a shallow theme: as human being trapped by our perception we are unable to even imagine what is it like to not think like a human being. Saya is as human as everyone else, she simply lacks a backbone, and Fuminori did not become a monster, but rather simply a selfish asshole who stopped caring about anything that didn't serve to get him off.

>>12408751
>none of what she does is done even by a fictional character
Nah dude, yandere characters do that shit all the time. And I really like the idea of yandere girls.

Not fair to call Homu a plot device when Homu IS the story. She captures the loss of humanity and vision much better than Sayaka, or any Madoka character, ever does. The movies totally kill this by spelling out the issue of a tragic fate and turning her into an antithetical cosmic force.

While the theme of fate/free will is so basic, I really enjoyed it in the context of Homura's character. What starts as a simple choice becomes a delusion of fate to keep oneself going--this is something people do every day. Of course it's never really developed or explored, but I enjoyed it somehow. Idk, I just really like Homu. It was melodramatic in a way that worked for me. And contrasting "different" Homus throughout different iterations gives us a better picture of her character and what she loses in the process of saving a friend. Yeah, it's stupid if you read it realistically, but it was never meant to be like that.

>as human being trapped by our perception we are unable to even imagine what is it like to not think like a human being.
The "monster" of horror IS the human. Saya, is not the monster, but rather Fuminori. And not because of his "illness" but because he's a shitty person. Still, by the end, she heals him at least a little bit (at cost of all his humanity). In this case, /you're/ the outsider (the Other, the monster). The whole appeal is to be "saved," which sits well with otaku. Well, it's better as an unrealistic, self-fulfillment porn game than it is high writing, but that was the point all along (I hope).

Still, there was something good to be had there, but again, it doesn't really go anywhere. You have to dress it up and over-read it to come up with substance. Reading and listening to his interviews, he's quite shallow, just like his writing.

>>12408671
>I saw a fantasy of a lonely man, and this is what I'm telling it is

No, it isn't. You've stated previously that you know how Gen thinks, how he feels, how he sees the world, all based on exposure to a limited number of his works, two of which were group projects where he wasn't the only one calling the shots. If you honestly believe you know Gen based on this than it's YOU unable to distinguish reality from fiction. You're sick, friend. Get some help.

Hooray, a Saya thread!

>>12408981
> You've stated
I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.

>>12408826
> I really like the idea of yandere girls
I would propose doing something about your confidence issues, which the whole one hundred percent of people who like the archetype have.
> I just really like Homu
That's really the whole of what you can say about her, the rest is justification and rationalisation. I mean, I really liked her character design and wished to see more be told about her, but she disappointed me like little else did.
> Yeah, it's stupid if you read it realistically, but it was never meant to be like that.
And this is the biggest problem I have with fiction: I can accept the impossible, but not the improbable. Magic, aliens, deities? Sure, why not. But people acting out of character for no reason but plot demand? Nope, sorry, I'm off the bus.

Why is she so perfect?

My honest opinion for this thread is that escapist accusation is getting old.

>>12409887
If something becomes false simply because it is old, then I guess Bokassa never actually ate people and it's just propaganda.

>>12409845

Except I'm not.

>a fantasy of a man who gave up on trying to live in the real world, at that, and I'm talking about Urobuchi himself.
>I look at Gen himself and his indulgent desire to please his stand-in in the novel
>the real world really was rejected by Urobuchi, as he sees no value in it save for how he might incorporate it into his sick fantasy.
> SnU is the metaphor of Urobuchi rejecting reality and retreating to healing world of his fantasy, where he can suffice simply by being himself, even if he has to reduce himself to a parody of a proud species.

All things stated, by you, as the true way Gen thinks, feels, sees things. I'd criticize you for not even knowing your own arguments but I just don't care anymore. As I've previously said you're guilty of the things you accuse Gen of, and you simply reject or ignore anything that might burst your bubble. So, I'm done. Good day, goodbye, and good luck. You'll need it.

>>12409917
I'm saying Gen is an escapist and you are accusing me of knowing precisely what goes inside his head way beyond that. So, yes, putting words in my mouth.

Saya a cutest!

>>12409939
Your Saya looks like a 2hu to me...

>>12409947
Look again!

>>12409916
For something to be either false or true, you need to prove it exist first.

Accuse somebody of something when you have no proof is old and a waste of time.

>>12406646
>Again, you misunderstood my point: I'm arguing from the point of view outside fiction and look at Urobuchi's motivation and wishes.
>>12406682
>I already said, I analyse books by their authors.
Barthes would like a word.

Also I don't understand why you're bothering to critique escapism on a board like /jp/. We're all Fuminori here.

Also also, everything you wrote about SnU in your first three posts until the final paragraph highlighted the nuance of the work, so I really don't see why you didn't like it. Your dismissal seems to speak more to personal biases than anything, and your critique would have carried just as much weight without your prying the author's subconscious, which makes your valid points seem less credible.

Have you ever experienced existential crisis akin to the death of Fuminori's parents? Mine is largely the reason I was moved by the work. A character's motivational complexity is not always so important in that respect.

I am curious about you OP, are you a kind of person that is into anime, VNs and Touhou? What are your favorites? What other VNs have you read? Do you consider yourself an otaku? Do you live a successful life?

>>12410476
Critique for escapism is very easy to make nowadays because the definition for escapism is getting wider.

It used to be just shutting down all your reality and be fully immerse in your fantasy, nowadays, if you stray away from reality a little bit, like you are feeling comfortable watching sun rise and taking it easy, congrats, you are now an escapist.

>>12410844
I wonder why that is. Probably because "reality" has become based less on shared experiences and more on individual perception, making it a nebulous concept.

>>12404612
>>12404615
>>12404617
Well, you seem to have grasped it well overall so I think it's legitimate if you disagree with it as a narrative artifact (to each his own). I'll just share with you my personal view of it, which somewhat encompasses my high regard of Madoka as well, specially after the Rebellion movie.

>>12410476
You just reminded me that I've yet to finish Barthes' "A Lover's Discourse: Fragments". However I overall agree that Saya no Uta is one extremely fine piece of fiction concerning philosophy in its broad sense, finally focusing on love as an ethical problem. The only other VN that made a similar impact on me was Kana Imouto (I haven't played so many though, to be honest; I've yet to finish Subahibi too).

By all means, I'm very glad that to see that SnU keeps catching the interest of fair minds and giving them ground for reflexion. That alone is, I think, an amazing accomplishment of Urobuchi.

Saya is great because sometimes you just want to sit back and watch the world burn. She lets this become possible. Not literal burning, but something arguably worse. It's glorious.

>>12413695
Not as glorious as this but yeah, it's pretty damned good.

>of all the works of art that I have read, watched, listened to or played

You despise SnU for escapism but recognize it as a work of art?

>>12410476
> Barthes would like a word.
What about?
> I don't understand why you're bothering to critique escapism on a board like /jp/. We're all Fuminori here.
Because I wanted to write about how Saya is shit and /jp/ just was the first place where I know it would be read and the subject recognised. That untermenschen who gave up on life would be protecting it was to be expected, true, but still.
> everything you wrote about SnU in your first three posts until the final paragraph highlighted the nuance of the work
Nope. I have an affinity for pulling out information where there is little in the first place, so I can write in the same key just about anything.
> I really don't see why you didn't like it
It's exactly because I didn't like it: so I can shove the text of four thousand and a half something symbols into the throats of those who would say "that's just your opinion"
> your critique would have carried just as much weight without your prying the author's subconscious
Uh, it's based on Gen's escapism, so how could I write a critique on a writer's motivation without looking into his head?
> Have you ever experienced existential crisis akin to the death of Fuminori's parents?
In my case, two, actually, I was ill and because of that eager to die, so I understand well what it means to want to shut one's own self from the world. Still, there are a lot of things I wanted, and for a lot of them I now understand how ridiculous my wishes were.

>>12410844
You are arguing with yourself: you invented a ridiculous argument, attributed it to "other", and play at being baffled by it. That's just childish.

>>12413675
> I'll just share with you my personal view of it
Assuming what's on the picture is what you wanted to show, then it looks like this: first paragraph is about the obvious, how objectivity is unreachable because the world is not known by us, but rather perceived, which, well, is obvious, and you did not need to have graduated elementary school to know that, much less learning it from a hack of a writer who never bothers to explore on themes he supposedly rises to attention; second paragraph essentially is "Saya is my waifu", and I think it carries the true reason as to why you liked it.
And no, Saya does not explore anything at all philosophically, much less any specific subject. All the subtext was invented by you. Well, unless you think "she's a monster, but I still love her" is philosophical, in which I'll just say that she looked exactly like a human girl and was loved by Fuminori for being exactly like a human girl, and in the normalcy end her, now truly monstrous, appearance played key role, so there go out the window the ethical questions.

>>12414042
It's shitty art, but art by its category. I don't buy into this "true art" bullshit, so I don't have any reservations about calling art just what it is.

>>12414154
I'm not arguing, I'm stating.

>>12414173
So, you've stated a ridiculous argument...

>>12414229
It's not an argument at all.

This is the now definition of escapism:
>an activity or form of entertainment that allows people to forget about the real problems of life
>habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/escapism
Looking at sun set/sun rise and forgetting your problems by doing so is by said definition, an escapist activity.

>>12414240
Do you see what you are trying to do here? You do not say SnU is not escapist, you do not say escapism is not bad, you say escapism as a concept is meaningless nowadays and so cannot be used in critique. So, yes, very childish.

>>12414240
There are many kinds of escapism, the particular one brought up by OP in this thread is considered pathetic by him.

>>12414258
No, sir, I don't think I said it cannot be used as a critique, I just said critique for escapism is very easy to make nowadays,because its definition is widen.

But yes, I do mean the concept of escapism is practically meaningless nowadays because everyone have habits to less out of stress/forgetting their problems.

>>12414261
I have no comment regarding that because I haven't read the shit OP read.

The only thing I care to post about is the fact critique on escapism is very easy to make to the point where it's boring.

>>12414152
>What about?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
>Uh, it's based on Gen's escapism, so how could I write a critique on a writer's motivation without looking into his head?
Do you have a link to an interview where Gen explicitly stated that was his central motivation for writing it? If not, all your critique will come off as mere conjecture.

Also, please name us something you would consider successful art. Are there any other VNs which would fit this category for you?

>>12414165
>"Saya is my waifu"
She's not. I said it right at the beginning.

>how objectivity is unreachable because the world is not known by us, but rather perceived, which, well, is obvious, and you did not need to have graduated elementary school to know that

Yet, OP criticizes the work and its fandom as people who doesn't have "a grip on reality" (>>12404704), as if that naive realist position was on the other hand creditable for ethics: as if any picture of the world and life wasn't precisely but a personal or collective fantasy driven by a semiotical process (as we allegedly learn in elementary school). Urobuchi certainly didn't invent the theory of any experience (including love and the beloved) being inevitably signical (neither Baudrillard did it by himself, of course), he just made a daring story over the notion which I enjoyed immensely and found spot on in regard to my own heritage indeed; so I'm as far from delusion as anyone can be, that is, assuming my own bias and choices within a destabilized world. I love Gen's stories because I can share his view of the living experience, not because I try to scape from it.

>>12414262
> No
> But yes
All right.

>>12414422
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
Ah, this. I am doing precisely that: analysing an author's work while ignoring how his squeals about how it's a deep and edgy love story.
> all your critique will come off as mere conjecture
But death of the author...
> successful art
Uh, last book I read was A Farewell to Arms, so there it goes. I am laughing my breath off at Nozaki-kun, which haven't happened in a long time with animu, so there's that. My favourite game is Planescape: Torment, second goes KOTOR II, then Fallout: New Vegas (I also coincidentally happen to want to bear Avellone's children). As to movies... I haven't watched a lot since elementary school, but Equilibrium perhaps may not be the favourite, but it is certainly a favourite.
And VNs? Beyond those that lasted not more than a couple hours, I have only read Fate/Stay Night and MinDead Blood (the artstyle drew me in, the fetishes wouldn't let me go). Now, you can say I have no place criticising a VN because I have little experience with them, but that's pure bullshit.

>>12416477
> as if any picture of the world and life wasn't precisely but a personal or collective fantasy
What a load of pointless crap. Reality is objective, it is simply that we can't realise the objectivity fully.
> I love Gen's stories because I can share his view of the living experience, not because I try to scape from it.
So you've already scraped from it and so now can enjoy it. Glad to know the order, but it's meaningless.

>>12417488
You seem confused as to what death of the author is. It's not disregarding an author's interpretation of his own work, but rather to disregard the author altogether as a symbol of authority. It's supposed to inspire reflection, not pretension.

Now of course you could say I am ascribing fixed meaning, and thus authorship, to Barthes own text, but I'm really not. Your author-based interpretation of SnU is like saying Saya is actually a fish. It may be valid to you as an uneducated fisherman, but it's still a bad reading if you can't used the text to back it up.

But I'm not going to continue discussing this if you can't even admit you're wrong by the standards of even one school of criticism.

>>12417500
>Reality is objective, it is simply that we can't realise the objectivity fully
That's just an outdated positivistic belief, if you ask me. Reality is the conceptual construct given by rationality's (doomed) pretension of objectivity, understood as the univocal representation of the world provided by a binary function of interpretation between language and ostensible things, which has been proven impossible because of the essentially equivocal structure of language and in the light of rationality's final product and culmination: the previously inadmissible oxymoron of "virtual reality".

In other words, there's only "reality" as far as we accept some set of axioms for reason to start working from, but which are mere conventional interpretations of signs including perception itself (Peirce's model is great to understand signical levels). All this really is a very technical and hard to swallow idea, but Urobuchi somehow managed to hint it narratively and poetically in SnU; one of my favorites lines is when he compares truth with oxygen: only endurable as long as it is covered with the appropriate amount of lies and alien gases respectively, hinting that meaning and judgement can only spring from a particular and always biased heritage and interpretation.

In short, I'd say the point of the story is not if one is capable of loving a monster but to realize that perceiving something as monstrous is merely contextual. As Fuminori, one must indeed change in order to follow Saya and find fulfillment with her, casting away human qualities that go far beyond the mere fondness for Saya's humanoid appearance. Urobuchi gives us the possibility to ponder all this and make a few honest choices in the game, allowing us to learn more of ourselves through the experience. It's really a great VN, however I see it.

>you've already scraped from it
You really need to find a better argument than keep calling people deluded, man. SnU should at least have taught you that.

>>12417500
>Reality is objective, it is simply that we can't realise the objectivity fully.
That's just an outdated positivistic belief, if you ask me. Reality is the conceptual construct given by rationality's (doomed) pretension of objectivity, understood as the univocal representation of the world provided by a bijective function of interpretation between language and ostensible things; this has been proven impossible because of the essentially equivocal structure of language and in the light of rationality's final product and culmination: the previously inadmissible oxymoron of "virtual reality".

In other words, there's only "reality" as far as we accept some set of axioms for reason to start working from, but which are mere conventional interpretations of signs including perception itself (Peirce's model is great to understand signical levels). All this really is a very technical and hard to swallow idea, but Urobuchi somehow managed to hint it narratively and poetically in SnU; one of my favorites lines is when he compares truth with oxygen: only endurable as long as it is covered with the appropriate amount of lies and alien gases respectively, hinting that meaning and judgement can only spring from a particular and always biased heritage and interpretation.

In short, I'd say the point of the story is not if one is capable of loving a monster but to realize that perceiving something as monstrous is merely contextual. As Fuminori, one must indeed change in order to follow Saya and find fulfillment with her, casting away human qualities that go far beyond the mere fondness for Saya's humanoid appearance. Urobuchi gives us the possibility to ponder all this and make a few honest choices in the game, allowing us to learn more of ourselves through the experience. It's really a great VN, however I see it.

>you've already scraped from it
You really need to find a better argument than keep calling people deluded, man. SnU should at least have taught you that.

>worthless piece of power fantasy porn
>ctrl+f lovecraft
>nothing

Jesus fucking Christ. Get some context, understand where this story fits into the history and tradition of Lovecraftian/cosmic horror. The 'good' ending of SnU could not be more clear - Saya is a monster and Fuminori is her cultist, and such things must always be exterminated. If indeed we are going to read the story as a sexual power fantasy, we cannot ignore how it ends. Fuminori is not a tragic figure. The reader may summon some sympathy or even empathy for him but in the end it is impossible to ignore what Saya really is, and I believe this is the key to understanding the narrative. Fuminori presents the modern otaku reader with something very identifiable and then very clearly outlines that to be this you must stop being human, you must cast aside morality, and you will become a monster.

She's not a little girl, she's a fucking shoggoth. Dynamite her.

>>12417876
Blah, blah, blah, so you are a pseudo-intellectual who is most likely into liberal arts, I get it. You may save your trap-clapping for someone else, I have long lost interest in whatever you have to say.

It's based off Tezuka's Phoenix anyways, only with more edge
you should read that up

>>12417993
>she's a fucking shoggoth
Nope, she's some living terraforming agent that got out of hand and now does whatever she damn well pleases. What she did in the bloom end is beneficial to humanity.

Besides, shoggoths aren't really harmful. They're just big and really dangerous, but if you keep out of their way, they'll keep out of yours.

>>12418486
Nope, Phoenix is something completely different. It takes from just one part of Phoenix and acknowledges that.

>>12417838
> to disregard the author altogether as a symbol of authority
You're judging the concept by its letter while ignoring the meaning. I disregard what the author has to say on his work, but the work is there and it was written by the author, so ignoring him completely, especially when the whole his work is about fulfilling wishes he can't reach in reality, is unreasonable.

>>12418494
> What she did in the bloom end is beneficial to humanity.
[citation needed]

>>12417993
> to be this you must stop being human, you must cast aside morality, and you will become a monster
Well, more or less this, but the point I am making is that monster or not, the point is in rejecting reality. Saya may as well have been an angel, I guess Urobuchi just wanted to be edgy.

>>12418578
>Saya may as well have been an angel
But that's wrong. The cosmetic adjustment to Fuminori's perception necessitated that he fall in love with the eldritch abomination. That was part of his existential crisis, he could no longer appreciate beauty in the mundane. If you want to bring Urobochi into this, he claims to have had a near death experience as a child due to sickness.

>>12418567
But what does involving him add to your criticism? You are, by definition, projecting.

>>12418572
If you consider the complete negation of the old status quo beneficial, then you can infer your own citation.

>>12418473
It's obvious enough you're not into liberal arts.

>>12418578
>>12419105
Saya is totally, undisputedly an angel. Literally, even.

>>12419105
It wasn't a complete negation of the old status quo, rather, it was building upon the most sentient species. (actually, it was more of just a reason for the h-scenes, but don't tell them that!)

>>12420839
If THAT looks like an angel to you you need to get your brain checked.

>>12418473
Actually I'm a mathematician.

>>12418473
Actually I'm a mathematician (mostly on logic and set theory). I just happen to know about other stuff as well.

Good luck judging people and things that poorly.

>>12420957

Actually, Saya mid-bloom is probably closer in appearance to a Biblical angel than the whole winged human thing that's so popular.

>>12418473
>pseudo-intellectual
/jp/ loves that cheap namecalling but the fact you don't understand someone doesn't make him a fake, you know? You can't call someone a pseudo-anything unless you can outstrip him and prove him wrong.

>>12421139
he used a lot of words to tell us that things don't objectively exist

it's true that you can't prove that things exist but things exist

deal with it

>>12421241
you really are clueless.

>>12421076
A mathematician rejecting the objectivity of reality? You know, I just recently talked with a bloke who is a student of mathematics who claimed that mathematics actually belonged to liberal arts, and physicists, biologists, and others are just servants to mathematicians, economists, and lawyers. I had a laugh at his expense, and so I will at yours.

>>12421139
What >>12421241 said. A scientist, mathematician, even, who rejects contemporary scientific paradigm is a joke.

>>12421515
how can ideas be real when we aren't real

>>12419105
> But that's wrong.
You are right up to a point, but the point was, it didn't matter how Saya looked, she might have been a mushroom or a purple potato with a cute smiley painted on it, the only things that mattered were that she looked beautiful only to Fuminori and that nobody aside from Fuminori could interact with her. She need not have been awful to behold.
> You are, by definition, projecting.
Well, since you involved definitions, that means you are not intent on using actual arguments, and so I will simply ignore it.
> If you consider the complete negation of the old status quo beneficial
For its own sake? Pointless.

>>12421548
>I had a laugh at his expense, and so I will at yours.
That's because you know nothing about nominalism, intuitionism, formalism or the foundations of mathematics (and its relation with epistemology) at all; you're ridiculing no one but yourself, though few ones here might be able to realize it. I don't share that guy's view at all, by the way.

>>12421551
>A scientist, mathematician, even, who rejects contemporary scientific paradigm is a joke.
The term "paradigm" only has legitimate sense within Khun's historical view of science (specifically the copernican revolution) and even there it has a lot of troubles; out of there it constitutes nothing but metaphors or extrapolations that go even beyond what structuralism did with linguistics. Again, you're arriving to poor conclusions out of using terms you don't really understand.

>>12421558
That's not at all what it's said there but your uninformed read of it. You've given nothing but fallacies one after another: appeal to nature, ad hominem, straw man, etc. People has showed you specialized knowledge, which you just twisted with layman level retorts. While you've just called people things, they have proven you ignorant. And you expect your opinion to be valuable over theirs? Wittgenstein was damned right: it's the poverty of your language what entails the poverty of your world. It is not you are in a position to disregard others intellectually. But this you will not see or accept either and it's certainly not my problem.

>>12421632
no matter how many big words you use you won't be able to convince sane people that things don't exist

>>12421548
>I had a laugh at his expense, and so I will at yours.
That's because you know nothing about nominalism, intuitionism, formalism or the foundations of mathematics (and its relation with epistemology) at all; you're ridiculing no one but yourself, though few ones here might be able to realize it. I don't share that guy's view at all, by the way.

>>12421551
>A scientist, mathematician, even, who rejects contemporary scientific paradigm is a joke.
The term "paradigm" only has legitimate sense within Kuhn's historical view of science (specifically the copernican revolution) and even there it has a lot of troubles; out of there it constitutes nothing but metaphors or extrapolations that go even beyond what structuralism did with linguistics. Again, you're arriving to poor conclusions out of using terms you don't really understand.

>>12421558
That's not at all what it's said there but your uninformed read of it. You've given nothing but fallacies one after another: appeal to nature, ad hominem, straw man, etc. People has showed you specialized knowledge, which you just twisted with layman level retorts. While you've just called people things, they have proven you ignorant. And you expect your opinion to be valuable over theirs? Wittgenstein was damned right: it's the poverty of your language what entails the poverty of your world. It is not you are in a position to disregard others intellectually. But this you will not see or accept either and it's certainly not my problem.

>>12421635
No matter how many times you repeat that misreading will it make it what I said (which was not).

>>12421645
you said that things existing was an outdated positivistic belief because we can only understand reality based on axioms we have

but that's dumb, because the truth of the matter is that things exist

>>12421645
> That's because you know nothing
Nice assumption here. And you even confuse mathematics with philosophy, what a fruit.
Anyway, you continue to try to impress me with smarty-pants words, which, well, simply won't work, so you may as well drop it already, nobody here buys into your bullshit.

>>12421648
>you said that things existing was an outdated positivistic belief because we can only understand reality based on axioms we have
No: I said what I said and it's right there, word for word; you just twisted it again because you either can't or don't want to process it otherwise. I didn't discredit the existence of alterity (as in solipsism) but argued about the signical (and thus finally virtual) nature of the very notion of reality as a semiotical construct, and offered you a good source to look for it.

>the truth of the matter is that things exist
Which you can only assert perceptively, iconically or symbolically, that is, signically, which is, virtually. But you're not gonna understand anything more about this until you step out of your limits. That's up to you, but that's no reason to call me a fraud for bringing it up.

>>12421648
Why would you think I'm trying to impress you? I'm just using information which, if you do are familiar with, will be able to discuss. But it's hard to expect that from someone that only throws insults and tells me to shut up.

>>12421648
>you said that things existing was an outdated positivistic belief because we can only understand reality based on axioms we have
No: I said what I said and it's right there, word for word; you just twisted it again because you either can't or don't want to process it otherwise. I didn't discredit the existence of alterity (as in solipsism) but argued about the signical (and thus finally virtual) nature of the very notion of reality as a semiotical construct, and offered you a good source to look for it.

>the truth of the matter is that things exist
Which you can only assert perceptively, iconically or symbolically, that is, signically, which is, virtually. But you're not gonna understand anything more about this until you step out of your limits. That's up to you, but that's no reason to call me a fraud for bringing it up.

>>12421654
Why would you think I'm trying to impress you? I'm just using information which, if you do are familiar with, will be able to discuss. But it's hard to expect that from someone that only throws insults and tells me to shut up.

>>12409864
>I would propose doing something about your confidence issues, which the whole one hundred percent of people who like the archetype have.
Can't deny it, but can't speak for others either. Those attracted to moe archetypes in general probably aren't the most confident types.

>the rest is justification and rationalisation.
Perhaps. But she's also the most developed character in the whole series. Not saying much when compared to bitches like blue hair, but the growth of the character was significant to me.

>I can accept the impossible, but not the improbable.
You need to work on your manga/anime logic, then. Otaku narratives are now, and have for a long time, dominated by their own peculiar sets of rules. A "manga realism" as described by Azuma.

>>12413675
So, in summary, nihilism negated by a "love conquers all" ending? I enjoyed SnU as much as the next guy, but you've dressed it up to the nth degree. I would bring Gen's mediocrity into it, but you mentioned Barthes so carry on.

I just don't think the work is even worth digging that deep into. It's an experience that rides on mood and atmosphere more than anything else. Thinking too deeply about it would probably spoil it--it's eroge after all. It didn't stop me from looking, but all I saw was "wow his life sucks and loli sex makes things better." I even thought this was touching in its contrast and play. But this was when I turned my brain off.

>>12421648
You missed it. We don't actually care about, nor can we even experience the "actual"--it is all through a system of signs that we understand anything. And the signifier precedes the signified in postmodernity. "Reality"--things "actually" existing or not existing--doesn't matter. It's all symbolic. All virtual.

It's been a while since I've read Baudrillard, but it should be something like that.

>>12421693
> Why would you think I'm trying to impress you?
Because it's obvious you have nothing, not a thing to lend credence to your ridiculous claims, so you are trying to make it sound that I am arguing not with you personally, but with a whole school of thought behind you, hence the name-dropping and wide usage of context-specific terminology.

>>12420839
She was certainly an angel to Fuminori, and that's all that matters. Maybe she would have been an angel to everyone else in the old world, too, but we've lost our umbilical cord to that domain.

>>12421551
A scientist who doesn't follow dogma is a joke? Sounds awfully similar to another powerful institution, except there they'd call you a heretic. Read Feyeraband.

>>12421582
>You are right up to a point, but the point was, it didn't matter how Saya looked, she might have been a mushroom or a purple potato with a cute smiley painted on it, the only things that mattered were that she looked beautiful only to Fuminori and that nobody aside from Fuminori could interact with her. She need not have been awful to behold.
Maybe for your interpretation, but not for mine. Read my post again.
>Well, since you involved definitions, that means you are not intent on using actual arguments, and so I will simply ignore it.
You wouldn't listen to my arguments earlier, and instead got defensive. I'm just saying this kind of baseless assumption about an author would get you laughed at in grad school.
>For its own sake? Pointless.
That's why I specified "if".

>>12421645
>That's not at all what it's said there but your uninformed read of it.
He was quoting Jayden Smith. I agree with you about everything else though.

>>12421719
>So, in summary, nihilism negated by a "love conquers all" ending?
More like nihilism confirmed by a "love conquers all" ending.

>>12420839
She was certainly an angel to Fuminori, and that's all that matters. Maybe she would have been an angel to everyone else in the old world, too, but we've lost our umbilical cord to that domain.

>>12421551
A scientist who doesn't follow dogma is a joke? Sounds awfully similar to another powerful institution, except there they'd call you a heretic. Read Feyerabend.

>>12421582
>You are right up to a point, but the point was, it didn't matter how Saya looked, she might have been a mushroom or a purple potato with a cute smiley painted on it, the only things that mattered were that she looked beautiful only to Fuminori and that nobody aside from Fuminori could interact with her. She need not have been awful to behold.
Maybe for your interpretation, but not for mine. Read my post again.
>Well, since you involved definitions, that means you are not intent on using actual arguments, and so I will simply ignore it.
You wouldn't listen to my arguments earlier, and instead got defensive. I'm just saying this kind of baseless assumption about an author would get you laughed at in grad school.
>For its own sake? Pointless.
That's why I specified "if".

>>12421645
>That's not at all what it's said there but your uninformed read of it.
He was quoting Jayden Smith. I agree with you about everything else though.

>>12421719
>So, in summary, nihilism negated by a "love conquers all" ending?
More like nihilism confirmed by a "love conquers all" ending.

>>12421693
>Which you can only assert perceptively, iconically or symbolically, that is, signically, which is, virtually.
the fact that my assertion can only be done in language does not change the fact that things exist, which they do

>We don't actually care about, nor can we even experience the "actual"
you don't care because you don't believe in actual things

>>12421719
Yeah, I'm not assuming Gen has such specific philosophical sources (neither I think I said so); rather, I was honestly impressed of how some thematics seemed to be coincidentally found within the inner structure (plot, dialogue, routes) of his tales and arriving to such fine conclusions. Conversely, I do think it's very unfair to just take SnU as loli porn cause, well, there's actual CP or hentai to take care of that in a straightforward way and what I got from SnU was a far more intense and richer experience, which I tried to come to terms with this (if you want, inflated) way. Also, as you surely know, Baudrillard has a very specific regard on porn and obscenity as the annihilation of seduction and intimacy, which I don't think it's the case at all within SnU. About love triumphing over all and beyond doom: yes, I do am extremely partial to that trope but, as you might suspect, through a very sui generis definition of love gathered from many sources, and finally resonating with having a waifu (not Saya, though) and being in this board at all.

>>12421720
I've just told you what I think, showing you exactly where I gathered it from and, thus, actually narrowing the plausibility of what I said. You can always judge the legitimacy of my claims in regard to my references or some strongest ones you may come up with (as I did myself). That's all there is to posts like mine, really.

>>12421693
>Which you can only assert perceptively, iconically or symbolically, that is, signically, which is, virtually.
the fact that my assertion can only be done in language does not change the fact that things exist, which they do

>>12421719
>"Reality"--things "actually" existing or not existing--doesn't matter.
only because you decided from the beginning that you weren't going to care about it, which is a decision you personally made that doesn't apply to anyone else

>>12421771
> Feyerabend
So you in all actuality are a pseudo-intellectual. Feyerabend's whole attempt at critique of scientific methodology basically boiled down to "I want to feel smart, but I can't do science, and these scientist guys are so tense and think themselves the smartest, so I'll just say they aren't really, neener neener neener!". The same, by the way, goes for Lakatos, with whom Feyerabend is often mentioned together (and please say that you did want to, oh please do).

>>12421809
You just repeated what they refuted before. No one but you said that things don't exist. You're arguing with yourself at this point.

>>12422921
Not him, but it's amazing the amount of frontal lies you can come up with as you only see things in terms of "wanting to feel smart in front of others" and such childish stuff.

Through his analysis of Galileo and others, Feyerabend proved the historical and final inexistence of an universal schematic scientific method (as well as the hindering quality of such a thing in actual practice), as a mean for defining or turning something into a "science" as Comte pretended when founding sociology (for political reasons) and which the Vienna Circle finally failed at. Lakatos is often mentioned with him because they were both a reaction to Kuhn; but, although having a deep personal friendship, they had nothing in common philosophically (they were good rivals) and it's closer to a position you might like if you actually knew it; Lakatos' concept of core was his attempt to preserve a weakened but effective sense of linear progress through scientific investigation against Feyerabend's extreme pragmatic relativism. If you cared to know, a later but more refined tool for the historical and methodological analysis of science is Larry Laudan's RT (research traditions), which encompasses several additional components (like a scientist's axiology) but without the blurriness of Kunh's paradigm.

I know I should have left this alone since you'll only throw another diatribe and drama set up, but to think that /jp/ remains this moronic is always saddening. Call him and anyone pseudo-intellectuals to the grave, but right now you're a proven right ignorant; you don't even nearly understand what you claim to stand for.

>>12421809
Don't be stupid. Reality only matters insofar as it can be converted into symbols, communicated, and understood. It is fundamentally unknowable. You only know the signs of it. Your, and everyone's "reality" is the map, not the land it represents. And everyone's map is a little different. This is what he means by a defining it by a set of axioms. Absolute reality (or absolute anything) doesn't exist. Everything is arbitrary and relative.

Yes, obviously, things exist, but that fact doesn't mean anything. And even then, that "fact" is dependent on your experience. Think in terms of simulation. I don't even know why you're trying to argue this.

Alright what are some good translated VNs on the fucked up level of SnU. I feel like getting fucked up again.

>>12423782
Cyber Slayer by the same author. It's a pain to set up (you'll need to convert the audio files and some other stuff) but the story is great and well worth the effort.

>>12423793
Thanks, not many people are hosting the VN it seems but I managed to find a torrent.

∧＿∧
　　　　　　　　　　　　(・ω・　｀)
　　　　　　　　　　 　/ ｀ﾆﾆ´彳 ｀` ｰ ､
　　　　　　　　＿,ノ´､,　 ,..＞､ﾘ,.　-- ､. ヽ--､
　　　 　 　 ／　　　　￣´　　 {-_,.　　-､ ､,'　　ヽ
　　　　　 /　　　〃,..　　　　　'r　　_,..　､}>､.. r
　　　 　／､　 _,..ｲ´　　　　　　ﾄ.　´　　 i　　´ 　 }
　　 　 /　 ﾞｰ'´　}ﾍ　　 　 _,..ノﾍ`ｰ- ...ｨ! ',　 ハ {　　　
　　　 ,' ,'　　 　 ﾘヾﾆ=ﾆ´　,. ‐'' h ｰ ､ ハ　ﾘ　 ﾉ}　　　
　　　,'八　 ,　 / ＼ﾐヽ、ヽ.　　　|!　　} 彡N　 ', ハ　　
　　　}　　(.,／　 　 ∨　ヽ('' ´｀` /´`'!,∨　!　,.'　 i
,　　 ii　　　 　 {　　 入__　_ﾉ.__,ﾉ　|　　∨　 ,{
　　 i :　v ﾘ　　 　 ／､　　{　　　ﾟ　´,|　|　　　|, 　 }
　 {　Y, ,'　　　 ｨ‐‐-ﾐ､_｀',　 　 　 ﾘ　}　　　,'　　 ヽ
　 　 iヽ　!　　　,' :　　 ハ｀ヽ､..＿_,/-',〉-‐‐ｙ　　　 ,}
　 }. ∨　　 ./ ﾉ　 /　 ∨' ,.　 _,.／　!　 ｀''"i ', {ﾉ'′
　 ',　 ｀ヽ_,..{,'　 ノ　　　i 　 /´　､　　ヽ､.__ ,〉 ﾄ,)
　　　 ',　　r‐ﾔ　 '　　 　 人ノ　　　 ＞‐‐ｲ ／ ｀ }
　　　　ヽ、∨　　　　　　 /｀ヽ､　／　　　ハ　, ／
　　　　　　y'　,'　　 　 ; / 　 　 ｀{　　 ,／-‐　/
　　　　　　i　　　　　　i'　　　　／' ,／　 ,..　´
　 　 　 　 i　　 　 　 ,ﾘ　　　／-'"　,.　'´

>>12421077
The joke
.
.
.
your head.

>>12423194
>You just repeated what they refuted before. No one but you said that things don't exist. You're arguing with yourself at this point.
you claimed that "things objectively exist" is an "oudated positivist view" to be superceded, presumably, by the radical notion that they don't exist, or maybe just that nobody cares that they exist, neither of which are particularly convincing

>>12423643
the land exists even if all you have is maps of said land

>that fact doesn't mean anything
pretty sure existence has meaning

how can ideas be real when we aren't real

>>12417455
These are two different arguments though.

Escapism nowadays is meaningless, but plenty of meaningless things are used as critique, such as freaking feminism.

>>12424412
Are you the same dude who keeps saying things are real, but can't prove it?

If you can't prove it, how do you know these things are real?

>>12424412
>presumably

It appears to me you should stop presuming, because you're not very good at it.

>>12424500
you can't prove that you exist but i manage to take it as a fairly reasonable assumption and it would be pretty dumb to do otherwise

>>12424502
i translated your garbage into english

you're welcome to do a better job

>>12424505
I thought we were doing objectivity here? "Reasonable assumption" doesn't sound like objectivity at all.

In fact, it sounds subjective.

>>12424509
it is objectively true that you exist

>>12424511
Prove it, brah.

>>12424513
how can you post on 4chan if you aren't real

>>12424519
I can be a fucking bot, in fact, I can be you samefagging.

And don't answer a query with a question.

>>12424521
but you're not

>>12424523
Prove it.

>>12424528
why would i bother proving something you already know to be true

>>12424531
Because if you can't prove something, don't pretend that thing is objectively true.

>>12424535
i don't have to pretend it's objectively true because it really is objectively true

but if you really insist on trying to prove to the world that you don't exist you're welcome to it

>>12424538
How do you know that it's objectively true if you can't prove it?

The ball is on your court, you assume shit without proof.

>>12424541
it's extremely unlikely to be otherwise

>you assume shit without proof.
some assumptions, like the fact that we're having a conversation right now, are safe to make

>>12424544
I'm sorry but assumptions aren't proof.

And as said, I can be a bot, I can be you samefagging.

>>12424546
are you?

>>12424549
Why ask me?

You know thing as objectively true, you answer it man, with proof.

>>12424554
i want to hear what you think

choudai

>>12424556
Begging the question, brah, not my ball.

In fact, this "assume shit without proof" notion is this thread in a nutshell.

>>12424577
well i guess it's settled, you don't think anything at all

i'm glad we could come to this amiable conclusion

>>12424610
I don't need to do anything here but to wait for your proof actually, because you, who claim the fact that I objectively exist have fail to bring up any proof to support that fact.

You are just begging me to do your work for you, brah.

>>12424619
it's self-evident to all viewers including myself, yourself, and all observers, so they only thing that it would achieve is probably perverse sexual satisfication on your part

if you don't exist, talking to you is a waste of time, and if you do exist, you're so profoundly stupid that talking to you is a waste of time, so i think we're done here

you can wait here forever for the proof of your own existence

>>12424624
True, I can wait for that my whole life, but I will never find it, because not me, you or anyone else can prove it, which is all you can get is "self-evident", "assumption" instead of actual objectivity.

>>12424640
how can you find it if you're not real

>>12424645
Duh, I never said I can find it.

I'm not you, I do not simply know that somehow things exist without proof.

>>12424650
how can you wait for things if you're not real

>>12424652
Because the concept of waiting isn't limited to "real" things.

A fictional, written character too can wait.

>>12424657
how about the fact that you just said you're not me

could a fictional character be me

>>12424662
I don't know, answer that yourself.

I'm not here to answer question, I'm here for proof.

>>12424662
the answer is no

i'm glad we were able to settle this matter

>>12424665
how can you be here for proof if you're not real

>>12424669
Because as said, fictional character can also wait for proof, as seen in various fictional works.

Still, you resort to just begging the question over and over again, which is not really proving anything in the end.

>>12424680
a fictional character is incapable of waiting of waiting for an explanation from a real person

if you're willing to accept that then you should also accept that a fictional character of mine proved it to your real or fictional self just now

>>12424686
Uh, no, you, either real or fictional, has not said anything, you are just asking question, waiting for somebody to prove something, for you.
I don't accept shit without proof, so prove this as well:
>a fictional character is incapable of waiting of waiting for an explanation from a real person

>>12424690
i have already proved it to you

the ball is now in your court

>>12424696
I can prove that a fictional character can wait for an explanation/answer a question from a real person, by just writing a character who is answering something like the Monty Hall problem, which is a question posed by "real" persons.

Now that you have to prove that my fictional character is somehow incapable of that.

>>12424736
i have written a character who has proven that you objectively exist, written three fictional years ago in his fictional journal

prove he is incapable of doing so

>>12424746
I cannot prove that your fictional character is not capable of that but considering I haven't seen nor read his proof, I still got nothing.

Too bad, I just need to prove capacity, while you need to prove existence.

>>12424756
i wrote another story featuring a fictional character who did not actually prove it, but who is capable of proving it, and since he is capable of proving it it must be true

prove his incapability

>>12424761
>who did not actually prove it, but who is capable of proving it
Isn't that faulty logic?

If he hasn't done that, how can you know that he is capable of that?

>>12424765
it's part of his stat block

>>12424766
This reminds me of the nearly 2hu powerlevel discussion, no, you can fanwank all you want, but until Yukari actually does separate the barrier between life and death and de-conceptualize a person, you can't say that she can do that. Said fictional character has not done anything to that kind of level.

>>12424774
i'm the original creator, not a fan

>>12424777
Even original creator can use faulty logic too.

Either ways, considering I haven't seen the proof from said fictional character, I can dismiss it until I do.
Capable of doing something does not necessarily mean they will do it.

>>12424778
the fictional character, who is a god, asserted with infallible authority that you, IRL, had both received his proof and accepted it

it happened just now

>>12424782
Well, I have perceived no proof in my surrounding, nor do I can prove that any kind of logical proof exist, so I can deny it, luckily, I do not have to prove a negative.

>>12424788
> I have perceived no proof in my surrounding
misha the omnipotent, the all-seeing and all-knowing one, is far more trustworthy than some anonymous internet person who isn't even sure that he exists

please prove your assertion

>>12424794
Hmmm, my five senses tell me so, still that's just perception, which could be manipulated.

Still, I don't see any kind of logical bridge that makes me understand nor perceive the proof so I still deny.

>>12424802
as misha can never be wrong, i can only conclude that you're lying to me, and i don't talk with liars

you'll have to find someone else to harass

>>12424810
Well, as usual, you have to prove that Misha can never be wrong first.

But yeah, this has been going on long enough, we're practically debating capacity vs action now. So yeah, let's end it here.

>>12424816
misha the most high has no need to prove his infallibility to a confused liar like you

this affront can only be washed out with your life's blood

also he said i should quit this argument and go to sleep

ITT:

>taking an edgy porn game too seriously

>>12424863
Who art thou quoting?

>>12423194
> you only see things in terms of "wanting to feel smart in front of others" and such childish stuff
Oh, please, both Feyerabend and Lakatos just leaked frustration with inability to understand science as a methodology and wanting to have anything at all to point at those know-it-all eggheads who wouldn't let them into the club.
> Feyerabend proved
He proved nothing. You should literally have no brain to buy into a thing he posits. His argument is basically "you can't with absolute confidence prove that you know something, so you can know absolutely nothing, checkmate atheists".

>>12424500
Ah, so I was right, you really bought into this "inability to provide absolute principally irrefutable proof means impotence of science". Tell me, were you lying when you said you are a mathematician or is the shithole they taught you that at really exist?

>>12425030
It's theoretically possible to do mathematics at any level without knowing or caring about science.

>>12425073
Are you trying to push that "mathematics isn't science, it's the language of science" thing? I'm not even going to touch it.

>>12425083
Mathematics is distinct from science because it is not empirical. It requires no observation whatsoever.

>>12425087
And here we go again. That's an old and beaten view of science. Science does not study reality per se, it studies systems, the world we exist is just such a system with its own subsystems, empiricism is a requirement insofar as it checks pattern consistency, with mathematics there is simply no such need.

>>12425103
Science is based on empiricism. It doesn't matter how consistent your patterns and models are if they don't correspond to observations; that's not science anymore.

>>12425107
> Science is based on empiricism.
Empirical sciences are based on empiricism.
> It doesn't matter how consistent your patterns and models are if they don't correspond to observations
This applies to empirical sciences.
You don't really understand that science may study not only parts of existence, but the very existence itself, can you?

>>12425116
What are the non-empirical sciences?

>>12425119
Mathematics.

>>12404612
>>12404615
>>12404617
It is a porno game after all.
You can just treat the white room end as your true end.

>>12424412
Existence has no meaning per se. And plenty of things "exist" without tangible existence. That's the abstract or symbolic. That ideas can precede or really be independent of any physicality is telling of just how outdated ideas like "reality" or "existence" are.

And what of the guy who hallucinates? What if this conversation is a complex simulation? What if everything is simulacra and simulation? What happens when we can't tell real from fake? "Real" and "actual" become meaningless.

Or did you think history was an accurate and "real" account of anything? Well you're failing at the solipsism argument so, I wouldn't put it above you.

>>12425612
> Existence has no meaning per se.
Are you an idiot? Are you unable to read properly? The question was never whether existence has meaning or not, it was whether existence exists at all, which you still haven't answered.
> What if
If you wish to use solipsism as an argument, then you've lost. It can be neither proven nor disproved, but your obsession with irrefutable proofs being absolutely necessary gets you exactly nowhere.
And I ask you this again, were you lying about being a mathematician or are you from some shithole with litearlly no educational standards?

>>12425624
FYI, you're arguing with more than one person.

>it was whether existence exists at all, which you still haven't answered.
MY whole argument here is that it doesn't matter, not whether or not things exist. I think this is also the point of the guy you were originally arguing with. "Objectivity" is a myth. The reasons for that have already been provided.

>It can be neither proven nor disproved
Like existence, objective reality, or anything. The idea of "absolute proof" is stupid. The idea of absolute anything is stupid.

>>12425929
>The idea of absolute anything is stupid.
do you believe that things exist

Do waterfalls exist?

>>12425007
>just leaked frustration with inability to understand science as a methodology and wanting to have anything at all to point at those know-it-all eggheads who wouldn't let them into the club.

You totally projected.

Saying that the concept of reality is an artificial construct --which is right-- is NOT at all the same than saying that things don't exist, you hillbilly rats.

You've created the most stupid pseudo-argument I've seen in a while.

>>12427809
Oh, please, if I thought I couldn't understand science, then I'd spout the same "I'm not going to answer a simple question about whether do I believe existence exists" bullshit that, bingo, everyone who doesn't understand science yet doesn't want to be seen as stupid repeats..

>>12425929
> The idea of "absolute proof" is stupid.
Yet it's that faux mathematician who started the "objectivity doesn't exist" who was demanding for just such an absolute proof. I'm just fine with knowing that perception is inherently and inescapably illusory.

>>12404704
This is silly, Saya no Uta is the third most rated game on the VNDB, and highly rated (top 30 I think). It obviously don't appeal solely to crazy people.

Psychoogical horror is a well defined genre, SnU simply combined that with cosmic horror. It's good, but not that revolutionary or whatever you're implying.

>>12406659
But that's literally the definition of value in an economic sense, how much something sells for.

You seem to falsely believe your aesthetic tastes are interesting or relevant to anyone else. This is a mistake.

>>12409965
I still dont see it

>>12430602
Do you see what I see?