User:RD/9k/The Owl House (Q56,01)
Main entries
The Owl House
-> a lot of people liked this show and I'm just like... hmm no. it looks like it's a good show? but. gosh, why does it prompt so many video essays about Existentialism that even reference early-existentialism by name. I don't think this show was aimed at me.- The Owl House -> I said on some other entry: I understand this is a narrative about growing up. I understand those involve character development; I understand those may involve choices. there's actually a difference between that concept and "existentialism". but in my mind the reviews of this show I was looking at actually crossed over that line. it takes a while to explain what the problem is, because you're unpacking decades and decades of modern philosophy. but the shortest I can put it.... existentialism is this strange concept that individuals actually have control over the whole world around them and basically the universe revolves around you just because you get to make a few choices. that explanation is a little hyperbolic, but it's hard to summarize this concept well in a short sentence without oversimplification and hyperbole.
The Owl House and existentialism
- what does 'witch' even mean? / did I want to be a witch back in Connecticut? / "I wanted to be a witch, but what does that even mean? Did I want to be a witch back in Connecticut?" [1] -> okay, that's pretty funny.
from another angle: Luz ponders the concept that events at particular points in time don't actually change the conditions of the future and it gets her entirely lost. so maybe that's not a good way to think. maybe it's better to realize that history is a process of definite conditions leading to other sets of definite conditions. - If everyone wanted someone to choose them, no one would achieve anything (Owl House ep. 2) [2] [3] -> nah. this isn't inspiring. when there's capitalism a great many people's life stories are about searching all over to get chosen by someone and how inspirational it is to hear about someone getting chosen. what is going to a university and getting hired for an exclusive "opportunity" as one of the brightest experts if it isn't being a chosen one? our fantasy books reflect our societies and class structures.
edit: gosh. this is false. this is actually false, because if you duplex it, capitalists are waiting for employees to choose them and employees are waiting for capitalists to choose them. everyone is. it's more like if nobody wanted somebody to pick them out as the chosen one nobody would achieve anything. - Early-existentialism is the opposite of predetermination -> some people distinctly seem to treat (early-)existentialism as a single proposition rather than a field of philosophers. the funny thing is that everyone explains the contents of the proposition a little differently. thus making the single proposition back into a field of philosophy containing many propositions. in an act of pettiness, I might label this statement false in the strict binary logic sense, purely because it can be demonstrated to be a category error.
- Making a choice is the opposite of predetermination -> this one is fairer. it seems probably untrue — you've got relaterminism going on in your head retermining your actions — but is more difficult to decide as clearly true or false.
- Choices are identical with character development (fiction) / Choices are identical with Subject formation (real-life psychology)
- Individuals express themselves through the people around them [4] -> one of the sharpest things I heard in an Existentialist video. you really have to pick this apart and look at it though. at first glance it looks like an acknowledgement of relaterminism: people don't choose everything about themselves, so finding good friends that fill in the gaps in you is important. then you look at it closer and you realize there are much worse interpretations of it. one is that our main character is determining the presence of the other characters and vice versa and they are all choosing to be together. that's a bit disgusting. it allows people to come together and express themselves through their connection and then be prejudiced against other groups of people because being prejudiced is their authentic self. if you think that can't be someone's authentic self at least at one particular moment in time then you have never actually met a reactionary. just like a Goth kid, they will insist that even if it's a phase bigotry is exactly who they are.
- Abusers seek to destroy freedom / Manipulative and abusive people seek to destroy Freedom / Manipulative and abusive people seek to destroy the opportunity to make meaningful choices [5] / (9k) -> one of the central axioms of the Existentialist-Structuralist tradition that leads to all the strange statements about sorting the world into nice people and mean people, Free Will being able to fix everything, etc.
History
- People created monarchies because they believe in predetermination / Believing in predetermination led to monarchies; this is to imply that monarchies were created by particular Ideals [6] -> whoa whoa whoa. this isn't simply the truth, this is an Existentialist statement. many versions of Christianity see the Christian god as a Subject that actually responds to the overall state of earth, so no, even the divine right of kings isn't equal to predetermination. it only equals doing the thing the smartest or most capable person ever to exist would do in people's opinion. you can begin to see where all the anti-science propositions come from: that anyone trying to exert control over anyone else OR trying to claim more expertise than anyone else is preaching predetermination. this is a dangerous proposition, because it's exactly what gets science defunded by reactionaries, and climate change scenarios rejected, and disabled people stuck in their houses when people wouldn't get COVID vaccines. all of that ties directly back to Existentialism and how the notions of choices and freedom are absorbed by reactionaries.
- The only explanation of historical patterns is the defiance of historical patterns / (9k) -> it's important to point this out or bracket it out whenever you see it because it isn't harmless. people usually come up with this kind of model because they are dazzled by the select moments in history where people exert or defend their freedom — breaking out of monarchy and oppressive structures is good, breaking out of things must be inherently good, believing that history had patterns must have been what was wrong. but what they don't realize is that this model is very dangerous to everything including freedom. let's take the easiest and crudest example: Black people wrenching themselves out of the grasp of slavery. if history operates on freedom just because freedom, and doesn't operate based on patterns, then it's impossible to learn from this event, because it's unique. this event can't give anyone any guiding principles. it's useless to put it in textbooks. it might be useless to put any civil rights history in textbooks, as much as the tiny upside to things would be that history textbooks just wouldn't exist instead of existing but omitting specifically those things. you're arguing for abolishing the whole history department and maybe the African-American studies department too.
Related
Life revolves around you
/ All events that occur while a particular person exists occur within that person, as part of "life" / in life... (motif) / in our lives... (motif) / You are the main character of reality / (9k)
Ideologies or fields
- / fiction