Forums > Game Forums > Xenosaga: Episode I - Der Wille zur Macht > So, uhm, Nietzsche?
Donatello (466) on 6/5/2012 10:28 AM · Permalink · Report
I've heard of the connection between Nietzsche and the series (that apparently runs deeper than the naming), but I haven't played them myself, so I was wondering if anyone who has played through all of them and has at least well enough of an understanding of Nietzsche can tell me where the exact connection lies. I know Nietzsche is a figure that is often misunderstood (and I'm not even talking about the oh-he's-a-Nazi type of misunderstanding) so I'd be interested to know if the games actually have authentic Nietzschean themes or it's just another name thrown around by the designers in order to appear philosophical.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/5/2012 10:46 AM · Permalink · Report
As someone who has played through all Xenosaga games and also read a fair amount of Nietzsche, I have to say that, as it often happens with Japanese games, the connection is rather tenuous. Most of Nietzsche's terms are simply used simply as flashy phrases, often having little to do with their origin: for example, Zarathustra is a robotic god of sorts (interestingly, they did to Nietzsche what he himself did to Zarathustra, since the ideas of that overrated book of his have nothing to do with the actual teachings of the Iranian prophet). Not even the villains display any tangible inclination to Nietzsche's philosophy - and what a pity, since they certainly could.
That said, sometimes it goes slightly deeper. One Nietzsche idea that does appear in the game's plot is eternal recurrence (not sure of how it is translated into English); basically, there is one dude who wants to keep a certain cycle of events while others try to break it. Again, a fairly thin connection, but it's at least something. Also, one could argue that the main antagonist sees himself as an Ubermensch of sorts; but then again, which Japanese villain doesn't? It is actually remarkable how "killing God" is a recurrent theme in Japanese games; their aggressive anti-theism is also quite noticeable. So in the end it's not a wonder they got attracted by Nietzsche's ideas. Madness is drawn by madness, so to say.
Donatello (466) on 6/6/2012 11:27 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Hmm, interesting, but quite superficial indeed. It seems eternal recurrence, overman and all that jazz get a very banal representation indeed.
I've always wondered about the killing of God thing myself, isn't the Shin Megami Tensei the first one to openly do it? I mean before it was all about killing some evil knight or a tyrannical villain, but I think SMT was the first to represent the final boss as some sort of deity.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/6/2012 5:23 PM · Permalink · Report
Well, SMT2 was certainly the first (and the only, I think) where you don't kill just any deity, but YHVH himself. It's pretty scary, actually.
Game Guesser (28) on 6/9/2012 7:52 AM · Permalink · Report
The original DDS: Megami Tensei II for Famicom actually had YHVH as a possible end-boss. Hydlide 3 is the first game I know of where you kill the creator of the universe, but it's rather vague and weird.
Really not sure why you would call the ending of SMT 2 "pretty scary"....?
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/9/2012 10:25 AM · Permalink · Report
Really not sure why you would call the ending of SMT 2 "pretty scary"....?
If you just imagine for a second that all their stupid pseudo-metaphysical thing is true, and you really challenge the creator of the Universe to combat... just think of it :)
CalaisianMindthief (8172) on 6/6/2012 7:03 PM · Permalink · Report
It is a relatively common theme in Japanese manga, anime and eroge, specifically god=evil or anti-human, demon=good. Unfortunately most of the times, the script writers either have a minimum understanding of the religion's main concepts, or intentionally distort it in order to make it more attractive to a clueless audience, so in the end the plot comes out as a joke in the eyes of the Westerners (well not to generalize let's say to me).
One of the franchises that I admire for being extremely insane in this regard is Gilgamesh. Prepare for your mind to be warped when you get your hands on this, especially if you're familiar with all the ties between the Abrahamic religions and the Assiro-Babylonian civilizations. The eroges are even more free with the religious nonsense. For example in Tears to Tiara the main hero is The Great Demon King, and to quote the wikipedia article, the twelve White Spirits, translated as Twelve Angels, "act as watcher and overseer of the world for the creator god, Watos. They are the ones behind all the tragedies on Earth - the extermination of a race and a new beginning. In seeking to create a perfect world, which they do in God's name, they had been destroying and re-creating a new Age. The Age of Gold, the Age of Silver, the Age of Bronze; respectively the Age of Dragons, the Age of Giants, the Age of Elves and now the Age of Iron or the Age of Humans - faced their wrath of seeking perfection." :)
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/7/2012 1:52 AM · Permalink · Report
Exactly. A delusional, unethical, misogynist philosopher with lame understanding of religion - a treasure grove for the Japanese.
Donatello (466) on 6/7/2012 3:34 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Exactly. A delusional, unethical, misogynist philosopher with lame understanding of religion - a treasure grove for the Japanese. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Misogynist, possibly (but he is not really that extreme in this regard, especially considering the contemporary world), and delusional in his last years, but unethical, really? Really? Whooaah.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/7/2012 4:18 PM · Permalink · Report
Misogynist, possibly (but he is not really that extreme in this regard, especially considering the contemporary world)
He is pretty extreme even for the time. He openly says that women are inferior to men, and prefers cultures where men dominate through raw power. "Islam despises Christianity", he says, for example, "and it is thousand times right: Islam needs MEN!".
unethical, really? Really? Whooaah.
A guy whose last planned work was supposed to contain the book "Immoralist" won't win any prizes in ethics. I don't mean he was an unethical person, but his philosophy is the epitome of immorality, and he is proud of it. In the words of the man himself: "My philosophy does not contain morals".
Hey, I used to love Nietzsche when I was young, but the more I live the more I see what kind of immature, boyish-nerdish crap his philosophy is.
He is a good writer though. Very talented writer. I read his stuff just to amuse myself and enjoy the passion and the provocative writing style, not to actually learn from his philosophy. There is nothing to learn there, in my opinion. It's all shock value.
Donatello (466) on 6/7/2012 5:56 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Hmm, I understand, even if I disagree.
I personally find him a fantastic writer and philosopher (an in a field such as philosophy, it is quite a feat indeed to be called fantastic these days since majority of it is utterly embarrassing; fun, but embarrassing) and while I don't latch to each of his words, I feel that I've yet to find a philosopher full of so many nooks and crannies and not afraid to turn systems over their head. My opinion is subject to change, of course, for I am still quite young, but I think even if I turn to be the most vehement anti-Nietzschean, I'd still give him credit for being one of the first of the profession to crawl out of the damp, depressing cave of metaphysics (it is awfully colourful in retrospect though, can't deny that).
He is definitely a love-or-hate figure, but that seems to be the case with Continental philosophers in general (with stuff like Lacan obviously being more on the hate side, no surprise there). Mind you, I use the words love and hate figuratively speaking.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 6/8/2012 7:43 AM · Permalink · Report
not afraid to turn systems over their head.
Yes, he turned Schopenhauer's system over its head. And I will never forgive him this sacrilegious act! :)
I'd still give him credit for being one of the first of the profession to crawl out of the damp, depressing cave of metaphysics
This I have to agree with (although I believe that death of metaphysics equals the death of philosophy in general). He was not one of the first non-metaphysical philosophers, but certainly among the most convincing ones. Though I think in essence he is just an aggressive version of Epicuros with a lot of flashy words. "Gods do not concern us" is a wiser saying than "God is dead" :)