Philosophical Ideas that Appear in the Big O

[S.D.]

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'

What Nietzsche means is, a weak person who hates the world and is tired of life will throw themselves down, gnash their teeth, and curse the demon who spoke thus. A strong, healthy person, on the other hand, will call the demon 'a god' and say 'never have I heard anything more divine'. The difference is in each person's approach to life in the world. A person who truly affirms life will be glad to repeat events again and again for all eternity, all of the pain and all of the happiness, because that is what they exist for.

I think the Eternal Return, as Nietzsche called this idea, is suggested by some events in the Big O, although it does require some speculation on the part of the audience if it is to come to fruitition.

1. Some events in Paradigm City seem to be a repeat of what happened prior to forty years ago. For example, in "The Greatest Villian", Beck claims he got a Memory of when Roger was the Dominus of the Black Megadeuce. A picture shows Roger shaking hands with a young Gordon Rosewater, suggesting Roger's persona and actions are to some degree a repeat. There are other suggestive incidents, but I won't elaborate.

2. The series ends with almost the same scene as it began . . . Paradigm City itself is to some degree 'rewinded' to a particular point in time.

3. Roger seems to struggle with the idea of preordination, which is necessitated by Eternal Return, and wonders if he should embrace life in spite of it . . . ultimately, he decides to do this, and thus falls into the category of strong, healthy people.

I don't think the series exactly corresponds to Eternal Return, because it claims there can be no variations or changes in events, which I know isn't the case in the Big O, but nonetheless, I feel as though the central idea, that is, the affirmation of life in spite of whether or not it has happened before and will again exactly as it has, is one of the many existential themes dealt with by the series.

Of course, it is worth noting, Eternal Return is altogether a psychological idea . . . Nietzsche does muse that it might be a cosmological fact in his notes, but in his books, he uses it as a thought experiment of how one could identify a person who truly loves life. The point isn't that events happen exactly as they did before, but rather that there is enough similarity and correspondance to make Roger assess the worth and value of a life that is ruled, at least in part, by the repetition of certain events.

EDIT:

Dan Dastun's circumstances in "Winter Night Phantom" also seem to suggest Eternal Return .  . . more strongly than Roger's, in fact.

[paul1290]

Here's a somewhat related idea.

At the end of the series, it's clear that Paradigm City has been rewound in some way, but it also hints that something has changed from the last cycle. The most noticable evidence of this is that Dorothy and Angel were watching Roger drive away.

There must have been an event at some point during the series that caused the usual sequence of events in Paradigm City to take a different path.


I think the event that caused things to unfold differently was the death of Timothy Wayneright. The moment he was shot would be the moment the sequence of events diverged from the usual cycle. I think this because that event happened very early in the series and its outcome led to many events that were important to the overall storyline, mostly resulting from Dorothy having to stay with Roger. 

One of the japanese Big-O artbooks actually described one of the possible endings that the creators of Big-O considered before settling on the ending that was actually used. It involved Roger driving to the Nightingale Club and preventing the death of Timothy Wayneright. Whether or not a scrapped version of the ending can be considered evidence would be a matter of opinion, but the fact that at least one version of the ending involved revisiting death of Timothy Wayneright leads me to think that event might have some special significance.

[R. Daniel 01]

Hmm. If Dorothy hadn't lived with Roger... what would've happened...

... he'd probably be dead, right?

[DOMON KASSHU!]

Hmm. If Dorothy hadn't lived with Roger... what would've happened...

... he'd probably be dead, right?

Or the whole chain of events might never have come to pass, and the plans that seemed set in place by forces beyond control would never come to fruition. That's plausible as well.

Also, I'm posting regularly again!
War.

[S.D.]

Dorothy is wearing black in the final scenes of Act 26, which suggests she is still working for Roger, even after the Second (?) Event.

Dan Dastun's situation was probably the best metaphor for Eternal Reoccurrence; for example, in Winter Night Phantom, both the terrorist and himself are overcome by a sense of deja vu, made all the more mysterious due to the nature of the dreams he had concerning himself and her. Also, in Acts 24-25 (?), Dastun quite shockingly runs into a younger version of himself in the movie theater. He shortly thereafter wonders if whatever happened forty years ago is happening yet again.

I did not mean to suggest that events in Paradigm City literally follow a linear course in every scenario; differentiations may occur for whatever reason. However, the parallels in some circumstances of present Paradigm and past Paradigm suggest that Chiaki J. Konaka is at least aware of the Eternal Reoccurrence concept, and that it may have influenced his writing. Certainly, it is an existential concept, and he (along with quite a few other creative people in the anime industry) commonly employ existentialism in their work.

The essence of all I'm saying is this: Memories sometimes cause people in Paradigm City to think that certain events from the past are happening again and this brings about emotional turmoil and other dilemmas in need of solving if said people are, in Dastun's words, "going to keep their sanity".

[Anebo]

This idea is hardly original to Nietzsche.

The oldest--and I say thi knowing nothing of Sanskrit literature, however--form of it is the Stoic Ekpyrosis, in which the world is litterally repated exactly the same way over and onad over again in an endless cycle. But threre too everything happens (or re-occurs) in exactly the same way. There are many lines in Augustan poetry abut the Argo sailing agian, Troy burning again, etc., reflective of this.

The palce where each iteration is different is in the Kabbalsitic version. There there is large but finite number of worlds, each one of which is destroyed in anger by God, who keeps recreating until he come to a world with the messiah present in it that will be saved rather than destroyed at the end of time (supposeldy the one we are living in). That seems very close to what we see in Big 0.

[drizzt1669]

The Stoics, who devloped their philosophy of Stoicism during the post-Aristotle period, suggest that we are all have destinies which are pre-ordained by an unseen force.  They use the example that we are all actors on a stage and that our roles are given to us by the director and that the only choice we have in the matter is the attitude with which we face our destinies.  Thus the term stoicism finds itself into the English language for one who faces their fate with indifference, which the Stoics suggested that humanity should do in order to lead full and happy lives.  The Stoics give the example of an actor can being upset by having "bit roles" versus "lead roles" or upset that they were made to be ugly, tall, short, etc., however, they still end up playing the part that they were cast for.  Would it not be easier for them to accept their fate and play the bit role to the best of their ability?  Interestingly, many philosophers consider the Stoics to be self-contradictory given that we can be given roles against our free will, but that we do have the free will to choose our attitudes towards our roles.

I bring all of this up because throughout the Big O series, I find that Roger Smith continuously stuggles with his existence and his free will.  R.D., or Red Destiny, tells Roger in Act 13 that she was commanded to kill as naturally as it is for someone to open an umbrella in the rain.  Roger counters that some people like to stand in the rain and that is what it is like to live free.  He also claims that he is free to stay in bed past noon and other such things throughout the series.  However, it is funny that Norman and Roger do not question how or why they are able to maintain and pilot the Big O, respectively.

The Eternal Return is useful in regards to Gordon Rosewater's description of the tomato crops.  He talks about the artificial tomatos, that once harvested over and over eventually become the real thing.  Much like memories, I would guess.  How many times does someone relive a memory as they remember it, only to have a contradicting viewpoint from someone else who was present?

I would have liked to have structured this posting a little better, but it is just to get some thoughts and postings from anyone reading it.  I will elaborate more when I have a bit more time.

[Anebo]

The Stoics, who devloped their philosophy of Stoicism during the post-Aristotle period, suggest that we are all have destinies which are pre-ordained by an unseen force.  They use the example that we are all actors on a stage and that our roles are given to us by the director and that the only choice we have in the matter is the attitude with which we face our destinies.  Thus the term stoicism finds itself into the English language for one who faces their fate with indifference, which the Stoics suggested that humanity should do in order to lead full and happy lives.  The Stoics give the example of an actor can being upset by having "bit roles" versus "lead roles" or upset that they were made to be ugly, tall, short, etc., however, they still end up playing the part that they were cast for.  Would it not be easier for them to accept their fate and play the bit role to the best of their ability?  Interestingly, many philosophers consider the Stoics to be self-contradictory given that we can be given roles against our free will, but that we do have the free will to choose our attitudes towards our roles.

No need to say the sotics, the source is Epictetus:

Remember that you are an actor in a drama of such sort as the author chooses, – if short, then in a short one; if long, then in a long one. If it be his pleasure that you should enact a poor man, see that you act it well; or a cripple, or a ruler, or a private citizen. For this is your business, to act well the given part; but to choose it, belongs to another. (Enchr. 17)

[drizzt1669]

Does anyone have access to the Paradigm-City.com forums?  If so, could you please post a copy of bigoact26.txt in your reply to me so that I may see the translated japanese version of the end?  Thanks.  I would really really appreciate it.

The link is: http://paradigm-city.com/forums/thread.php?postid=262824

File: BigOAct26.TXT

[Krang]

I'll post it on P-C.com later tonight.  Sorry, but I put alot of work into that translation, so I would like to keep it exclusive to there.

[drizzt1669]

I'll post it on P-C.com later tonight.  Sorry, but I put alot of work into that translation, so I would like to keep it exclusive to there.

Thank you Krang.  I will look for it at P-C.com tonight.

[Krang]

Thank you Krang.  I will look for it at P-C.com tonight.

Sorry for the wait, but it's now up.

[Anebo]

I see now why my posting of the link to the video of the last episode wasn't to the point. I had no idea this existed. Thanks for posting it


What is the provenance of this section? Was it actually filmed? Shown only in Japan? How does it relate to the ending on the DVD, showing Roger driving by Angel and Dorothy? Was it simply tacked on immediately thereafter?

In any case it seems to substantiate the idea that what goes on after the 're-set' is the same as what went before, but with slight changes. Presumably Angel is now the one to hire Roger and pay the ransom, suggesting some sort of special relationship between them: her 'mother' perhaps, since Roger was in the version we know hired by her 'father.'

It is often said that the Dorothy we see at the end of the DVD is drawn slightly differntly than usual, to suggest that she is a human being rather than a robot. Does this extra scene contribute to that idea?

[Krang]

What is the provenance of this section? Was it actually filmed? Shown only in Japan? How does it relate to the ending on the DVD, showing Roger driving by Angel and Dorothy? Was it simply tacked on immediately thereafter?

A transcript of episode 26 was printed in the official guidebook (p.105-109).  It seems to be mostly the same as the episode that aired, but the ending scene is completely different, and that's what I translated and posted to the site.  From what I've heard, it is one of the many revisions that were done to the ending of that episode.

As for its placement, the part with Roger driving is what replaced this scene.

[Anebo]

That clarifies things a bit, thanks.

The two differnt endings seem to express the same idea: this time the same but different.