I've been holding it back for a long time but now that's enough, let me say this, apologizing in advance.
So, I am deeply impressed by the audience at this site, and not in a good way. 85% or so of the people who've commented on this manga seem shallow at best, mentally handicapped at worst.
I can't compute how the vast majority can percieve stories from this author on such a primitive surface level, disregarding Shuninta's tendency to be metaphorical, especially when it comes to writing characters. This is at least second work in the row, where her heroines are not as much of actual people, as they represent abstract concepts. She even spoonfed the meanings of their names in the afterword, though I found it unnecessary since to me it was clear from the get-go: the title is Philos+Sophia, where Philos is Ai (love) and Sophia is Tomo (wisdom/reason).
So, basically, the work is not as much of a story as in "story" with "plot", as in "epos" - but it's more of a philosophical essay on the nature of these two concepts, which is heavily implied by reflective thought lines throughout the manga. Thus, we have Love trying its best to stay a supreme feeling, to be above all that's worldly and lowly, but also trying to walk in line with reason, which is improbable - the reason drifts away from where love appears, almost instantly, they cannot coexist in harmony, to the point of being mutually exclusive. Ai's statements in ch4 hint this, by the way.
Lastly, when love makes a desperate advance and gets as close as possible to the object of its longing, reason dies and is now gone for good. However, even long after the reason is lost (could be also interpreted as raison d'etre of Love) and she finds herself widowed, Love still lingers in her reminiscence of what was Reason to her. And only the entity semblant of that reminiscence can somewhat evoke a reaction from her.
Also, both of the concepts get pretty much deconstructed, hence Sophia is acting with little wisdom and even is called by the name of unwise Monkey king, and ends up losing itself on the very way of finding itself, however tragic that may be. Love, Philos, on the other hand, ends up misdirected, misplaced, turned towards nothingness and unfulfilled, alone.
All in all, this work is a depiction of these two concepts yearning for knowledge of themselves and the other, failing in this quest. Tragic and beautiful, sincerely brought me to cathartic tears.
And heck, seriously anons, anyone can into philosophy? Anyone ever read actually philosophical works? For it doesn't seem the case. Had someone been familiar with how writing goes in your average philosophy, say, of existentialists, he wouldn't be complaining about "storyline", "plot consistency" and other bullshit. Once again, this is more an essay/research than an actual narrative story, at least author's antourage and the way she structured it seems to position her work that way.
Also, who got any ideas on the "logos.pathos.ethos" in the end? Logos could very well be referencing Tomo and her ordeal, pathos is the key element of tragedy, that is, involvement in the heroes' sufferings, and ethos...well since ethics are mostly about feelings, then maybe a hint on AI?
last edited at Jun 1, 2015 6:46PM