Is Dragon Ball cynical at its core?

[Michsi]

How is that cynical?

In the context of people having flaws and correcting them, the idea of people not really being able to change is very cynical. Improving and becoming a better person is a optimistic aspect and the opposite of that.

That's not what I took from that statement. It said "people don't change much" not that they can't. It's possible to change and for the better, but many people don't because lasting positive change is difficult.

It's the same thing really. The statement in the "" was more just simplified version of the stance if seen people take regarding self improvement. And yes, they are what I would call cynical people.

[ABED]

It's not the same thing. One's making a definitive statement about human nature, the other is making a general observation. The former says it's not possible to change, the latter says people CAN change, but usually don't. Those are completely different statements. It's not cynical to say it's tough to change.

[Michsi]

It's not the same thing. One's making a definitive statement about human nature, the other is making a general observation. The former says it's not possible to change, the latter says people CAN change, but usually don't. Those are completely different statements. It's not cynical to say it's tough to change.

No, but the observation that most don't and the subsequent stance on human nature is.
I was referring to them as the same thing, in the sense that both can be categorized as cynical viewpoints , not that their interchangeable.

[ABED]

It's not the same thing. One's making a definitive statement about human nature, the other is making a general observation. The former says it's not possible to change, the latter says people CAN change, but usually don't. Those are completely different statements. It's not cynical to say it's tough to change.

No, but the observation that most don't and the subsequent stance on human nature is.
I was referring to them as the same thing, in the sense that both can be categorized as cynical viewpoints , not that their interchangeable.

How is it cynical to observe that people have a difficult time changing for the better and usually don't?

[Michsi]

It's not the same thing. One's making a definitive statement about human nature, the other is making a general observation. The former says it's not possible to change, the latter says people CAN change, but usually don't. Those are completely different statements. It's not cynical to say it's tough to change.

No, but the observation that most don't and the subsequent stance on human nature is.
I was referring to them as the same thing, in the sense that both can be categorized as cynical viewpoints , not that their interchangeable.

How is it cynical to observe that people have a difficult time changing for the better and usually don't?

Because it implies a lack of hope and trust in humans and their willingness to improve? That's what cynicism is.

[ABED]

No, but the observation that most don't and the subsequent stance on human nature is.
I was referring to them as the same thing, in the sense that both can be categorized as cynical viewpoints , not that their interchangeable.

How is it cynical to observe that people have a difficult time changing for the better and usually don't?

Because it implies a lack of hope and trust in humans and their willingness to improve? That's what cynicism is.

It's just a fact. Change is almost always difficult. It's not hopeless, it's just an uphill battle. Far from implying lack of hope, to say change is easy would be naïve at best and setting people up for disappointment and likely failure. Pardon the cliché, but nothing worth having comes easy. Nothing in the statement implies lack of people's lack of willingness to improve, just that if they choose to do it, it's an uphill battle, but worth it.

Stuff like losing weight takes big changes, much more than the simple choice to eat less.

[Michsi]

How is it cynical to observe that people have a difficult time changing for the better and usually don't?

Because it implies a lack of hope and trust in humans and their willingness to improve? That's what cynicism is.

It's just a fact. Change is almost always difficult. It's not hopeless, it's just an uphill battle. Far from implying lack of hope, to say change is easy would be naïve at best and setting people up for disappointment and likely failure. Pardon the cliché, but nothing worth having comes easy. Nothing in the statement implies lack of people's lack of willingness to improve, just that if they choose to do it, it's an uphill battle, but worth it.

Cynicism is a mindset . An attitude. It's not about the object itself, the fact as you call it, but how the observer sees and interprets it.
What you described is your viewpoint and your belief (not arguing if it's wrong or not, that isn't the point) but a cynic would have a different set of beliefs.
Let's say "change is hard " is the fact. A cynical person would take that fact and believe that as most people would fail at it.

[ABED]

Now "change is hard" is a cynical viewpoint? What's the optimistic viewpoint - change is easy?

A cynical person would take that fact and believe that as most people would fail at it.

That's because most people do fail. That's not cynicism. Cynicism is saying it's impossible or not trusting the change or the reasons for it.

You've defeated your own argument. If it's how the cynic interprets it, then saying "change is difficult" isn't in itself a cynical statement.

Goku might have questionable motives, but DB isn't inherently a world where people can't change for the better and values aren't possible.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

Let's say "change is hard " is the fact. A cynical person would take that fact and believe that as most people would fail at it.

A cynical person would believe chage is outright impossible, absolute zero possibility, nada, which is something that "change is hard" does not say.

[BWri]

Could you elaborate here?

http://www.kanzenshuu.com/translations/ ... interview/

“Right. There’s how, basically, Son Goku from Dragon Ball doesn’t fight for the sake of others, but because he wants to fight against strong guys. So once Dragon Ball got animated, at any rate, I’ve always been dissatisfied with the ‘righteous hero’-type portrayal they gave him. I guess I couldn’t quite get them to grasp the elements of ‘poison’ that slip in and out of sight among the shadows.”

Yeah, of course the people at Toei made their own interpretation of Goku in the anime as a 'righteous hero' because apparently they felt that Toriyama's version of the character who is only all about fighting strong opponents everything else be damned wouldn't make for a likeable protagonist. At least, that is the reason that i have heard.

Lance aka Mistarefusion over on Youtube has a great take on Toei and Toriyama-san's portrayal of Goku. Initially Goku was incredibly righteous, not overbearingly so like a typical superhero, but he had positive morality such as when he went out of his way to take the turtle to Roshi. That's Toriyama's take on his own character in the early days, but it seems Toei took that too far for his tastes so he swung the pendulum in the opposite direction later on in the series.

I have to agree with the OP, the series does feel much more cynical both in-universe and out of universe. In-universe, petty gods and lethargic bumbling heroes with the power to destroy planets clash and often the heroes lose to the point where they require godly intervention and no positive lessons are learned, dooming the heroes to repeat the tragedies. Even Greek tragedies are less cynical because at least there tends to be some moral lesson.

Out of universe, the series mostly exists as a cash grab with Toriyama-san doing the bare minimum with his creation. A creator's touch (love) almost cannot be felt.

[Michsi]

Now "change is hard" is a cynical viewpoint? What's the optimistic viewpoint - change is easy?

Have you even read what I've written? I treated "change is hard" as a fact, the way you described it, and then present what conclusions a cynic would draw from that in order to explain how their worldview looks. It's a generalization of course.
And no, a optimistic person would look at that statement as an opportunity for growth and believe that it'll happen, whereas a cynic would believe it will most likely end in failure.

You've defeated your own argument. If it's how the cynic interprets it, then saying "change is difficult" isn't in itself a cynical statement.

How???? Because it overlaps with the statistical reality of most people failing?
Change is difficult and most people will fail at it can be both very much a fact of life, as in realistic, as well as cynical. They don't exclude one another.

Let's say "change is hard " is the fact. A cynical person would take that fact and believe that as most people would fail at it.

A cynical person would believe chage is outright impossible, absolute zero possibility, nada, which is something that "change is hard" does not say.

No, I'd wouldn't go to absolutes. You can have varying degrees of cynicism. A cynic could very much believe that change IS possible, but won't actually expect it to happen.

[ABED]

The statement itself isn't cynical. You agreed that it's a matter of perspective, ergo the statement is not cynical.

[Michsi]

The statement itself isn't cynical. You agreed that it's a matter of perspective, ergo the statement is not cynical.

Look back at what I said, especially what I bolded:

It's not the same thing. One's making a definitive statement about human nature, the other is making a general observation. The former says it's not possible to change, the latter says people CAN change, but usually don't. Those are completely different statements. It's not cynical to say it's tough to change.

No, but the observation that most don't and the subsequent stance on human nature is.
I was referring to them as the same thing, in the sense that both CAN be categorized as cynical viewpoints , not that their interchangeable.

[ABED]

You know what, I was right the first time. It's not a cynical statement. The statement is neutral no matter what. It didn't take sides and speaks to a truth. That's all it does. It's not a normative statement. It might be a truth that's not pleasant to hear for some people but it's not cynical.

[Michsi]

So if that statement came from the mouth of a cynic you'd view it exactly the same if it came from the mouth of a optimist?

[Fionordequester]

You know what, I was right the first time. It's not a cynical statement. The statement is neutral no matter what. It didn't take sides and speaks to a truth. That's all it does. It's not a normative statement. It might be a truth that's not pleasant to hear for some people but it's not cynical.

I've actually gotten a Bachelor's degree in Psychology, and have also had the pleasure of being the son of a former alcoholic, as well as the BROTHER of someone currently kicking the habit. So from that perspective, I'm going to have to say that you either haven't met the right people, or are expecting a lot when you say "change".

No, people don't change overnight. No, development is not a one-and-done thing the way it is often presented in fiction. People can forgive someone for something one day...then feel a fresh surge of anger, and need to forgive their offender again...and again...and again...and again, for as many times as is necessary for their forgiveness to become a continual state of being.

Or, people have days where they're doing well and sticking with the program...then they have days where they fall off the wagon, and get stuck in old habits.

But there IS always movement in one direction or the other. There's no such thing as a "static" individual; the changes just aren't always noticeable.

[ABED]

You know what, I was right the first time. It's not a cynical statement. The statement is neutral no matter what. It didn't take sides and speaks to a truth. That's all it does. It's not a normative statement. It might be a truth that's not pleasant to hear for some people but it's not cynical.

I've actually gotten a Bachelor's degree in Psychology, and have also had the pleasure of being the son of a former alcoholic, as well as the BROTHER of someone currently kicking the habit. So from that perspective, I'm going to have to say that you either haven't met the right people, or are expecting a lot when you say "change".

No, people don't change overnight. No, development is not a one-and-done thing the way it is often presented in fiction. People can forgive someone for something one day...then feel a fresh surge of anger, and need to forgive their offender again...and again...and again...and again, for as many times as is necessary for their forgiveness to become a continual state of being.

Or, people have days where they're doing well and sticking with the program...then they have days where they fall off the wagon, and get stuck in old habits.

But there IS always movement in one direction or the other. There's no such thing as a "static" individual; the changes just aren't always noticeable.

You don't know me at all. I have a cousin who was addicted to heroin and another that was also addicted to heroin, couldn't kick the habit so he hung himself. I have plenty of life experience. I know people who have changed. When my brother was in his late teens and in college, he got arrested on a drug charge, but turned his life around. I never said people can't change or that they are static. People develop bad habits and they will go back and forth and very often fall back into bad patterns after cleaning themselves up for a while. Perhaps you took what I wrote the wrong way as if I said people stay static, but what you said doesn't contradict what I wrote, it just goes into detail. People often go back and forth but if they get stuck in that cycle, I don't consider that change, certainly not long term change.

So next time, please don't talk to me like I don't have life experience. I'd be willing to be most people here have some experience with things like addiction.

So if that statement came from the mouth of a cynic you'd view it exactly the same if it came from the mouth of a optimist?

Yup. The statement is still true.

[Neo-Makaiōshin]

So if that statement came from the mouth of a cynic you'd view it exactly the same if it came from the mouth of a optimist?

2+2 is still 4 even if the person saying it didn't believe 2+2=4 was factually true.

[Michsi]

So if that statement came from the mouth of a cynic you'd view it exactly the same if it came from the mouth of a optimist?

2+2 is still 4 even if the person saying it didn't believe 2+2=4 was factually true.

This analogy doesn't make sense. Both version of people I mentioned in my post believe the statement is true.

[ABED]

The statement hasn't changed, it's the context that has changed.