This is one brilliant man.

Mushishi is a polarizing show. Most people loved it for its poignant description of the human description and slow moving dramatics. The others hated it for the same reasons; it had some pacing problems, and was admittedly depressing in the way it portrayed every other human besides Ginko. It encompassed a wide variety of the spectrum of human emotion; Greed(ep 6) Love for those long gone(ep 8,16,17, 22) Unrequited love/lust/schoolgirl crush(ep 20) A womans love for a child not technically her own(ep 21) Hatred and fear of the unknown(ep 24) Acceptance of fate (ep 25).

Granted some of these aren’t exactly pedestrian, but they do cover what humans can go through and it subtly depicts them at their worst, but unlike my Bokurano musings I’m not here to bitch about how fucked up humans are. I’m here to discuss the concept in Mushishi of the Mushi. Creatures too basic, too pure of life to be seen by most humans almost beg to be argued about in terms of Rationalism vs. Empiricism.

In Epistemology there are two hotly contested theories about how humans perceive knowledge in life. These are not the only epistemic theories about such things, but they are the only ones I will discuss.

Rationalism is the notion that humans have an innate sense of things going on, and that “truth is not sensory, but intellectual and deductive.” This is often heavily contrasted with Empiricism which claims that humans only have their knowledge through their senses. Locke called it the tabula rasa (clean slate), and denied the possibility of innate knowledge without sensory experience.

The existence of the mushi seems incredulous. Things that exist, but only a select few can see them? They affect some people but not all of them? It almost begs to be a story about crazy people who are insanely deluded into blaming their problems on seemingly non-existent critters.

Empiricism would say that the mushi don’t exist until they affect you in some way, while rationalism would say that the mushi do exist without personally affecting you. The only question is which theory is correct in this aspect. If someone see a lower species and has no empirical proof then how do we believe it happened. Either since it didn’t happen to us, we can assume it never happened or they don’t exist (Empiricism), or we can deduce that the person that experienced it has changed a great deal and deduce that perhaps they do exist(rationalism).

Far too often do we humans forget that we exist as a holon of the larger system the earth. We become egotistical and never think of this plane of existence without humans to define it. Whether the mushi exist or not they pose a fundamental philosophical question about the existence of anything.