Sometimes violence, depicted in artistic creations, may help us relate to our human condition in certain circumstances or it may merely offer fun, as in a distraction from a boring existence.
In fine art?
Romeo's friend suffers a needless violent death early in the play. That's nothing. At the end, Juliet, on seeing her suicided lover, shouts, "oh happy dagger!" as she kills herself. We should wonder about the value of this.
How have these extremely violent plays not only lasted for hundreds of years, but have also been heralded as fine art?
What value is there? What might be the point of depicting such extreme violence?
Methinks...
A classic novel or play may depict violence and still have value. Such value we might sometimes call the "moral of the story." It seems that there are lessons we can learn about life and human nature without having to actually get stabbed with a sword.
Viewing media with excessive or gratuitous or meaningless violence does not seem to be extremely harmful nor extremely beneficial.
I'd guess...
The problem, if any, with gratuitous violence is not that it is immoral, but that it is amoral. It cannot support a moral compass, neither in the unprincipled, nor in the principled individual with integrity. As I see it it does not harm, but it does not help one calibrate a moral compass either.
mark spark
PS
Are we gifts of God with free will, or are we hackable animals, programmable machines?
The contrast of the "nothing" of the original death, followed by the drama of the death of Juliet is very notable. The idea of age is also very useful. I think that it is difficult for something to be timeless, even if it is propagated in the mainstream, without having some innate quality that resonates through time. Music might be good evidence for this.
Certainly I agree with learning harsh lessons through fiction. However, I wonder if it can ever match life experience: my suspicion is that it depends on the person and how connected they are to their more emotional underpinnings.
"Amoral" is an interesting description of gratuity, yet it feels correct. Perhaps because nature seems to be gratuitous in many ways, but we understand the animals to lack anything that could be called "evil" intent, instead being driven by instinct. I like that amoral implies that anything added, no matter how subtle or obvious, will change the moral constitution of the thing.
I have a strange relationship with the idea of free will, but I think that is a topic better saved for a full post.
Thanks for the prompts and thoughts, Mark. I think they'll make it into future parts.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love." - Martin Luther King
You have highlighted something monumental with your article, Leon. After reading this, I am contemplating how/if societal repression of anger has passivized our culture, and given free-reign to criminals in high offices to conduct truly evil deeds against innocent people around the world - time and time again.
Thanks Lluvias! Glad you found something provocative here. I do believe it plays a role in that respect, and I'd be interested to see where you land. The only thing I would expand on is that emotions are often just communicating what is coming through from the environment. Anger is ascribed meaning by our thoughts, just as our thoughts provoke anger. So when we keep on absorbing and cultivating anger, without letting it be expressed, our mind becomes overwhelmed. However, If we are allowed to let out most of that anger, we can listen to what is left and really appreciate where it is coming from; It's kind of like trying to have a conversation with someone in a busy place. The fewer people, the easier it is to understand each other.
That's very interesting! I wonder if the catharsis is misdirected though when satisfied by media. Anger is a signal which indicates injustice (subject to someones perspective) and energizes action. Acquiescence to injustice would perpetuate disharmonious feelings and lead individuals to seek catharsis through an outlet like you have explored. In a sense, it seems that the catharsis you described in you article is treating the symptoms of a much deeper problem. You wrote to how expansive this topic is, and I'm certainly seeing it now. Greater truths are composed of many truths, and this feels to me like I'm a goldfish jumping out of one fish bowl into a slightly bigger one.
I've been recovering from a surgery, so have been more contemplative than usual, and I've been seeing feedback loops in societal trends - like disastrous computer program do-while loops which never satisfy their own exit conditions. We need leaders who can find the exit conditions and close the loop so that we as a species can rise to a higher collective morality.
Leon,
I'd say...
Sometimes violence, depicted in artistic creations, may help us relate to our human condition in certain circumstances or it may merely offer fun, as in a distraction from a boring existence.
In fine art?
Romeo's friend suffers a needless violent death early in the play. That's nothing. At the end, Juliet, on seeing her suicided lover, shouts, "oh happy dagger!" as she kills herself. We should wonder about the value of this.
How have these extremely violent plays not only lasted for hundreds of years, but have also been heralded as fine art?
What value is there? What might be the point of depicting such extreme violence?
Methinks...
A classic novel or play may depict violence and still have value. Such value we might sometimes call the "moral of the story." It seems that there are lessons we can learn about life and human nature without having to actually get stabbed with a sword.
Viewing media with excessive or gratuitous or meaningless violence does not seem to be extremely harmful nor extremely beneficial.
I'd guess...
The problem, if any, with gratuitous violence is not that it is immoral, but that it is amoral. It cannot support a moral compass, neither in the unprincipled, nor in the principled individual with integrity. As I see it it does not harm, but it does not help one calibrate a moral compass either.
mark spark
PS
Are we gifts of God with free will, or are we hackable animals, programmable machines?
.
The contrast of the "nothing" of the original death, followed by the drama of the death of Juliet is very notable. The idea of age is also very useful. I think that it is difficult for something to be timeless, even if it is propagated in the mainstream, without having some innate quality that resonates through time. Music might be good evidence for this.
Certainly I agree with learning harsh lessons through fiction. However, I wonder if it can ever match life experience: my suspicion is that it depends on the person and how connected they are to their more emotional underpinnings.
"Amoral" is an interesting description of gratuity, yet it feels correct. Perhaps because nature seems to be gratuitous in many ways, but we understand the animals to lack anything that could be called "evil" intent, instead being driven by instinct. I like that amoral implies that anything added, no matter how subtle or obvious, will change the moral constitution of the thing.
I have a strange relationship with the idea of free will, but I think that is a topic better saved for a full post.
Thanks for the prompts and thoughts, Mark. I think they'll make it into future parts.
"Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love." - Martin Luther King
You have highlighted something monumental with your article, Leon. After reading this, I am contemplating how/if societal repression of anger has passivized our culture, and given free-reign to criminals in high offices to conduct truly evil deeds against innocent people around the world - time and time again.
Thanks Lluvias! Glad you found something provocative here. I do believe it plays a role in that respect, and I'd be interested to see where you land. The only thing I would expand on is that emotions are often just communicating what is coming through from the environment. Anger is ascribed meaning by our thoughts, just as our thoughts provoke anger. So when we keep on absorbing and cultivating anger, without letting it be expressed, our mind becomes overwhelmed. However, If we are allowed to let out most of that anger, we can listen to what is left and really appreciate where it is coming from; It's kind of like trying to have a conversation with someone in a busy place. The fewer people, the easier it is to understand each other.
That's very interesting! I wonder if the catharsis is misdirected though when satisfied by media. Anger is a signal which indicates injustice (subject to someones perspective) and energizes action. Acquiescence to injustice would perpetuate disharmonious feelings and lead individuals to seek catharsis through an outlet like you have explored. In a sense, it seems that the catharsis you described in you article is treating the symptoms of a much deeper problem. You wrote to how expansive this topic is, and I'm certainly seeing it now. Greater truths are composed of many truths, and this feels to me like I'm a goldfish jumping out of one fish bowl into a slightly bigger one.
I've been recovering from a surgery, so have been more contemplative than usual, and I've been seeing feedback loops in societal trends - like disastrous computer program do-while loops which never satisfy their own exit conditions. We need leaders who can find the exit conditions and close the loop so that we as a species can rise to a higher collective morality.