Why do we desire to witness drama, violence, and thrill at the dispense of others? I've always wondering about this question. Back to the roman days, the coliseum, humankind has always hungered for bloodshed like vampires. Of course that's extreme and more of a metaphor, but we really do seem to take a liking to violence in an unhealthy and scary way.
Possibly it could be for entertainment but for some reason we cannot feel sympathy for the beings on the other side of our enjoyment and fulfillment. If we were to sympathize with the ones being in these various situations, maybe our thoughts about violence and drama would be different.
I've wondered about what is the root cause for this false sense of fulfillment? Is is because we are living an unfulfilled, cold, and empty life? I'm not sure. ANyone have any ideas?
Thomas says Roosevelt wasn't particular about who the opponent was. He even wrote letters advocating for war with Germany, or with England, for the purposes of liberating Canada.
"He was ready, really, for any war, because he felt that Americans were growing soft," Thomas says. " 'Overcivilized' was the word that he used. And he felt that we needed to recapture what he called 'the wolf rising in the heart,' a kind of animal spirit that all great nations have."
Roosevelt had personal motivation, as well.
"He had this constant need, all through his life, to prove himself physically," Thomas says. "He was a weakly, sick kid with asthma, and he hiked, and then he became a great hunter. And he would rate animals based on how dangerous they were. And of course the most dangerous game is man, and he wanted to fight in a war to test his courage by hunting men."
Hello - sorry for reopening an old thread, but I thought maybe the OP and others would find this interesting and I wanted to discuss it further.
There was a bit on NPR about an author who became interested in the Spanish American War after reporting on the War in Iraq. The author draws parallels between the two wars, which is interesting. The book is The War Lovers by Evan Thomas.
The piece that I found most interesting was President Roosevelt's personal attitude toward war and particularly the Spanish American War. It seems he had an insatiable desire, even at the expense of his family, to fight in war. The link to the full article is here, and I've pasted a snippet below.
War is filled with drama, action, competition, and opportunity for glory. The onslaught of many many men might disturb yet some will find it, in a weird way, enjoyable. It sounds disgusting but you'd be surprised how many people keep this their dark little secret. All those gorey movies don;t make profit for no reason.
Hello - sorry for reopening an old thread, but I thought maybe the OP and others would find this interesting and I wanted to discuss it further.
There was a bit on NPR about an author who became interested in the Spanish American War after reporting on the War in Iraq. The author draws parallels between the two wars, which is interesting. The book is The War Lovers by Evan Thomas.
The piece that I found most interesting was President Roosevelt's personal attitude toward war and particularly the Spanish American War. It seems he had an insatiable desire, even at the expense of his family, to fight in war. The link to the full article is here, and I've pasted a snippet below.
I saw an interview with the author, on Charlie Rose, the other night.
Sounds kind of creepy, to think that people place their personal ambitions ahead of any real thought of the consequences to other human beings.
Hello - sorry for reopening an old thread, but I thought maybe the OP and others would find this interesting and I wanted to discuss it further.
There was a bit on NPR about an author who became interested in the Spanish American War after reporting on the War in Iraq. The author draws parallels between the two wars, which is interesting. The book is The War Lovers by Evan Thomas.
The piece that I found most interesting was President Roosevelt's personal attitude toward war and particularly the Spanish American War. It seems he had an insatiable desire, even at the expense of his family, to fight in war. The link to the full article is here, and I've pasted a snippet below.
I think that his attitude toward war and the general consensus of the nation for a sort of imperialistic war (following what the article seems to suggest) were absolutely common and widespread in the whole world by the end of XIX century.
In the same period, European states were building colonial empires with a feeling of righteousness and even sympathy towards the peoples whose lands their armies were about to conquer, because they were about to bring them the gift of civilization.
In the case of the Spanish-American war this sort of feeling was even more justifiable.
But even those directly engaged in the conflicts, the soldiers, were most enthusiastic fighters, not because of thirst of blood, but because fighting at war fulfilled their ideal.
That's about impossible to conceive today and it has become tightly associated to extremist political ideologies (usually on the far right- or left-wing). Notably it has become almost impossible to dissociate the idea of war from the idea of killing, as war is represented almost exclusively in terms of massacres and bloodshed.
But back then it was not like that. War was the field of honor. Serving the country in the army and risking life was the best accomplishment for a citizen - they anticipated no horror, only glory.
It was only in during the 1st WW that this idea of war changed.
Question: what changed in the early 20th century that made WW I the turning point/ending point for the imperialist dogma?
In a word: death.
The beginning of the WWI was marked by outright enthusiasm, at least in Germany and France:
1. Anything less than an unquestioning nationalist faith in the superiority of their own country was deemed as treason.
2. They were all convinced that the war would have finished in less than one year - that was the usual time-span in the XIX century.
3. Their idea of war was the Napoleonic wars. I was not there and can't be sure about it, but I guess that indeed these were a lot more romantic.
Real war is a bit different from movie war.
Why do we desire to witness drama, violence, and thrill at the dispense of others? I've always wondering about this question. Back to the roman days, the coliseum, humankind has always hungered for bloodshed like vampires. Of course that's extreme and more of a metaphor, but we really do seem to take a liking to violence in an unhealthy and scary way.
Possibly it could be for entertainment but for some reason we cannot feel sympathy for the beings on the other side of our enjoyment and fulfillment. If we were to sympathize with the ones being in these various situations, maybe our thoughts about violence and drama would be different.
I've wondered about what is the root cause for this false sense of fulfillment? Is is because we are living an unfulfilled, cold, and empty life? I'm not sure. ANyone have any ideas?
Mankind has always had a need for morbid curiosity. It takes us back to our primal roots of man in which we derive from animal instinct, so it fills a void of violence in which it is necessary for us to survive. On a daily basis we consistently think of hurting any individual that does harm to us, whether by frustration or physical, we will always need any form of violence to survive because it release's all that pent up anger when we see it from another view point.
Violence, or perhaps a better word "malice", is really reactive. This should be distinguished from say an instinct to hunt. Malice may be instinctive but it's not like we are born with some festering rage. As we live our lives we accumulate slights and offenses against us; some real, some imagined; some answered and some unanswered, some impossible to answer. It is the unanswered and unanswerable offenses that accumulate I think that violent movies provide vicarious satisfaction for all of those unanswered slights and offenses.
I have found that when I answer those offenses I become more peaceful and less interested in violent movies.
For example, a few days ago I snapped at a stranger in a fairly violent way because I thought he was being disrespectful to me. I didn't hurt him physically but the threat of violence was definitely there. I won't bother to describe it because really it is pretty laughable. It was a minor incident but it was definitely strange and a break in the normal daily hum drum of social interaction between strangers. I felt a little powerful after the incident and proud that I had stood up for myself. I think it may have released some of that store of accumulated reactive malice because as I think back to the day before that incident I think I was much more likely to be interested in a violent movie then than I am at this moment. Vicarious violence of movies is far less theraputic than actual violence. Perhaps that is why the violence in movies is so over the top - it is so much less theraputic than actual violence. I'm guessing the dude I snapped at probably went home and watched some violent film.
There really is a cycle of violence. Ultimately, it is a result of a lack of a sense of community, a lack of a sense that we are all in this together, the rat race, social Darwinism and all that petty bullshit we can't seem to get past. It ain't gonna get better until we learn to work together.
Until then there will be dudes listening to Black Metal and watching movies that glorify thugs an assassins. A little minor violence in this world full of silent strangers might be a step in the right direction. I certainly recommend letting off some of that steam in some honest and relatively harmless way rather than letting it build up until you actually fly a plane into a building "to protest unfair taxes" or park a car bomb on times-square "to defend Islam"... just keep it at the misdemeanor level and don't be sneaky and indirect about it...the sneaky stuff is too cold blooded to release any steam. Same goes for anonymous comments left on a philosophy forum.
You know what forget Joyce's "silence, cunning and exile." That kind of art is just too cold blooded for me. Take off your godddamn shirt and make a stand and when you go home and write your book, paint your picture, develop your philosophy or sing your song I'm guessing your art will be more about beauty than malice.
Yeah I'm talking a lot of shyte right now. I'm not really that brave and always ready for a fight but dammnit I'm trying.
I agree with what our saying, But i do believe that most of our pre-dis positioned with a sense of rage. Look at the serial killers, the rapists, the petty thugs, all the crime. Now yes to some extent we are all a product of our environment; but consequently , some of us are just more requisitioned for rage and violence than others. We are all to some extent an animal only acting an animalistic sense of our nature from a long time ago, we've been bred to susatin life, and if that means witnessing or commiting a hanus crime, than so be it its only human nature. Your reaction to that person was your true primalistic self coming to defend your right as an animal amongst the thirst wolves. It sounds corny but its true, we are all dealt this hand everyday. Ah but thats why we are not animals and that of humans we can think before we act, but we still need to fill that void every now and then. More than most of us would like to admit we all have a had that one moment were you have to let it out, whether physical or verbal, its happend. But thats just us.
Our need for violence is related to our need for recognition. The need for the former is inversely proportional to the satisfaction of the later. I am willing to say that the need for recognition is a sort of natural and healthy instinct and that this is the need that is "just us"... but I think the proposed need for violence is in actuality a perversion of the need for recognition.
In my last post on this thread, I was thinking out loud but failed to come to any valuable conclusion. I think the connection I am making between what the OP identified the need for violence and what I am identifying as the need for recognition is more worthy of consideration.
I agree with what our saying, But i do believe that most of our pre-dis positioned with a sense of rage. Look at the serial killers, the rapists, the petty thugs, all the crime. Now yes to some extent we are all a product of our environment; but consequently , some of us are just more requisitioned for rage and violence than others. We are all to some extent an animal only acting an animalistic sense of our nature from a long time ago, we've been bred to susatin life, and if that means witnessing or commiting a hanus crime, than so be it its only human nature. Your reaction to that person was your true primalistic self coming to defend your right as an animal amongst the thirst wolves. It sounds corny but its true, we are all dealt this hand everyday. Ah but thats why we are not animals and that of humans we can think before we act, but we still need to fill that void every now and then. More than most of us would like to admit we all have a had that one moment were you have to let it out, whether physical or verbal, its happend. But thats just us.
You welcome.
In a word: death.
The beginning of the WWI was marked by outright enthusiasm, at least in Germany and France:
1. Anything less than an unquestioning nationalist faith in the superiority of their own country was deemed as treason.
2. They were all convinced that the war would have finished in less than one year - that was the usual time-span in the XIX century.
3. Their idea of war was the Napoleonic wars. I was not there and can't be sure about it, but I guess that indeed these were a lot more romantic.
(You might enjoy Stendhal's novel The Charterhouse of Parma - the The Red and the Black could do as well - to know more about the mindset of a youngman dreaming to fight in Napoleon's wars).
By the winter of 1916, they were deserting en masse. The war was not really or no longer what they dreamed of.
WWI was marked by the extreme hardship suffered by soldiers, but also by the huge incompetence displayed by the HQ - notably on the Allies side, the Germans performed better. Their only strategy was to wear off the enemy, to bleed them dry.
The war was no longer fought with the aim of conquest and victory, only killing - no matter how.
Either the good or the bad soldier would fall anyway in front of a machine gun. What's the use of being brave if you have to die under a rainstorm of shells, day after day, watching at debris of human bodies and decaying corpses in the no-man's-land?
There was no honor and chivalry in the fight. War was no longer for gentlemen (watch the movie La grande illusion if you can).
All this made a quite lasting change in the perception of war, even for the ruling classes (La vie et rien d'autre). The working class was even more outraged, but that's a different story.
Great post. I enjoyed your other one too. It seems to me that the technology factor is crucial here. As you mention, bravery becomes a bit absurd. The murder becomes anonymous, statistical.
I can't help but think fo Alexander the Great, etc., and societies where the rulers themselves engaged in the risk of war. When the rulers stay home, stay safe, they seem to imply something questionable about the risks involved in war. I feel that war is largely viewed as dirty work these days. No shortage of ambivalence.
I think "The Red and the Black" is a great book. I feel that Sorel also loves war for the social opportunities it offered. War as social mobility for the capable man of humble birth.
Perhaps pre-WW I, the cultures in the nations involved were more alive. It seems that a liberated sensual pornographic action-movie culture will have less repression to flee, to say the least. I think you mentioned earlier the war was an escape from the mundane.
One other thing occurs to me: in our high-tech age, many bodily ills can be prevented or cured. Whereas in the past....not so much, not for the poor. Perhaps the risk of battle, if it entailed better food and a chance to see the world, seemed the manly choice, especially if one imagined a field of honor rather than a field of guilt and/or absurdity. Especially in a society with little social mobility, one might choose the excititement and better rations of war. And perhaps we should admit that a small part of us loves to kill, loves to destroy. At least in our decadent imaginations. (Excepting the minority who do kill that I cannot speak for...)
