I think fantasy and media (everything from written and oral stories to movies and video games) are highly related. If you like fantasizing about fetishes wouldn't you likely consume media about that and there by strengthen the fetish?
Have you heard the popular Native American parable of the two wolves (one good and one evil) and how the one you feed gets stronger?
Of course the police should treat you the same regardless if you listen to Jay Z or motzart. But they'd still have a first impression and quick judgement.

The police just judged you: You spelled Jay Z correctly but misspelled Mozart. Clearly low brow.

haha.. oh man. I'm in serious trouble if spelling or typos are at all related to virtue!!

haha.. oh man. I'm in serious trouble if spelling or typos are at all related to virtue!! — MysticMonist

You just said:

fantasy and media (everything from written and oral stories to movies and video games) are highly related. — MysticMonist

We can not trust the fantasies of anyone who misspells Mozart. Take him away.

Of course we still get angry and do things we regret, but I wonder if violence was never portrayed it might not be emulated except by mistake. — MysticMonist

Stephen Pinker The Better Angels of our Nature showed that humans were more violent in the past (like... 15,000 years ago or more) than they are now, because we have developed cultures of central control -- eg, the state. Where there are strong states making people responsible for their violent behavior, violence is reduced.

Even if we can watch dozens of murders, and other crimes, on television, even if we can watch videos depicting every conceivable vanilla or kinky preference, even if we are able to meet and greet others who like the same kinky stuff, we are still responsible to the state for our behavior.

Why doesn't fantasy bleed into daily life on a steady and regular basis? It doesn't because fantasy is, itself, wish fulfillment. A man can imagine raping another man, or one can imagine being the man who is raped, without having to actually do it. A properly conducted fantasy ends in satisfaction.

I hasten to repeat that there is a difference between "fantasy" and "rehearsal". Someone may rehearse the performance of a sex crime in detail. Chances are, the rehearsal is imagined with quite a bit of realistic detail, and quite possibly involved actual people as victims. The rehearsal isn't intended to satisfy one's desire, it is intended to prepare for execution. I can fantasize about pitching a no-score game. Rehearsing the kind of pitches I might use would be an entirely different cognitive experience.

Does the difference between fantasy and rehearsal make sense to you?

Hmmm... yes there is a big difference from fantasy and rehearsal.
Common sense would say Plato's wrong to try to censor everything. Obviously violent video games don't make anyone who plays them murderers.
However, it is also obvious that you can't consume regular amounts of extremely violent or perverse content without it affecting you in any way.

But in general sure, I'll agree with you and not with Plato. At least censorship isnt going to solve all our problems.

Take a hypothetical murderer. There are a lot of factors that make someone a murder. Exposure to violent media is not in and of itself ever going to cause them to kill or not kill someone.

What about a parent though? Since you want to raise ethical and not psychologicaly damaged kids would you keep away R rated movies when they are five?

What about being a virtue seeking adult? Would you avoid overly gruesome films with senseless violence and poor moral messages? Would you pride yourself and think you were doing some worthy by boycotting anything with so much as a cuss word?

I think it all comes down to moderation, common sense, and your conscious. I didn't really think about how I came off like the thought police in my last post.

I don't know if this was your point, but you taught me an interesting thing about censorship. It sounds great in theory and it's a tempting way to advance your views or moral code. But it's playing with fire and once you start it would be difficult to allow any freedom. As a society I think it's best to allow nearly anything and let individuals and families choose. (So censorship with channels so I know what I'm getting when I turn on the TV, but allow all kinds of channels).

What about a parent though? Since you want to raise ethical and not psychologicaly damaged kids would you keep away R rated movies when they are five? — MysticMonist

When I was a child (born 1946) we went to the local movie house once a week. The fare was quite often second rate westerns in which cowboys and indians were shot. The plots were very low-key and the shooting and dying was perfunctory -- not even remotely realistic. Sometimes we re-enacted the story when we got home. Was this harmful? I don't think so. But these were very formulaic movies with very low-intensity drama levels.

I don't think children should be watching TV, films, or other media which frequently depict killing in realistic blood-drenched fashion with lots of screaming, howling, and terror. Of course one wouldn't want anyone's children emulating this kind of behavior, but I don't think the intensity of this sort of show -- even if it didn't involve killing -- belongs in the minds of children. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf isn't suitable fare for younger people either -- no blood, no killings, but lots of very adult anger and drinking. Lots of movies deal with adult themes that children should not be burdened with. (Of course, children shouldn't be burdened with some of their parents' behavior either, but that's another problem.)

What about being a virtue seeking adult? Would you avoid overly gruesome films with senseless violence and poor moral messages? Would you pride yourself and think you were doing some worthy by boycotting anything with so much as a cuss word? — MysticMonist

I do avoid gruesome films with senseless violence and poor moral messages. There are quite a few films that I saw and enjoyed in my prime movie-going years that I positively can not stand to watch now. I think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is a great movie, but the last time I saw it, it left me angry and agitated. I walked out of Bonnie and Clyde the last time I tried to watch it again. Just too much gratuitous blood, death, etc.

I don't like horror and monster movies, either -- not because they are immoral, but because I find them upsetting. I'm a sucker for all the tricks of the people-frightening trade. I read On the Road by Cormac McCarthy -- it starts at bleak and it goes down hill from there. It was OK as a book. I decided to watch the movie too and found it unbearable. I didn't want vivid images of the desolation of On the Road floating around my memory, so I quit after about 5 minutes.

I don't think children should see movies like Bonnie and Clyde or The Godfather. The story lines are too adult, too intense, and the depictions are too vivid. But then, I wouldn't take a child to watch an Ingmar Bergman film either -- like The Seventh Seal or Wild Strawberries. Children would find them terminally boring, at best. Casablanca would be OK for children to see -- at worst they wouldn't appreciate it.

Mad Men, Breaking Bad -- both very good shows, I thought; just not children's movies.

I can testify to the notion that movies affect the way people think. For instance, I admired the lifestyles of adults in movies who had leisure and money for adventure and all-round pleasant lives. The connection between "work" and "having money to do interesting things" was generally absent from movies. Movies provided very poor vocational preparation for me, that's for sure.

No doubt all the cowboy and Indian movies affected the way I thought about American Indians--and cowboys, for that matter. One couldn't watch Gone with the Wind without getting a skewed view of blacks. What few horror shows I saw as I child (we weren't allowed, usually) gave me phobias about the dark.

I do avoid gruesome films with senseless violence and poor moral messages. There are quite a few films that I saw and enjoyed in my prime movie-going years that I positively can not stand to watch now. I think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is a great movie, but the last time I saw it, it left me angry and agitated. I walked out of Bonnie and Clyde the last time I tried to watch it again. Just too much gratuitous blood, death, etc.

I don't like horror and monster movies, either -- not because they are immoral, but because I find them upsetting. I'm a sucker for all the tricks of the people-frightening trade. I read On the Road by Cormac McCarthy -- it starts at bleak and it goes down hill from there. It was OK as a book. I decided to watch the movie too and found it unbearable. I didn't want vivid images of the desolation of On the Road floating around my memory, so I quit after about 5 minutes.

I don't think children should see movies like Bonnie and Clyde or The Godfather. The story lines are too adult, too intense, and the depictions are too vivid. But then, I wouldn't take a child to watch an Ingmar Bergman film either -- like The Seventh Seal or Wild Strawberries. Children would find them terminally boring, at best. Casablanca would be OK for children to see -- at worst they wouldn't appreciate it.

Mad Men, Breaking Bad -- both very good shows, I thought; just not children's movies. — Bitter Crank

That is interesting. I am much the same, I also avoid movies containing extreme violence, horror movies, and the like. Even "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was quite painful to watch. Lately, I actually pretty much avoid all movies :s - I just don't find them enjoyable anymore. When I was a teenager and 20 or so I loved going to the cinema with friends, nowadays, it would be so boring to go, and I wouldn't feel much better for having gone afterwards.

One of the last great movies I've watched (long ago) and liked was this one:


The most hilarious part was at the end, when grandmother meets her own highschool rival and they say the following to each other:


But yes, there is no doubt that watching things and even fantasizing changes your brain. We know for a scientific fact that watching someone do something and doing the same thing yourself in real life fires the same parts of the brain. Essentially, in both cases, in the moment, the brain has the same experience. So obviously if - say - someone has a rape fantasy and plays it in their mind, it affects their brain the same way as a real rape would in the moment. And if a real rape is harmful to your own psyche, then so is the fantasy of rape. Obviously, though, the fantasy does not cause harm to anyone else though, so there is a difference in terms of one being morally more serious than the other.

What few horror shows I saw as I child (we weren't allowed, usually) gave me phobias about the dark. — Bitter Crank

Yep, after having seen a horror movie I always became more paranoid >:O - I never understood how people could watch such things.

I was the same until I saw Twin Peaks. The primary element in horror as a genre is the unknown. Not gore, terror, disgusting things...manipulate that element of the unknown, and horror becomes a totally different experience. And philosophically, the unknown has a nearly boundless energy all it's own, hence the potency of the unknown in art.

The primary element in horror as a genre is the unknown. Not gore, terror, disgusting things...manipulate that element of the unknown, and horror becomes a totally different experience. And philosophically, the unknown has a nearly boundless energy all it's own, hence the potency of the unknown in art. — Noble Dust

I don't really see your point.

I'd say the primary element in horror is the terrible unknown. You don't know what it is, but you do know, with certainty, that it will be horrifying and terrible - and that makes it even more horrifying and terrible. So it's definitely not just the unknown simpliciter - because the unknown could be pleasant as much as it could be painful.

Have you seen Twin Peaks?

Have you seen Twin Peaks? — Noble Dust

No! >:O - is that bad?

No... :) It's a weird show, after all. But, as I said in my initial post here, I was never a fan of horror as a genre until I watched Twin Peaks (ok, writing the music to a short horror film for a friend of mine was also a factor). Suffice it to say I have a weak stomach like you and .

What a show like Twin Peaks does, is that it plays with your perception of reality. It plays with your perception of what's known and unknown. So the feeling of horror isn't the feeling of watching someone be brutally murdered ala Hollywood; the feeling of horror is simply the feeling of not knowing what the fuck is happening; philosophically, it's analogous to the feeling of existential dread. Sorry, I'll end my thread-derailment there.

So the feeling of horror isn't the feeling of watching someone be brutally murdered ala Hollywood; the feeling of horror is simply the feeling of not knowing what the fuck is happening; philosophically, it's analogous to the feeling of existential dread. — Noble Dust

I still don't follow - maybe you should start a thread on the feeling of horror >:O

Because the issue is what you're describing above sounds like existential confusion, which can be horrifying but by itself it isn't the essence of all horror. It can be the cherry on top of the cake so to say, but it can't be the essence. Surely what is horrifying is the certainty that something bad will happen, whereas the existential confusion that you speak about can create a sort of paranoia that something bad is happening since you can't make heads or tails anymore, and hence you can no longer use reason to protect yourself from what is now perceived to be inevitably bad.

I still don't follow - maybe you should start a thread on the feeling of horror — Agustino

Actually, I kind of did, but it didn't receive much attention, which is what I expected.

Surely what is horrifying is the certainty that something bad will happen — Agustino

Not at all; certainty is the antithesis of horror.

whereas the existential confusion that you speak about can create a sort of paranoia that something bad is happening since you can't make heads or tails anymore, and hence you can no longer use reason to protect yourself from what is now perceived to be inevitably bad. — Agustino

Your description here seems to highlight my point.

It's just 2 days old >:O How could it receive attention so quickly. I haven't even noticed it till now. I'll look at it.

Try posting in the Phil/art subforum sometime. :P appreciate your thoughts there regardless.