So if I see people applauding and cheering as a toreador sinks his blades into a bull's sides, that's not schadenfreude-like? These expressions actually represent remorse, love, pity, compassion. I thought these sentiments came with their own distinctive, dedicated physical correlates like :sad: :grimace: :cry:

:up: Next time you take a tumble and somebody laughs/sniggers (at you), you're gonna shake his/her hand, tip your hat, and thank him/her. — Agent Smith

Last I recall the toreador is supposed to bring about a clean kill in the lesser animal, rather than one of excruciating suffering.

That said, when have I ever denied the occurrence of sadistic assholes in the world? Your last sentence specifically leaves a lot to be desired in terms of coherence.

Well, I've rambled, I see. But I think interesting issues are raised by the subject matter of my rambling. Were gladiators virtuous? Did the games provide examples of virtuous conduct? — Ciceronianus

I'd say the virtuousness of gladiators has to be viewed from the values of the Roman society. Martial prowess was something that was revered and held important in a society which basically needed to invade, occupy and loot the wealth of others to increase and basically sustain it's wealth and stature. Once Rome didn't conquer new loot, it faced problems. Even if the "globalization" of Antiquity worked well enough to uphold an advanced economy, that basically we only started to see in the Renaissance of after, it simply couldn't grow as our own societies. So no wonder why the country was basically constantly fighting others and itself and the ordinary Roman likely didn't know (or care) who the emperor in Rome was. But martial prowess, bravery in war and combat, was seen as something good.

I think the older historians from early 20th or 19th Century could capture far better the feel much better than current generation, who wouldn't tolerate such "nonsense" talk of glory or virtue.

Unfortunately.

Mistaking the pleasure of watching well played-out combat sports for the pleasure of bloodlust — javra

Why else would one watch combat sports, if not for the pleasure of bloodlust?

There's something about the idea of purposely killing or harming someone before an audience that makes characterizing it as virtuous or as art objectionable, true. But I have the sometimes disturbing feeling (and that's all it is, perhaps) that there can be something virtuous in the conduct of the participants, and that the combat may evoke responses that aren't merely bloodlust, and that this evocation might be something similar to what art can do, and this is part of the appeal. — Ciceronianus

Gladiator games as catharsis for the masses. A logical continuation of the ancient tradition of tragedy, but tailored for the masses.

It's rather strange that as a lawyer, you don't see life as a struggle for survival/the upper hand.
— baker

Well, we're pretty strange, sometimes. But lawyering can be a kind of contest or struggle, especially in the courtroom, and there's an audience as well (though an unwilling one, mostly, but now and then there are interested spectators). I play chess, and that's a kind of struggle as well. But I don't see life as a struggle comparable to blood games, because to the extent life is a struggle I don't think the struggle is normally one that is admired and lauded by others, and one's participation in life is simply expected. — Ciceronianus

Of course. My point is simply about the relevance of seeing life as a struggle for survival/the upper hand. As opposed to some more humanist ideas about what life is or should be about.

Mistaking the pleasure of watching well played-out combat sports for the pleasure of bloodlust — javra

Why else would one watch combat sports, if not for the pleasure of bloodlust? — baker

For the admiration of skill and stamina within a context that safeguards against what would occur in real life combat where nothing is barred. For example, when someone falls to the ground in a boxing match they're left alone and helped out after a few seconds - rather than having their skull pounded into the hard ground by the opponent (which, for example, happened to a friend of mine in high school when I wasn't there; fortunately resulted in nothing worse than a broken nose). Wanting to see the latter would be bloodlust. Not wanting to see it occur would be an absence of bloodlust.

Here's Cicero on gladiators in his Tusculan Disputations, Book I, On Contempt for Death:

What wounds will the gladiators bear, who are either barbarians, or the very dregs of mankind! How do they, who are trained to it, prefer being wounded to basely avoiding it! How often do they prove that they consider nothing but the giving satisfaction to their masters or to the people! for when covered with wounds, they send to their masters to learn their pleasure: if it is their will, they are ready to lie down and die. What gladiator, of even moderate reputation, ever gave a sigh? who ever turned pale? who ever disgraced himself either in the actual combat, or even when about to die? who that had been defeated ever drew in his neck to avoid the stroke of death? So great is the force of practice, deliberation, and custom! Shall this, then, be done by

A Samnite rascal, worthy of his trade;

and shall a man born to glory have so soft a part in his soul as not to be able to fortify it by reason and reflection? The sight of the gladiators’ combats is by some looked on as cruel and inhuman, and I do not know, as it is at present managed, but it may be so; but when the guilty fought, we might receive by our ears perhaps (but certainly by our eyes we could not) better training to harden us against pain and death.

It was therefore admirable, even desirable, to bravely face pain and death, and the gladiators provided examples of this courage although they were barbarians or the "very dregs of mankind." How could a Roman citizen do otherwise and not be ashamed? The games were considered by some to be a learning device by which spectators were made better in some sense, even though the games were cruel and inhuman.

Is contempt for death (or maybe bravery in the face of death) a virtue? It's been portrayed as admirable, at least, even into modern times.

Is contempt for death (or maybe bravery in the face of death) a virtue? — Ciceronianus

Nicely worded. I find it hard to envision how it would not be. From patients with terminal cancer, to risks incurred in sports/activities such as rock-climbing, to the expected professional altruism of firefighters, and the like. Looking the prospect of death in the face and not being afraid come what may seems to be a virtue universal to all cultures and times. I find that it was certainly present as a virtue to be admired in respect to gladiatorial sports.

It's interesting that ancient philosophers taught that death was nothing to be feared, and should be faced with acceptance and even cheerfully. I refer to Epicurus and the Stoics. Lucretius thought Epicurus a great benefactor of humanity for delivering us from the fear of death. Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius both felt that death was something we should accept willingly though it was not something desirable to be pursued by someone eagerly ("like a Christian" as the Emperor wrote).

Epicureanism and Stoicism were the most popular philosophical schools during the Roman Empire, and the idea that it was noble or virtuous to have "contempt for death" may have accounted for some of their popularity.

A mate of mine:

Craig Coombes uses Naked Tuesdays to laugh in the face of cancer

He's till going, well past his use-by date.

He looked into the abyss, then turned and waved his bare arse at it.

I really think Craig is one of the most enlightened people I've met with his attitudes towards death and dying — Adam Hills

Indeed. :fire:

A quote by Allan Watts comes to mind. Something like “If the universe doesn’t take me seriously then why should I take it seriously.”

He looked into the abyss, then turned and waved his bare arse at it. — Banno

Far better than thinking the abyss looks back at you, or weeping over life, expounding on meaninglessness or crying "woe is me!"

There is something virtuous, or at least admirable, about facing the inevitable without care or with a laugh. Certainly that was the case with the Romans. I wonder if that's the case because bravery is admired or useless misery and weakness despised.

For the admiration of skill and stamina within a context that safeguards against what would occur in real life combat where nothing is barred. For example, when someone falls to the ground in a boxing match they're left alone and helped out after a few seconds - rather than having their skull pounded into the hard ground by the opponent (which, for example, happened to a friend of mine in high school when I wasn't there; fortunately resulted in nothing worse than a broken nose). Wanting to see the latter would be bloodlust. Not wanting to see it occur would be an absence of bloodlust. — javra

For the admiration of skill and stamina, one can also watch ballet, or breakdancing, or do gardening. Etc.

Watching fights that don't go and end the way they would "in the real world" -- what is that but bloodlust in a "safe context"? It's a way to vicariously give oneself hope that "all will be well despite the fighting"; it's indulging in the fantasy that one can engage in a fight and come out unharmed. It's an artifical way to create a feeling of safety for oneself in a world that one perceives as dangerous.

Is contempt for death (or maybe bravery in the face of death) a virtue? It's been portrayed as admirable, at least, even into modern times. — Ciceronianus

Not just any death. In some cultures, it is valued to have a "good death". For a soldier, that means dying in combat.

There is something virtuous, or at least admirable, about facing the inevitable without care or with a laugh. Certainly that was the case with the Romans. I wonder if that's the case because bravery is admired or useless misery and weakness despised. — Ciceronianus

From a brief overview article:

Solon concludes his speech to Croesus telling him that a man can be defined fortunate when he is in good health, feels no pain, has descendants and has a good death.
Good death is intended as fulfilling, the exitus of a life marked by health and vigor (2).
A more specific definition of death can be found in Plato’s Phaidrus, in which the philosopher describes this event as the separation or detachment of the soul from the body, incorporating the consideration of a good death in the State’s interest (3).
In a society that rewarded vigor and strength, sick people weren’t given any regard or respect (4).
/.../
The connection between virtue and happiness represents the core around which Stoicism spins: only by being virtuous a precondition of happiness can be assumed, and when one cannot achieve virtue, one should give up on life. Therefore, suicide is right, as we can read in Seneca’s works regarding the topic.
/.../
The article shows how the word euthanasia is often subject to undue references to the ancient world.
As a matter of fact, the concept of “good death” (the etymological meaning of the word “euthanasia”) did not imply the current idea of the term, which is the request by a subject to a third person (usually a physician) to be helped to die in a worthy way, without pain; a good death was a heroic and valiant death in the battlefield whilst looking for one’s glory.
With the birth of the polis many things changed and the concept of “good death” is perceived as a noble death for ones’ homeland with the help of compatriots and not as the heroic death of one individual (27, 28).
From the concept of "good death" in the ancient world to the modern concept of "euthanasia"

There's plenty of references in the article.

For the admiration of skill and stamina, one can also watch ballet, or breakdancing, or do gardening. Etc.

Watching fights that don't go and end the way they would "in the real world" -- what is that but bloodlust in a "safe context"? — baker

It strictly depends on the intention with which one watches a boxing match, for example, doesn't it?

Some of us have needed to physically fight in the real world. Some who have not can empathize with the dilemma - as can happen when watching a move where physical conflicts occur. Safely enacted combat sports, as I’ve previously said, can then serve the purpose of practice for the real thing. In so being they are mock-aggression - this as can be found in a good deal of childhood play. If one watches for the sake of seeing as egregious an infliction on injury as possible, then there is bloodlust joys in so watching. Be it a boxing match, or in a movie, or some other context. Just like some kids will watch bullies beat up so-called weaklings in kindergarten with joy. If, however, you were one who’d do everything in your ability to prevent or stop such a fight - and, say, joined a karate club to better practice means of so doing - then you would obtain no joy in seeing bullies beat up “weaklings” but would watch with admiration of skill and stamina fellow kids engaging in fair ways in karate practice and in safeguarded karate competitions.

That we project of ourselves onto others is no novel notion. I, for one, don’t watch boxing matches with a desire to see injury done. Others do.

Injuries can occur in ballet and breakdancing (don’t know of too many being spectators to gardening). The difference between combat sports and these activities is that combat sports address preparedness for real life physical conflict. Yes, it would be wonderful if physical conflict never occurred and we’d all live in some impossible heaven on earth. That’s not the world I live in. And so, at least as a youngster, I would watch safely played out combat sports not wanting blood spilled but wanting to learn from others about optimal physical self-defense. As I said, admiring skill and stamina.

I appreciate the references. I fear our ability to understand the ancient world in many respects, especially regarding religious and spiritual considerations (I refer to Greco-Roman world) may be lost forever thanks to the relentless expurgation of it by Christianity. What remains allows us to speculate and infer to a certain extent only regarding what it was and what was believed by its people.

Injuries can occur in ballet and breakdancing (don’t know of too many being spectators to gardening). — javra

For the admiration of skill and stamina, one can also watch ballet, or breakdancing, or do gardening. — baker

The difference between combat sports and these activities is that combat sports address preparedness for real life physical conflict. Yes, it would be wonderful if physical conflict never occurred and we’d all live in some impossible heaven on earth. That’s not the world I live in. And so, at least as a youngster, I would watch safely played out combat sports not wanting blood spilled but wanting to learn from others about optimal physical self-defense. As I said, admiring skill and stamina.

I think this is, sadly, mostly wishful thinking. In real life, martial arts skills can often be of very little use, because the assailant is likely going to be armed with a firearm. Moreover, at least in some jurisdictions, martial arts skills count as "use of a weapon" and you could be facing problems with the police because of that.

Further, to rely on martial arts skills means one always needs to be in a good enough physical shape to use them. So if you end up with a broken leg or some chronic disease that diminish your physical strength and stamina, you're going to be in a tough spot if your only means for dealing with prospective violence is the use of martial arts skills.

I don't think it's all that important per se to understand the old Greco-Roman world correctly (this seems to be impossible anyway), but rather to consider that there are different views on death possible, and not just the one that is normative in current mainstream culture. And that there may be views on death that can actually help us live more meaningful lives.