Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

when those ideas/feelings/propensities relate to the primary world.

However, I talked about ideas and feelings. That makes the separation between primary world and inner world irrelevant - and your argument becomes self-contradicting.

Imagination/fairy tale/fantasy is part of a person's universe of ideas - but you seem to deny this, even if, for me at least, it is an evident truth. If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

If an idea/feeling/propensity is defined as immoral in itself, then any instance of it, regardless the condition, is immoral. One cannot say one considers the idea of derriving pleasure from tales of rape as immoral, and then delight from the idea hinted in Myths Transformed that Men were forced to mate with beasts - and then one still claims moral integrity.
One can't say one considers derriving pleasure from tales of tortures, killings and unncessary destructions as evil in itself, and then delight when Gondolin is destroyed or when people are tortured in Numenor - and still consider oneself as moral.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, I talked about ideas and feelings. That makes the separation between primary world and inner world irrelevant - and your argument becomes self-contradicting.

Imagination/fairy tale/fantasy is part of a person's universe of ideas - but you seem to deny this, even if, for me at least, it is an evident truth. If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

No, because you're assuming that what one reader considers good (& evil) is the same as what another reader does. I don't accept that fantasising about 'x' is equal to actually doing 'x' - particularly not when we're dealing with Orcs, Elves, Dragons & Ringwraiths. This is a fantasy world & cheering when a Goblin kills an Elf for his magic sword is not the same as cheering when a mugger stabs a commuter for his cellphone.

Take a scene from Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell:

The camp was a dreary, silent place. A thick snow was falling and the strange soldiers lay, wrapped in their black cloaks, upon the snowy ground. At first the young women thought the soldiers must be dead - an impression which was strengthened by the great multitude of ravens and other black birds which had settled over the camp, and indeed upon the prostrate forms of the soldiers themselves - yet the soldiers were not dead; from time to time one would stir himself and go attend to his horse, or brush a bird away if it tried to peck at his face.
At the approach of the young women a soldier got to his feet. One of the women shook off her fears and went up to him and kissed him on the mouth.
His skin was very pale (it shone like moonlight) and entirely without blemish. His hair was long and straight like a fall of dark brown water. The bones of his face were unnaturally fine and strong. The expression of the face was solemn. His blue eyes were long and slanting and his brows were as fine and dark as pen strokes with a curious flourish at the end. None of this worried the girl in the least. For all she knew every Dane, Scot and Frenchman ever born is eerily beautiful.
He took well enough to the kiss and allowed her to kiss him again. Then he paid her back in kind. Another soldier rose from the ground and opened his mouth. Out of it came a sad, wailing sort ofrnusic. The first soldier- the one the girl had kissed - began to coax her to dance with him, pushing her this way and that with his long white fingers until she was dancing in a fashion to suit him.
This went on for some time until she became heated with the dance and paused for a moment to take off her cloak. Then her companions saw that drops of blood, like beads of sweat, were forming on her arms, face and legs, and falling on to the snow. This sight terrified them and so they ran away. The strange army never entered Allendale. It rode on in the night towards Carlisle. The next day the townspeople went cautiously up to the fields where the army had camped. There they found the girl, her body entirely white and drained of blood while the snow around her was stained bright red.
By these signs they recognised the Daoine Sidhe - the Fairy Host.

Here we have a more 'traditional' account of Fairies than Tolkien gives us. How many of us do not feel a thrill of excitement when we read about the fate of the young woman at the hands of the Fairy Host. How many of us are fascinated by these mysterious creatures & want to know more about them? And do any of us, on reading that passage think 'Oh, what evil creatures! Anyone who is excited by them must be sick'? No, we are attracted by these dark mysterious beings with such mysterious powers.

And now, hands up anybody who feels the kind of excitement & attraction I'm talking about who actually wants to go out & force a young woman to dance until she bleeds to death?

If an idea/feeling/propensity is defined as immoral in itself, then any instance of it, regardless the condition, is immoral. One cannot say one considers the idea of derriving pleasure from tales of rape as immoral, and then delight from the idea hinted in Myths Transformed that Men were forced to mate with beasts - and then one still claims moral integrity.

That depends on whether you judge people on what they do or on what they think. I think your position would lead us to the kind of situation we see in Minority Report - where people are incarcerated for crimes they intend to commit - or worse - for fantasising about shooting the guy who cuts them up on the freeway, or punching the boss out for balling them out. This kind of fantasy is a release. By indulging in such fantasises we deal with them without acting them out - that's the function of fantasy - we fantasise about doing 'x' so that we don't actually do 'x'. In fact, if we didn't fantasise about doing bad things every so often there would be a whole lot more bad things happening.

One can't say one considers derriving pleasure from tales of tortures, killings and unncessary destructions as evil in itself, and then delight when Gondolin is destroyed or when people are tortured in Numenor - and still consider oneself as moral.

So, 'deriving pleasure' from such tales is no different from committing such acts? There's no difference between fantasising about punching the idiot who walks out in front of your car, forcing you to slam on the brakes & actually getting out of your car & actually punching him? Well, I'd say there's a world of difference as far as he's concerned - cos in the first instance he crosses the road & carries on with his day & in the second he spends most of the day in casualty with a broken nose.

And you're still avoiding the central point - some readers may think Gondolin was filled with annoying self satisfied idiots & deserved what it got - you're attempting to impose your moral value system on other readers & condemning them for not living up to your standards.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

No, because you're assuming that what one reader considers good (& evil) is the same as what another reader does.

You are misrepresenting my argument - I am not talking about my ideas. In the very paragraph you quoted, I said (emphasis added):

If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

This assumes that the person in question has the above mentioned moral norm. If he has that norm, then yeah, any instance of it crossing it is immoral, regardless the circumstance. If somehow this was unclear, I apologise.

Originally Posted by davem

How many of us do not feel a thrill of excitement when we read about the fate of the young woman at the hands of the Fairy Host

I'll be frank, I consider fascination with vampires and the likes as wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

So, 'deriving pleasure' from such tales is no different from committing such acts?

How could you possibly derrive that from my statement? Anyway, my answer is that there is a whole world of a difference between the two.

In fact, if we didn't fantasise about doing bad things every so often there would be a whole lot more bad things happening.

You seem quite sure of this idea. How can you back it? How can you prove that thinking about an evil thing necessarily drives us away from doing it?

Originally Posted by davem

some readers may think Gondolin was filled with annoying self satisfied idiots & deserved what it got

Do these readers believe that slaughter of civilians, plunder & co are justified?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

This assumes that the person in question has the above mentioned moral norm. If he has that norm, then yeah, any instance of it crossing it is immoral, regardless the circumstance. If somehow this was unclear, I apologise.

And this idea of a 'norm' isn't perjorative? You are taking your moral value system & attempting to present it as the norm, thereby implying that anyone who doesn't share it is immoral.

I'll be frank, I consider fascination with vampires and the likes as wrong.

Okay...... in the sense of incorrect or immoral? So, Dracula, Anne Rice, Buffy, Angel, all immoral works? Because all of them are based on this 'fascination with Vampires'. Personally, being that Vampires are no more real than Tolkien's Elves, Orcs or Balrogs (or his Vampires come to that) in what sense is this fascination with none existent creatures 'wrong'? The idea that fascination with 'good' non existent creatures is 'right' & that fascination with 'bad' non existent creatures is 'wrong' is not one I can get my head around TBH.

You seem quite sure of this idea. How can you back it? How can you prove that thinking about an evil thing necessarily drives us away from doing it?

I didn't say it necessarily does, only that, based on a study of Freud & Jung it is fairly apparent.

Do these readers believe that slaughter of civilians, plunder & co are justified?

They may just realise that these 'civilians' never actually existed. Gondolin never actually existed. The Orcs who destroyed it never actually existed. I can't see where condemning such readers for their 'immorality' is justified?

[Raynor]

And this idea of a 'norm' isn't perjorative?

Why? Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.

You are taking your moral value system & attempting to present it as the norm, thereby implying that anyone who doesn't share it is immoral.

For the second time, I am talking about a case in which the person adopts said moral principles, that certain ideas/feelings/propensities are wrong/evil/immoral.

in the sense of incorrect or immoral?

Immoral.

So, Dracula, Anne Rice, Buffy, Angel, all immoral works?

If they try to present vampires as role-models, then, to me, the answer is yes. However, I am not aware this is the case with these works.

Personally, being that Vampires are no more real than Tolkien's Elves, Orcs or Balrogs (or his Vampires come to that) in what sense is this fascination with none existent creatures 'wrong'?

For me, it relates to a personal conviction, that being fascinated with vampires enstrages one from his soul.

fascination with 'good' non existent creatures is 'right'

It is right because it is consistent with morality; quite a truism I might say. I find pleasure and satisfaction in such a fascination, because it fulfills and helps, in its own way, a desire to come closer to what I believe is my ideal.

I didn't say it necessarily does, only that, based on a study of Freud & Jung it is fairly apparent.

Can you give those quotes?

They may just realise that these 'civilians' never actually existed.

You still haven't answered my question.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.
For the second time, I am talking about a case in which the person adopts said moral principles, that certain ideas/feelings/propensities are wrong/evil/immoral.

Once its established & agreed upon, not when one simply assumes that which is to be proved.

If they try to present vampires as role-models, then, to me, the answer is yes. However, I am not aware this is the case with these works.

But you didn't mention anything about presenting them as role models - you talked about having a 'fascination with them'.

For me, it relates to a personal conviction, that being fascinated with vampires enstrages one from his soul.

I think 'personal convictions' are all well & good, but to simply throw one into a discussion (one in which, I might add, you have repeatedly demanded that other posters supply 'evidence' & justify each single point they make) is hardly likely to further the discussion. I have a 'personal conviction' that celery is the work of the devil, but I don't see that it contributes to the discussion either.

[quote[It is right because it is consistent with morality; quite a truism I might say. I find pleasure and satisfaction in such a fascination, because it fulfills and helps, in its own way, a desire to come closer to what I believe is my ideal.[/QUOTE]

No, you see, what you're doing is making all encompassing statements ('x' is a truism) & when the statement is challenged you respond to the effect that 'I was only referring to situations where said person accepts this to be the case.'

[Raynor]

Once its established & agreed upon, not when one simply assumes that which is to be proved.

Ok, let me ask you again: if a person considers that rape, torture unnecessary killings and destructions, & co are immoral, then isn't it a contradiction in terms between <<to derrive pleasure from tales of rape, torture, etc>> and <<claiming to be moral>>?

But you didn't mention anything about presenting them as role models - you talked about having a 'fascination with them'.

The first question was about fascination with vampires, the second was about books on vampires. I don't see the problem with my answers, perhaps you could clarify your comment.

I think 'personal convictions' are all well & good, but to simply throw one into a discussion (one in which, I might add, you have repeatedly demanded that other posters supply 'evidence' & justify each single point they make) is hardly likely to further the discussion

I didn't throw this conviction; you requested that I present it.

No, you see, what you're doing is making all encompassing statements ('x' is a truism) & when the statement is challenged you respond to the effect that 'I was only referring to situations where said person accepts this to be the case.'

First of all, I mentioned truism in my very last post. Second of all, which of my posts can be interpreted as to mean that I was not in fact reffering to a person who already accepts these moral values (i.e. that ideas/feelings/propensities of torture,rape, kilings are immoral)?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Ok, let me ask you again: if a person considers that rape, torture unnecessary killings and destructions, & co are immoral, then isn't it a contradiction in terms between <<to derrive pleasure from tales of rape, torture, etc>> and <<claiming to be moral>>?

Well, let me ask you, just because you do not distinguish between reality & fantasy do you expect everyone to be bound by the same condition?

First of all, I mentioned truism in my very last post. Second of all, which of my posts can be interpreted as to mean that I was not in fact reffering to a person who already accepts these moral values (i.e. that ideas/feelings/propensities of torture,rape, kilings are immoral)?

And I was referring to a person who can distinguish between events in a fantasy world & events in real life.

So, back to the Vampire thing - is playing the Witch-king or Sauron in a M-e role-playing or strategy game (a computer or board game of which there are a few around) & throwing oneself into the game with gusto 'immoral'? Is choosing to play such a character an immoral act? Or do you think the player is capable of thinking 'Its only a game'? In the same way is a reader who chooses to side with Morgoth actually 'immoral'?

TBH, I think this is going around in circles - as it must, I suppose, in a debate where whenever one backs ones opponent into a corner he simply responds by denying he was ever in the room...

I therefore, am happy to leave things at this impasse......