Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

Fleetfootphil wrote regarding material about personal traumas posted to philosophyclub:

Can someone tell me the value of this board. Does anyone get back more than they put into it or is it always less?

I agree with Fleetfootphil. Moi, I find that personal trauma material is less intrusive than inability or unwillingness to sort things and ideas.'Art' for instance, is not an evaluation , it is an observable human behaviour.

We are all human beings with feelings and prejudices, so human trauma is present even when the poster does not explain it. It is not difficult to recognise the human behind the philosophy.Still, I do appreciate Fleetfootphil's useful categorising of broad categories of topics.Here they are, as from Fleetfootphil:

There are three levels of discussion. From lowest to highest they are: people, things, ideas.

[Whitedragon]

I can agree with that, Belinda, but don't we often hide behind our ideas? Ideas can be clinical without the human aspect, shouldn't both be present in some blogs to make a good conversation and present a clear picture? It puts a face on what is being discussed. For instance, few people care for children dying of hunger, until they have physically seen them, or at least have seen their pictures or heard a testimony; but then if we show too much of it, some might label it propaganda... There is much value in listening to others' pain and stories; but to only talk about it philosophically is to keep what matters at arms length with intellect … heart comes before intellect, and it is the only thing, which truly can move people to change their ideas. It's easy to harbour ideas, which are never addressed, being biased humanistic narrative … hence we only hear one sides heart and needs. It is much more difficult however when the muzzled speak up, not only with ideas, but with firsthand testimony. Is it a crime to put a face on that, which is being camouflaged with nice, and clever ideas, and casual talk?

Say for instance a porn star or a prostitute came onto this forum; must she be silent about how she feels; what stops her from sharing her testimony, does she not qualify more than anyone else to speak up? What stops me from sharing my story; I had first hand experience of how one can come to regret it in its extremity. Isn't testimony also valuable in a discussion like this, or must we “push paper,” whilst we dance around the heart of the matter? Sincerely, WhiteDragon

[Fleetfootphil]

Why does what is being discussed need a face? I watch the news and I appreciate knowing that ten or twenty children were killed by an assault weapon at school and I can make my analysis of what needs to happen from that. I do not need the face of crying family members to help me make decisions regarding what I think about our society and our laws.

[Logic_ill]

I've been following this discussion for a while, and just wanted to mention that I agree both with fleetfoothill and White dragon. Some people like fleetfoot would not need a face to match drama, but it is very effective with others as White Dragon mentions. Personal testimonies are good and should be taken into account too, although it coud get too emotional for my particular taste...

[Belinda]

Why does what is being discussed need a face? I watch the news and I appreciate knowing that ten or twenty children were killed by an assault weapon at school and I can make my analysis of what needs to happen from that. I do not need the face of crying family members to help me make decisions regarding what I think about our society and our laws.

Because it is not enough reportage if the bare facts were all. It is not enough reportage because many if not most people cannot imagine the connection with their own lives and own feelings without the personal report of how it feels to be this person living a tragedy, and the small child who could be my small child. We all know about the dangers of gun ownership but cannot feel the dangers until some skilled reporter or novelist or film maker has shown us the human cost of it. It is feelings not intellectual beliefs that inspire actions. (It goes without saying that reportage should be honest and humane) .

This tragedy is not the most obvious use of reportage, because the human aspect of that tragedy will be imagined from bare facts. War correspondents who send photos or write reports from the point of view of one person give more and better information than some reporter whose job it may be to send out nothing but facts and numbers. The receivers of the info have feelings which are the most important part of them.

Philosophy is not reportage however, and it is customary to be coolly intellectual, although there are exceptions as when artists portray an idea in picture or story. Jesus, or the Gospel writers, are exceptionally good at this although the parables are aimed at people of the time who draw water from wells etc.. The best novelists, poets and playwrites write human stories which place flesh on ideas.

[Misty]

There would be no philosophy without the human condition. What better way to understand the human condition than to put a human face on it. Like walking in another man's shoes to know where he has been or what he is going through. Stirs compassion, mercy, solutions.

[Fleetfootphil]

My compassion is not fueled by emotional response to loaded imagery. In fact, I do my best to shut that out. I find the facts enough. Putting a personal face on misery is manipulative. I think most people, when Travon Martin was killed, understood Obama's remark "That could have been my son." We can (or at least I can) put ourselves in others' shoes without the need to witness their personal angst. I can't share in someone else's tragedy but I can become a victim of cheap drama produced for personal gain.

Porn isn't a bad thing. It's just a thing.

[Belinda]

Fleetfootphil, I guess that you are confusing yucky sentimentality and well expressed feeling. Your example of what Obama said is well expressed feeling.

I guess that no newspaper would employ a reporter who was addicted to sentimental hyperbole.

[Supine]

Why does what is being discussed need a face? I watch the news and I appreciate knowing that ten or twenty children were killed by an assault weapon at school and I can make my analysis of what needs to happen from that. I do not need the face of crying family members to help me make decisions regarding what I think about our society and our laws.

You can do so only with empathy. Regardless of humans being biologically wired (severely autistic as well as sociopaths aside) for empathy, the power of empathy comes through the visual, even absent seeing the real person crying or exhibiting whatever emotive characteristic or expression. Like dreaming - or like talking to ourselves in our head requires language (and we do so in the language(s) we can speak).

I like literature - and the habit of reading, especially fiction and novels - can develop the ability of a person to visually imagine just through reading descriptive words. But even I must admit there are some limitations literature has that movies (or the theater) move beyond.

I read reports, possibly for a decade or more, of women being stoned to death but it never greatly impacted me the way seeing it acted out in the movie The Stoning of Sayora M did. So powerful did those visual images, and hearing the actresses and actors voices, impact me, that I became instantly converted to outrage of magnitude previously impossible in me. And I almost could not - literally - stomach watching the whole stoning scene. I forced myself to out of respect and honor for the female fallen of this practice.

Tell me a small, typed, news report stating, "An accused woman of adultery was stoned to death yesterday in Iran," impact you as much as seeing this brief clip in the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nm8dkD30Gg

So to it is with me seeing porn actress Bella Donna go to tears over recounting her career in porn during an interview - with respects to my empathy being moved for her more by seeing her physically expressed pain, rather than just reading a short statement, "She cried at 2 PM."

[Fleetfootphil]

Visually imagining is not the same thing as a CNN camera stuck in the face of misery and broadcasting the picture. I skipped the video links. As I said earlier, I don't need or want them (on tv or here) or anywhere.

[Wayne]

It absolutely does, but so does every form of expression. Porn is designed for titilation in the same way other forms of art are designed for other emotions. Some porn is more complex and made to evoke more emotions than sexual arousal but the fact that porn is geared toward an image, behavior and emotion we typicially frown upon doesn't mean it can't be a skilled and innovative expressive representation that evokes emotions and muse for others....which is basically what art is, right?

There's a bigger question here though which is, is it a harmful art form? Every potent drug that uses the same broad effect over many different situations also has the potential to cause many different unwanted side affects based on each of those different situations. It takes very specific surgery to get only the beneficial result. All forms of art, when created to be effective, have power over us. The more effective it's ability to manipulate the way we feel the more power it has over our decsion making. Are art forms that express violence and sex effectively, damaging our society? Maybe. But again, that has no affect on whether porn is art or not.

[Fleetfootphil]

Well said, Wayne.

[Belinda]

I second ' Well said, Wayne'

[Apeman]

No. porn is not art. But it might indeed beget some art. Because art is always about where it ends NOT about where it begins. Sex and sexuality, eroticism, fetish, perversion, deviance, politics, religion, baseball, astronomy, gardening, love, murder, and scones can ALL give cause to a creative impulse (as can any other thing). Art is not defined by its subject, it is experienced by its process and its content. Process and content contain formal confrontations that are detached from issue, narrative, representation , spectacle, history, and propaganda.

[Fleetfootphil]

Uh huh...and what does that mean?