The human story

Benj96

We, are storytellers. Humanity loves a good story, captivating, solid entertainment. So much so that I would argue its a fundamental aspect of our nature, from birth, to death, generation after generation.

On a more figurative and general level, we love contrasts. We are fascinated by polarity, by binary relationships, by antagonistic couples. The interplay of light and dark (architecture, art, theater), the heated political debate of the far right and far left, the clash between the hero and villain of one's favourite novel or film.

Why? Because most if not all good story telling is about drama. And drama only occurs between extremes. Something reactive. There's nothing dramatic about constant neutrality - it's stagnant/still, agreeable, non volatile, predictable, boring.

To tie this all into philosophy, I leave you with a few questions:

Is purely fictional entertainment, is good story telling, enough to appease our innate desire for drama, battle, conflict, struggle, etc. Or does bringing it into the real world dimension - through politics, acts of war, crime, fights, court cases etc add that extra wow factor for the audience and/or the players, is it moral to cross that boundary intentionally, or to be entertained by real life conflict?

Finally, can good story telling ever be removed from what happens in real life, for example if we reached a state of long term intergenerational peacetimes, would our fictional stories/media dramas suffer as a consequence? Would we get bored of media and stir up some real life shit?

Vera Mont

Is purely fictional entertainment, is good story telling, enough to appease our innate desire for drama, battle, conflict, struggle, etc. Or does bringing it into the real world dimension - through politics, acts of war, crime, fights, court cases etc add that extra wow factor for the audience and/or the players, is it moral to cross that boundary intentionally, or to be entertained by real life conflict? — Benj96

That is a really good question! I'm inclined to think that there is a chain that can be cut at any point, by intervening reality. What we can imagine, we can visualize; what we desire, we can covet; when we covet something specific, we can plan; what we can plan, we can do. (Maybe not well, but a botched assassination is more dramatic than a successful one.) The prime motivation, though, is not the drama, but the object of desire; the dramatic narrative follows.

Finally, can good story telling ever be removed from what happens in real life, — Benj96

I don't think so. I think the stories are a result of events - and sometimes deliberately aimed at making a lesson out of events.

for example if we reached a state of long term intergenerational peacetimes, would our fictional stories/media dramas suffer as a consequence — Benj96

Change, yes. Suffer, I don't think so. There is always conflict of some kind, not necessarily in the brute form of bloody physical clashes: perhaps our story-telling would gain subtlety and spiritual depth.

jgill

is it moral to cross that boundary intentionally, or to be entertained by real life conflict? — Benj96

Shadenfreude is one aspect.

Vera Mont

is it moral to cross that boundary intentionally, or to be entertained by real life conflict? — Benj96

real world conflict is the life blood of news media. The rest of us need to know what's going on in the world that affects us, and if we are entertained by the dramatic presentation of some conflict, that's unavoidable and morally neutral. What becomes a moral issue is when and how and which side we decide to become involved.

MojaveMan

↪Benj96

Is purely fictional entertainment, is good story telling, enough to appease our innate desire for drama, battle, conflict, struggle, etc. Or does bringing it into the real world dimension - through politics, acts of war, crime, fights, court cases etc add that extra wow factor for the audience and/or the players, is it moral to cross that boundary intentionally, or to be entertained by real life conflict?

Finally, can good story telling ever be removed from what happens in real life, for example if we reached a state of long term intergenerational peacetimes, would our fictional stories/media dramas suffer as a consequence? Would we get bored of media and stir up some real life shit? — Benj96

No it's not enough, this is why workplaces have so much drama and gossip. (I'm a part of the problem!)
We love to feel things even if it's sad and I find that so interesting how in the passed I've looked for sad scenes in movies just to cry for the hell of it! So yes, like vera mont said the war, crime, fighting aspect has an entire industry around pushing that into our eyes. Also like vera mont the answer, i believe, to the last question on the first paragraph is morally neutral or nonrelevant to morality.

Finally, to your last question, have you seen the news? We have fighter jets in America chasing down every get well soon balloon in the sky! That is to say YES, we would create conflict or at least they as in the ones in power and the ones behind the screens.

Benj96

↪Vera Mont

Thanks for your insights. I think I pretty much agree with all of what you said.

As a small contribution I want to add from a personal perspective: I think stories are ways to experience adversity and triumphs vicariously and in doing so to gain wisdom, knowledge or insight into the dynamics, lessons and meanings behind them.

Just as we tell children moralistically encoded stories so as to show them core lessons in sharing, cooperation and consequence as clear concepts. There are many parallels between the fundamental meaning behind a children's book and an adult novel. The only difference being the complexity of the narrative.

I think entertainment serves a great purpose in that it is an outlet for musings that may/or may not be temptations for action otherwise. A society devoid of fictional dramas is likely to be one that creates them physically.

After all, if nothing good or bad ever happens, there's no takeaway conclusions, no points to learn from, to grow from.

Luckily for us, in general I think society favours the consumption of vast amounts of fictional villainery rather than practicing gross crimes to see what happens.

Benj96

Shadenfreude is one aspect — jgill

I agree. Schadenfreude certainly has its place, as often misadventure is an enjoyable or satirical source of comedy.

Having said that, there is certainly a line, a distinction I feel in what sorts of "harm" or "suffering" can be appropriately laughed at without being perversely immoral.

I think it often depends on the attitude or experience of the person who has experienced the adversity. If they take it lightly and comically and laugh at themselves in think it's safe to safe participating in the schadenfreude based on their personal expense is okay.

"laugh toghether. Cry toghether"

But then there are things with more dire and severe consequences where I think any such attempt at schadenfreude would come across as crass, cold or even plain sociopathic.

Where exactly that line is, is vague at best. And differs between different people. Probably the best discipline at discerning such a line is stand-up comedians. For if they overstep they would certainly receive harsh criticism from the general public and be cancelled/ shunned.

Benj96

No it's not enough, this is why workplaces have so much drama and gossip. (I'm a part of the problem!)
We love to feel things even if it's sad and I find that so interesting how in the passed I've looked for sad scenes in movies just to cry for the hell of it! — MojaveMan

I agree. Feeling sadness and joy is definitely more fulfilling than feeling constantly numb, apathetic and emotionless.

And if you crave joy you definitely must be prepared for its natural opposite. As you cant have a peak without a trough.

Vera Mont

I think entertainment serves a great purpose in that it is an outlet for musings that may/or may not be temptations for action otherwise. — Benj96

Yes, that's a useful function, actually. I've participated in any number of discussions started by a movie: "What would you do in that situation?" or "How would you react?" We explore different points of view, different aspects of a problem. Probably, we'll never be taken hostage - but we've still learned something about other people's motives and our own attitudes.

There's another thing about mass media: they do influence societal norms and expectations and attitudes. When I started watching television, everyone everywhere smoked cigarettes. Now, if you see someone in a movie with a cigarette, you know he's the villain. If you watch videos from the 70's, you can see the transformation in process. And it's all done through storytelling: putting the audience into the story of someone with whom they had never before identified.

Benj96

↪Vera Mont

I never thought about the cigarette/smoking example but its very true. Whatever becomes taboo is usually used as a literary or cinematic device for someone who goes against societal values - namely the villain.

Good spot!

Vera Mont

I've been a tv watcher since age 10, when I first saw a tv. By watcher, I mean close observer, commentator, critic and chronicler, and well as appreciative audience.

It's not the simple case that smoking became taboo and was then adopted by entertainment media as a device. It became taboo in large part because of the way it was treated by entertainment media. There were some early indications of in some movies, where the danger of smoking was explicitly stated by a character or situation, then more obviously, where a central character quit smoking as part of the story - like the depiction of Kojak and his lollipops, while both character and actor struggled with a nicotine habit. Then, the problem started showing up in medical shows and courtroom dramas, gently educating the public.
This function of mass media was even more obvious in race and gender issues, which were tackled head-on by some tv programs; handled more obliquely in others: simply by inserting a previously unheard-of character - female chief inspector or Black senator in the story, so that the young audience becomes unconsciously accustomed to the idea that this is not just acceptable, but normal. I saw the first instance of a mixed marriage in a comedy skit; then the subject was featured in a couple of sit-coms - with all the bigotry and controversy depicted humorously, forcing the more open-minded members of the audience to think: "Hey, that is a ridiculous belief."

Of course, there is a dark side to public education by media.... and it's big.

Vera Mont

Don't know what happened here, but I'm not one to waste a free reply box.
Here is another aspect of story-telling, in all formats. We need our ideas and convictions reaffirmed by others. And we need reassurance that our nation is worth being loyal to and, our soldiers are fighting ,and sacrificing for the right cause. that god's in his heaven, that our institutions work, that justice will prevail and the police are honourable; that the good guy will rebound in the end and win.

The printed word still carries a certain authority in our psyche, while the screen flashes visual images directly into our brain, bypassing critical judgment. They have different kinds of influence.

Benj96

↪Vera Mont

I agree. Media has definitely been a voice, and a loud one, in the shaping and reforming of societal values.

Story telling is a means to address sociologic issues. A platform for self expression which either becomes popular and widely adapted, or heavily criticised, suppressed and diminished. And timing is everything.

I think media and entertainment is certainly a two way dynamic. Where popular opinion/culture dictates media norms and stereotypes, and thus the success of a story in the mainstream, but also emerging and controversial trends in media also inform the public in turn shifting focus and evaluation of important topics.

This interplay is cyclical and reversable, compounding on itself.

So in the end, the stories told throughout time in literature and film, song and poetry, art and dance, are reflections of the state of society at that period.

Movements and novel fads are then just that, sea changes. Alterations in the social fabric, transitions. The birth of something new. A new culture.

Vera Mont

Yep. It's just what we do.

Benj96

The printed word still carries a certain authority in our psyche, while the screen flashes visual images directly into our brain, bypassing critical judgment. They have different kinds of influence — Vera Mont

They certainly do. The written word is much less prescribed than cinematography. Imagination and interpretation can arguably run wilder with writing than with imagery.

I think this is why generally speaking we favour literature as the influencer of film and not the other way around.

Vera Mont

I think this is why generally speaking we favour literature as the influencer of film and not the other way around. — Benj96

Interesting idea. Now, I'm thinking about movies, but don't know enough to comment.

Tom Storm

Is purely fictional entertainment, is good story telling, enough to appease our innate desire for drama, battle, conflict, struggle, etc. — Benj96

Humans are meaning making animals. I would include philosophy and science in the story telling realm.

I don't think being the passive recipient of a dramatic story is ever going to be a substitute for an embodied experience of life. I'd say stories influence why people seek out adventures, wars and exploration. They are inspiration and may galvanize people into action. As far back as 1605, the satirical novel Don Quixote satirized the influence bad romance stories have on the crazy life choices of the hero.

The human story

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions