Tragedy and Pleasure?

Jack Cummins

I am reading, 'Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure? by A. D. Nuttall (1996), which I picked on a library shelf because I saw it as an interesting question. The author looks at Aristotle's ideas, especially catharsis, Freud's thinking about 'the pleasure principle', as well as Nietzsche's understanding of the dark side of human nature.

Nuttall looks at Aristotle's idea of catharsis, as expressed in tragic poetry, as a process in which 'emotion is not whipped up, but is discharged'. Aristotle sees the expression of viewing trajedy as more than gloating over another's pain. He suggests that 'purgative pleasure is essential to normal enjoyment of and, in another (the Nicomachean Ethics), that such purgative pleasures are accidental..' He does view purgation as involving humoured but Nuttall argues that 'the theory of catharsis involved in the ''Poetics'' is unlikely to be a full instance of physicalism'.

In looking at Freud, Nuttall suggests that Freud depended on 'that great mass of repressed matter, the Unconscious'. He also looks at Freud's understanding of the Pleasure Principle, including the expression of sexuality and how Freud showed how sexual gratification 'was curbed by the deadening restrictions of civilisation,' with 'Freud's State of Nature' being ' like the fierce "war of every man in Hobbes's 'Leviathan'." '

Nietzsche's ideas, including his 'Birth of Trajedy' are considered by Nuttall including the way in which 'tragedy is a point of culture for Nietzsche. Nuttall sees both the Freudian and Nietzschean understanding of trajedy as more rooted in human nature than in the perspective of Aristotle. Also, the author raises the question: 'Does the admission of the dark side of the mind_ an unconscious_ have a bearing on the problem of the pleasure of trajedy? '

I would also question is the 'pleasure of trajedy' a problem? Is it not the aesthetic element of quality art and literature? I am aware that I have only sketched out a bare outline of Nuttall's book and the writers considered within it. I am opening the thread for fuller discussion of such ideas, including the idea of catharsis of Aristotle. Also, I am raising the question in the author's title''Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure?'

Jack Cummins

As I am aware that my summary of Nuttall's discussion may not have been full enough for critical discussion, I will add this quote on why the weakness of Aristotle's outlook as opposed to that of Nietzsche or Freud is that Aristotle's account, 'seemed to place its emphasis on form, and, on the palpable unreality of trajedy.' Nuttall goes on to suggest 'in frightening dreams the subject can as it were experience disaster without actually experiencing it'. He adds that tragedy is a way 'of practising for crisis'.

This seems important to me, with the tragic aspects of art being connected to the development of wisdom for living. However, I am sure that there are many levels of understanding the tragic in art, and that the ideas of Aristotle and so many philosophers contribute to this. Any thoughts on Nuttall's comparison between dreams and tragedy, or on the wider issue of tragedy, pleasure in art in connection with human suffering.

BC

The world was not designed for our continual happiness and comfort. Deliberate acts by conscious, malevolent agents and acts of indifferent nature may bring death, severe injury, or loss suddenly and arbitrarily. Then there are the shortcomings of human intelligence, wreaking havoc left and right. That life deals an unfair hand is an unwelcome problem to which we have to continually reconcile ourselves.

A novelist, playwright, librettist/composer, or poet may offer an enactment of the very bad event which enacts tragedy in a particularly complete and satisfying manner. A successful piece of art acknowledges the unfairness of life and places us in that context.

Why do we derive satisfaction from the tragic art work? Because we must reconcile ourselves to the unfairness of life, again and again -- whether we use art to help us or not.

The pleasure part derives from us having the problem of an unfair cosmos depicted once again, and having our selves positioned as spectators of tragedy, rather than the subjects of tragedy. We'll be the subject of our own tragedies soon enough; we might be helped by remembering that we are also spectators of tragedy.

I prefer to think of the universe as an indifferent cause of suffering, rather than being focused on making my life as miserable as possible, with customized misfortune abounding. One of our tragedies is that our brother/sister sentient beings take care of focussed, customized misfortune.

180 Proof

I am reading, 'Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure? by A. D. Nuttall (1996) — Jack Cummins

Interesting topic. (But why do you refer to "Fuller"? What does s/he have to do with Nuttall's book?)

Anyway, fwiw, 'studies of tragedy' I've found most insightful (among the ones already mentioned and others) are Antigones by George Steiner and Joyful Cruelty by Clément Rosset. As an artform, 'tragedy' allows the audience/readers to play 'the game of death' – slip the mask of daily denial of mortality – and perhaps live on moved/wounded ... like Jacob wrestling his Angel.

The "problem", I think, is that the "pleasure" of tragedy is much harder to come by, or fully experience, in our time than in premodern times because, by comparison especially in today's hyperconsumerist West, we are mostly urbanized – de-nature-ized – and thereby overstimulated (i.e. benumbed, anaestheticized) by hypersensationalized trivia continuously. Every misshap is now called "tragic"; ubiquitous vidiocy trivializes 'the game of death' (i.e. the real).

Pardon my superficial gloss, Jack, @BC has said it much better. :fire:

Moliere

'Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds
Roll up its waste of waters, from the land
To watch another's labouring anguish far,
Not that we joyously delight that man
Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet
To mark what evils we ourselves be spared; — Lucretius, The Nature of Things, Book II Proem

Link

Which gets along a bit with Aristotle's notion -- that the distance between the audience and the subject is what allows a certain kind of pleasure in the unfortunate to arise.

But I also want to quote Artaud, whose theory of theatre gives a different picture to the pleasure of tragedy:

The theater will never find itself again--i.e., constitute a means
of true illusion--except by furnishing the spectator with the
truthful precipitates of dreams, in which his taste for crime, his
erotic obsessions, his savagery, his chimeras, his utopian sense of
life and matter, even his cannibalism, pour out, on a level not
counterfeit and illusory, but interior. — Antonin Artaud, The Theatre and its Double, VII. The Theater and Cruelty

Artaud is a more poetic writer and so subject to interpretation, but what I've always taken him to mean is that the function of tragedy is to fulfill our anti-social desires through the magic of theatre: the savage desire to kill your enemy can be not just seen from a distince, but felt in the interior -- so it gives an opposite reason for the pleasure of tragedy. Rather than because we are distant from it we come to experience a part of ourselves that we normally couldn't.

Lionino

He does view purgation as involving humoured but Fuller argues that 'the theory of catharsis involved in the ''Poetics'' is unlikely to be a full instance of physicalism'. — Jack Cummins

I don't quite understand this. Is it saying that because catharsis, which is/gives purgative pleasure, is accidental, it looks (but is unlikely to be) a full instance of physicalism? What sense of 'accidental' is being used here, common or Aristotelian?

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

I have just seen your post and others, which I will look at properly tomorrow. However, what I do wish to say immediately is that the reference to Fuller, as opposed to Nuttall, on many occasions is a bad typo error. So, I apologise and will correct it in my outpost tomorrow morning. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

Vera Mont

The author looks at Aristotle's ideas, especially catharsis, Freud's thinking about 'the pleasure principle', as well as Nietzsche's understanding of the dark side of human nature. — Jack Cummins

One problem, these guys are way out of date. There was once tragic theater and poetry to purge the baser emotions of the highly refined audience. The plebes went to public executions and bull-baiting.

Now, entertainments of the most cathartic nature are available without stint for the price of one's server fee. More cheaply still, we can watch the evening news broadcast or borrow any amount of horror from the library.

If we, as a culture, were actually cleansed and purified by these spectacles, we'd all be saints by now.

I like sushi

I think this sums up Catharsis fairly well and answers the question of why tragedy gives 'pleasure':

§17 - Dioysiac art, too, wishes to convince us of the eternal delight of existence - but we are to seek that delight not in phenomena themselves but behind phenomena. It wishes us to acknowledge that everything that comes into being must be prepared to face a sorrowful end. If forces us to look at terrors of individual existence, yet we are not to be petrified with fear. A metaphysical consolation wrests us momentarily from the bustle of changing forms. For a brief moment we really become primal essence itself, and feel its unbounded lust for existence and delight in existence.

- Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy

It almost sounds like schadenfreude is trying to muscle in here? Is that the real hidden question? I think Cartharsis is quite a different beast to Schadenfreude. Maybe discussing the distinction could prove fruitful.

Jack Cummins

↪BC

What I find really useful about your post is that it looks not simply at the audience experience of art and trajedy but the process of art making and suffering. Artists and writers may be able to work with the raw material of suffering to create a profound vision. Audiences may be able to partake and participate in the masterpieces of this.

It is likely that the art of Van Gogh appeals to so many because he created a profound visual worldview amidst suffering. Of course, the life of a writer and artist may contribute to an enigma.

I studied art therapy and it does seem that the creative arts can be a way of living with suffering and the injustices of life. Both the making and appreciation of art forms may be a way of processing life experiences.

Jack Cummins

↪180 Proof

The books which you speak of sound interesting. It does seem that it is harder to get a glimpse of the nature of trajedy in the commercialised West. So much of drama and cinema is about sensation. I actually prefer going to see drama rather than watch films because it feels like a participation in the problem dealing with suffering, death and difficult emotions rather than superficial glamour. It is likely that the mythic depths are still present amidst the glamour, but some may get lost. That may be why fiction may still have an important role to play in dealing with existential experiences, because story remains the essential aspect.

Jack Cummins

↪Moliere

Your understanding, based on Artaud, of drama as involving the some expression of savage aspects of life is consistent with Freud. It goes back to the ritualistic aspect of life, including religious rites. Drama performance, with the live element, is like a ritualistic celebration. It may involve some kind of channelling of taboo aspects of human nature in a socially acceptable form. It may also be an expression of anger at life's injustices as opposed to the celebration of the joyful aspects of life.

Jack Cummins

↪Lionino

My understanding of the argument that Aristotle's picture of catharsis as being different from physicalism is that he came from a different worldview. Even though he brought the idealism down to the world of causes he was still basing his ideas on the ancient worldview primarily. The idea of catharsis and purgation of humours is so different to the understanding of physiology. It would involve balance through bloodletting. Such practice would not make sense today apart from for people who suffer from the blood disorder of polycythemia, who are often advised to donate blood.

180 Proof

↪Jack Cummins

:up:

Amity

I am reading, 'Why Does Trajedy Give Pleasure? by A. D. Nuttall (1996), which I picked on a library shelf because I saw it as an interesting question. The author looks at Aristotle's ideas, especially catharsis, Freud's thinking about 'the pleasure principle', as well as Nietzsche's understanding of the dark side of human nature. — Jack Cummins

Thank you for sharing this book and the questions arising. It's refreshing to read this thread with its wonderful contributions and your careful responses.

In trying to understand Aristotle's 'catharsis' and Nietzsche's take on 'tragedy', I looked to simple versions. Now, not so able to find or read books I turn to other means. Like YouTube. Cue :roll:

The focus, here, is on Tragedy in Art rather than as personal or 'ordinary' experiences. We don't have to look far to find tragic events in current wars or even, for some, everyday battles against poverty. I doubt that this gives 'pleasure' to many. Most people are not 'performing', nor do they necessarily have the luxury or privilege of 'spectating'. This is basic survival.

Of course, films, books, art etc. reflect individual lives in times, countries - at a distance. They are not 'real' but remote, so can perhaps be 'enjoyed' as exciting. As you say:

the creative arts can be a way of living with suffering and the injustices of life. Both the making and appreciation of art forms may be a way of processing life experiences. — Jack Cummins

And that can lead to 'catharsis': 'The process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions'.

catharsis, the purification or purgation of the emotions (especially pity and fear) primarily through art. In criticism, catharsis is a metaphor used by Aristotle in the Poetics to describe the effects of true tragedy on the spectator. The use is derived from the medical term katharsis (Greek: “purgation” or “purification”). Aristotle states that the purpose of tragedy is to arouse “terror and pity” and thereby effect the catharsis of these emotions.
His exact meaning has been the subject of critical debate over the centuries. The German dramatist and literary critic Gotthold Lessing (1729–81) held that catharsis converts excess emotions into virtuous dispositions.
Other critics see tragedy as a moral lesson in which the fear and pity excited by the tragic hero’s fate serve to warn the spectator not to similarly tempt providence. The interpretation generally accepted is that through experiencing fear vicariously in a controlled situation, the spectator’s own anxieties are directed outward, and, through sympathetic identification with the tragic protagonist, his insight and outlook are enlarged.

Tragedy then has a healthful and humanizing effect on the spectator or reader. — Britannica

Having just read some Plato and pondering the tragic-comedic aspects of his Dialogues. I found Nietzsche's view fascinating and different to what I had expected:

Why Greek Tragedy is the Greatest Art Form | Nietzsche on Ancient Greek Tragedy (13.26)

Some of my notes:
The intertwining of Tragedy and comedy (5.14) - Tragedy from the perspective of the comical and the experience of the absurd. As a basis for understanding art.
Art as a function for life. Also laughter as a way of coping. Zarathustra - Learn to laugh. Properly. Laugher symbolises The act of self-overcoming (11.04)
Comedy and laughter - an ethic that says yes to life, (12.34) Amor fati - love of fate - don't take ourselves too seriously.

So, you quite rightly point out the connections between the Tragedy of Art and the development of wisdom for living. But looking at examples of how people are surviving at ground-level in Ukraine and Gaza - isn't it the case that the wisdom there is of the practical and stoic kind. Just get on with it. No need for theories...

Jack Cummins

↪Vera Mont

Of course, times have changed and what art satisfies is so variable. So much has changed with postmodern values and aesthetics. Also, there is so much choice with people to choose from the whole of history and global perspectives. It can be daunting or it can be an exciting adventure. It makes the search for what works to appeal to the depths of one's own life dramas and quest a personal quest. In previous times, what was considered as important in art, drama, literature and writing may have been more of a group quest whereas it is becoming interconnected with the pursuit of the inner life.

Jack Cummins

↪I like sushi

The Dionysian aspects of catharsis show how tragedy and ecstasy may be interconnected. I see this as being about the process of transmuting the darkness or finding the sublime within it. In some ways, this is similar to the quest of the shaman, who journeyed to underworld and upperworld regions. This involved the process of healing and art for the people by the shamans who may have been 'medicine men' or performers.

Jack Cummins

↪Amity

Thanks for your detailed response. The most striking aspect of what your post raises is how do the tragic in art and the art of living interact. What may be worrying is that in spite of the potential within art for catharsis and wisdom through artistic expression it may be not going in the right direction. That is because the tragic dramas are being externalised in life in so much conflict, especially so many devastating war situations. It is possible that news in the media is becoming the new tragic drama, rather than individuals' inner journeys taking them to the place of 'better', or ethical living. People may be becoming spectators of the tragic aspects of life through the cultural consumption of manufactured media news.

I like sushi

↪Jack Cummins

In theatrical performances the line between the audience and the performance often disappears in many cultural traditions (see Clifford Geertz for that regarding his experiences in Bali).

What I was trying to highlight in that quote from Nietzsche is how we partake in the performance and reveal something harsh about the reality of human existence. The essence of such brutal experiences (secondhand or imagined) taps into the essence of being human. We cherish such stark encounters with brute reality.

The 'pleasure' may be interpreted as more or less a recognition of reality as a means of value even though there is suffering - or rather because there is suffering.

Anyway, this is a topic that hits some familiar ground for me as I ended up reading 'Beyond Good and Evil' and then realised I needed to read 'On the Genealogy of Morals' first and then realised I needed to read 'The Birth of Tragedy' prior to that ... and then eventually I started with Aristotle's Poetics and worked my way back to 'Beyond Good and Evil'. I recommend doing this, it is fun watching different threads of ideas weaving together and interesting questions surfacing.

Amity

The most striking aspect of what your post raises is how do the tragic in art and the art of living interact. — Jack Cummins

I appreciate your taking the time to read and comment positively :smile:

It is possible that news in the media is becoming the new tragic drama, rather than individuals' inner journeys taking them to the place of 'better', or ethical living. People may be becoming spectators of the tragic aspects of life through the cultural consumption of manufactured media news. — Jack Cummins

One concern of mine is how 'news in the media' can overwhelm minds to the point where their own creativity is affected. Their imagination is taken up by the never-ending drama of 'What if Trump...?'

It may well be 'manufactured' but the consequences are real. There is real fear; people feel unsafe and the need to flee but can't...there seems to be anger and violence everywhere. But good to hear the other side - where communities came together after the tragedy of the Southport stabbings and the riots that followed. For those not following UK news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Southport_stabbing

There is an addiction to the highs and lows of what comes next, who says what and is it all real?
Many seem to have found a higher mood and hope; revitalised with the new energy of Kamala Harris. In the UK, the character of Keir Starmer. But who knows...
Just more characters in the page, in the chapter, in the book...of life as we 'know' it.

How have you found your story-telling affected? Your inner journey expressed here is valuable to read and consider...

Vera Mont

Of course, times have changed and what art satisfies is so variable. — Jack Cummins

I wasn't talking about satisfaction, but specifically about the cathartic effect of melodrama and tragedy. Our entertainments don't just come in the form of written literature, pictorial rendering and theater, but also, and overwhelmingly, in graphic, immersive cinema and interactive virtual presentations. There is so much of it all around us, all the time, that there is no time for reflection, for questioning the quality or value of art - though we may question whether many of the productions qualify as art, they are certainly experienced by the audience. There is no time to accumulate any backlog of guilt, sorrow, resentment, aggression: it's purged instantly, maybe before we can even feel it.
The trick is to escape from all that catharsis, into restful, contemplative, replenishing art.

How have you found your story-telling affected? — Amity

I shall rudely borrow this question for a moment, because it bears directly on my response above.
I write positive stories for the most part. I've been accused of not having enough conflict or tension or action. It's true. I prefer to present a less frantic, more thoughtful alternative.
(The odd little foray into the sardonic notwithstanding. I guess the short, mean stories are my personal catharsis.)

Amity

How have you found your story-telling affected?
— Amity
I shall rudely borrow this question for a moment, because it bears directly on my response above. — Vera Mont

Not rude at all. I hope other story-tellers jump in! :smile:
I do enjoy your mix; the music and dance of the slow and sardonic. Restful and replenishing.
An alert, awareness of the real...and coping...the voice of experience and joy of creativity.
(I can't remember any short, mean stories?)

Vera Mont

(I can't remember any short, mean stories?) — Amity

They're forgettable enough. I've also ventured into tragic/pathetic territory, but I don't find it hospitable. I much prefer optimistic fare.

Amity

They're forgettable enough — Vera Mont

And then there's my failing memory and my reading of 'mean'. Perhaps I saw any of your alleged meanies as funny...

So, your levels of creativity remain high no matter what the hell is going on?
Pleasure in producing. Dancing in the rain.
Related to personality traits, life circumstances, perspective or philosophy?
I think I'm in danger of taking the thread off-track. Sorry @Jack Cummins !!

What were you saying about dreams? It reminded me of how many TPF short stories were reflections on recurring or disturbing dreams...many concerning houses, from basement to attic. Curious :chin:

180 Proof

Pardon my ramble ...

One concern of mine is how 'news in the media' can overwhelm minds to the point where their own creativity is affected ... How have you found your story-telling affected? — Amity

Grist for the miill. 'Stories' which reflect on or puzzle over questions raised by "news in the media" intrigue me most and inspire me to re/tell them. As far as 'the tragic' goes, my creative stance is much more attuned to 'absurdity' – the distorted lenses through which I watch the world turn my stomach while I laugh to stop from crying. It's almost impossible to create at any level out of ashes or raw sewage of the daily bilge of wanton cruelty and duplicitous stupidity. And yet "You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on" a master clown says more about 'making art', I imagine, than merely living. Nonetheless, I try to ground my story-telling in mere life (e.g. "Try again. Fail again. Fail better") without self-referentially – cleverly ironizing about – 'making art'. Maybe it's the social uselessness (ergo "sovereignty" someone said) of 'making art' that's 'tragic' today, and yet feeling the absurd compels some of us to try again and again and ... just in order to breathe freely. 'Well, there ain't no clowns in foxholes' – yeah but why effin' not (since that's probably where clowns are most needed)?! :fire: :monkey:

Moliere

↪180 Proof

That touched me :) :heart:

Vera Mont

↪180 Proof

↪Moliere

like boxing glove to the solar plexus

Paine

↪Jack Cummins

Sophocles' Oedipus the King is worthy of notice in this regard. Oedipus unwittingly accelerates his demise by uncovering the attempts of his parents to avoid their prophesied fates.

He goes from the arrogance of the king to the blindness of the seer who brought him down.

I can see the pleasure in being able to view a process that one cannot perform upon oneself. But I cannot imagine witnesses of that play going home afterwards thinking they had purified something.

Amity

'Stories' which reflect on or puzzle over questions raised by "news in the media" intrigue me most and inspire me to re/tell them.

As far as 'the tragic' goes, my creative stance is much more attuned to 'absurdity' – the distorted lenses through which I watch the world turn my stomach while I laugh to stop from crying. It's almost impossible to create at any level out of ashes or raw sewage of the daily bilge of wanton cruelty and duplicitous stupidity. And yet "You must go on. I can't go on. I'll go on" — 180 Proof

This shows the determination and spirit required to rise above it all. And to not lose your voice but to strengthen it in sharing. Not a 'ramble' to be pardoned but going the distance with well-placed stepping stones. Lighting the way with a kiss of words. Breathing life and bringing love to heart, soul and mind.

feeling the absurd compels some of us to try again and again and ... just in order to breathe freely. 'Well, there ain't no clowns in foxholes' – yeah but why effin' not (since that's probably where clowns are most needed)?! — 180 Proof

Crossing rivers with no falling into streams of self-importance. Simply, personal. A beautiful breath. :flower:
Thank you @180 Proof :heart:

Amity

Sophocles' Oedipus the King is worthy of notice in this regard. Oedipus unwittingly accelerates his demise by uncovering the attempts of his parents to avoid their prophesied fates. — Paine

Strangely enough, the story of Oedipus and the 'catharsis' of Aristotle is related in a YouTube TED lesson I caught yesterday but didn't post (with transcript). An easy 4:25 mins:
Why tragedies are alluring - David E. Rivas

The story goes something like this: A royal, rich, or righteous individual — who is otherwise a lot like us — makes a mistake that sends his or her life spiraling into ruin. It's the classic story arc for a Greek tragedy, and we love it so much that we continue to use it today. David E. Rivas shares three critical story components, influenced by Aristotle’s “Poetics,” to help illustrate the allure.

180 Proof

↪Amity

:blush:

Tragedy and Pleasure?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions