Blood and Games
I think this post might find a place here, in the Ethics category, or in Political Philosophy, or in Philosophy of Art. I'm not sure where, or even if, it belongs in this forum. Let's find out.
A story about the recent recovery of the helmet of a gladiator in Pompeii caught my attention. Those who've been to Pompeii know the remains of a ludus (roughly, a gladiator "school") may be seen there, so this isn't a surprising discovery. But we have a fascination for blood games which doesn't seem to abate, and it may be said the Roman ludi, the public games featuring gladiators, are blood games par excellence.
Of course we've "enjoyed" blood games or sports throughout our history. But I don't want to address our delight in "blood sports" in which animals fight one another, or people fight or otherwise kill animals, though the study of the grotesque rituals and ceremonies involved in bullfighting or fox hunting may be interesting in a way. I want to address human games which feature human blood as an expectation or end.
I'm not sure if it's correct to say we play them still, except in the case of certain martial arts where drawing blood may signal or hasten the end of the game. People may be seriously hurt in other games like American football, but much as we like to think of football players as especially daring and powerful and (I suppose it must be said) masculine, they'd probably appear as perfumed, posturing dandies next to Roman gladiators, who risked death and being maimed by weapons used to kill and maim every day. Pudgy Teddy Roosevelt liked to proclaim the virtues of the "man in the arena" (and it seems Tom Brady does as well), but there've been no true arena contests since the games were outlawed in around 400 A.D. or C.E.
The Roman games weren't what they've been depicted as by Hollywood. We know from sources that gladiator contests were heavily regulated by the equivalent of referees. They were ornate and organized in the sense that they paired gladiators with different equipment and skills against one another. The helmet found in Pompeii was that worn by a Secutor, who was heavily armored and paired in fights against a Retiarus who wore no body armor and wielded a trident and a net. Gladiators underwent extensive training. Gladiator fights were generally not necessarily fights to the death, though death could result. Bouts would be stopped where one gladiator "gave up" (though his fate might be determined by the emperor or sponsor of the games, if he fought well his life could be spared). Given the life expectancy of the time, a gladiator might not die much earlier than any other Roman. Gladiators who fought well could be granted the status of free men if enslaved (not all were slaves; some were former soldiers, some were even aristocrats, some were citizens who fell on hard times). Gladiators were glorified in a sense.
Sources indicate the Romans thought that a gladiator who fought well was an example of courage, discipline, honor and strength, even and perhaps especially in the face of death. Gladiators possessed virtues of a sort, in other words. It was on this basis that the games were defended by some Romans--for the example they set. Romans admired the skill of many gladiators. Skill in fighting and killing, of course. The Romans were a military society; a cruel society in many ways. But fighting was considered a kind of art. Tertullian, a Christian and therefore an enemy of the games, claimed that those who defended the games and were fans of the games admired the art involved, but considered the artists to be inferior in social status.
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? May blood games of this sort be examples of art?
Thinking of our own times, sports (though much less bloody and risky relatively speaking than the games) are sometimes thought to instill virtue or involve a sort of artistry. You know, the "playing fields of Eton" sort of virtue, at least. Do they? If our sports do, and the Roman games did not, why is that the case?
A story about the recent recovery of the helmet of a gladiator in Pompeii caught my attention. Those who've been to Pompeii know the remains of a ludus (roughly, a gladiator "school") may be seen there, so this isn't a surprising discovery. But we have a fascination for blood games which doesn't seem to abate, and it may be said the Roman ludi, the public games featuring gladiators, are blood games par excellence.
Of course we've "enjoyed" blood games or sports throughout our history. But I don't want to address our delight in "blood sports" in which animals fight one another, or people fight or otherwise kill animals, though the study of the grotesque rituals and ceremonies involved in bullfighting or fox hunting may be interesting in a way. I want to address human games which feature human blood as an expectation or end.
I'm not sure if it's correct to say we play them still, except in the case of certain martial arts where drawing blood may signal or hasten the end of the game. People may be seriously hurt in other games like American football, but much as we like to think of football players as especially daring and powerful and (I suppose it must be said) masculine, they'd probably appear as perfumed, posturing dandies next to Roman gladiators, who risked death and being maimed by weapons used to kill and maim every day. Pudgy Teddy Roosevelt liked to proclaim the virtues of the "man in the arena" (and it seems Tom Brady does as well), but there've been no true arena contests since the games were outlawed in around 400 A.D. or C.E.
The Roman games weren't what they've been depicted as by Hollywood. We know from sources that gladiator contests were heavily regulated by the equivalent of referees. They were ornate and organized in the sense that they paired gladiators with different equipment and skills against one another. The helmet found in Pompeii was that worn by a Secutor, who was heavily armored and paired in fights against a Retiarus who wore no body armor and wielded a trident and a net. Gladiators underwent extensive training. Gladiator fights were generally not necessarily fights to the death, though death could result. Bouts would be stopped where one gladiator "gave up" (though his fate might be determined by the emperor or sponsor of the games, if he fought well his life could be spared). Given the life expectancy of the time, a gladiator might not die much earlier than any other Roman. Gladiators who fought well could be granted the status of free men if enslaved (not all were slaves; some were former soldiers, some were even aristocrats, some were citizens who fell on hard times). Gladiators were glorified in a sense.
Sources indicate the Romans thought that a gladiator who fought well was an example of courage, discipline, honor and strength, even and perhaps especially in the face of death. Gladiators possessed virtues of a sort, in other words. It was on this basis that the games were defended by some Romans--for the example they set. Romans admired the skill of many gladiators. Skill in fighting and killing, of course. The Romans were a military society; a cruel society in many ways. But fighting was considered a kind of art. Tertullian, a Christian and therefore an enemy of the games, claimed that those who defended the games and were fans of the games admired the art involved, but considered the artists to be inferior in social status.
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? May blood games of this sort be examples of art?
Thinking of our own times, sports (though much less bloody and risky relatively speaking than the games) are sometimes thought to instill virtue or involve a sort of artistry. You know, the "playing fields of Eton" sort of virtue, at least. Do they? If our sports do, and the Roman games did not, why is that the case?
Comments (48)
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/the-therapeutic-experience-of-being-suspended-by-your-skin/262644/
It's art, it's therapy, and it's traditional, and even lawyers do it. You can have my place in the queue.
And I won't be joining this tribe either, wimp that I am: https://www.travellerspoint.com/community/oceania/crocodile-initiation-ceremony-sepik-river-papua-new-guinea/
I think Hemingway and Mailer felt this. Something becomes art generally by agreement. Is sport art or a craft - the execution of something functional? I think boxing is still very much tied to this line of putative virtue. In work with prisoners and young people boxing is still seen as a pathway that enhances character. The idea being it teaches discipline and courage and you have to follow the rules/code.
I personally think this is largely nonsense - playing the flute would probably accomplish the same end, but it isn't as cool and there's no blood unless you do it wrong. And it is probably true that any activity that helps people take their minds of drug use and hanging out looking for trouble is helpful in some way. Even golf...
There is a lot of quasi mystical virtue stuff written about sport that I have never understood. Most sport seems to come with a mystique and a lore - especially those which involve ritualistic combat. Think Spanish bullfighting...
You rambled very nicely and provided an interesting, well-thought-out, and well-written post.
Gladiators were slaves. Period. It did not matter whether they were virtuous or not. Their own wills were not involved in the decision whether to partake in the fight or not. They were thrown in to fight, WETHER THEY WANTED TO BE THERE OR NOT, and they had to fight to survive.
If you see any valor in that, I admire you.
What about the aristocrats who participated? Did they do so entirely by choice or did it have something to do with status or wealth?
Given that the height of gladiatorial fights manifest in modern day boxing, I believe that incidents like what Mike Tyson did to his opponents ear-lobe-no longer occurring-makes us modern "men", so much less, "masculine".
Obviously, men have aggrievances over this fact. To whom, nobody really knows.
Two things should happen for gladiators to be virtuous:
1. Their behavior should be seen as good or admirable by others. I don't know if that was the case. Maybe people watched them because they were interesting to watch, but not because those fights were the manifestation of good.
2. They should believe in what they do. Being a gladiator should be seen as their choice among many other less virtuous alternatives. I'm not sure it if was the case either.
I'm thinking about professional wrestling matches, where people put in a show to entertain others. I don't see them as virtuous for doing entertainment. Serial killers also come to my mind. Some of them treat their doings as a form of art, but that doesn't make them virtuous. On the other hand, killing can be seen as virtuous in proper circumstances.
Erudite OP. Thanks.
I didn't watch Squid Game. I understand that the premiss was folk being forced into a blood game by way of looming bankruptcy. Not unlike forcing a slave into the ludi. The lust for bloodsport seems unabated, in that such a premise proved so enticing to many.
Humans fighting humans (Roman gladiators) [math]\rightarrow[/math] Animal fighting (cockfights) [math]\rightarrow[/math] Robot combat (Robot Wars/Battlebots).
Is this progress or what?
Roman gladiators were slaves; the etymology of the word "robot" is slave.
Virtualize combat: drones, robot army of the Trade Federation (Star Wars).
These seem a different kind of game, though. In the Roman games, endurance of pain was valuable, but not the end in view, nor was it accepted or self-inflicted as worthy or redeeming in itself. Gladiators fought one another, and were successful because they were more skillful than their opponent, less fearful, more disciplined. Many were forced to fight, I'm sure, but we know some did so willingly. They put themselves at risk from others who would do them harm, relying on themselves and their training to avoid it--if they were good enough at the game.
Thank you.
Oh yes. I can't understand Hemingway's fondness for bullfighting. No doubt there's risk involved, and I suppose the matador must, to be seen as admirable, kill the bull in certain ways, and that may involve skill. But it still is simply a celebration of a man killing a beast, and I can't think of that as impressive in any sense, particularly as the picadors typically weaken the animal and goad it before the matador is exposed to harm. Hunting doesn't strike me as admirable or worthy either. Using firearms to kill animals who pose no threat normally isn't exactly glorious.
So I think there must be something more involved in the game, or sport, in order for it to be deemed art or an example of virtue worthy of admiration to those who think it such.
Quoting Tom Storm
A reasonable view. But how account for the mystique, the appeal of blood games in that case? Is the reference to virtue and artistry mere puffery? It's hard to deny the appeal. I'm hardly an athlete or heroic figure, but I've enjoyed competing in "combat" sports like fencing, and gave Escrima a try; I've enjoyed shooting clays (not birds or animals, though). These certainly aren't blood games (though Escrima can be) and merely mimic them, but competing in them seems to be satisfying in a peculiar way. You feel a sense of worth when you successfully hack at and stab someone with a sabre while being hacked at and stabbed (at least I did). I imagine a boxer or martial arts contestant would feel something similar.
A good question. From what I've read, reasons for their participation varied. Some were down on their luck and turned to the games, some merely wanted to, some wanted to impress women (who it seems would fawn upon gladiators if the ancient graffiti is any indication). I don't think an aristocrat would think to increase his status by fighting in the games, as it seems gladiators, though admired, were thought to be of inferior social status.
Commodus, of course, is the most famous example of an aristocrat who fought as a gladiator. He was a special case, though, as an Emperor could do much as he wanted to do as long as he mollified the Senate and controlled the legions, no matter how ridiculous he was thought to be. He managed to do that for a time, but was strangled by a wrestler in his bath. He apparently thought his prowess as a gladiator and athlete made him popular with the people and discouraged assassination.
I think there’s a difference between physically exerting your strength over another person and learning a skill like playing an instrument. It may not be PC to say, but I think a lot of men particularly have a need to exert their strength; whether it’s through violence, physical labor, or exercise. There seems to be a tension that can only be released through it. In this way, sports are a healthy way to release this aggressive impulse.
I think there’s a reason why you won’t find many (any?) flutists that are physically elite. Those who are exceptionally strong, fast, agile, etc. tend to pursue activities/occupations that allow them to demonstrate these abilities. And they do so because it’s intrinsically rewarding. It feels fun to knock the shit out of someone, especially when the social stigma against doing such a thing is lifted, so that there’s no need to feel guilt or remorse for doing and taking pleasure in what is usually considered immoral. The praise and potential for significant monetary gain also help reinforce it, of course.
That's because your opinion of him is too humanistic.
It's rather strange that as a lawyer, you don't see life as a struggle for survival/the upper hand.
Quoting Pinprick
And this is pretty much the problem with this topic. It's about something that people generally actually like and admire (and prove so by paying to watch or do it), but there is a taboo on talking about it.
Well, you’re right, but I was referring to the “sexism” found in attributing this sort of thing primarily to males.
Competitive, body contact sport (football, boxing, wrestling, etc.) operates under an overlay of "character building". My guess is that if you want to build character, try something else.
The nonsense that justifies body contact sport disguises the action in which a lot of people find pleasure. I don't know whether bloody sports are good or bad, but a lot of people clearly get a charge out of them. The Romans seemed to have been quite open about their blood-sport pleasure. If the gladiatorial games were governed by rules and regs, that would reflect the costs incurred in putting the games on. An expensive dead gladiator wouldn't fight again.
My guess is that the number of programs featuring track and field meets (high school on up) attract paltry audiences--non-existent in comparison to football/basketball. The competitiveness of track and field doesn't (normally) involve aggressive body contact.
Ah, the vicarious pleasures of watching other life struggle, suffer, and die form a safe distance ... maybe with popcorn ready at hand. Not so taboo nowadays, I think. For those who are into it, there’s quite a resurgence of enacting the Ancient Roman dictum of “bread (like fast food for those who can’t afford better) and circus (like the both literal and figurative bloodsports that surround)” … this in our oh so civilized society, so as to keep the vast majority of us appeased in times of ever-increasing want. Always was and always will be so no point in being opposed to this, the attributes of the so called “real world”. Besides, no such thing as the vicarious pleasure of seeing others well off while one is in suffering; and if there is, it doesn’t pertain to the real world anyway.
Am I getting things generally right here? My bad for the tonality if not.
I can enjoy a well played out physical contact sport. I’ve seen quite good, and brutally intense, kickboxing where the competitors gave each other long, earnest fraternal hugs when the match ended. This hugging thing is deemed uncomfortable, un-male-like behavior by many of us. But this same portion of us are not thus uncomforted when a boxer bites off the ear of another.
I take many a competitive sport to be mock-aggression, with or without bodily contact, much like a good portion of childhood play is. Something we engage in as practice for the real thing, but not the real thing itself; certainly not something wherein we must become the victor at any and all costs. I assume there has to be some mock-aggression in the stereotype of girls playing with barbies if there is to be had any fun to begin with in such play. More social than physical, but again serving as practice for the real deal in terms of conflicts.
Generally asking: What has bloodlust to do with this? Well, other than a resurgence in the general populace's desire for it.
I guess there is something primal in all this that reaches into our evolutionary history. Survival is important. I have hired many security guards in my work for protection (people sometimes go apeshit using meth (ice), etc) - I no longer relish rolling around on the ground in fights myself. And there is no question that some guards have exceptional fighting skills (performed in a honourable way with the minimum of force) and they are generally worshipped by the staff who work with them. There is an instant recognition of a kind of nobility in the person who can handle themselves in a brawl, keep their cool and who doesn't need to resort to dirty tricks or extreme retaliation.
Quoting Ciceronianus
I studied Wado Kai karate for 6 or 7 years as a teenager. The appeal was a kind of ritualistic combat combined with a form of mysticism. The idea that you could progress and become a master had a big appeal to some adherents. It provided meaning and community - not unlike a church group. A tournament combined all things humans seem to like - a festival, competition, crowds, spectacle, winners and losers, surprises and prizes.
Good post.
I think admiration of skill and courage is involved in the attraction to blood games, and would think mysticism of a kind could be significant at least among the participants. Not as to the spectators, though. One sees mysticism involved in the Eastern martial arts more than the Western, and that may be part of the tradition which is behind them. The samurai tradition behind Kendo, for example. I wanted to try my hand at Keno once, but was told that I would have to buy the (mock) sword before I could even give it a try. This irritated me.
I think that the festival/spectacle aspect would be significant as well. It certainly was in the Roman games, which were open to the public and typically took place on holidays. I thought this thread might have a place in Political Philosophy because the Roman games were often given by aristocrats (who were usually politicians) to endear themselves to the people. Later, the Emperors wisely prohibited anyone but themselves from holding games.
Such things may account for admiration and popularity. Is there more to it?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Very true. Training, feeding and boarding gladiators was expensive and so were the games. That's why contests weren't fought to the death that often.
Quoting Bitter Crank
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.
:sad: Oh well, let's not spoil the fun! This is the best the world has to offer by way of enjoyment! Schadenfreude is all we got, take it or leave it! Mr. Hobson, hello!? Are you there, sir? Hello!?
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.
But that's not true. Some were, certainly. That was especially the case early on, when they were generally taken from conquered peoples. Some were criminals. But some were freemen, some were equestrians or "knights" (Roman citizens who had less social status than those of the senatorial class, but were usually well off), some were even senators. Grave inscriptions for gladiators establish this was the case as do other sources.
An uncomfortable truth, I think. There's something peculiarly male about this, for good or ill. For example, although there were female gladiators, they were uncommon and a kind of novelty. It may be that the Roman games were exceedingly popular because Rome was a military society--service in the legions was expected even of senators; it was part of the cursus honorium, the course by which senators attained respect and prominence.
Admiration and respect for fighters, how they fought and how they died, can be seen in warrior societies as well.
This may be changing, as some women seem to be becoming interested in combat sports, and the idea isn't as taboo as it once was.
For those who don't know, it's phrase taken from Juvenal, writing about 100 A.D. or C.E. or somewhat later (oddly, during the reigns of the Antonine Emperors, generally considered "good" Emperors, but the dole and public games had been a feature of Roman life for a couple of centuries by then):
[i]They shed their sense of responsibility
Long ago, when they lost their votes, and the bribes; the mob
That used to grant power, high office, the legions, everything,
Curtails its desires, and reveals its anxiety for two things only, Bread and circuses.
‘I hear that many will perish.’ ‘No doubt,
The furnace is huge.'[/i]”
In the Greco-Roman world, before Christianity crushed most of it into the dust, the afterlife was generally considered to be rather dreary and gray, even for the good among us (unless we became gods, as mortals would sometimes do). In other words, it had no appeal to the living. It wasn't something we desired.
So, we judged our worth by glory and virtue in life. Glory consisted of renown for acts done while living. Glory was achieved through courage, bravery, skill--it could not to be achieved when among the dull dead, but one's glory would be remembered by the living. One's death could be glorious. Even a gladiator's death.
Here’s a rephrasing of what I was saying: Mistaking the pleasure of watching well played-out combat sports for the pleasure of bloodlust is on par to mistaking the wails that occur during sexual orgasms for manifestations of suffering. That said, there of course are those who find fun in bloodlust’s fulfilment, this as they find fun the bringing about of others’ suffering via sex - neither of which were unheard of in the Colosseum, for example.
I was ignorant of the phrase's specific origins, so thanks for the reference.
:up:
Quoting javra
:up:
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.
:confused:
Claudius got to be a god, apparently. I haven't read Robert Graves's sequel to I Claudius, Claudius the God, and there hasn't been a BBC / PBS production of it. unfortunately. Given the straitened circumstances of public broadcasting, there probably won't be.
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.
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.
Why else would one watch combat sports, if not for the pleasure of bloodlust?
Gladiator games as catharsis for the masses. A logical continuation of the ancient tradition of tragedy, but tailored for the masses.
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.
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.
[i]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.[/i]
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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, 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.
Not just any death. In some cultures, it is valued to have a "good death". For a soldier, that means dying in combat.
Quoting Ciceronianus
From a brief overview article:
[i]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.[/i]
[i]/.../
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).[/i]
From the concept of "good death" in the ancient world to the modern concept of "euthanasia"
There's plenty of references in the article.
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.
Quoting baker
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.