The morality of fantasy
I listen to “The Philosopher’s Zone,” a program broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I listen on Tune In. It’s a good program. The topics are generally interesting and have philosophical depth. They cover everything, including specific philosophers and specific philosophical and social issues. Most of the guests are interesting, articulate, and serious. I just listened to a broadcast called “Virtue, vice, sex, and robots.”
The part that interested me, and raised my hackles, was a discussion by Prof. Rob Sparrow. The question he raised was whether there is something morally or ethically wrong with sexual fantasy about acts that would be considered immoral. The particular subject was rape fantasies, although the ideas would apply to many types of fantasy. The particular context of the question was as part of a discussion of sex robots, including those programmed specifically to simulate resistance.
I have always lived deep in my own mind. I was much more like that when I was younger. I lived a vivid fantasy life, which included all sorts of fantasies, not just sexual. The sexual ones did not include just conventional activities, either heterosexual or homosexual. Some included sexual acts that would be considered non-standard and sometimes disgusting or degrading. I don’t plan to go into my fantasies in any detail in this discussion and I hope others won’t either.
So, when experienced in private, are these types of fantasies moral? Ethical? I’m thinking about whether or not pornography should be included in the discussion. I think I’d rather leave it out because I don’t want to deal with activities that might be considered exploitive.
The part that interested me, and raised my hackles, was a discussion by Prof. Rob Sparrow. The question he raised was whether there is something morally or ethically wrong with sexual fantasy about acts that would be considered immoral. The particular subject was rape fantasies, although the ideas would apply to many types of fantasy. The particular context of the question was as part of a discussion of sex robots, including those programmed specifically to simulate resistance.
I have always lived deep in my own mind. I was much more like that when I was younger. I lived a vivid fantasy life, which included all sorts of fantasies, not just sexual. The sexual ones did not include just conventional activities, either heterosexual or homosexual. Some included sexual acts that would be considered non-standard and sometimes disgusting or degrading. I don’t plan to go into my fantasies in any detail in this discussion and I hope others won’t either.
So, when experienced in private, are these types of fantasies moral? Ethical? I’m thinking about whether or not pornography should be included in the discussion. I think I’d rather leave it out because I don’t want to deal with activities that might be considered exploitive.
Comments (49)
I bet if you put that question to a poll, nearly everyone aged less than about 50 would say 'no problem'. Crusty conservatives, including myself, would not agree. There was a similar case in the US about a decade ago, concerning simulated child pornography; the case was whether, as the imagery was simulated and no actual children were involved, ought it be banned. I *think* the original judgement was that it ought not to be banned. But then, pornography of all kinds is more or less freely available to anyone nowadays. Libertarians will see this as a blow for freedom, conservatives as part of the dissolution of Western culture.
Morality involves judgement, who will judge you? You could answer "myself", but do you really control what happens in your imagination?
What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas is the saying. I think that as long as your thoughts are 100% private them no one, not even yourself should need to judge them. Being fantasies they have no realistic value.
Imagine day dreaming of solving all of your financial problems by robing a bank. You dream out all of the plans, the execution of it and then an image of someone getting shot jumps into your dream. Did you really intend for that to happen?
I should have. I didn't even think of it.
Quoting Wayfarer
That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, although I think pornography is more complicated. Making that type of thing publically available and acceptable, even if it wouldn't lead to dangerous behavior (which is open to question), would probably set a tone that would make the most vulnerable people feel threatened. That to me is a clear reason to consider it morally wrong. That's why I questioned whether we should include pornography in the discussion. Now that I think of it though, having pornography to compare fantasy with may be helpful.
I think that's the heart of the question. I'm in general pretty comfortable with my internal life. Whatever goes on there, I lead what I consider an honorable life. I try to treat people with respect and protect vulnerable people. I've never let my fantasies out of my head except in two situations 1) As part of a sexual relationship and 2) In conversation with one friend with whom I discuss sexual issues in a non-prurient way. That can be very liberating.
What would happen if I did make my fantasies more public. I think a lot of people would not want to be around me. I think I would feel the same way if someone I knew did the same thing. That's why I find this issue interesting.
Is watching pornography a stimulant or a learning method?
Lots of people say that watching porn makes the people want to copy what they see, but would they watch something that disgusted them.
I am not a fan of watching porn but I am pretty sure that I would not want to watch something that involved violence. So I could not learn about violent sex from it.
Someone with a slightly different way of looking at sex might like a bit of rough sex, but does he/she need porn to learn from.
Kids are something else, many do use porn as a learning resource. But would they really go out and start slapping their young partners around just because they saw it in a porn film? I seriously doubt they would have many opportunities for sex if they tried it.
I definitely don't think it is a learning method for the great majority of users. In my personal experience, it is a substitute for or source of fantasy. Again, for me the difference between pornography and fantasy is that pornography is public and has implications for people other than the producer and user, even if no one is specifically exploited during it's production.
That would depend on what the fantasies were, who knows you might even get offers of participation.
But if you started talking about how you would like to find out what sex with a goat was like, then yes I would be the first one out of the door.
Well, of course. I can say this, the discussion I had about my fantasies with my friend had a very strong impact on me. Talking about sex with her is always enlightening. She is one of the most sexual and unflappable people I've ever met. One of the strongest feelings of validation I've ever had was when she told me my fantasies were "interesting." I can't imagine anyone else responding that way. Certainly anyone I know.
No there isn't. The standard is consenting adults. If myself and one or more likeminded adults content to get together and engage in mutually agreeable behaviors, that is the definition of an ethically permissible state.
Now if two people of legal age pretend to be underage, that's not illegal, immoral, or unethical. Let alone if I have a private fantasy in my brain. Ethics and morals are about what you DO. It's a behavioral standard
Let me give a nonsexual example. Some moron cuts me off on the freeway. For a moment I think, "Man if only I had a machine gun mounted on the roof!" But of course that's just something the mind does, serves up a little irrational revenge fantasy almost as a coping mechanism to defuse some anger. There is never any intent within me to murder someone and of course I take no behavioral actions in furtherance of doing them harm. These days I don't even honk. I drive the California freeways and you don't know who's going to shoot at you for looking crosseyed at them.
But that's an example where my mind, my internal dialog, entertains a fantasy that I have no intention of acting out; and even at the moment I'm having the fantasy it's not real, it's not something I think I' going to do. It's just human nature, a little quirk of the brain. Momentarily imagine violence against someone who annoyed you.
So that's my two cents. Anything at all in your brain, no matter how horrible, is legal, moral, and ethical. That's why by the way I oppose hate crime laws. It's already illegal to hurt people. If you do it while thinking a particular thought, that is nobody's business. You are allowed to think your thoughts. Hate crime laws are literally Orwellian "thought crimes." We're going to punish you for what you think.
No. That's wrong. It's a basic human right to think what you think. It's what you DO that we judge.
I don't disagree with anything you said. That's one of the reasons I was annoyed by the guy on the broadcast. He was pretty definitive that fantasies about degrading behavior were immoral or unethical. and to be fair, thinking about shooting the guy who just cut you off, which I do on a regular basis, seems different to me than a fantasy about degrading another person. Obviously, that depends on what your sexual fantasy is.
If they are experienced in private then they are neither moral or immoral, the fantasies just "are" and no one is there to judge and even if you did share, I think you would be surprised what others would think you would be surprised to learn about them and their fantasies.
As far as robotic resistance? Or cyber controlled stimulants? I think any of these new tech twists on an old game can really liven things up for the bored married folks, allow intimacy over a long distance without risk to physical being to having a robot resist sexual advances made on it.
I have a feeling that I as a woman, have far less of an issue with the idea of robotic sex since from the age of 21, self pleasure with a battery operated boy friend has always been in and out of the picture.
For example, perhaps when the "fantasy rapist" is with a partner they are unable to be with the other in authentic solicitude (Heidegger's concept). Their rape fantasy would get in the way of this authentic solicitude, and the other would be reduced to a prop. Their sexual union would be structured around dishonesty. Dishonesty is a vice. Thus rape fantasy is not merely amoral, but indirectly immoral...
What someone thinks about, and feels towards, their actions is 100% ethically relevant!
So let's say there are two types of people; people who can indulge in fantasies about immoral sexual acts without this making it more likely that they would commit them, and people who can't. Then the problem is: can you be sure you know which type you are, given that none of us is an unbiased observer of ourselves?
I share this opinion up to a certain point. But fantasy is also something that one does, and is therefore up to be judged. I can't, for example, not judge someone as sick and immoral who self-pleasures while thinking about raping and murdering a child. Surely you can't either.
I agree, but I'd like to hear what someone with definitive opinions on the other side of the question has ot say.
I think maybe you are getting at what the guy on The Philosopher's Zone was talking about. More broadly, as a person who has lived a deeply internal life, I know it can be a very self-destructive way of living and can cut you off from honest, loving relationships and a satisfying life. Again, I'm not just talking about sexual fantasy. I guess I still don't think that makes it immoral.
Another possible interpretation - If your internal life lays the foundation for your character, which I'm not sure about, it may have a deep impact on your ability to act morally.
Good points. The radio program talked about the likelihood of fantasy leading to action only fleetingly. The speaker wanted to make the point that it doesn't matter, the fantasy is potentially immoral either way.
As for the two types of people argument, I hadn't thought of that. I guess I'd say that being able to judge our intentions, strengths, and weaknesses is at the heart of being a moral person. If we are not qualified to judge the effects of our fantasies, who is. Not sure about that. You've made a good point.
I think that's the type of example that tests the principle. If others knew about that fantasy, they would not let their children within a mile of the person. And they'd be right.
Also, as has been mentioned, there might be some people that can't lock them out and fantasies just strengthen the urges, but this doesn't bring them to the moral realm without an actual action. If one actually carries out a disturbing fantasy, then we can say that she shouldn't have fantasied about it, but chances are, she was already on the way to the action due to her weakness before the urge. If one however, say a paedophile, never carries out an action, then she has not done anything wrong, and should maybe even be commended for it. Since the fantasy has not been acted out however, the reality of the urge is, I think, to be questioned. It never found its steps into reality, so maybe what the urge was about was not what is thought to be its end.
And indeed, is any willing of something completely known? We don't know their causes, as is shown by the constant belief in "free will". So any actual decision is based on something irrational, and this irrational I think finds expression in fantasies. There's a lot of taking away in them; they don't necessarily consider people as people with a past, the actual thinker can appear as someone completely different, the imagined visual image is unclear and emphasises again and again that which captures the thinkers attention right now, depending on what his drive right now is. You can, for example, be quite certain that the very unrealistic, idealised portrayal of children in Japanese hentai has quite a few fans that would never actually like to see such things in photos, and so on. Would imagining the drawings be that different from imagining an actual child? I don't think the visible difference would be enormous, nor the difference between other content.
I feel like I'm all over the place, but the point is this: Societal life can be incredibly restrictive, and many aspects of the human nature can't be expressed in it, but are pushed down by force as something bad. To find ways to let these urges out without harm is maybe even a necessity for the society. Moreover, even bypassing into the "wrong" might work as an encouragement for disturbing fantasies, so the real end of the urge from which the fantasy is born is even more unclear. The thing to be judged are the actions and the quality of the person (unfortunately also shown through actions).
I think you are being presumptuous here. Many people, men included, have rape fantasies where they are the victims. I will not go into anything more personal here. In a way, that seems more natural to me. It allows someone to avoid the responsibility for their urges.
Quoting SomXtatis
Good point. You were talking about Japan - from my limited experience, Japanese culture seems much more restrictive than ours and they seem to be comfortable with kinkiness and violence.
And yeah, Japan is pretty restrictive as far as I can tell, but I think similar effects could happen in a less restrictive environment with a person with stronger drive to that direction. Probably this would involve earlier exposure to this kinkiness in some way, so culture definitely helps in other ways too.
Does the fact that a person fantasizes about doing something mean that they would actually do it?
Many have thought about killing themselves, but they don't all do it.
I have fantasized about becoming a super hero, not got around to it yet though.
I agree that someone is probably more disposed toward certain types of behavior if one gets pleasure from them, but between thinking about hurting someone and actually doing it there is a big gap.
You don't take chances with your children. Also, whether or not they would participate in a particular behavior, the fantasy says something about how that person thinks and sees other people. Actually, maybe it's more that making your fantasies public shows that you are the kind of person who does not understand appropriate human boundaries. I hadn't thought about that. I think it makes a lot of sense. That may be the heart of the matter - no moral judgment for fantasies you keep secret. Moral judgment for those you expose without considering their impact on other people.
Speaking of which - two of my favorite... artists I guess, are Robert Crumb and Louis C.K. Both fill their work with blatantly and intentionally objectionable sexual content that could reasonably be considered misogynistic, although I don't think they are. They bare men's violent and degrading fantasies as an act of art. I find their work funny, moving, humane, and courageous. I think Crumb might agree with that characterization, but I'm pretty sure C.K. would ridicule me.
By the way, one of my favorite movies is "Crumb," a documentary about his life and art. To me, it is a moving demonstration of how a person's life can be saved by their art.
I worry about the ones that say what they think, but how can you worry about the ones that don't?
As I said the ones that do have fantasizes would be more likely to do something than others, but no one knows what goes on in other peoples' heads. Just look at the number of honorable members of the churches get into things that are not very nice.
Oh. Rats.
If one believes in an omniscient God from whom nothing can be hidden, the content of one's mind is as open for inspection as ones public acts. Talk about Big Brother!
Isn't there a difference between fantasy and mental planning and rehearsal with the intent of execution? I like to fantasize about winning $100,000,000 in a lottery, but this fantasy isn't organized around buying a lottery ticket. I like to fantasize about designing a city, but I have zero interest in actual urban planning. Sexual fantasies are the same kind of fantasy as winning a lottery: They are not organized around actual performance.
On the other hand, I have thought about, imagined, and rehearsed a long bicycle ride which I intended to do. Mentally rehearsing a particular performance (like pitching a curve ball) seems to improve performance. Rehearsing a flight made by flapping one's arms won't get one off the ground, no matter what. One can still imagine doing it.
Sexual, masturbatory fantasies may be all sorts of things, but they do not lead to enactment. Actual masturbation is on one track, the fantasy is on an altogether different track -- different gauge, different engine, different in all respects.
Fantasies are not acts, and can not be judged as acts. There is no analogy between fantasy and act.
You are old enough to remember what Jimmy Carter said. I think it was before he got elected. He said that he had sinned by "lusting in his heart."
Quoting Bitter Crank
The question I was thinking about when I opened this discussion is whether some fantasy is immoral even if we can be sure it will not lead to immoral action. You say no and I pretty much agree, but I wanted to bash the idea around.
I've enjoyed the discussion.
Another angle on whether a fantasy can be moral or immoral is whether we choose what we find arousing, or whether it is below the level of choice. I'm not sure how much we choose to fantasize, and how much of what we fantasize about seems to arrive unbidden, rather than be ordered up How much of our minds are we in positive control of? Some, certainly, but not all of it.
The kind of objects we find sexually arousing aren't picked from a menu; it's more that we discover what we find arousing. Some people find sexual satisfaction in being bound, gagged, and whipped (literally). I don't know what accounts for such polymorphous perversity, but if it's not altogether uncommon in behavior, it seems to be de regueur in fantasy.
We fantasize about many things other than sex. A good deal of our fantasy wouldn't bear public examination, either, even if these fantasies are not in the least obscene, immoral, illegal, or contrary to the national interest -- it's just that they are our own, structured for our own amusement or interest, and not intended for anyone else.
Quoting T Clark
I find this piece of Christian teaching very troublesome. Equating lustful thoughts with adultery, hateful thoughts with murder, is just too literalist an approach. Intentions matter, certainly, but I prefer a morality that applies to acts, rather than wishful thinking. One might donate a million dollars to an excellent Christian charity solely for the purpose of getting public recognition, glory, admiration, etc. Christians (who would certainly accept the money) would also say that one should give for selfless reasons if one wishes to be good.
But the fact is, the charity got the million dollars, whatever the intention, and that is a good thing.
If there is an all-knowing God, then he will have to sort out our good, bad, ambiguous, conflicted, muddled, indecipherable intentions. Here on earth, we will be doing well if we are merely above average at telling good acts from bad acts.
As I wrote back at the beginning of this discussion, when I was young I lived my life internally. That meant that much of my life experience was fantasy. It is a self-destructive way to live. These were not primarily sexual fantasies, especially before I reached puberty. I'm trying to think back and see whether or not I chose what I fantasized about.
I remember some with very detailed, convoluted story lines. I was the protagonist and the story lines were of me being effective, competent, brave, and well-liked - things I was deeply ashamed of not being. The details came from my imagination. It was storytelling. But the motivation was under my control. It was intentional. I was a smart kid. I used my brain to figure out a way to get what I wanted.
It surprises me how well I remember what it felt like more than 50 years ago.
He's obsessed with censoring the poets in order to remove false notions and acceptance of vice from effecting the young (which I think less than 50 in his definition).
He proposes a interesting idea. If in all media and stories told to children and adults, the characters only use kindness and cooperation and even villains never practice violence would people be violent? Of course we still get angry and do things we regret, but I wonder if violence was never portrayed it might not be emulated except by mistake.
I've always found it odd how openly morally and conservative people can listen to music about violence and promiscuity.
Here's a quick thought experiment. Let's say your are listening to the radio or your iTunes playlist (where you have no control over the songs other than the station) in your car and got into a wreck where you pinned and cannot change the station or turn it off. When the police get to you are they correct in judging your moral character by the song currently playing? If not, then why were you listening to it?
People with no access to media of any kind can be violent and immoral. I would guess just as much as people who have books, TV, computers, and cell phones. Not sure about that. People have been talking about the evil effects of TV, radio, comic books, computers, video games, science fiction, pulp novels, theater, movies, .... forever.
Bringing it back to fantasy and your thought experiment. I've been talking about the difference between fantasy that's kept inside vs. that which is exposed to others. Is your thought experiment the same question? Does the fact that someone knows about what goes on inside you matter in terms of it's morality?
I think and hope that the police officers will not care what is playing on my radio.
I think fantasy and media (everything from written and oral stories to movies and video games) are highly related. If you like fantasizing about fetishes wouldn't you likely consume media about that and there by strengthen the fetish?
Have you heard the popular Native American parable of the two wolves (one good and one evil) and how the one you feed gets stronger?
Of course the police should treat you the same regardless if you listen to Jay Z or motzart. But they'd still have a first impression and quick judgement.
You just said:
Quoting MysticMonist
We can not trust the fantasies of anyone who misspells Mozart. Take him away.
Quoting MysticMonist
Stephen Pinker The Better Angels of our Nature showed that humans were more violent in the past (like... 15,000 years ago or more) than they are now, because we have developed cultures of central control -- eg, the state. Where there are strong states making people responsible for their violent behavior, violence is reduced.
Even if we can watch dozens of murders, and other crimes, on television, even if we can watch videos depicting every conceivable vanilla or kinky preference, even if we are able to meet and greet others who like the same kinky stuff, we are still responsible to the state for our behavior.
Why doesn't fantasy bleed into daily life on a steady and regular basis? It doesn't because fantasy is, itself, wish fulfillment. A man can imagine raping another man, or one can imagine being the man who is raped, without having to actually do it. A properly conducted fantasy ends in satisfaction.
I hasten to repeat that there is a difference between "fantasy" and "rehearsal". Someone may rehearse the performance of a sex crime in detail. Chances are, the rehearsal is imagined with quite a bit of realistic detail, and quite possibly involved actual people as victims. The rehearsal isn't intended to satisfy one's desire, it is intended to prepare for execution. I can fantasize about pitching a no-score game. Rehearsing the kind of pitches I might use would be an entirely different cognitive experience.
Does the difference between fantasy and rehearsal make sense to you?
Hmmm... yes there is a big difference from fantasy and rehearsal.
Common sense would say Plato's wrong to try to censor everything. Obviously violent video games don't make anyone who plays them murderers.
However, it is also obvious that you can't consume regular amounts of extremely violent or perverse content without it affecting you in any way.
But in general sure, I'll agree with you and not with Plato. At least censorship isnt going to solve all our problems.
Take a hypothetical murderer. There are a lot of factors that make someone a murder. Exposure to violent media is not in and of itself ever going to cause them to kill or not kill someone.
What about a parent though? Since you want to raise ethical and not psychologicaly damaged kids would you keep away R rated movies when they are five?
What about being a virtue seeking adult? Would you avoid overly gruesome films with senseless violence and poor moral messages? Would you pride yourself and think you were doing some worthy by boycotting anything with so much as a cuss word?
I think it all comes down to moderation, common sense, and your conscious. I didn't really think about how I came off like the thought police in my last post.
I don't know if this was your point, but you taught me an interesting thing about censorship. It sounds great in theory and it's a tempting way to advance your views or moral code. But it's playing with fire and once you start it would be difficult to allow any freedom. As a society I think it's best to allow nearly anything and let individuals and families choose. (So censorship with channels so I know what I'm getting when I turn on the TV, but allow all kinds of channels).
When I was a child (born 1946) we went to the local movie house once a week. The fare was quite often second rate westerns in which cowboys and indians were shot. The plots were very low-key and the shooting and dying was perfunctory -- not even remotely realistic. Sometimes we re-enacted the story when we got home. Was this harmful? I don't think so. But these were very formulaic movies with very low-intensity drama levels.
I don't think children should be watching TV, films, or other media which frequently depict killing in realistic blood-drenched fashion with lots of screaming, howling, and terror. Of course one wouldn't want anyone's children emulating this kind of behavior, but I don't think the intensity of this sort of show -- even if it didn't involve killing -- belongs in the minds of children. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf isn't suitable fare for younger people either -- no blood, no killings, but lots of very adult anger and drinking. Lots of movies deal with adult themes that children should not be burdened with. (Of course, children shouldn't be burdened with some of their parents' behavior either, but that's another problem.)
Quoting MysticMonist
I do avoid gruesome films with senseless violence and poor moral messages. There are quite a few films that I saw and enjoyed in my prime movie-going years that I positively can not stand to watch now. I think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is a great movie, but the last time I saw it, it left me angry and agitated. I walked out of Bonnie and Clyde the last time I tried to watch it again. Just too much gratuitous blood, death, etc.
I don't like horror and monster movies, either -- not because they are immoral, but because I find them upsetting. I'm a sucker for all the tricks of the people-frightening trade. I read On the Road by Cormac McCarthy -- it starts at bleak and it goes down hill from there. It was OK as a book. I decided to watch the movie too and found it unbearable. I didn't want vivid images of the desolation of On the Road floating around my memory, so I quit after about 5 minutes.
I don't think children should see movies like Bonnie and Clyde or The Godfather. The story lines are too adult, too intense, and the depictions are too vivid. But then, I wouldn't take a child to watch an Ingmar Bergman film either -- like The Seventh Seal or Wild Strawberries. Children would find them terminally boring, at best. Casablanca would be OK for children to see -- at worst they wouldn't appreciate it.
Mad Men, Breaking Bad -- both very good shows, I thought; just not children's movies.
No doubt all the cowboy and Indian movies affected the way I thought about American Indians--and cowboys, for that matter. One couldn't watch Gone with the Wind without getting a skewed view of blacks. What few horror shows I saw as I child (we weren't allowed, usually) gave me phobias about the dark.
That is interesting. I am much the same, I also avoid movies containing extreme violence, horror movies, and the like. Even "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was quite painful to watch. Lately, I actually pretty much avoid all movies :s - I just don't find them enjoyable anymore. When I was a teenager and 20 or so I loved going to the cinema with friends, nowadays, it would be so boring to go, and I wouldn't feel much better for having gone afterwards.
One of the last great movies I've watched (long ago) and liked was this one:
The most hilarious part was at the end, when grandmother meets her own highschool rival and they say the following to each other:
But yes, there is no doubt that watching things and even fantasizing changes your brain. We know for a scientific fact that watching someone do something and doing the same thing yourself in real life fires the same parts of the brain. Essentially, in both cases, in the moment, the brain has the same experience. So obviously if - say - someone has a rape fantasy and plays it in their mind, it affects their brain the same way as a real rape would in the moment. And if a real rape is harmful to your own psyche, then so is the fantasy of rape. Obviously, though, the fantasy does not cause harm to anyone else though, so there is a difference in terms of one being morally more serious than the other.
Yep, after having seen a horror movie I always became more paranoid >:O - I never understood how people could watch such things.
I was the same until I saw Twin Peaks. The primary element in horror as a genre is the unknown. Not gore, terror, disgusting things...manipulate that element of the unknown, and horror becomes a totally different experience. And philosophically, the unknown has a nearly boundless energy all it's own, hence the potency of the unknown in art.
I don't really see your point.
I'd say the primary element in horror is the terrible unknown. You don't know what it is, but you do know, with certainty, that it will be horrifying and terrible - and that makes it even more horrifying and terrible. So it's definitely not just the unknown simpliciter - because the unknown could be pleasant as much as it could be painful.
Have you seen Twin Peaks?
No! >:O - is that bad?
No... :) It's a weird show, after all. But, as I said in my initial post here, I was never a fan of horror as a genre until I watched Twin Peaks (ok, writing the music to a short horror film for a friend of mine was also a factor). Suffice it to say I have a weak stomach like you and .
What a show like Twin Peaks does, is that it plays with your perception of reality. It plays with your perception of what's known and unknown. So the feeling of horror isn't the feeling of watching someone be brutally murdered ala Hollywood; the feeling of horror is simply the feeling of not knowing what the fuck is happening; philosophically, it's analogous to the feeling of existential dread. Sorry, I'll end my thread-derailment there.
I still don't follow - maybe you should start a thread on the feeling of horror >:O
Because the issue is what you're describing above sounds like existential confusion, which can be horrifying but by itself it isn't the essence of all horror. It can be the cherry on top of the cake so to say, but it can't be the essence. Surely what is horrifying is the certainty that something bad will happen, whereas the existential confusion that you speak about can create a sort of paranoia that something bad is happening since you can't make heads or tails anymore, and hence you can no longer use reason to protect yourself from what is now perceived to be inevitably bad.
Actually, I kind of did, but it didn't receive much attention, which is what I expected.
Quoting Agustino
Not at all; certainty is the antithesis of horror.
Quoting Agustino
Your description here seems to highlight my point.
Try posting in the Phil/art subforum sometime. :P appreciate your thoughts there regardless.