Superheroes and cynical Fans

[Evil Twin]

I'd be more likely to believe that Alan Moore was a self loathing, pretentious writer who hates comics and wants to be mainstream, if there was an actual link to something to prove this instead of a "paraphrase". If Moore wanted to be mainstream, he'd work for DC or Marvel.

Heck, without a doubt Moore loves the work of Steve Ditko, even if they don't share anything in common in philosophy.

 

[Andy C.]

As much as I enjoy a lot of Moore's writings, I don't think I'm going to take that much stock in the philosophies of a guy who worships a big snake.

 

[Aristotle]

If Moore wanted to be mainstream, he'd work for DC or Marvel.

DC and Marvel are so far from the mainstream, I can't even think of a clever way to end this sentence. They're getting closer with the mainstream success of some of the movies, but comic book fans are still being viewed as nerds in many circles. No, the mainstream is the literary acceptance afforded to cheap porn about supporting characters from Peter Pan, or to cobbling together shared universes by recycling 1800s penny dreadful characters. Or to just saying "**** comics" and writing a novel.

 

[Aristotle]

What exactly is your definition of the term postmodern? I hear a lot of people use it in a lot of different ways.

In this situation, I'm referring to the postmodern moral system (to put it bluntly, morality is nonexistent.)

So simply ignoring it is the way to go?

No, but thinking about solutions instead of just *********ing to one's own ability to contemplate the difficulty of doing so could go a long way.

 

[Aristotle]

As much as I enjoy a lot of Moore's writings, I don't think I'm going to take that much stock in the philosophies of a guy who worships a big snake.

Please tell me that you worship a big man on a cross in the sky.

 

[The Question]

In this situation, I'm referring to the postmodern moral system (to put it bluntly, morality is nonexistent.)

While I have seen examples of modern fiction that reflects a philosophy of non-existent morality, I'm not sure it's as rampant a phenomena as you say. What seems more common to me is the idea that there are situations where finding the moral solution isn't easy, which I think is entirely true. It isn't always easy to do the right thing or see what the right thing is.

No, but thinking about solutions instead of just *********ing to one's own ability to contemplate the difficulty of doing so could go a long way.

I think the solutions are obvious. Want to end war? Don't fight. Want to end racism? Look at people for their worth and accomplishments and now what they look like and where they come from. Want to end poverty? Share the wealth, because the fact is there is enough to go around. We have the answers. But everyone seems to ignore the fact that there's a problem.

 

[RONDC20]

WOW!! This topic took a strangely philosophical turn while I was away, but I suppose it was to be expected.

 

[Aristotle]

While I have seen examples of modern fiction that reflects a philosophy of non-existent morality, I'm not sure it's as rampant a phenomena as you say. What seems more common to me is the idea that there are situations where finding the moral solution isn't easy, which I think is entirely true. It isn't always easy to do the right thing or see what the right thing is.

It is always very simple to do what you believe the right thing is, however. But I disagree with your assessment of the culture. I find that anti-morality, amorality, and nonexistent morality are extremely dominant. Drama, comedy, kids movies, comic books, the news, pop music, it's everywhere. It is life.

I think the solutions are obvious. Want to end war? Don't fight. Want to end racism? Look at people for their worth and accomplishments and now what they look like and where they come from. Want to end poverty? Share the wealth, because the fact is there is enough to go around. We have the answers. But everyone seems to ignore the fact that there's a problem.

But of course, those aren't the answers, not completely, and in this day and age, everyone is aware of the problem. What's preventing real solutions? No one wants to sacrifice what they have to solve the problem. No one has the moral werewithal to be the first to volunteer their wealth for redistribution. No one has the moral werewithal to be the first to unilaterally disarm their military, or even their nukes. No one has the moral werewithal to admit that they've been wrong their whole life about black people or Mexicans or whoever they don't like.

It's not that we can't see there's a problem; we know there's a problem. It's that we only want to fix the problem if it means we don't have to sacrifice anything for it. We won't give of ourselves for the greater good and for the good of others. That is amorality.

 

[Aristotle]

WOW!! This topic took a strangely philosophical turn while I was away, but I suppose it was to be expected.

Actually, it's still right on topic.

 

[RONDC20]

Actually, it's still right on topic.

I never said it wasn't. You know Aristotle. You have made some truly excellent points here.


Immorality is everywhere now days and it saddens me deeply. As a person who is striving for self improvement to see the rest of the world going in the opposite direction. It gives me pause.

This idea that somehow were all above ethics and decency and morality. Where did it come from? When did these things become beneath us?

Is it simply ease? It's much easier to be duchebags so thats that? I mean is the reason that were all so nasty to each other because it's way easier than being decent to each other?

My God!!! Thats sad. People just gave up. They stopped trying.

 

[Anubis]

Dude, you're a f**king hypocrite.

Keyser Soze Your not the first person to recommend All-Star Superman. I do plan on picking it up.

Alan Moore is a *****ebag. A self important prick. He may be a great writer, but he's a lousy human being.

 

[Aristotle]

This idea that somehow were all above ethics and decency and morality. Where did it come from? When did these things become beneath us?

Is it simply ease? It's much easier to be duchebags so thats that? I mean is the reason that were all so nasty to each other because it's way easier than being decent to each other?

My God!!! Thats sad. People just gave up. They stopped trying.

I hate to always be blaming things on capitalism, but capitalism really is the reason. Capitalism is so individualistic, so anti-community, so anti-other people, so selfish, so self-centered, just inherently amoral. We live in a society that considers "progress" and "power" to be the only things that matter. We made an economy that thrives solely upon the consumption of items that people do not need and we are aware of this and we think it is a GOOD THING.

It's capitalism. It creates a wicked, evil world, filled with wicked, evil people.

It's funny, because when I argue for socialism, I'm always told that it wouldn't work because no one would have the right "incentive" to work hard. What an unfortunate commentary on who we are, who we've become: the only reason anyone would work hard was because he was getting paid more, not because working hard is just right, because a job well done is a reward unto itself.

That's how people defend capitalism, then: we can't jettison an inherently selfish system, because otherwise we couldn't be selfish and we'd have to find a more decent way to be.

 

[The Question]

It is always very simple to do what you believe the right thing is, however. But I disagree with your assessment of the culture. I find that anti-morality, amorality, and nonexistent morality are extremely dominant. Drama, comedy, kids movies, comic books, the news, pop music, it's everywhere. It is life.

It can be pretty difficult to do what you believe is the right thing. If, for example, what you believed was the right thing would help one person but still hurt another, or if the person you're trying to help doesn't want to be helped.

And could you give me some examples of anti-morality being dominant? Like, examples of popular drama, comedy, ect. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just want to understand your point of view.

But of course, those aren't the answers, not completely, and in this day and age, everyone is aware of the problem. What's preventing real solutions? No one wants to sacrifice what they have to solve the problem. No one has the moral werewithal to be the first to volunteer their wealth for redistribution. No one has the moral werewithal to be the first to unilaterally disarm their military, or even their nukes. No one has the moral werewithal to admit that they've been wrong their whole life about black people or Mexicans or whoever they don't like.

It's not that we can't see there's a problem; we know there's a problem. It's that we only want to fix the problem if it means we don't have to sacrifice anything for it. We won't give of ourselves for the greater good and for the good of others. That is amorality.

You use the word werewithal a lot.

And I think there are more contributing factors than just one point of view. Yes, there are people who lack the cahones to do anything about it. But there are others out outright ignore it. They pretend it isn't there. The delude themselves into thinking it isn't there. Which is probably an extention of what you're talking about. And that's why we do need fiction that basically says "hey, look at the world and stop ignoring the damn problems."

I hate to always be blaming things on capitalism, but capitalism really is the reason. Capitalism is so individualistic, so anti-community, so anti-other people, so selfish, so self-centered, just inherently amoral. We live in a society that considers "progress" and "power" to be the only things that matter. We made an economy that thrives solely upon the consumption of items that people do not need and we are aware of this and we think it is a GOOD THING.

It's capitalism. It creates a wicked, evil world, filled with wicked, evil people.

It's funny, because when I argue for socialism, I'm always told that it wouldn't work because no one would have the right "incentive" to work hard. What an unfortunate commentary on who we are, who we've become: the only reason anyone would work hard was because he was getting paid more, not because working hard is just right, because a job well done is a reward unto itself.

That's how people defend capitalism, then: we can't jettison an inherently selfish system, because otherwise we couldn't be selfish and we'd have to find a more decent way to be.

But the fact is that, because there are selfish and bad people in the world, socialism doesn't work. It would be very nice if it did. It would be very nice if there were no bad people. But you can't force bad people to be good. And as a result, capitalism is what works.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I hate to always be blaming things on capitalism, but capitalism really is the reason. Capitalism is so individualistic, so anti-community, so anti-other people, so selfish, so self-centered, just inherently amoral. We live in a society that considers "progress" and "power" to be the only things that matter. We made an economy that thrives solely upon the consumption of items that people do not need and we are aware of this and we think it is a GOOD THING.

It's capitalism. It creates a wicked, evil world, filled with wicked, evil people.

It's funny, because when I argue for socialism, I'm always told that it wouldn't work because no one would have the right "incentive" to work hard. What an unfortunate commentary on who we are, who we've become: the only reason anyone would work hard was because he was getting paid more, not because working hard is just right, because a job well done is a reward unto itself.

That's how people defend capitalism, then: we can't jettison an inherently selfish system, because otherwise we couldn't be selfish and we'd have to find a more decent way to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AI8mC8XucY

 

[Aristotle]

And could you give me some examples of anti-morality being dominant? Like, examples of popular drama, comedy, ect. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just want to understand your point of view.

Drama: Syriana, There Will Be Blood
Comedy: It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Borat
Action movies: Iron Man
Reality TV: All of it, it's all cutthroat and betrayal-motivated.
Politics: The continual promoting of the idea of the "moderate," nothing but a house built upon compromised ethics and battered ideals. Not to mention the allowance of a guy who left his wife because she was in a car wreck, so he could marry a rich hot chick (John McCain.)
Comics: Almost everything Marvel publishes, a lot of what WildStorm used to publish, and a sizable helping of what DC publishes. And basically 100% of the indie- and small-press output.

But there are others out outright ignore it. They pretend it isn't there. The delude themselves into thinking it isn't there. Which is probably an extention of what you're talking about. And that's why we do need fiction that basically says "hey, look at the world and stop ignoring the damn problems."

That kind of person is increasingly uncommon. And he's also not the kind of person who watches Syriana and wakes up to the violence of our nation's oil addiction. If anything, he only distrusts the liberal movie establishment even more.

But the fact is that, because there are selfish and bad people in the world, socialism doesn't work. It would be very nice if it did. It would be very nice if there were no bad people. But you can't force bad people to be good. And as a result, capitalism is what works.

One of the great tragedies of modern humankind is how easily so many of them were fooled into believing that they had to settle for capitalism. The fact of the matter is, Europe is democratic-socialist. Australia is democratic-socialist. Canada is democratic-socialist. These places all do just fine. Are they the captains of the economy? No. But they don't need to be. Their worker productivity is actually higher than ours, a much higher percentage of their people enjoy a much higher standard of living, and basic needs are provided for. While there are troubling issues of racism in Europe and Australia, and probably in Canada too, they've built a socio-economic system that is far better and far more moral than the one we've created. And it's succeeded. Socialism doesn't have to mean "no advancement." It doesn't have to mean extreme equality. There are wealthy people in Europe. But there are fewer. And there are fewer poor people. Now that sounds, to me, like a system I'd like to wake up to tomorrow morning.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Wasn't the point of There Will Be Blood sort of that Daniel Day Lewis' character lives a cutthroat, immoral life and ultimately winds up a horrible, unhappy old man who dies alone? Sounds more like a cautionary tale than an endorsement of cutthroat self-interest.

 

[Aristotle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AI8mC8XucY

Was this supposed to convince me or something? This was nothing but more of the diseased same.

 

[Aristotle]

Wasn't the point of There Will Be Blood sort of that Daniel Day Lewis' character lives a cutthroat, immoral life and ultimately winds up a horrible, unhappy old man who dies alone? Sounds more like a cautionary tale than an endorsement of cutthroat self-interest.

No. Rhetorically, when a story presents no clear moral hero, it endorses (in the viewer's subconscious) the idea that there is no such thing as a moral hero.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I didn't interpret it that way, but to each his own.

 

[Aristotle]

The conscious interpretation and the subconscious message are going to be different. Most people see these grimdark stories and they see exactly what you saw, but that's not what their subconscious was told.

 

[fifthfiend]

But the fact is that, because there are selfish and bad people in the world, socialism doesn't work.

Except that it does.

And as a result, capitalism is what works.

Except that it doesn't.

 

[fifthfiend]

I hate to always be blaming things on capitalism, but capitalism really is the reason. Capitalism is so individualistic, so anti-community, so anti-other people, so selfish, so self-centered, just inherently amoral. We live in a society that considers "progress" and "power" to be the only things that matter. We made an economy that thrives solely upon the consumption of items that people do not need and we are aware of this and we think it is a GOOD THING.

It's capitalism. It creates a wicked, evil world, filled with wicked, evil people.

It's funny, because when I argue for socialism, I'm always told that it wouldn't work because no one would have the right "incentive" to work hard. What an unfortunate commentary on who we are, who we've become: the only reason anyone would work hard was because he was getting paid more, not because working hard is just right, because a job well done is a reward unto itself.

That's how people defend capitalism, then: we can't jettison an inherently selfish system, because otherwise we couldn't be selfish and we'd have to find a more decent way to be.

We have a system designed to actively select in favor of selfish, shortsighted, viciously amoral ****ups, and select negatively against actually competent, smart, decent human beings.

Somehow it is an incredible challenge explaining to people that this may not be an entirely good thing.

One of the great tragedies of modern humankind is how easily so many of them were fooled into believing that they had to settle for capitalism. The fact of the matter is, Europe is democratic-socialist. Australia is democratic-socialist. Canada is democratic-socialist. These places all do just fine.

Hell America was kinda socialist for a while, and that worked great. The bits of socialism we still have, like Social Security, work so great that the capitalists have been trying to wreck it for decades and still haven't managed to succeed.

 

[Aristotle]

People trying to defend capitalism in the face of the recent Wall Street crisis (did we really think it would't happen a second time?), a disaster that required socialism to bail out capitalism, make me want to laughcry.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Was this supposed to convince me or something? This was nothing but more of the diseased same.

It was actually something that I thought was a neat illustration of your point. Someone's mighty defensive...

 

[Aristotle]

It was actually something that I thought was a neat illustration of your point. Someone's mighty defensive...

Sorry. Socialism isn't very popular still, and I've met a lot of people who would actually link that video as a defense of capitalism.