I don't know the impala's experience; I do know that when I have been threatened, but was free to run, it was exhilarating. When I'm prompted to fear or anger and *can't* give in, this feels dreadful.
I've read (probably from Acts of War, which you can find https://archive.org/details/actsofwarbehavio0000holm ) that PTSD is far more common in soldiers who, when they are subject to enemy fire, are forced to hunker down; those that run or fire back seem to do much better.
More likely, you simply aren't very good at reading:
"I’m not only able to see the hunt as a glorious game; I can appreciate an emotional appeal on behalf of victims. And equally, I suspect that even a very feminine person would have enough of an animus to learn to appreciate a masculine evaluation of nature. ...I simply want to discourage the ugly philosophical impulse to smooth over contradictions, and offer a reminder of the beauty and richness that awaits within the complexities of existence."
I agree there's definitely tension between the idea that the hunt is a glorious competition, and the sympathy we feel towards victims. But there is not a human alive whose ancestors have not survived by caring for the weak, and hunting thinking, feeling creatures for food. Finding a resolution to these facts may not be easy or even possible, but no matter what, anger does cloud the mind.
>This is a competition, a game, a race. Life to the victor, death to the loser! And why not? The loser’s a loser. Being slow and weak is a transgression that merits punishment, while victory is an existential, ultimate good, which needs no justification to pursue!
I want to hunt and prey upon "people" who think this way. What is my morality?
If the female side of morality leads to the conclusion that having children is morally wrong that is... a bit ironic. But it is logical. The most effective way of preventing harm must indeed be to prevent all life.
Yeah, interpreting drives and attitudes like I did as male and female is always more evocative than rigorously philosophical, and other male philosophers have made similar arguments, but, it really does feel like Sarah Perry really is preventing life to prevent harm because she is female. This hyper focus on avoiding harm really seems like a very modern, very female kind of thing. Like when your most recent post mentioned that you have trouble even when cartoon characters get hurt, it just struck me how feminine that is.
One of my favorite games growing up was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_BdQYW0JDo A world swimming in violence, with zero emotional consequences (they're all evil monsters, "rar") seems so appealing to the young male psyche that the death of some random impala feels like nothing.
No, sorry! I was just being casual - your reply seemed short and contradictory of my position, and I didn't feel like mustering the ammunition I needed to show anything.
To offer a more serious reply, I have to gather a few things, but... here I think I have time for a quick post.
How do you know the impala enjoys fear? Fear isn't usually an enjoyable emotion.
I don't know the impala's experience; I do know that when I have been threatened, but was free to run, it was exhilarating. When I'm prompted to fear or anger and *can't* give in, this feels dreadful.
I've read (probably from Acts of War, which you can find https://archive.org/details/actsofwarbehavio0000holm ) that PTSD is far more common in soldiers who, when they are subject to enemy fire, are forced to hunker down; those that run or fire back seem to do much better.
Why is your morality based on people and animals *enjoying* being victimised?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Are you some kind of sadomasochist?
More likely, you simply aren't very good at reading:
"I’m not only able to see the hunt as a glorious game; I can appreciate an emotional appeal on behalf of victims. And equally, I suspect that even a very feminine person would have enough of an animus to learn to appreciate a masculine evaluation of nature. ...I simply want to discourage the ugly philosophical impulse to smooth over contradictions, and offer a reminder of the beauty and richness that awaits within the complexities of existence."
Either I can't think clearly when angry. Or you are just self-contradictory. Could be both.
I agree there's definitely tension between the idea that the hunt is a glorious competition, and the sympathy we feel towards victims. But there is not a human alive whose ancestors have not survived by caring for the weak, and hunting thinking, feeling creatures for food. Finding a resolution to these facts may not be easy or even possible, but no matter what, anger does cloud the mind.
To be clear, I have no problem with giving in to your anger and firing back. I do that all the time.
But "giving in" to fear is weakness.
>This is a competition, a game, a race. Life to the victor, death to the loser! And why not? The loser’s a loser. Being slow and weak is a transgression that merits punishment, while victory is an existential, ultimate good, which needs no justification to pursue!
I want to hunt and prey upon "people" who think this way. What is my morality?
Well, morality isn't (likely to be) the same as desire. You sound more like you're expressing a visceral emotional response. Out of curiosity, where do you think you would fall in this political space? https://thingstoread.substack.com/i/139095464/three-factors-of-political-values
It is my desire BECAUSE it is my morality.
I'll bite; why is this your morality?
If the female side of morality leads to the conclusion that having children is morally wrong that is... a bit ironic. But it is logical. The most effective way of preventing harm must indeed be to prevent all life.
Yeah, interpreting drives and attitudes like I did as male and female is always more evocative than rigorously philosophical, and other male philosophers have made similar arguments, but, it really does feel like Sarah Perry really is preventing life to prevent harm because she is female. This hyper focus on avoiding harm really seems like a very modern, very female kind of thing. Like when your most recent post mentioned that you have trouble even when cartoon characters get hurt, it just struck me how feminine that is.
One of my favorite games growing up was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_BdQYW0JDo A world swimming in violence, with zero emotional consequences (they're all evil monsters, "rar") seems so appealing to the young male psyche that the death of some random impala feels like nothing.
Most of all, I think there is a great overlap between the moral sentiments of actual males and females. After all, they say that Jesus was a man.
Well, true. But Jesus never played Splatterhouse.
I have heard that according to some apocryphal gospels, Jesus was very aggressive as a child.
I like to think he was aggressive for the same reasons and towards the same kind of "people" that I am aggressive.
So you mean the male side of morality is highly dependent on environmental triggers?
OK, I answered in this post.
https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/venus-and-mars
I promise I'll give a meaningful response to your identity crisis as the Unabomber soon; right now I'm going to chase my kids around for a while.
No, sorry! I was just being casual - your reply seemed short and contradictory of my position, and I didn't feel like mustering the ammunition I needed to show anything.
To offer a more serious reply, I have to gather a few things, but... here I think I have time for a quick post.