Revenge: a socratic dialogue - Forum

Chat0yant
World famous

Chat0yant wrote:

Hello! Discussion time? (maybe)

So, for a (relatively) chill philosophical discussion, I thought of the topic of revenge.

Pls keep it chill and kind, no name calling or such, just discussing and questions (call me out if I'm ever not polite also!!)

possible Tw: murder (R rated movie), morality

So!
It started when I watched the movie "The Crow" with my friend at my cousins house.
[plot synopsis briefly, this guy and his girlfriend are brutally mudered by a gang and then the guy resurrects (I forget how) to brutally murder all of the gang]

And afterwards, I commented something about it being dark and violent (not that it wasn't a good movie--it was ok I think, i liked the gn better), and my cousin's roommate was like "he and his wife were brutally mudered, wouldn't you want to muder the culprits if that happened?" (or something to that extent, it was a little while ago)

And I'm just thinking "No? I might feel like doing something like that for a little while but i don't want to be the kind of person that makes myself feel better by hurting other people... I would hope I could be better?"

Or like the pop song on the radio that's like a verse and a half about "i hope you have a great life and find a new love" culminating in the chorus "so then they can cheat on you and ruin your life like you did to me" (also not exact words)

So like, revenge is not only glorified, but normalized in tons of pop songs and movies

I did a report in public speaking relating to the quote "holding a grudge is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die" (idk who wrote it, google gave me like 5 people)

Like holding a grudge and the stress thereby can physically, emotionally, and mentally harm you, but do people care nowadays?

Like being mad at someone and being tempted to do bad things in return can feel right at the time, but I can't imagine it will really satisfy you...and honestly making yourself "happy" by hurting someone else sounds a little...sociopathic?

Thoughts?

Account deleted

wrote:
If you asked me in my teens if I would want to murder someone who had murdered me if, given the chance, I'd probably say "yes" as far it was kept theoretically. (Why would I even consider it being live-action in the first place? I couldn't even start imagining being murdered.) Who wouldn't? That's the same rhetoric I'm taught that seems inherently logical until you start questioning it. I cannot remember where this normalization of "if you hurt me, I hurt you equally back" originated. Maybe in a Disney movie, maybe the "ugly," shy or clever girl in movies that want to take revenge on the mean, popular kids? A tooth for a tooth? My social conditioning? I have no idea where I picked it up, but it seems like a learned idea for me. Not one I resonate with if I sit down and inquire with what I want today.

Revenge to me is about acting on anger as a cover-up emotion, and feeling like it is justified because they hurt you first. It redirects your own hurt into thinking you can ease it through hurting someone else back. Thus, I think that first experience of hurt (in this scenario being murdered) *is* action of the gravest disappointment in another person, and the deep grief of losing something you appreciated (e.g. your life, your spouse, and everything that entailed.). It's a lot to deal with. Anger is easier. It gives you a purpose and a direction if you lost everything, but it only takes you thus far. You're not going to heal by staying angry or pursuing a goal until you feel like you've "given them what they deserve." In the long run, staying angry is exhausting, and choosing to stay that way, is going to take its toll. In the meantime, you're the only one experiencing the effects of that anger. It doesn't matter if you planned to murder someone five months into the future. If that entails five months of having to stay angry to get there, then that's five months where you suffer through that anger just go get there. Personally, I can't say it is worth it.

If we change the scenario to you having been hurt by someone you love(d), then hurting them is an act that also hurts yourself. I find no gratification in hurting people on purpose.

However, it is also easier to not care for people you do not know (e.g., a random murder: so what does it matter that the murderer dies too? And now you also care about the person that hurt me\my family because they murdered me\my family - the duality of that). We experience something similar in the news every day. Headlines of disasters drifting across the screen or highlighted in the paper. We may say "oh, that's sad" when someone dies, but how often does it stir real emotions? The same way if it was someone you knew closely? I suggest rarely. We know it's the right set of behavior to mimic empathy for other people's misfortunes, but we're not really feeling that same sense of urgency until that misfortune is on our own doorsteps, forcing us to act. We can't fully understand other people's values and places of hurt when x thing happens to them unless we are them, specifically (family history, life story, influences, values, etc.). We can be taught about common experiences when x happens, but it never measures up to the diversity and nuances of reality.

I think this boils down to a rather emotional reasoning, not too unusual for me. We care for what moves us emotionally, but not every emotion is going to serve you long-term being acted upon. Thus, I see revenge as a short-circuit reward, a false way to happy.

I don't know if this made sense at all. I thought as I wrote it, lmao. I probably took a detour somewhere.

Chat0yant
World famous

Chat0yant wrote:

Nesta wrote:
If you asked me in my teens if I would want to murder someone who had murdered me if, given the chance, I'd probably say "yes" as far it was kept theoretically. (Why would I even consider it being live-action in the first place? I couldn't even start imagining being murdered.) Who wouldn't? That's the same rhetoric I'm taught that seems inherently logical until you start questioning it. I cannot remember where this normalization of "if you hurt me, I hurt you equally back" originated. Maybe in a Disney movie, maybe the "ugly," shy or clever girl in movies that want to take revenge on the mean, popular kids? A tooth for a tooth? My social conditioning? I have no idea where I picked it up, but it seems like a learned idea for me. Not one I resonate with if I sit down and inquire with what I want today.

Revenge to me is about acting on anger as a cover-up emotion, and feeling like it is justified because they hurt you first. It redirects your own hurt into thinking you can ease it through hurting someone else back. Thus, I think that first experience of hurt (in this scenario being murdered) *is* action of the gravest disappointment in another person, and the deep grief of losing something you appreciated (e.g. your life, your spouse, and everything that entailed.). It's a lot to deal with. Anger is easier. It gives you a purpose and a direction if you lost everything, but it only takes you thus far. You're not going to heal by staying angry or pursuing a goal until you feel like you've "given them what they deserve." In the long run, staying angry is exhausting, and choosing to stay that way, is going to take its toll. In the meantime, you're the only one experiencing the effects of that anger. It doesn't matter if you planned to murder someone five months into the future. If that entails five months of having to stay angry to get there, then that's five months where you suffer through that anger just go get there. Personally, I can't say it is worth it.

If we change the scenario to you having been hurt by someone you love(d), then hurting them is an act that also hurts yourself. I find no gratification in hurting people on purpose. However, it is also easier to not care for people you do not know (e.g., a random murder: so what does it matter that the murderer dies too?). We experience something similar in the news every day. Headlines of disasters drifting across the screen or highlighted in the paper. We may say "oh, that's sad" when someone dies, but how often does it stir real emotions? The same way if it was someone you knew closely? I suggest rarely. We know it's the right set of behavior to mimic empathy for other people's misfortunes, but we're not really feeling that same sense of urgency until that misfortune is on our own doorsteps, forcing us to act. We can't fully understand other people's values and places of hurt when x thing happens to them unless we are them, specifically (family history, life story, influences, values, etc.). However, we can be taught about common experiences when x happens even though it never measures up to the diversity and nuances of reality. I think this boils down to a rather emotional reasoning, not too unusual for me. We care for what moves us emotionally, but not every emotion is going to serve you long-term being acted upon. Thus, I see revenge as a short-circuit reward, a false way to happy

I don't know if this made sense at all. I thought as I wrote it, lmao

no that totally makes sense!! i didn't think about it from the impatient/instant gratification point of view, but i can very much see that!

it's much harder to actually work through emotions and not let them drive you; i see that a lot in modern society too.

Do you (or anyone else) think this is one example of how the Disney princess "follow your heart, it will never let you down" mentality is flawed or is this a completely different situation? Or do you disagree with me that it is flawed?

Or maybe perhaps, how everyone defines "heart" varies? (i assume it does at least a little)

Account deleted

wrote:
To answer the one above (without a quote due to length),

How do I even start defining those terms? For myself, "heart" is probably a metaphor for what I truly want and living out from what I genuinely want or desire, and not only do what other people tell me to do. I strongly believe that people scrape out their own path in life, and in not letting other people hinder you from doing what you truly want to do. (You can stop yourself a thousand times and more thought). However, I want to specify that a lot of people think that "doing what you want" is going to lead to something grandiose like in the Disney Princess movies (they are princesses for a reason, I guess, you already started out wealthy or you married rich, allegedly happily ever after). To me, it's much more about the inner journey, and where it finds you. When I say to myself that I want to live "from my heart's desires," my goals are to live with compassion for others, respect for myself, and to figure what I genuinely want to achieve without the influx from media all around me. However, as I'm human, it does not mean any path people pick or is set upon is an easy one. All come with their own issues and tasks, and you will face setbacks, mistakes, let-downs all the time. That's just how reality works and what it means to be human. I don't believe in living good or authentically is to have an easy life, it's how you deal with what you face that teach you how to better deal with x thing, and it is a choice to accept yourself even in bad places and w bad traits, and to think you're not inherently a bad person just because you "acted badly."

I think "follow you heart \ it will never let you down" comes from hope, and hope is incredibly important for me, personally. I may not put my hope in my heart, but I do put my hope in a belief of "a better tomorrow." If it makes you believe in something good, then it is doing you a favor, in my opinion, but the faster a person is realizing that emotions and experiences like hope\hopeful ones don't exist in a void, the deeper you understand that you only have control over what you do, and you can still a) fall victim to other people, b) hurt other people or share joy with other people through being who you are, etc. Simply, because actions come with reactions, and you have no control over them. So even if you follow you heart, you're not promised good things, and thus I must agree - if we put the basis line of "everything should be positive and always have positive outcomes" - that "it [your heart] will never let you down" is a flawed statement.

Chat0yant
World famous

Chat0yant wrote:

Nesta wrote:
To answer the one above (without a quote due to length),

How do I even start defining those terms? For myself, "heart" is probably a metaphor for what I truly want and living out from what I genuinely want or desire, and not only do what other people tell me to do. I strongly believe that people scrape out their own path in life, and in not letting other people hinder you from doing what you truly want to do. (You can stop yourself a thousand times and more thought). However, I want to specify that a lot of people think that "doing what you want" is going to lead to something grandiose like in the Disney Princess movies (they are princesses for a reason, I guess, you already started out wealthy or you married rich, allegedly happily ever after). To me, it's much more about the inner journey, and where it finds you. When I say to myself that I want to live "from my heart's desires," my goals are to live with compassion for others, respect for myself, and to figure what I genuinely want to achieve without the influx from media all around me. However, as I'm human, it does not mean any path people pick or is set upon is an easy one. All come with their own issues and tasks, and you will face setbacks, mistakes, let-downs all the time. That's just how reality works and what it means to be human. I don't believe in living good or authentically is to have an easy life, it's how you deal with what you face that teach you how to better deal with x thing, and it is a choice to accept yourself even in bad places and w bad traits, and to think you're not inherently a bad person just because you "acted badly."

I think "follow you heart \ it will never let you down" comes from hope, and hope is incredibly important for me, personally. I may not put my hope in my heart, but I do put my hope in a belief of "a better tomorrow." If it makes you believe in something good, then it is doing you a favor, in my opinion, but the faster a person is realizing that emotions and experiences like hope\hopeful ones don't exist in a void, the deeper you understand that you only have control over what you do, and you can still a) fall victim to other people, b) hurt other people or share joy with other people through being who you are, etc. Simply, because actions come with reactions, and you have no control over them. So even if you follow you heart, you're not promised good things, and thus I must agree - if we put the basis line of "everything should be positive and always have positive outcomes" - that "it [your heart] will never let you down" is a flawed statement.

ooh i see! i imagine most people define/act like their heart means "feelings." But here, you define it more as your values and/or how you relate with people. I like that definition much better than the cliche one!

When most people talk about their "heart" being their guiding force (i.e. feelings), it makes me cringe because A) so SO many things can affect your feelings and B) as you said, actions have consequences. Like not that feelings aren't valid, but I don't think people should want their mercurial feelings to drive their life.

I have feelings I like, ones I don't, and ones i must live with, but I don't want that to be the crutch of my life. Sometimes I have to overcome feelings (stage fright, self-loathing) and sometimes I have to listen to them (tiredness, empathy), but I don't want them to be the sum of my life--I don't want them to be my "god" so to speak, that i'm supposed to follow passionately and illogically or be accused of being repressive and in denial if i don't. (if that makes sense)

Account deleted

wrote:

Chat0yant wrote:

Nesta wrote:
To answer the one above (without a quote due to length),

How do I even start defining those terms? For myself, "heart" is probably a metaphor for what I truly want and living out from what I genuinely want or desire, and not only do what other people tell me to do. I strongly believe that people scrape out their own path in life, and in not letting other people hinder you from doing what you truly want to do. (You can stop yourself a thousand times and more thought). However, I want to specify that a lot of people think that "doing what you want" is going to lead to something grandiose like in the Disney Princess movies (they are princesses for a reason, I guess, you already started out wealthy or you married rich, allegedly happily ever after). To me, it's much more about the inner journey, and where it finds you. When I say to myself that I want to live "from my heart's desires," my goals are to live with compassion for others, respect for myself, and to figure what I genuinely want to achieve without the influx from media all around me. However, as I'm human, it does not mean any path people pick or is set upon is an easy one. All come with their own issues and tasks, and you will face setbacks, mistakes, let-downs all the time. That's just how reality works and what it means to be human. I don't believe in living good or authentically is to have an easy life, it's how you deal with what you face that teach you how to better deal with x thing, and it is a choice to accept yourself even in bad places and w bad traits, and to think you're not inherently a bad person just because you "acted badly."

I think "follow you heart \ it will never let you down" comes from hope, and hope is incredibly important for me, personally. I may not put my hope in my heart, but I do put my hope in a belief of "a better tomorrow." If it makes you believe in something good, then it is doing you a favor, in my opinion, but the faster a person is realizing that emotions and experiences like hope\hopeful ones don't exist in a void, the deeper you understand that you only have control over what you do, and you can still a) fall victim to other people, b) hurt other people or share joy with other people through being who you are, etc. Simply, because actions come with reactions, and you have no control over them. So even if you follow you heart, you're not promised good things, and thus I must agree - if we put the basis line of "everything should be positive and always have positive outcomes" - that "it [your heart] will never let you down" is a flawed statement.

ooh i see! i imagine most people define/act like their heart means "feelings." But here, you define it more as your values and/or how you relate with people. I like that definition much better than the cliche one! (1)

When most people talk about their "heart" being their guiding force (i.e. feelings), it makes me cringe because A) so SO many things can affect your feelings and B) as you said, actions have consequences. Like not that feelings aren't valid, but I don't think people should want their mercurial feelings to drive their life.

I have feelings I like, ones I don't, and ones i must live with, but I don't want that to be the crutch of my life. Sometimes I have to overcome feelings (stage fright, self-loathing) and sometimes I have to listen to them (tiredness, empathy), but I don't want them to be the sum of my life--I don't want them to be my "god" so to speak, that i'm supposed to follow passionately and illogically or be accused of being repressive and in denial if i don't. (if that makes sense) (2)

(1) I think a lot of our feelings are reflections of our values in a sense, and that you can find a lot of emotions in finding what you value in life. It goes both ways, they enforce each other. If I feel happy, it is because I live in a way that makes me "happy" (content in the present), and often, that means living to the extent I currently understand my own values and perspectives in life as being "satisfied". If being around a specific person makes me happy, it also comes with the fact that I value their presence and what they add to my life. That someone else enjoys my presence, ensures me that I'm a valuable person for someone, that I matter, which may make me feel safe and accepted - something that builds up under my basic needs of the community, safety, and validation as in contributing to something important. (b\c friendships and so on are important values, it's just our society being wack about very basic things.)

(2) I think I understand what you are saying, and I think that redirects back to the fact that we do not exist in a void. We're living in a society unable to not be influenced or affected by other people. No matter what we do, we are shaped by what we consume and surround ourselves with. We live, we die, and in-between we feel (,messily). What we feel is influenced by what we desire (long term and short term), how we are conditioned to think, and bodily capability to experience all these aspects of life. Our feelings change as we experience and gain wider perspectives. Some things we learn are better not to act on (as in favor of survival or fear of bad consequences), other things we know are better to act on (as in they will be well received, have positive outcomes). And others we know we should be doing one of those and still finding ourselves wanting to do the other one (fx. listening to ourselves by saying "no" to something we feel like we should be doing because it would be good for other people.) We choose what feels the most right and with the tools of understanding we possess at any given time, and it shapes who we are on good and bad. I think, even when we say we're going to 'only' follow our heart, the mind is always there running the pro\cons of that idea. I don't think following your heart should mean listening to your every emotion without critical thinking. As with everything, balance is needed.

Chat0yant
World famous

Chat0yant wrote:
Sorry, I had to go to class

I do agree mostly with that. My only concern is whether the value of a person or action is defined by the feelings. I.e. You say you feel something is worthwhile, then you do it. But inevitably you will have dry periods, even in good important things, such as a classic one where a parent gets tired of normal family life and minutia. The lack of feeling does not diminish the value. There may be things you have to address, but the value doesn't fluctuate with your feelings of it. Like your value isn't defined by how many people are around you that make you feel worthwhile and accepted. (i think you are a very worthwhile person tho' fyi

)

So i don't think we can judge something as right or wrong just by feelings. You did mention the mind-feeling balance some in the later paragraph. There just seems to be a bit of tension in defining such straightforward methodology (paragraph 2) with such a... fluid process (paragraph 1), if that makes sense?

that might just be me, though. I read your paragraphs like 3 or 4 times and still feel like it's a little over my head. you are indeed a worthy philosophical discusser

Private
Popstar

ouch wrote:
Revenge is for stupid ppl, I am too lazy to elaborate but thats my take

Private
Youtube star

Delusion1111111 wrote:
im gonna start making threads w 'a socratic dialogue' in the title love the drama

Chat0yant
World famous

Chat0yant wrote:

Delusion1111111 wrote:
im gonna start making threads w 'a socratic dialogue' in the title love the drama

thank you *bows* but i more meant it to be...not just drama? i mean the title is fun but I didn't mean for this thread to be drama, if that makes sense? i just mean i don't want people to think i'm doing this for attention or a fight or something, so if you actually see it like that (or if others do) i might change it

Chat0yant
World famous

Chat0yant wrote:

ouch wrote:
Revenge is for stupid ppl, I am too lazy to elaborate but thats my take

ok

that relatively fits in with that 12 paragraph discourse from above, but if you're ever feeling like elaborating, i'll be here!

Account deleted

wrote:

Chat0yant wrote:
Sorry, I had to go to class

I do agree mostly with that. My only concern is whether the value of a person or action is defined by the feelings. I.e. You say you feel something is worthwhile, then you do it. But inevitably you will have dry periods, even in good important things, such as a classic one where a parent gets tired of normal family life and minutia. The lack of feeling does not diminish the value. There may be things you have to address, but the value doesn't fluctuate with your feelings of it. Like your value isn't defined by how many people are around you that make you feel worthwhile and accepted. (i think you are a very worthwhile person tho' fyi

)

So i don't think we can judge something as right or wrong just by feelings. You did mention the mind-feeling balance some in the later paragraph. There just seems to be a bit of tension in defining such straightforward methodology (paragraph 2) with such a... fluid process (paragraph 1), if that makes sense?

that might just be me, though. I read your paragraphs like 3 or 4 times and still feel like it's a little over my head. you are indeed a worthy philosophical discusser

That makes sense. I think that's fair. I don't think what I wrote is the only truth. I believe experiences of any sort (emotion, thought, happenings, etc.) are fairly fluid and constantly entwine. I think what you're saying is a good point to make too. You don't always have to feel something to *know* that matters as it doesn't remove the value of that action itself. that's where the brain comes it. inherently, if we remove all feelings from the picture, nothing we do matters (that's at least how I see it thus what we know to be good\bad has a root in how x action\person made us feel in the past) and then we only have left how we are taught to look at that action as good or bad, just general conditioning), and our basic instincts - which could need I guess and probably stoke emotions (or simply expressions of emotions like some-insect-i-can't-remember, I think? who allegedly doesn't feel but mimic pain if it is hurt) too, but yeah let's not jump into that.

I agree, we can't judge right and wrong solely by feeling. That's why I mentioned the mind at the end there, and in the first paragraph. Survival, as in seeking safety and validation, is not necessarily what I call emotions, more like instincts. However, I'm not well-versed in that so let's go with it blurring. Most of what we think is right\wrong are conditioned ethics and morals from the larger society already, as well as our experiences with what gives good\bad outcomes when we do something. How can we inherently say something is good\bad? Zoom out large enough and I'm a believer that the universe and the Earth have no set agenda, thus there is no good\bad in the grander picture as we do not really matter. However, in our microcosmos and the limited scope of our human existence, there are actions that benefit us as small and larger communities that become the line of what is good\bad to do. There's always some logic at place, if that logic is instincts, knowledge, experience. give it a name. At least in my mind. I think even if we do not *feel* an emotion in the present, we are from birth conditioned to learn what's right\wrong, rely on our memory\experience to *know* (mind) what used to make us feel good, and thus logically know what should be a good or bad action even if we don't feel it at the moment.

so if you feel something is worthwhile it is because you often already know it will have a positive outcome (thinking about general ethics, good and bad actions here. I think if we jump into "oh ill do something rebellious and it felt good," and you get bad consequences for it, it's not really holding up long-term. that's more like short-term rewards maybe, like a adrenalin kick? I think diving into that would need a clear context as it probably would vary a lot)

Hope you picked up on that (1) and (2) referred to different paragraphs as separate-ish responses.
i hope this made sense. i'm trying to retrace my own train of thought from the other day and i struggled, lmaof. I know as long as I talk about myself specifically, I'm a person quite hardly driven by how I feel about something, but that feeling can also very easily be a projection and thus I also have to rely on my mind. Especially, in periods where all I feel is numbness, and the reward of doing good never feels good even if I know it should feel good. and yeah there my brain stops working for today