Every kind of school out there basically works the same way—they just hand students these pre-packaged bundles of info, like it's some finished product from a factory. It’s all based on what we think we know right now in a specific field, which is usually already a little bit outdated, let's be real. But honestly? It feels like schools are actually working against what knowledge is supposed to be. Real knowledge isn't something you can just "freeze" in place like that. Its whole vibe is to constantly question everything... and even to doubt itself. Or, well... more like seeing itself as just a temporary stepping stone toward something better and deeper down the road. Instead, schools treat knowledge like it's set in stone, serving it up to students as this absolute truth you're just supposed to swallow whole without question. So where does that leave critical thinking? Nowhere, really. I mean, it's hard to imagine a school functioning any other way. But doesn't that make them almost anti-scientific? They take something inherently dynamic and turn it into something totally static. And by teaching like that... aren't they just making people less sharp? What do you guys think?
steelridge58 said:And now we see that happening in real-time through live TV broadcasts, just like what we're seeing today. But I think there's a deeper layer to what Goethe was getting at here; he wasn't just predicting technology, he was really tapping into certain human traits and inclinations, essentially observing how media would eventually provide a platform for those darker impulses where someone else's tragedy becomes a spectator sport for the masses. Ultimately, it boils down to whether media editors can accurately identify what people actually crave—what they want to watch, listen to, or read—which really means pinpointing that specific market segment they can target to drive up circulation, ratings, and, of course, their bottom line.
You can't really look at this issue in a vacuum, though, because it’s deeply tied to our own everyday lives, which I suspect is the main anchor that allows the tabloid media to find its footing, stay relevant, and honestly, probably even thrive.
Here is what Paul Bruckner had to say about the nature of the everyday: The everyday is stripped of the very thing that captures our attention most: tension. There is nothing in it to make us wait with bated breath or feel a sense of trembling anticipation, because everything simply repeats itself endlessly. It’s this exhausting cycle of asking "what's new?" only to be met with the answer, "nothing special!" If, according to Baudelaire, ennui is the inability to unravel something, then banality is quite the opposite—it’s the total inability to weave something together, to start something fresh, or to create even a tiny crack in that monotonous dough of identical moments.
In a way, the media acts as a sort of surrogate for the life many people don't actually have—or perhaps even wouldn't want—offering a substitute for reality that feels far more gripping and intense than the supposedly "exciting" scenes of our actual daily existence.
Or I could just go back to what JWG used to say... "We crave to hear the things we can't even believe!" (Basically, we're desperate to hear stuff that sounds totally impossible!) Pure hype and excitement? That's what sells. But you can't sell that unless you first manufacture this idea of "normalcy" at any cost... just so they have something to shock us with later.
Jessica Scott5 said:That is a rather grimly accurate assessment. However, if I may add a layer of nuance, it is perhaps even more accurate to say that the public itself is the primary driver here. People crave scandals; it is the very fuel that keeps these outlets running. I suspect that because so many people feel a certain emptiness in their own daily lives, they develop this compulsive need to consume the experiences of others. It becomes even more enticing when those stories are negative or scandalous, as it allows the reader or viewer to indulge in that fleeting, hollow sense of moral superiority—that feeling of "at least my life isn't that messy." Yet, the criticism usually falls upon the journalists who orchestrate these spectacles rather than the consumers who demand them. As society becomes increasingly desensitized, the media is pushed toward ever more absurd extremes to get a reaction. In my view, prying into someone's private life can be far more immoral than any romantic drama ever could be.
Well, look who decided to show up...!🙂 Helou Tipsač 🙂 Maybe craving a good old-fashioned scandal is just a basic human instinct, like hunger or thirst?! 🤔
Nice. 🙂 Yeah, the yellow press—and honestly, most of them—basically feed on outrage. It’s their whole thing. They’re forced to constantly dig up this outdated, ultra-conservative brand of moralizing just to scrape together enough scandal to stay relevant... otherwise, they'd have nothing at all.
restlessridge36 said:The journalist in your story acted morally, as she fulfilled her duties according to both professional standards and the morality of her community.
Your example illustrates the distinction between morality and ethics, and how morality itself shifts across different historical eras (time marches on, Donna Campbell6 😁 ), various nations, social groups, and professions.
What you witnessed was "journalistic ethics" at work, which is perfectly acceptable—even desirable. 😁 The masses crave this type of information, and that hunger dictates the guidelines, regulations, and codes of "journalistic ethics." Like all other facets of social life, journalism is conditioned by the economic structure of society, its level of development, group interests, customs, and habits.
Since morality fundamentally defines a person's social orientation toward others and the shared existence of the individual and the group, we increasingly encounter violations of "medical ethics," such as indiscretions regarding the private health matters of celebrities. This causes me far greater indignation than the lying and concealment of love in your story; it is unforgivable.
"Medical ethics" should never be conflated with "journalistic ethics," as their ethical concepts are built upon opposing foundations. That represents a much more dangerous metastasis. It is akin to a cancer attacking a vital organ, thereby making an individual's life within the community impossible.
Back when daily newspapers were just starting to take off in Europe, it was actually pretty wild how many writers, philosophers, and big-time intellectuals fought against them. They hated the idea of cheap news. Take Goethe, for example. He saw it coming from a mile away when he said: "The time is coming when one man's misfortune will become the entertainment of a thousand others. Every single day." Basically, he called out exactly what you're pointing out here...
Edward Flores4 said:Like I said before—unless we're talking about kids!
Sure, an eighteen-year-old might look like an adult on paper, but let's be real—most of their "life experience" is basically just being coddled and looked after by their parents. Very few people actually have any real-world perspective at eighteen, and even if they do, it doesn't exactly carry much weight in the grand scheme of things.
From what I can gather, there’s this movement in some places to ban—or at least rein in—the media for basically exploiting kids just to turn a quick buck. You see it all the time with those trashy reality talent shows and stuff like that... But we're nowhere near seeing any actual laws passed to stop it. Honestly, I'm starting to think lowering the age of majority to 18 was a total mistake. Especially looking at kids today... you'd probably find that someone their age a century ago was way more mature, just because life forced them to be...
Brenda Cook4 said:But listen, Donna Campbell6, what you're calling "aggressive intrusion" is exactly what fuels the entire media existence for them (both the girl and the guy). If they push back too hard, they lose their relevance and slide back into anonymity, and that's the last thing they want.
steelridge58 said:I honestly feel like this is such a profound thought because it points toward how morality is actually rooted deep within a person's own soul, emphasizing sincerity—especially that first step of being honest with oneself—as well as freedom and that heavy sense of personal responsibility we all carry. But I can't help but wonder, if we make this distinction of "true" morality against the way we usually define morality—you know, like that Wikipedia definition describing it as just a collection of unwritten rules and social customs used to judge good from evil—does that mean any moral code becomes "true" simply because it's grounded in an individual's unique personality? Or can we still draw a line even within this framework of "true" morality, distinguishing between what is genuinely moral and what is immoral, which might technically be its own kind of "morality," yet both share the common trait of disregarding the conventional, socially accepted meaning of the word?
Personally, I’d interpret this Pascalian idea by suggesting that for a human being who is inherently a moral creature (looking at you, Immanuel Kant), they don't actually need a handbook of rigid rules and regulations to act ethically; if their very essence is aligned with those universal human values—essentially, ethics—then even if they had never heard the word "morality" in their life, they would still act rightly.
To me, a Quasimoral is nothing more than hypocrisy; it's a mask, and underneath that mask, there's a human face, much like when we are finally alone with ourselves. Sometimes people try so hard to rip those masks away, but they find there's nothing underneath, or worse, some masks are crafted to look so much like real faces that you can't tell the difference, and occasionally, a person only truly finds their own human face through a mask (like a masquerade)🙂 and only then do they become more free and sincere. As Charles Baudelaire put it: Total sincerity is a means of originality.
I don't know if it's even possible to show the world the same face we see when we're staring at ourselves in the mirror. Maybe we're just stuck wearing masks. Even before we realize it, subconsciously... But hey, I think when you're dealing with the tabloid media, you have every right to put on the most fake mask you've got, just to shut them up and get them away from... well, you know.
This whole thing kind of falls under media studies, I guess, but I’m actually more interested in the philosophical and ethical side of it... so mods, please let me keep this in the philosophy section. So, I rolled into this totally empty coffee shop this morning. The barista was bored out of her mind, so she was glued to some incredibly loud show playing on the TV above the counter—one of those trashy celebrity gossip segments, you know the type. The host was acting all outraged about some teen celebrity couple (honestly, I have no clue who they are, I don't follow any of that tabloid crap) because, apparently, they finally admitted they're dating after insisting they were just friends. The entire segment was basically built on this sense of "outrage"🙄 over their previous "lying straight to the face" of the cameras and reporters. They played the old clip where they said they were just friends, followed by some snarky comment about how "young love eventually realizes lies don't last," right after they probably caught them somewhere and aired an interview where the reporter asks the girl point-blank—why did you lie before? 😲 What we have here is a situation where people who stick their noses most aggressively into someone else's private life—acting from this supposed (Quasimoral) high ground—are demanding an apology!! And the poor girl actually started making excuses for herself. 🙂 Here’s my take: first—that initial lie was actually the height of politeness, morality, and restraint from people who just want to keep their private lives away from the media, which clearly doesn't understand the concept of leaving people alone (because, honestly, the most human response to that kind of media harassment would be something like: screw you, you idiot!). Second—the subsequent truth/confession is just a sad defeat for those kids. And third—I think Blaise Pascal's famous idea that "morality doesn't care about morality" has never been more relevant or justified than in this era of tabloid dominance and idiots... Curious to hear what you guys think.
When you look at human history, "progress" usually just means we’re getting slightly better at the technical stuff or refining our theories—it's basically just running in circles. The whole idea of moving forward might make sense if you're looking at small scale things, like an individual life or some tiny little group... but on a grand, cosmic level? We're basically hitting a dead end with that concept.
Jeffrey Gray4 said:Philosophy is strictly a human endeavor—it’s our way of trying to make sense of everything we can't actually feel. It’s that same old, stubborn urge of ours to try and be everything at once, rather than just accepting that we're a small part of the whole.
But honestly? Philosophy gets tangled up in everything we *can* feel, too. Even the stuff people say is purely about gut instinct or raw emotion. And I think that’s right... at least, that's my two cents. There's no reason to put a ceiling on how much we can think about things, especially since thought plays pretty nice with our senses, intuition... heck, even the magical vibes if you want to go there...
dustyskipper3 said:Laws have their limits, but I suppose those limits actually live inside our own heads. A person really ought to try and figure out where the boundaries of their own perception end, and to do that, one probably needs to study how the human mind actually works. Starting with the brain, at least. But, it seems like even for American science, grasping the mechanics of the human brain is still a bit too much to handle, even if we are seeing some small steps forward.
As it stands, the furthest reach of what we can grasp regarding the laws of nature is quantum theory and relativity. That is quite a lot, I guess, because it’s similar to the level of understanding a two-dimensional being might have if they suddenly realized they were living on a three-dimensional curved surface rather than just a flat plane—that's the classic physics example for beginners, right? Up until that turning point, which was Einstein's introduction of the theory of relativity, Newtonian physics felt pretty much unquestionable. The real question is how much further we can push our understanding, or if we perhaps need to undergo some kind of evolution if we want to expand it.
If we find ourselves unable to explain every single phenomenon through scientific laws, then I suppose we are left with either pure coincidence or God, just as Seneca once suggested.🤷
Didn't old man Immanuel Kant pretty much tackle that whole thing already? 😁
"Mentality" is one of those super vague terms people love to hide behind when they don't actually have anything solid to say... It’s basically just a way to wrap everything up in a cloud of confusion. When someone starts slapping all sorts of labels on an individual by calling them part of some specific "mentality," it feels like they're just trying to sound smart while reducing a whole person to a mere statistic or a "case study." But honestly, nowadays, it’s rarely used to describe one person. Instead, it's thrown around to categorize entire groups, or even whole nations... I can't shake the feeling that it's become this convenient little tool for selling smoke and avoiding any actual, deep thinking about who someone really is, or what a group is actually doing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the word is useless—if it were truly pointless, we probably wouldn't use it at all—but most of the time, it just feels like empty filler...
Just following up on that last post above me—which I am totally on board with, by the way—I just gotta finish the equation with = "a normal, living, healthy human being"...
Paul Morales3 said:Lately, I’ve realized that one of the biggest things holding me back is this nagging sense of guilt because I’m not being the "perfect little girl" my mother expects. She’s drilled her own set of opinions and beliefs so deep into my head that whenever I do something "wrong"—which really just means anything she wouldn't approve of—I feel like a cartoon character pops up in my mind. It’s her face and her voice, staring at me with this look of pure disappointment or judgment. On a conscious level, I know exactly what I’m doing is fine, but subconsciously, it eats at me. 🙂
For instance, I feel like I have to hide the fact that I grab a drink when I go out, mostly because in her mind, having one cocktail is just a slippery slope straight to alcoholism.🙄 Or I have to keep it under wraps when I meet up with people I met online, because if she found out, she’d launch into a lecture about how there's something wrong with me or why I can't find "normal" friends in person.🙄 I realize I can't change her views, and frankly, I don't want to try. 😁
These are just small, everyday examples, but the cumulative weight of it is exhausting; it creates this constant pressure that’s starting to feel like a neurosis. I worry that when I eventually get a boyfriend, I’ll be too hesitant to be intimate because I know I won't get Mom's blessing. Or, if I do, I’ll end up spiraling into guilt because, deep down, I'll feel like I'm doing something shameful. 😵
Sometimes I have to laugh at myself, thinking about that old saying, "God is watching everything, nothing stays hidden," except in my case, it feels like Mom's eyes are everywhere. 🤣
How do I shake this off? Is anyone else dealing with something similar?
*I'm not some kid; I'm 20 🙈, so please don't mistake this for teen drama. 🙂
One year of being 20 keeps you out of the teen section, I guess.😁 Just kidding. Your mom is just a bit too heavy in your superego structure right now (which makes sense, given your dad isn't around), but it's not a disaster... it's only a problem if you're still like this at 30. This is totally normal. You'll loosen those mental chains bit by bit. You'll be fine...😉
casualwolf12 said:^^ It would arguably be more prudent if we simply avoided placing him in any position where he is compelled to offer a statement in the first place...
Heh... man, I am loving this...👍 Now, look, I might be a little bit of a troublemaker, but if I were the priest, I’d probably take that whole idea, dial it back a notch, then crank it right back up—say, maybe on a 24/7 schedule...😁 Alright, alright, I'll chill out, I won't go any further😳....besides, that's not even what this thread is about.
casualwolf12 said:Regarding that second case... if my memory serves me correctly, they actually released those details to the public, specifically noting that the girl was a virgin.
Which sensation is more corrosive: the weight of being wrongfully accused, or the crushing realization that you’ve stripped away your own dignity through your own hand? One is an injustice inflicted upon you; the other is a self-inflicted wound. Which one truly leaves a deeper scar?
They would certainly find something to criticize, wouldn't they? If only they had the courage to actually step up to the plate. I fail to grasp the precise objective you are attempting to achieve here. What exactly is your point? 🤷
It seems to me that a significant number of people suffer from this persistent delusion where they view the Church and its clergy as the primary antagonists of the nation. They seem to seize upon every single opportunity to interpret every word uttered by religious figures in the most vitriolic light possible. It is quite telling, really. As soon as those statements from the priest and the father were released to the public, the conversation underwent an immediate and predictable shift. Suddenly, the focus pivoted from "look at what happened to this poor girl" to "look at what these backward priests have said." Is it not fascinating how quickly the collective attention shifts from the victim to the perceived transgressors? To be perfectly honest, I don't see what else they could have expected from him. When a person is navigating the immediate aftermath of a funeral, can we truly expect them to provide any semblance of rational commentary? It’s almost an absurdity to demand logic in such a moment. From my perspective, those remarks were nothing more than the most basic, reflexive attempts to find some silver lining—the typical "it could have been worse" sentiment that people cling to when they are reeling.
If I may draw a parallel to yet another recent tragedy where the participants were immediately branded as heroes... I find it quite fascinating how all the self-appointed moral guardians were absolutely revolted by the media's lack of decency when they released those images of charred firefighters and the statements from families devastated by the catastrophe. Yet, in this particular instance, everyone seems equally outraged by the remarks made by the priest and the father, while the ethics and sensitivity of the media go entirely unexamined—even though they were just as eager to solicit statements during what was, for the family, an incredibly harrowing moment.
...so maybe just remember that old saying about silence being golden...😁
Rachel Bishop said:So... you believe in meaning even if you don't claim to have grasped it?😉 Convenient.🙂
Let's see what I actually said... ...I said that... even if you want to, you cannot question the experience of faith (if you haven't had it and don't possess it), nor the strength that comes from it... that's what I said... which isn't to say you need to listen to semi-educated priests...😉 Whether pain and suffering are meaningful or senseless to you or anyone else is a personal decision... I am merely stating what happens in the case of meaninglessness:
Facing (meaningless) pain and suffering without any faith cuts off the possibility of receiving the strength needed to endure it... so then people resort to those "various methods"... to numb the experience.
Don't put words in my mouth... I prefer candy.🙂
Honestly, it’s none of my business... You just managed to cram total nonsense and a complete lack of faith into one single sentence... "to face..." Just totally pointless... It’s just all about the pain and the struggle... honestly... Just without any of that religious stuff......and that’s basically what I was rambling about in my other posts. Look, I’m not trying to tell you how to think or put words in your mouth. Honestly, I actually dig that you prefer using your own words... keeps things real...👍 And honestly... I’m just not a candy person either...😲 What can I even do...😢