#Ethics of Escapism

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Escapism

The philosophy of escapism explores the human tendency to seek distraction and relief from reality, often through activities that provide temporary respite from the pressures, challenges, or monotony of everyday life. Escapism can take many forms, from engaging in entertainment, such as movies, books, or video games, to indulging in fantasies or even using substances. The philosophical examination of escapism raises questions about its ethical implications, its effects on the human condition, and its potential as a coping mechanism.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Escapism:

Definition of Escapism:

Seeking Relief from Reality: Escapism is generally understood as the act of diverting oneself from the realities of life, especially when those realities are unpleasant or stressful. It often involves engaging in activities that provide a temporary sense of comfort, pleasure, or detachment.

Positive and Negative Aspects: While escapism can offer a necessary and healthy break from stress, it can also lead to avoidance behavior, where individuals neglect important aspects of their lives or responsibilities.

Psychological and Existential Dimensions:

Coping Mechanism: Psychologically, escapism can serve as a coping mechanism to deal with stress, anxiety, or trauma. It allows individuals to take a mental break, which can be rejuvenating in moderation.

Existential Escapism: Philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus have explored the concept of existential escapism, where individuals avoid confronting the inherent meaninglessness or absurdity of life. In this context, escapism can be seen as a way to evade existential angst or the responsibility of authentic living.

Ethical Considerations:

Balance and Moderation: Philosophers often debate the ethical implications of escapism, particularly whether it is a morally acceptable way to deal with life's difficulties. While some argue that moderate escapism is necessary for mental health and well-being, others caution against excessive escapism that leads to neglect of one's duties or relationships.

Authenticity vs. Illusion: There is an ethical tension between living authentically—facing reality as it is—and retreating into illusion or distraction. Some philosophical traditions, such as existentialism, emphasize the importance of confronting reality and finding meaning within it, rather than escaping from it.

Cultural and Social Aspects:

Escapism in Popular Culture: Escapism is deeply embedded in popular culture, with entire industries, such as cinema, literature, and gaming, dedicated to providing forms of escape. The cultural significance of these activities raises questions about their role in society and their impact on collective consciousness.

Societal Escapism: On a broader scale, escapism can also be viewed as a societal phenomenon, where entire groups or cultures may turn to escapist practices as a way of coping with social or economic pressures. For example, during times of war or economic hardship, the popularity of escapist entertainment often increases.

Philosophical Critiques of Escapism:

Stoicism and Escapism: Stoic philosophy advocates for facing reality with courage and rationality, suggesting that escapism is a form of avoidance that prevents individuals from developing resilience and wisdom.

Existentialism: Existentialists, particularly Sartre, criticize escapism as a form of bad faith, where individuals deny their freedom and responsibility by fleeing from reality. For existentialists, true freedom comes from acknowledging and embracing the absurdity of life, rather than escaping from it.

Escapism and Art:

Art as Escape: Art has historically been a means of escape, offering individuals the opportunity to experience alternative realities, explore new perspectives, and express emotions that might be difficult to confront in everyday life.

Aesthetic Experience: Some philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, have celebrated art and aesthetic experience as a vital and life-affirming form of escapism that transcends mundane reality and offers deeper insights into the human condition.

Escapism and Technology:

Digital Escapism: In the modern era, technology has significantly expanded the possibilities for escapism. The internet, social media, virtual reality, and video games offer immersive experiences that allow individuals to escape from reality in unprecedented ways.

Virtual Reality and Ethics: The rise of virtual reality and other immersive technologies raises ethical questions about the boundaries between reality and escape, and the potential consequences of living increasingly in digital or simulated environments.

The philosophy of escapism examines the complex motivations behind the human desire to escape from reality and the various forms this escape can take. While escapism can provide necessary relief and even foster creativity, it also presents ethical and existential challenges, particularly concerning the balance between facing reality and seeking refuge from it. The ongoing philosophical exploration of escapism helps us understand its role in the human experience and its impact on our lives, both individually and collectively.

[gghero]

9 hours 9 persons 9 doors is possibly the funniest game on replay for many reasons but my underrated comedic bit of knowledge is the mystery of how the Kurashikis got all the money to run the second nonary game because at some point if you remember the door 4 santa dialogue you gotta just conclude "it was probably gambling right I mean if I had postcognitive esp I would absolutely cheat at gambling" but then on replay you look at that scene and the options youre presented with and the implication is actually like "dont be ridiculous. gambling is stupid. we OBVIOUSLY used the postcognitive esp to cheat at the STOCK MARKET what kind of idiot are you"

[argxstxs]

Ohhhhhhhh shiv’s face when she realized that she’s going to be cut out of the boy’s club AGAIN and this time with a baby she can’t even talk about with her husband without risking being seen as soft … Kerry being humiliated by Marcia and the rest of the family… shiv falling down in front of a room of snickering men… gerri being thrown out as easily as garbage… connor’s mom being talked about less like a human being and more as fodder for a pr campaign…

[fandomscraziness22]

my Podcast Mania! ornament is back and better than ever! With 70 podcasts, this thing is full of goodness! Find it here!

[redhoodinternaldialectical]

"Murder is Werewolves" - Batman

I don't got the SPOONS to do this thought train justice, I have seriously been trying to write this thing for MONTHS so just, idk, have this half baked skeletal outline of the essay I guess:

I don't believe that Batman's no-kill rule is primarily about rehabilitation or second chances.

His refusal to believe that Cassandra could have killed someone when she was eight years old because "how could a killer understand my commitment not to kill" is absolute fucking MOON LOGIC from a rehabilitationist standpoint. No jury on the planet would think for even a second that she could reasonably be held accountable for her actions in that situation! Her past cannot condemn her to being incapable of valuing human life under a rehabilitation centering framework. However, Batman's reasoning makes perfect sense if he believes that killing is a spiritually/morally corrupting act which permanently and fundamentally changes a person, and that corruption can never be fully undone.

Dick Grayson killing the Joker is treated both narratively and by Batman as an unequivocally WIN for the Joker. The Joker won by turning Nightwing into a killer. Note that this is during a comic in which the Joker transforming people was a major theme! Batman didn't revive the Joker because the Joker deserved to live; he revived the Joker to lift the burden on Dick.

His appeal to Stephanie when she tried to kill her dad is that she shouldn't ruin her own life. He gives no defense of Cluemaster's actual life. Granted this is a rhetorical strategy moment and should be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but it fits in the pattern.

When Jason becomes a willful killer, he essentially disowns him, never treats him with full trust ever again, and... Well, we can stop here for Bruce's sake. Bottom line is that his actions towards Jason do not lead me to believe that he thinks Jason can become a better person without having his autonomy taken from him, either partially or fully.

The Joker is, for better or worse, the ultimate symbol and vessel of pure, irredeemable evil in DC comics now. He hasn't been just another crook in a long time. He will never get better, he will only get worse. If you take it to be true that the Joker will not or can not rehabilitate, then there's no rehabilitationist argument against killing him.

Batman does not seem to consider it a possibly that he'll rehabilitate. Batman at several points seems to think that the Joker dying in a manner no one could have prevented would be good. Yet Batman fully believes that if he killed the Joker, he himself would become irredeemable.

Batman's own form of justice (putting people into the hospital and then prison) is fucking brutal and clearly not rehabilitative. He disrespects the most basic human rights of all criminals on a regular basis. It is genuinely really, really weird from a rehabilitationist standpoint that his only uncrossable line is killing... But it makes perfect sense if he cares more about not corrupting himself with the act of killing than the actual ethical results of any individual decision to kill or not kill.

In the real world cops are all bastards because they are too violent to criminals, even when that violence doesn't lead to death. Prison is a wildly evil thing to do to another human being, and you don't use it to steal away massive portions of a person's life if your goal is to rehabilitate them. In the comic world, Batman is said to be necessary because the corrupt cops are too nice to criminals and keep letting them out of jail. I don't know how to write a connector sentence there so like I hope you can see why this bothers me so damn much! That's just not forgiveness vibes there Batman!!

I want to make special note here of the transformative aspect. You don't simply commit a single act when you kill, no, you become a killer, like you might become a werewolf.

The narrative supports this a lot!

Why did Supes go evil during Injustice? He killed the Joker. Why did Bruce become the Batman Who Laughs? Bruce killed the Joker. Why was Jason Todd close to becoming a new Joker during Three Jokers? Because he killed people, to include the Joker.

Even if these notions of redemption being impossible aren't the whole of his reasoning (people never have only one reason for doing what they do) it is a distinct through-line pattern in his actions and reasoning, and it is directly at odds with notions of rehabilitation, redemption, and second chances.

So why does he give so many killers second chances?

Firstly because this doesn't apply to all versions of Batman. Some writers explicitly incorporate rehabilitation and forgiveness into his actions. You will be able to provide me with examples of this other through-line pattern if you go looking for them. The nature of comics is to be inconsistent.

Secondly the existence of that other pattern does not negate the existence of this one. People and characters are complex, and perfectly capable of holding two patterns of belief within themselves, even when they conflict to this degree. You can absolutely synthesize these two ideas into a single messy Batman philosophical vibescape.

Finally and most importantly to this essay: he has mercy on killers the same way that werewolf hunters sometimes have mercy on someone who is clearly struggling against their monsterous nature, especially if they were turned in exceptional circumstances or against their will. They understand that they are sick, damned beasts, cursed to always be fighting against themselves and the evil they harbor within. It is vitally kind to help them fight themselves by curtailing their autonomy in helpful ways and providing them with chances to do some good to make up for their eternal moral deficiency.

I think in many comics Batman views killers as lost souls. Battered and tormented monsters who must be pitied and given mercy wherever possible. (The connections to mental health, addiction, and rampant, horrifying ableism towards people struggling with both is unavoidable, but addressing it is sadly outside of the scope of this essay.)

Above all, the greatest care possible must be taken to never, ever let yourself become one of them, because once you have transformed the beast will forever be within you growing stronger.

To Batman, it is the most noble burden, the highest mercy, the most important commandment: Thou shalt suffer the monsters to live.

[rhapsoddity]

What are some of the more rare hybrids in your au? You said before Warden Hybrids are of legends and myths. What about others? Are there some that still are around but make up a low percentage of the population?

Most nether / end hybrids! Warden hybrids, wither hybrids and Ender Dragon hybrids are myths by this point, but ghasts, blazes, magma slimes ect are rare!

This is mainly as they've been hunted to almost extinction, as nether hybrids are the only way to get pure ingredients for potions, the synthetic alternatives aren't nearly as potent. Generally if you're a rare hybrid you hide your hybrid features at all costs, lest you end up in a resource farm, trapped being tortured for mob drops but not being allowed to die.

The only mobs from those two places that haven't been hunted are shulker hybrids, piglin hybrids, strider hybrids since they have nothing to do with potion ingredients

[rainbow-wolf120]

Cabin Boy: Pages 1-3

The first week on Razorbeard’s ship has been rough. No one seems to be too fond of Rayman. Hopefully he can prove himself worthy… eventually.

(No idea how long or how many pages this comic is gonna be so I shall wing it)

[fisheito]

yakuya in MY swamp? in MY ecosystem? no . i am still in disbelief. i hope you all know that my particles are bouncing off the everything. i am using periods as punctuation but the state of my mind is naught neareth final.

[squeakadeeks]

moodboard for this past week ❤️

[satoruxx]

i’m in my psych lecture and she’s talking about relational-cultural theory and it’s abbreviated as RCT and all i can think about is stupid jjk……

[peccatulum-b-gone]

Hunt halted

After an extensive stakeout, it seems that the Erlking has once again vanished without a trace.

No worries, though. The rat will show up again where there´s cheese to be had.

[gghero]

its him. mister unethical science of shitty little experiment fame

[be-the-glenn-to-my-maggie]

Hey, so I saw your post about some fics demonizing Neytiri. That has actually been one of my major fears as a fic writer, attempting to balance Neytiri's extremely valid trauma and the POV I'm writing from (that is typically flawed in some way). I was wondering, since you seem very well-versed on the topic, what do you define as "demonizing" for Neytiri? Is it ok to write from a perspective where a character doesn't really like or trust her, as long as the trauma is noted? Do you have any resources so I can educate myself to properly write this kind of character?

I really want to make sure I'm doing right by Neytiri and improve as a fic writer overall, so any advice you could offer would be very much appreciated!

Whoa, what a complicated and nuanced question. A great one! And I'm super flattered you came to me! Just one I'm going to try to answer to the best of my ability. I'm assuming you're referring to Norm's pov in your fic?

First of all, I do not want to at all proclaim to be an expert on generational trauma; I am not a person of color, and I have been lucky enough to have a very normal and healthy family. I just had a best friend growing up in an abusive household and took steps to educate myself best I could to understand the situation, which I believe anyone would do. So I'm just gonna try to word vomit out my thoughts for you, please ask questions or challenge any of what I say if any of you see anything you think is incorrect. Buckle in, this will be long.

What do you define as "demonizing" for Neytiri?

Demonizing means portraying someone as wicked or threatening, as evil or worthy of contempt and blame.

For me, demonizing for Neytiri is the trend I've seen lately of portraying her as this unyielding, animalistic type character who's hatred of humans, Spider specifically, goes so far that she gets physically violent with Spider and eventually ends up tearing apart her family. In these fics, Jake is always a sad sack loser bystander, loving his wife too much to step in but of course shamefully knowing how wrong what she's doing is. Infantilizing poor white savior Jake Sully, being brow beaten by his mean indigenous wife into neglecting a child is a weirdly strong take in this fandom. Often Mo'at is a wise elder chiding Neytiri for being unable to get over her prejudice. Mo'at and Jake understand Neytiri as much as anyone would, they wouldn't shame her. To me, it's an extremely reductive and frankly borderline racist characterization. When paired with a sympathetic view of Quaritch, it is at best irresponsible and at worst knowingly dangerous.

Neytiri is representative of an indigenous woman. I feel like I don't have to explain why making her violent, volatile, and completely unreasonable is a little bit of a harmful caricature. In these fics, for me, Neytiri ceases to be a person. She looses autonomy to sort of represent this monolith of hatred and prejudice that has hurt our little baby boy Spider. It's crazy to me that people can't apply the exact same empathy they have towards Spider (saving Quaritch) to Neytiri (not being able to trust Spider). They are the most foil of foil characters. Their storylines are extremely similar, if I'm being honest. Essentially, ignoring the fact that Neytiri is a member of a minority community being actively genocided by Spider's people is intentionally reductive. If you can empathize with Spider, and ESPECIALLY if you find Quaritch sympathetic, finding Neytiri's actions unforgivable is racism, plain and simple.

Also, side note, the lengths people go to where Neytiri just literally will not budge under any circumstances at all is INSANE.

(I read a fic the other day where she gave Spider to child protective services behind everyone's back. That's LUNACY. She only came around after she almost lost Tuk when Tuk was suddenly born prematurely and Mo'at came in and was like "Eywa made it so you can never have kids again because of what you did, have you learned your lesson yet?" Like?? I do not understand the HATRED some of ya'll have for her, the suffering you all think she deserves. She's having an EXTREMELY NORMAL trauma reaction to surviving GENOCIDE? Examine yourselves greatly).

But where I was going was Neytiri is the same character who pushed her parents to let them go to human school, fell in love with human Jake, defended him and trusted him despite her family, mated with him and lost her religious position because of it, and then had a bunch of part human kids with him, and adopted a fully freak of nature kid born of a human she loved and respected. She has human friends, she wears and uses human tech, and she forgave Jake after he had betrayed them. Basically what I'm saying is Neytiri, despite her continuous trauma, is the most open and curious and non traditional Na'vi of all time. Girl is READY to meet new people and learn new shit, and to be open to everyone. Sometimes I think about a no trauma Neytiri and I get emotional. I think it's crazy to say she would never budge on Spider, if it wasn't for his dad I'm pretty sure she would've softened lonnnnng ago, if not having liked him from the get go.

Um, that got way too long I have too many thoughts. Second half of your question.

Is it ok to write from a perspective where a character doesn't really like or trust her, as long as the trauma is noted?

This is a tricky question, because technically there is nothing you can't do as a writer. Of course, it also means there is nothing anyone can't criticize you for writing. Like, Colleen Hoover can say she's writing realistic depictions of domestic abuse until the cows come home, I'm still going to say she's romanticizing and normalizing it in a super callous way. Neither of us can stop the other. So yeah, of course you're okay to write from the perspective of a character that doesn't like Neytiri. I just think the point will be what your prerogative is. One of my MFA professors says it in a way I like and I'm sure I've referenced before, if you aren't trying to make a point about something that might have to have a trigger warning then don't include it. I always say I would take it a step further; if your point is to defend that thing, don't do it. So for me, my big points would be try not to project my own feelings onto the character either way; if the character is wrong about something and the narrative intends to show that they will either learn, or we the reader will grow past them. But to be sure what you feel the takeway of the piece is is what you wanted it to be, I guess.

Do you have any resources so I can educate myself to properly write this kind of character?

Well, I have a few on white writers writing BIPOC characters and the ethics of that if you're interested in that. But I don't have any on specifically writing generational trauma. I guess I'd say reading and absorbing are my biggest tools; so reading books/watching movies or TV that use the speculative to translate generational trauma, and learning about and taking in the real life examples the character is based on. Read up on some genocides, and indigenous people today and how their lives are still affected. Even just watch the news; we're witnessing a very public genocide being pushed right to our attention right now. And of course, that is not the only genocide happening rn, it's just the only one we're talking about, so there's plenty of real world case studies unfortunately right in front of us.

[koiguitars]

it deeply agonizes me that the speak now elements of the manuscript are never discussed in favor of the atw of it all..... like i just. "in the age of him she wished she was 30 and made coffee every morning in a french press" vs "someday when we're older, this is something we'll laugh about over coffee every morning while you're watching the news," "now and then she rereads the manuscript of the entire torrid affair" vs "i used to think one day i'd tell the story of us," "afterwards she only ate kids cereal and couldn't sleep unless it was in her mother's bed" vs never grow up exploring the idea of moving out for the first time & how she couldn't be sleeping in her mother's bed if she was already moved out (also robin being the last song before the manuscript already creating this mental connection)..... please im insane

[voided-selfships]

It is five in the mORNING!!!

[clementine-kesh]

Thank u so much!! I tried finding your Phleelix post on my own but can't find it can u link it pls??

(I haven't quite made up my mind if i ship it yet but I wish to Ponder.)

-Levi

i can’t find the actual post either because tumblr search is bad (it was the list of lower decks-style voyager reboot episodes) but luckily i have a copy of that post saved in my notes app because it’s one of my faves so here’s the relevant bit:

FAITH OF THE HEART: a temporal anomaly confined entirely to the mess hall allows neelix to moonlight as the chef on the enterprise nx-01, but his loyalty to voyager is tested when he begins a torrid love affair with dr. phlox. b’elanna is disappointed when the hot they/them she matched with on spacebumble turns out to be a nearby borg cube.