"The God Who Runs My Life.."

                                                            “The God Who Runs My Life”

I’m especially excited about the topic for this week. The conversation about God, Religion, and Spirituality is, in my opinion, necessary to have no matter what one’s worldview is. One of the main popular debates is over whether or not God exists. Reasons for my belief in God are not the point of this particular post.  However, just as Pascal suggested in “The Wager”, there is a large amount of pressure associated with having to choose whether or not God exists because of the implications it has about what one is committing or not committing their life to. I’d like to suggest that this pressure doesn’t end once a decision is made in either direction.  One who chooses to believe in God is then signing up , in a sense, to let God run their life (by following a religion) - and there’s definitely pressure when it comes to reconciling what one loves and enjoys with some of the laws of God. The effort to concentrate one’s will to align with their faith was illustrated in the film I watched this week.

 

Chariots of Fire is centered on the journey of a Jewish man named Abrahim, who has an intense passion and strong talent for running, which he succeeds in at his university in Cambridge where he also encounters a bit of anti-Semitic tension. In one talk that he gives to his supporters, he compares faith to running a race as one’s spiritual journey takes energy and concentration of will just like the act of running. One issue with Abrahim’s love for running is that it seems to present potential conflicts with his beliefs. He struggles, first, with the idea of running on the Sabbath, not wanting to dishonor it. Eventually, Abrahim is encouraged by a coach to run for God. Abrahim reveals that to win (the races) is to honor God. In one scene, he tells a loved one who thinks that running is a spiritual distraction that, “I believe God gave me purpose and that He also made me fast” (as in a fast runner). At first, it seems that Abrahim’s primary motives were to win so that he could beat those who he felt were against him and that the aim to bring honor to God was secondary.  Although he experiences many thrilling successes, Abrahim gets to a point where he declares that he can’t make the sacrifice to work by running on the Sabbath. He continues running, but not on the Sabbath. His wins become more meaningful because of his new motivations. His words are recited again: “I believe that God made for a purpose and He also made me fast, and when I run, I feel His pleasure.” By this time, Abrahim still has the will to win, but it is motivated out of wanting to honor God and work in the spirit of excellence as opposed to just beating opponents or bringing glory to his own self.  For him, to let God run his life and therefore guide his motives were freeing, and allowed him to more deeply enjoy running for God.

Many think that religious rules are meaningless and too limiting on freedom. On the surface, rules and freedom don’t seem to coincide, but both religious and not religious people can understand the freeing nature of a lot of rules. Not working on the Sabbath may not be meaningful to a non-Christian; however, even that non-Christian can understand the benefit in cutting back on certain activity so that it doesn’t consume you and so that you can rest. Religion is largely made up of rules, yet the intent is freedom. Spirituality on any level requires some amount of discipline and structure, yet people also seek it for freedom. Some question why people would even adhere to certain religious rules, considering the fact that keeping the rules could be for no reason.

For this reason, it’s interesting to think about the idea that “I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. ..” written in Pascal’s (The Wager)  I believe that Pascal is saying that if he’s got to place a bet on whether or not God exists then it’s hard for him to believe in that kind of God and that he is not free. Those with a spiritual worldview might suggest that the wager is not over whether to choose if God exists or not, but that it is over whether one chooses to live for God or not. The wager changes depending on who’s involved.

(Is the wager that Pascal is referring to limiting or freeing? Is the freedom to choose our belief or disbelief in God important? )

 In the film, Abrahim compared running a race to faith, as mentioned before. 

For those who believe in God (I'm on one of those), "committing yourself to the love of Christ is how you run a straight race," says Abrahim in "Chariots of Fire". A commitment to the love of Christ is an example of how God is the one who runs my life. I'm commanded to love ( there's another rule), but this love enables me to "run the race of life" and I find so much freedom in that. No matter what our worldview is, I think it's so important for all people to keep running towards truth. (Even those who are certain, should have questions.) When are motives are less about just having victory over others or winning just so we can feel good and more about winning for something bigger than ourselves we can experience even more happiness. 

God I love faith.

I never know how I feel about religion, but I know how I'm supposed to feel about it. Do I feel about it how I should? No. But then again, would I if I practiced it like I should? Maybe. The one thing that I do know however, is that I don't know a life without religion. Much like Russell suggests, I am one of the children that have been conditioned to believe in a God, and no matter what religion I may practice, I cannot help but believe that there is some all present being out there watching me. Well, I may be able to help it, but it would take more out of me to not believe it than to believe. However, there is always a part of me that wishes I was more like Pi. As a very out of practice Catholic who only goes to mass because of my family, I always wished I understood it more, believed in it more. Felt more connected to it. Pi felt that. But I always liked to believe it's never too late for me. I like to believe more in Pascal's theory that you place this wager to believe in God, and even if it turns out to be wrong, well...you're still a better person because of it. The, what do you have to lose kind of thing. But more than anything, I like how Life of Pi shows how religion is something of a comfort. The power we give it in times of crisis and sorrow. It shows our desire for something greater than us to me, our desire to know that our actions and choices hold meaning towards our outcome, I think that deep down we really need that in times of bad. I know for myself, I only ever turn to God in the extremes, when things are good I am very thankful, when things are hard I'm either doubtful or faithful. Whichever way it goes to God. I think about how in times of strife I am often wondering how God can exist, can be all powerful and all good and accepting, yet do nothing. This is the same view that Mackie shares, and I found myself seeing reason in his argument and remembered how Pi was talking about faith being a house with many rooms. When he says that there is room for doubt, " Oh plenty, on every floor. Doubt is useful, it keeps faith a living thing. After all, you cannot know the strength of your faith until it is tested." I felt like in that moment my faith was being tested. You read things about reason and truth, about the lack of evidence and the irrationality of it all, and it's hard not to doubt. That's why I think that in times of hardship we give so much power to small things, look for signs in the wind, the unknown. We give that power to God because we find it comforting to know that He is showing himself to us, and giving us some of his power. That was why Pi said he felt like God showed him the island to let him rest. He wanted to believe that he was a good person still in God's eyes. He wanted to believe that God was helping him, he needed a reason to have faith in God still. That he wasn't just sitting back and letting this happen to him. We want to believe that God only lets bad things happen to bad people, and good things happen to good people. But the world doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't have to for us to act well and believe in something greater than us. I feel like we always want proof of things, we want a guarantee. The way I see it there isn't much difference in faith and love, yet people are much more willing to trust a feeling when it comes to love, now aren't they? With love people are allowed to show and express it in different ways and allowed more room for doubt and questioning, time to strengthen their beliefs, practice, and feel uncertain. But not with faith and religion. It's a little unfair. We question people for their belief in God much more than their belief in love, when in the end they both mean not having to go through life alone. I think that's why I disagree with Pi's father when he says, "believing in everything at once is the same thing as believing in nothing." Well, I like to believe in a lot of things, people, love, God, justice, truth, and the list goes on. Not everything I need a guarantee in because if I had it, I'm not sure that I would want to learn more about it, strengthen it, sacrifice for it. I think it's good to believe in things without proof sometimes cause it shows your trust in the world, it reminds you of your spirit. It's something that can't be proven but you know it's there, and it doesn't matter if no one believes you. You just have to believe it enough for yourself.

The Apostle and The Wager

I find that in Pascal’s “The Wager” he provides an interesting point on Doxastic Voluntarism. This is when believing and not believing are a choice left to the individual to make. However it is not just fully choice. It is more of the allowance of belief and then strengthening that belief. He provides an example in which if someone were to pay you $1,000 to believe that pigs do in fact fly, you still not genuinely believe so just because of the incentive. In order to truly adopt a belief, steps must be taken to strengthen yourself in that belief. Just as with anything we as humans peruse in life. The proper measures must be taken.

In the movie I chose to watch this week called, “The Apostle” belief seems to be one of the struggle that Sonny struggles with the most. He has a strong foundation in God and a fairly open one at that. He grew up going to a non-segregated church. He firmly believed that there was no such place for that in the House of God. He is a faithful Pentecostal preacher who begins to lose his touch with God when his wife leaves him for another man and he acts violently against him by putting him into a coma. It seems that the more he questions God, the further the wedge between himself and God.

It is not until he begins to take steps towards God that he truly begins to feel like he is within His presence again. He has a moment of rebirth when Sonny baptizes himself and calls himself “The Apostle E.F.” He brings together a church, a radio show where he also delivers sermons, as well as converting a racist man who fully intended on originally dismantling Sonny and his church. These are examples of the steps in which Pascal is talking about. However, Sonny still has to face the consequences of his actions seeing as his ex-wife’s former lover, who once was in a coma, did not come out of it and died.

Sonny is left to start over again in his pursuit of God’s favoring eye. He submits himself into the arms of custody from the police he has been running from for years. By the end of the movie, we see him using his time in prison continuing to preach to those who listen. We are left with an ending scene in which Sonny and other inmates are cleaning up the sides of the highway all while speaking on Jesus.

What Do You Have to Lose?

Watching Doubt (2008) this week, a film that explores faith, I was struck by the question of whether or not the legitimacy of faith requires evidence. The main character in the film, Meryl Streep, is a nun that threatens to overthrow a priest over accusations with which she had no real basis. The nun never questions the certainty of her accusations, never allowing her faith to waver. I questioned myself: does this nun's display of faith in her accusations accurately parallel that of the faith Christians partake in their pursuit of the existence of a Creator? Furthermore, what are the consequences of this unwavering faith and how does that apply to the faith of Christian believers?

Another film, quite different than the aforementioned, called Dogma (1999) is a comedy that addresses religion in a satirical form, one which I would have to deem sacrilegious. I take no issue of this fact and feel that despite its sacrilegious tendencies, the film brings up quite a few relevant points of discussion concerning faith. Specifically, a quote from the character Serendipity kickstarted my thinking for this discussion:

"When are you people going to learn? It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's nailed it yet, because they're all too self-righteous to realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith. Your hearts are in the right place, but your brains gotta wake up." - Dogma (1999)

This quote made me realize how the concept of faith is so extremely critical to religion, in general. It is impossible to believe in Christianity without first having faith... a fact of which most all of us realize yet tend to overlook when exploring the religious perspective's of others.

Now, to further discussion, I will add my own thoughts on the philosophy in which I conceive my religious perspective. In my mind, there are two choices from which we as humans must decide: Is there a creator of this savage garden that we live or did the same garden originate out of the evolution of nature itself? It is important to note that either choice made will ultimately require faith - how else is there to justify our choice? Regardless of our justifications, ultimately we must have faith that we made the right decision and furthermore have faith that we can justify our decision to ourselves and others time and time again. Continuing, there are certain implications for either choice we make, but I argue that there is one option that separates itself from the others.

1. If we decide to believe in a creator, it is obvious we will either be right or wrong - just as with the second option presented.

2. If we decide to believe in no such creator, we will still be either right or wrong. If we are right, then we are equal to those that incorrectly chose to believe in a creator.

This is the logic in which I base my faith. Blaise Pascal takes a similar idea in which he discusses a 'wager' and he makes the same point: "What do you have to lose?". Let me further illustrate the point. Say there are two doors from which to choose:

Door #1: Open if you believe in God.
Door #2: Open if you do not believe in God.

If you walk through Door #1 and you are right, you win a prize. If you walk through Door #1 and you are wrong, you may exit and enter Door #2.

If you walk through Door #2 and you are right, nicely done, but you receive no prize and you cannot exit to try Door #1. If you walk through Door #2 and you are wrong, you receive no prize and you cannot exit to try Door #1.

Examining this conundrum, it seems that the only way to win a prize is if you choose to believe in God. Also, and more importantly, the consequence for incorrectly walking through Door #1 is the exact same as the consequence for correctly or incorrectly walking through Door #2! This brings up Pascal's point in his text, The Wager. What do we have to lose? If the consequences are the same for either option, would we not be right to choose the option that at least offers a prize?

"But by faith we know his existence. In glory we shall know his nature." - Blaise Pascal 

The Gray Area

It is very awesome to me when the stars align and two of my classes perfectly compliment each other at one time; I have learned that thats one of the most special things about college, really. Right now, I am studying science, religion, and truth claims in my understanding religion course. I have always been a skeptic, always. It is hard for me to make truth claims, because I see everything in gray. The two films I watched this week–Doubt and Apostle–gave me moral dilemma when it comes to Christianity. First off, I believe I need to address Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian before I move on. I have lived the past six years unable to address my doubt about God and Jesus; no answer that anyone could give me would satisfy me, and I never experienced God in the way my friends said they did. So I knew that the only way to figure out my faith was by searching for logical ways and proofs for me to return back to fully believing in Christianity.

Russell's argument was difficult for me to read, because as I read I felt as though I could rebut and argue back, which I usually do not feel when reading philosophical works. But I know it stems from yet something else I watched this week: Rob Bell's lecture named Everything is Spiritual. Bell argued God's vastness and ability to transcend us like Pascal's The Wager. But Bell used quantum physics to explain the intricacy and "fine tuning" as he called it of the world and how it supports life. Seemingly drawing him to believe that someone must be making sure everything is just right for us to live. This lecture changed the way I look at religion completely. I do not believe that it is something based out of fear or the unknown; I have honestly logically come to believe in God's existence and further more this search has led me to believe in Christ's death and resurrection as well. Though, these are new discoveries for me, so it is difficult to fully explain how doubt led me to belief.

The two films though showed me a different side of things, making mistakes (sinning) and how to deal with it. In Apostle, Sonny is cheated on and then makes a mistake by beating his wife's lover to death. Instead of facing his consequences he runs away. Normally I would condemn that behavior, but by Sonny leaving and forming another church, he changes so many people's life. He changes a community. The dilemma is in the morality. How should I feel? Disgusted because he is a murderer or charmed that he could positively affect so many people. And that precisely is what I mean by the gray area in between.

Ultimately, it is hard for me to imagine where my overwhelming sense of love I feel everyday and my believe for wrong and right is not governed by the some else–God.

I Too, Am Not a Christian.

This week's topic was something I really didn't want to go over because of other classes that I have, Philosophy of Religion, and I felt like I needed a break from the constant ideologies of Religion, God, and Spirituality however this week did bring something new to the table that allowed me learn something new. This week we watched the movie Doubt together and then I watched the movie Life of Pi which both focused on the doubt of reality as it may have happened but with the God question at play. After view those captivating movies, I read the articles and came across one that truly stood out to me, Why I Am Not A Christian. Russell in, Why I Am Not A Christian, expressed key things that I agree wholeheartedly regarding "Christianity" and what it means to be a Christian. I, However, will say that I do believe we could use these religions to reach a higher platform which is supporting and pushing for higher morals and values for people that we all may prosper as a society verses judging those who do not share your same views or picking and choosing which scriptures you want to live by or not.

No, I am not testing your faith by saying "I am not a christian". I am testing your faith, however, by saying that true Christians are ethnocentric due to your core beliefs. Christianity is a religion that is monotheistic which says there is only one God and rejects everyone's else God/Goddess. Fun Fact: Even some Christians that call themselves Christian, loosely, aren't accepted by other so called Christians. Russell brings up the point about what really is a christian and he goes to talk about how vague it is to be a christian now and days as well as the conflict between, for example, Christian, Islam, and Judaism. They all stemmed from the same tree however branch out at certain times because of disagreements. In the movie Life of Pi, the man listening to Pi as he spoke about his life story being stranded out in the sea. He opened up with the notion that this story would make you believe in God. Little Pi tried practicing three different religions because He learned something new from each one and he was attracted the the ideologies of such.

At the end of the story Pi survives being stranded out in the sea but the perspective came in two fold. Either Little Pi survived all by himself by killing and eating the people who were on the boat or he was the only one to survive and he witness the surviving animals take each other out and survive with the Tiger.  Russell brings up the point of the moral problem of being in hell. To Little Pi, being stranded out in the open sea, that felt like hell. Why would such a forgiving and meek God let all those things happened to him. In the movie Doubt I was baffled from the examples of doubt that lives even in the church. In the movie you couldn't help but feel the burden of being guilt until proven innocent in the situation. What is even wilder is that fact that it wasn't proven or disproved but the principle was just certain that it was happening and "he must be stopped."

That doubt that eats at us to either believe the better or the later is that same faith you profess for "Jesus". The principal did not turn the other cheek to the Father. She pushed and pushed harder but it wasn't anything christian like. In the church you would hope for people to actually attempt to live as Christ which would be a little more christian than just going to church on Easter and Mother's day. Russell's method in going about expressing how he isn't Christian is going down the line of arguments made to prove the Christian God however after each one we hit a dilemma of almost like an infinite regress or we must just accept it because He is the "First Cause." Moving forward it was interesting to learn of how powerful doubt is to man that it can tamper with your sanctity and certainty in regards to the material or the metaphysical.

Class, Meet my BFF Horror!

I have had a very long relationship with Horror. We met back in my wee lad days while I was spending the night at grangran's house. She would let me stay up late at night watching either cartoons or Zorro (ahhhhhhhhhhh Zorro!!!!!!!!!!!!! sorry about that). However this particular October night a show called, "Tales of The Crypt" came on. As I watched with my innocent little eyes such horrifying, thrilling, gory, with a dash of comedy here and there to keep it fresh. When we met, I was truly thrilled. It was Horror at it's core! Little did I know the movie, Cape Fear, came out in the same time which reminded me of that good ole fashion Horror that I grew up knowing and loving. I was also delighted to be Carroll's case study when she was diving into why people are drawn to Horror, but I personally think I'm an adrenaline junkie and that instant fear gives me a thrill.

Cape Fear was a movie about an innocent convicted felon of rape and murder served 14 years in jail due to his defense attorney bury evidence.  While serving his time Robert De Niro learned to read, law, and ended up getting a law degree in jail. When he got out his plot of revenge began by finding his defense attorney. His plot and plan was to get revenge and make him suffer like Job did in the bible. Robert De Niro's character slowly exposed his old attorney's affair, stole the piano string which was a murder weapon, killed the attorney's cop friend and made him and his family flee the scene of the crime. De Niro rode under the car as they moved the their next location Cape Fear. While getting settled in their new boat-home, De Niro springs into action and tried to take out the family. The attorney wins the struggle, the boat crashes and the family is saved. The fear and horror at play here is almost like a fear of Karma and past actions.

Watching Cape Fear reminded me of Aristotle's take on tragedy where we don't want to experience the terror but just observe from a safe distance. Almost to feel empathetic to the experience. What drew me in even more was the fact that I have aspirations on being an attorney and I've thought about some of the consequences which is making enemies. I don't plan on sabotaging my moral code to tamper with my cases as such. That has bad Karma written all over it. Things such as ghosts, ghouls, and goblins don't scare me but what does scare me is what I learned from Scooby-Doo; the person behind the mask is what you need to fear. Carroll brings up in the article the point about why people are drawn to horror is the unknown but the thrill is when the unknown is reaching out to you and you are not in control; which is fear. It has been something that puzzles mankind each day. The unknown is a huge source of fear. Whether its the fear of the unknown under the bed, in the closet, waiting on you in the backseat of your car, or even right behind you; Horror and thriller movies capture this an taunt us to put a face to this unknown horror and steer others from it.

Horror! I hope you paid everyone a healthy visit this week and opened their mind to a good scare!

Allegory of Fear

What is it that draws us to horror? According to Lovecraft in Why Horror, the purpose of horror is to experience cosmic fear which is an experience of "fear, moral revulsion and wonder" all at once (162); it is the desire for those emotions or awe that draws us to horror. Through horror, we are able to experience the unknown without any consequences and are assured that it is all a "filtered reality" opposed to real world experiences. In The Purge, the magnitude of moral revulsion creates a feeling of "primordial" which leaves one feeling assured but also in a state of wonder.

I want to explore The Purge through moral revulsion. Moral revulsion is the feeling of disgust because what is being witnessed goes against one's moral expectations. I found the events that took place in the movie disgusting because of my own moral sense of order and respect for one another has human beings. The experience was not the sensation of fear mentioned in Why Horror. Instead, I felt like I was watching "when civilization falls apart" because the monsters were just regular people who supposedly possessed a moral compass until there were no laws. The Purge really disproves the theory that humans are innately good and will behave in accordance with their morality without laws. Instead, the film showed a more animalistic nature of man because without there being laws people were killing one another and other immoral acts. The film is not unlike every day life here in America, which is why I think the fear element is not as strong. The film more so portrays an exaggerated perspective of crime and the government's hands off ruling of the people. People commit murder every day here in America, and we are currently under law. Which raise an important question: do we not kill because "it's morally wrong or repulsive" or because there's a law against killing? Would that moral stain be lifted if our government one day decides to legalize murder? If no one ever said killing and stealing is dubbed immoral then we would likely find no opposition to such actions. It is the animalistic nature of people in the film that brings on moral revulsion. This is supported by the names we call people who kill; " you animal". We should not behave as animals because we are better than them because they "lack morals" according to man.

For me, the awe experience was when the dad sacrificed himself to this family so that his girls can have money.  I had a combination of fear like symptoms, moral revulsion, and wonder. Though I understand the father's reason for his sacrifice, I still was disgusted by the fact that people were buying people to kill them. It was almost like slavery or prostitution where people were only being reduced to a quantitative value and an ends to a mean. I wasn't scared but I had an adrenaline boost and was very anxious. I started to literally wonder and play different scenarios in my head. My hope was that his daughters and that man would save him or that he'd somehow be able to kill the entire family and change his mind. Even though a lot took place in the movie, that particular scene sent my disgust level through the roof. Possibly because the family was treating the situation like a thanksgiving meal or like "religious rite" (162).

After we are done watching the film, we may have a thought like "thank goodness that isn't real or that'll never happen", illustrating the restoration of "primordial" (163) being that we do not live in a society that is rule free not even for a day. This primordial serves as a type of comfort to the individual experiencing fear which allows for the experience to be more entertaining or an "art of horror". In contrast, someone who actually lived in a society like The Purge would likely not get to experience the comfort of primordial.  Even I can't fully accept the primordial despite living in a "civil society". The government has so many secrets and with the overpopulation problem only getting bigger who knows what drastic measures will be taken.

The Purge may not be the scariest, but it's not just a thriller. Its Horror.

As a kid, I was always the type to watch horror movies only to regret the decision soon after but how I would still time and time again watch them. Thinking back, I always knew deep down that I didn't like them, but that there was something about them that drew me in. My mom however, wasn't the same way. She would always question, much like Carroll, why anyone would want to watch, much less pay for, something that scared you. And in her defense, I never could answer the question, but Carroll's argument to a degree did. I agreed with many of her points and did question others, but I can't deny that her explanation helped me understand and recognize just why people were fascinated with movies like The Purge. Admittedly, when I first saw The Purge, it didn't scare me quite as much as other movies did, and at a point I wondered whether it really belonged in the horror genre. However, after reviewing Carroll's theory, it's hard to deny its rightful place within the art-horror genre. What made that most apparent to me was the fact that like Carroll described, it was disturbing but fascinating and a part of me had to know more and how it ends. So while the idea behind The Purge, it's focus on a world where all crime is legal for a day, may not seem particularly horrifying it is at the very least intriguing. Everyone at one point wonders, what if? And it's that initial interest, that draws people in and our curiosity about what people will do that we want to find out. It's the way that they do disclose information slowly that makes you want to know the outcome. Which I think is exactly why they begin the movie very slowly introducing the family, giving you background on what The Purge is and how dangerous it can be. This way you felt how the family felt, which was worried but for the most part safe. Much like the experience described by watching tragedies, the audience can be manipulated to an extent that they're in the situation, but in the end they know its not real. In the way that people remind themselves that it's just a show, and it's special effects and just a story. Which is why they can be fascinated by it, like Carroll says. It's this point, this awareness that it was fiction, that I was able to watch the grotesque murders and admit to myself that I wanted to see everything that they were going to do. But, in the same situation, I couldn't watch the murders of real people that were posted publicly on Facebook. Even though, it was something you watched and weren't experiencing yourself, the fear you felt watching a real person die was much more personal than when you watch it in a movie. And also with the movie, you want to believe that the people committing these acts were categorical violations. It made you want to think that those people were sick and sadistic for doing what they did, and it was impossible for you to think about how anyone in their right mind could ever do it, much less enjoy it. But, in the end showing the audience that given opportunity and no consequence, anyone could do it. It's all of this, that did in fact categorize The Purge as horror rather than suspense or thriller. It was the fact that it didn't just pull you in with the plot, but that murder, limitations of the human morality, betrayal, no consequences, these things are fears and they are disturbing. But leaves you with these questions that you need to have answered. What if there were no laws? What if people just acted without consequence? What's the worst that could happen? The Purge is simply the horrifying answer to all of it.

Funny Games: Not A Horror Film

While watching the movie, “Funny Games” I did not feel as Carroll described. I did not feel repulsed in addition to being attracted to this film. I felt completely repulsed. The manner in which the film was done repulsed me, the storyline repulsed me, and everything repulsed me. If I were not already invested in the movie for this assignment, I would definitely not have watched any longer than maybe five minutes. I believe this statement should be revised to one where the question is, why are we so entertained by something that ordinarily we would find so repulsive? There may be those who find themselves with the feeling that they “just can’t look away” despite how gruesome it is, but I also believe there are those who are genuinely intrigued and entertained by the gory and evil situations that take place within horror films, like myself. The curiosity and entertainment are the only attractive characteristics of horror movies in my opinion, and if I were to be truly repulsed I would no longer continue to subject myself to such a thing.

In Carroll’s, “The Paradox of Horror,” he says that being in an emotional state is “invigorating” and if we do not have the pay the consequence for this emotional state, i.e. being in fear is often spurned by an actual event of being in danger, but because we do not have the pay this price, we are left feeling bewildered. We are able to enjoy this in a way that is not directly or negatively affecting ourselves. This is a statement that I highly agree with.  We are able to enjoy this sense of bewilderment rather than be fearful of the given situation because we are not physically a part of it other than the viewership of it. There is a detachment. However, this as Carroll explains, does not explain the attraction to horror movies in completion. Within the movie “Funny Games” I did find myself completely apathetic to the family because I did not identify with them which is to further my feeling of detachment. Wondering how the movie would end invigorated me. I was captivated in knowing why Paul and Peter were harassing this family. It made no sense to me that these two rich, college age, reasonably attractive males were doing what they were doing to this family. And by the end of the movie I there was still no answer. It was a senseless, needless, and ultimately fruitless movie. There was nothing to take away from this movie, not even entertainment as I see it.

Reality and the Unknown

I will say that I have absolutely no interest in watching horror films. Well, let me put it this way: If I'm clicking through Netflix trying to find a good movie, Horror is the last genre I'd look. That being said, I am still fascinated by horror films because of the way in which they operate. Why do we enjoy watching films that scare us? Why do we judge these films as good or bad by how scary they are? Noel Carroll examines the same questions in his essay titled Paradox of Horror. Carroll explains the paradox of horror by saying that it "amounts to the question of how people can be attracted by what is repulsive... that is, the imagery of horror fiction seemed to be the necessarily repulsive and, yet, the genre has no lack of consumers". Applying the idea of this paradox to two of the movies that I watched this week, Blair Witch Project and The Purge, I came up with several reasons to which I am interested in watching horror films. 

First, as I said, I am not typically a fan of horror films. However, Blair Witch Project, which I had seen once before this week, has always been my favorite film in the genre. Watching it again this week further affirmed why it is my favorite. It is realistic. They come up with this fantastic legend of a witch in the woods and use cameras to film themselves trying to find her. It is impossible to guess what will happen because of the 'real time' aspect to the film. We, the audience, only see through the camera's lens, which is as close as we can possibly get to the exact perspective of each cast member. This makes things seem real in the sense that it could actually exist as a part of our reality. The fact that it seems real to us, or at least to me, is because it seems true or that it could be true. The Blair Witch Project did a great job of making the supernatural seem real. 

The Purge, on the other hand, took it a step further. The film operates on the basis that the government has set up an annual 'purge' date where all law is forgotten. It is the Wild West - anyone can do whatever they want with no fear of punishment. This is far from supernatural - it is something that could actually happen to us... and that is why it is so enjoyable. I'll say it again: I do not like horror films, BUT if I find myself watching one I enjoy it only if it seems very believable. This is a factor that I believe Carroll, Wood, and Lovecraft amongst others overlook - not all of us watch scary movies because we want to be scared, we are watching because we want to believe that the events taking place could be true. 

Furthermore, as I'm watching I try to figure out what will happen so that I won't be scared when it actually takes place. This is another factor that I believe some of the philosophers leave out. The audience tries to figure out the plot so they don't get scared, but when they are frightened, it catches them even more by surprise. It is like the drop on a roller coaster; it is momentarily terrifying but the dread immediately turns into excitement because of the fact that the filmmakers got one over on you. The Purge is a good example of this, when Henry fires gunshots at James. It is unexpectedly violent and something that the audience could not have possibly figured out beforehand. My point is that we don't always like scary movies because we want to be frightened, it is more because of the fact that it is a puzzle. We want to figure out the plot before it happens and, in turn, enjoy the scarier ones more because they are a puzzle we couldn't solve until it was over. In conclusion, I believe that in addition to Carroll's findings, our enjoyment of horror films also deals with their relationship with reality and also the unknown- the solution that we can't find until it is revealed to us. 

Fear: Charged With Wonder

Horror has never been my favorite genre of film because it invokes a primal response in me, flight or fight, that takes over my body in an adeline rush that leads to no where and at the end of the film I am sitting there thinking to myself, "why did that frighten me, if it was only a movie." I guess our fear of the unknown or wickedness persists in us to this day. In watching the Purge (2013), I found myself crossing my arms and legs and drawing myself inward trying to make myself smaller; the way snails retract into their shell when they are frightened. Even though, the Purge is a different type of scary as from the Exorcist, it is still frightening to me because of the surprising characters that jump at you out of no where. In The Paradox of Horror, Carrol attempts to answer what makes horror pleasurable or compelling even though it is repulsive, hence the name of her chapter.

One theory that I found interesting and believe can answer the question of why people get scared, is H.P. Lovecraft's theory of Cosmic Fear. For Lovecraft, Cosmic Fear is an, "exhilarating mixture of fear, moral revulsion, and wonder" (161). The reason I believe this is found in the Purge is because the film invokes the fear of the unknown that Lovecraft claims has haunted us through human history. In the Purge, anyone at any time and anywhere can attack, rob, murder, or do anything to anyone for 12 hours. This sort of the unknown causes one to be in awe and "charged with wonder," and though it disgusts people it also keeps others wanting more. 

Lovecraft suggests that the experience of feeling in awe and charged with wonder is a religious experience that can account for the reason people keep coming back to fear. I do have to admit that there is something about horror movies that makes me want to watch them and experience the pleasurable sting when a person jumps at the screen with a knife. It releases chemicals in my body that produces the feeling of being disgusted and repulsive at the same time and it is in this moment that I feel the fight or flight response. In addition, for Lovecraft the thing that is causing the fear is the supernatural. In a sense one is elevated to a state of temporary perplexity and numbness, when one is experiencing fear for the supernatural. Therefore, making it a religious experience because one is drawn to this state (162-163).

The Purge draws out this state of perplexity and numbness because one fears the unknown's actions. The other heart cringing part of the Purge is the idea that all of this is permitted and the government does not assist one. We are transplanted to a time in history where there is no social order and government during those 12 hours and one is left to his/her own devices. Therefore, movies like the Purge, are addicting they invite us back because they are pleasurable but they are also disgusting because of the feeling it gives us. It is this experienced charged with wonder that makes it addicting. 

Horror all depends on control.

October is my absolute favorite season: colder weather (not this year, though), leaves change colors, my birthday, and one of my favorite holidays, Halloween. With Halloween comes much controversy, and one of these controversial things is horror. Whether it is a movie about ghosts or a haunted house, people wonder what it is that draws us in to experiencing these things. In our reading for this week, Carroll, discusses the paradox of horror. Basically, she explains that horror as a genre has something repulsive about it, yet people are still filling theaters and buying Stephen King novels all the time. This give and take that horror is is just a paradox.

To connect this back I want to discuss the two films I viewed this week–Poltergeist and The Blair Witch Project. I am interested in these because Blair Witch does not scare me in the slightest yet there were many parts of Poltergeist that had me wanting to cover my eyes. Having to look past the terrible special effects that an 80s movie brings, the writing was terrifying to me, but I loved the entire experience. I believe another reason I do not think that Blair Witch Project is particularly my favorite is because there is no resolution at the end that ties it in a pretty understood bow. Does not having clear resolution mess with the explained paradox. It makes me uneasy which takes out of the satisfaction I get when I watch horror movies.

I believe to further explain how we can be simultaneously repulsed and enticed to something is the issue of control vs. not having control. When watching a horror film, reading a scary book, and going through a haunted house, you know deep down that there is no harm that is going to happen to you, and with this guarantee, you feel in control of your own fear. Though, I know some people who do NOT feel this way; I have friends that I cannot get to go through a haunted house, and have a slight irrational fear in play. They are solely repulsed by horror. I would never, though, put myself in a scary situation in which I did not feel that I controlled the situation.

To end, I would like to discuss my own fear. I am not in any way extremely fearful of ghosts, demons, and aliens, but I am afraid of existential issues, dying young, and car accidents. I would not love to put myself in a situation to experience those fears, so that in that way is not a paradox. So it makes me wonder why those that aren't deeply afraid of common scary movie themes why they cannot get through a film when I can, and I can enjoy it.

Humor? Do we need the resolution.

I have never really sat down and pondered about what humor is and why I find the things that I find funny, funny. Kulka writes about three different theories of humor, but first off, I would like to address the action of laughter separate from the theory of humor. I have always thought that laughter was means of relief for us, when you laugh it makes you feel better. Whether it is a laugh at a joke or a nervous laugh. It is means of expressing some sort of emotion and letting it out of our bodies.

Kulka, though, explains the different theories of humor, and the first is The Superiority Theory which is where the reason we laugh or things are humorous are the things that happen that make us feel superior to someone else. For example, much of slapstick comedy falls into this category. The film I watched this week was Bridesmaids, and the scene that makes me think of this theory is the scene in the dress shop when they all get food poisoning... a very HILARIOUS, yet uncomfortable scene to watch. It is also one of the most popular scenes of the movie.

The Relief Theory reminds me of my discussion of laughter. Humor has a "liberating effect"a "discharge of energy." Both Bridesmaids and the Hangover made me feel this relief and after watching I felt more joy and less stress.

The Incongruity Theory is that humor is met when an outcome is something different than what is expected as an outcome. Something that comes for this theory in Bridesmaids is at the end when the wedding is happening and right after the ceremony there is a wedding singer, but he is singing an extremely sexual and inappropriate, which is not what you expect out of a wedding singer. You would expect them to be singing sweet love songs; in turn, the audience is humored by this incongruence.

At the end of the article, Kulka discusses that when it comes to the humorous, the incongruence is not the source of the pleasure but rather the resolution. I am not completely sure if I buy this or not. I do not think there needs to be a resolution of this unexpected happening to be found it funny. But I do see why the word pleasure would be placed in there because the Hangover and Bridesmaids did not end in a happy and resolved manner, we might not have the same feelings towards the ending or the movie as a whole.