Last night I saw the movie Fight Club for the first time. I thought it was pretty similar to Willam Goldings’ Lord of the Flies. Although I found some of the themes of Fight Club to be disturbing and/or disgusting, the movie somewhat touches on the idea of nature vs nuture with repest to masculinity. This was also depicted in Lord of the Flies. Both depicted masculinity to be aggressive, barbaric, and chaotic without the intervention of civilization. Do you believe that human nature is inheritly evil and that it is society’s rules and orders that transforms human into civilized individuals?
No I believe human nature is inherantly good, but its society’s rules and orders that transforms us into evil beings, narcisistic, and or pathetic malcontent beings. The biggest theme in fight club is transcending the ego/self. Transcending the ego/self to experience life as it is. Not to live in the souless mold which society demands. Fight club comes at this from a male perspective, but really it is applicable to all of society. As for the disturbing, and disgusting themes I assume you are talking about the actual fighting. I don’t agree with it either. I don’t think that its needed, but in the movie it just serves as a means to an end, as a means to enlightenment.
I don’t have much time at the moment(at least my ride is supposed to be here… although its not FFS ), I’ll revisit this thread later, and maybe expand on a few ideas. Finally a thread about fight club whoo hoo
As for the lord of the flies I really don’t see much of the connection. Fight club becomes a rather cohesive unit in the end, where everyone is equal. I remember reading lord of the flies in grade school though, so my memory of it is not that great.
hmmm…but in the characters journey to break free from society’s rules, I thought they resorted to a more aggressive and barbaric life. Isn’t the director saying that males are inherently “evil”.
Biologically I’d say human males are more predisposed toward violence than females. But as Rounder says - I think it’s true that people will do whatever is required to obtain the goals they set themselves in the society they inhabit - If you compare social structures and the limits of conduct inherrent to them (not the ‘law’ - the things individuals can predict (subjectively) they have a decent chance of getting away with) to different games :
In a ‘chess’ society - intellect will dominate.
In a ‘boxing’ society - physical prowess will dominate.
Very simplistic I know, but the rules of the game you’re playing dictate both the conduct of the players and the type of player likely to win. Simularly, social structure has great effect on the nature and conduct of it’s inhabitants.
In the case of ‘Lord of the flies’ the film has a few problems:
There are no females. This alone makes the film a bad representation on which to base any worthwhile thinking.
It doesn’t go on long enough. As far as I remember the more violent hunter types eliminate the more altruistic/intellectual/nerdy types toward the end - (I remember some spekky kid getting whacked with a rock or something… ) Anyway - primitive societies would have started out like this - alpha males eliminating anything they felt a threat to their position, by whatever means neccessary. Qualities like ‘mercy’ and ‘tolerence’ only develop after a ruler/ruling class feel secure enough in their position to relax their grip a little and let the little fish play.
Civilization does not intervene - it is invented…
As for fight-club… One of my all-time favourite films… But Rounder obviously loves it more, so I’ll let him shoot off some fireworks before I come along to piss on them…
I didn’t think it was a very good movie, myself. I regrettably did buy it before I’d seen it, and I sold it after one viewing. It had its moments but overall I thought it was a subpar film.
As to society causing our evils, I disagree. I think society was devised to rein in our natural selfishness and channel it towards the common good. Are humans intrinsically good or evil? Hmmm…if there is such a thing as true good and true evil, then both are wrapped up in our DNA. The answer to such a complex question is the subject for another thread. Suffice it to say that I think humans, if not inherently good, do possess common qualities of apathy, love and compassion. The ones that don’t are generally considered sociopaths.
No I read an interview with the writer Chuck palanuk(think thats how you spell it), and what he was trying to show was that in modern society the role of the male is obselete. As in hunter/gatherers. Men now search through Ikea magazines to find the “coffee table that defines me”.
You have to realise that in fight club everyone was equal “You are not your job, you are not your wallet you are not your khakis”, and when the fight is over “nothing was solved, but nothing really mattered”. The fighting isn’t about losing or winning at all, its just about the fighting, its more of an outlet. They hug afterwards, and say “good fight, how about next week”, and when Edward Norton’s character takes a fight too far, the rest of the group are appaulled.
In the fight club society everyone is equal. When they start project mayhem they give up their names. “You are not a specail and unique snowflake, we are the all seeing all dancing crap of the world”.
Well heres my point ‘selfishness’ comes from the ego/self. I don’t think that the ego/self is something natural. In fight club one gives up his name, and his individuality. He is just a part of the group. I have no doubt that the ego/self was a part of evolution, but I do not think that it is needed any more. I think we can transcend the self. In the society we live today its mostly about the individual. Narcisism reigns. Basically I don’t think that we are acting natural in today society. I think the ego is what runs our world, and so we are not a cohesive society, yet are at each others throats. Trying to make more money then the next man, trying to get a better job, get a better house. We don’t care about our fellow man we care about “celebrity magazines, and sattelite with 200 hundred channels”. We our so seperated, this race that race, blue collar, white collar, nationalism.
In fight club Tyler is constantly trying to get his conterpart to let go, transcend the self, and experience life as it is. The bar scene when Jack says “Nice furniture, a very good sound system, and a wardwrobe that was getting very respectible. I was so close to being complete”. Society has us searching, has us stuck in an illusion of becoming chasing after the idea of being perfect, being complete. “I felt so sorry for all of those men stuck in gyms trying to look like the latest Guess add”.
When Tyler burns Jack’s hand, Jack attempts to use visual techniques to deal with the pain. “No don’t deal with it the way those dead people do!!! Look this is your pain, right here”
Some of my quotes may be a little paraphrased,but I’ll leave you with one more, which comes right after the scene where Tyler puts a gun to the man working at the 7/11’s head.
“You had to give it to him, in his own Tyler way he was really starting to make sense. no fear, no distractions, the ability to let THAT which does not matter, TRUELY SLIDE…”
I think more of a parallel can be drawn between Heidegger’s “The Question Concerning Technology” and “Fight Club”. Both try to present the argument that technology, as a way of revealing, conceals man/woman as an individual and discloses them as a tool. We are doctors, lawyers, consumers, voting blocks, Lexus owners, tax payers, credit card holders, and on and on and on…We are what we do, our “usefulness” determined by our utility to the ordered and precise mechanism which is the modern human world.
So many of the things which surround us ,so many of the things we interact with, are viewed with an eye that perceives utility first and foremost. A tract of land is a potential farm or building site,a hen is an egg-producer,a car is a form of transportation,a tree is lumber,etc,etc…
Tyler was all about not defining yourself as a human being according to the function you serve. He used the violent bare-knuckle boxing to force people out of the enframing of technology which labels them as utilitarian objects. The fight club members let go of how they perceive themselves in the modern world when they are hitting or being hit…they stop seeing themselves as rich or poor, vagrant or CEO.
The only problem I had with the movie was the lack of female fight clubs Nonetheless, I enjoyed it and thought it very thought-provoking. The computer animation was amazing, the cinematography was very well done, the acting was convincing, and the storyline was unique. As well,I always prefer a violent movie that portrays violence realistically, instead of in the typical Hollywood “cleaned up for film” violence…like “True Lies” where everyone dies after being shot once and doesn’t bleed or lose teeth when they are hit hard in the face. Contrivance really pisses me off.
fight club hits a nerve… society is a fraud. most everyone does everything for credit rather then expierience. to get awards, and other status symbols. … the movie “waking life” touches briefly on the subject as well.
Yeah it would have been nice to see some women fightclubs. Personally I think women fightclubs, and jello would have mixed together nicely, jello as a path to enlightenment… hmmm… yeah I like that idea
Fight club is about anti-commercialsim, sexual isolation, anti-capitalism, nihilism. I’m having a hard time understanding.
OK I get u a little better now. Yes it depicts the mindset of MEN. But moreso I believe it’s showing the mindset, of youth in men. Youthful men. I think the story is about the seperation of adolescence from motherly nurturing. I got this idea from the spear and the sow.
Fight Club is about the seperation of nurture from ALL women and society in general. I find it hard to compare the two.
In regards to personal philosophy. Blanks slate. Locke is most logically plausible.
Just like the atoms that compose his body, and the electrons that make up his universe; man is on a charge level neutral. There are neutral bad and good persons all existant in the world to maintain balence. It is the only logical theory. Any theory stating man is good or bad intrinistically is a BS one.
In my own case, I define 'civilization' in terms of restrictions; what seperates a civilized body of people from an uncivilized one is that the civilized one knows better than to do certain things. So, to that extent, I [i]have[/i] to see it as you describe above. So yes, 'human nature' must be evil: we would have need for all these laws and such if it wasn't.
But the nature of your question creates the answer: You have set about to compare 'human nature' to 'civilized society', therefore isolating them from each other. I'd say that the question is confused, and that in fact 'society's rules' and civilization [i]are[/i] human nature- or at least, a better example of it than a bunch of kids stranded on an island.
And that dude who watched it once and gave it crap…
you have to watch Fight Club about 40 or 50 times before every little metaphor and lesson is fully grasped. Our Cross Country team watches the movie all together about 10 time each year. My friend David, has watched the movie 230 times and counting! And its better everytime…
Anyway, you all NEED to go watch fight club again before you post here.
I think you can even compare Lord of The Flies to Fight Club!
Lord of the Flies descusses human nature…
Fight Club dives into a world of thoughts on the human psyche and position, the change in the needs of society and the why we are all (idiots)!
Wow man As I’ve said fight club is my favorite movie. I’ve seen it maybe 10 times though… and I consider that a lot . Uhmm… I don’t know… I think you are over analyzing to some degree… or rather a large degree!!! Yeah fight club is a great movie, but I wouldn’t take any media too seriously. Maybe your friend just has a thing for Brad Pitt
I’m on board with Phaedrus if I understand him correctly. We have all the qualities that each philosopher sticking to one nature debates (all rational, all barbaric, etc.). To describe human nature in some monolithic sense I think is to make a mistake. We have all of these qualities…in our nature/capacity. Nurture plays a large role. But if psychologists were legally permitted (and by ethicists), if we were to create 10 Lord of the Flies-type of experiments, I doubt that the majority of them would “revert” to their suggested barbaric nature to that extreme as the charge goes. My opinion.
It would be more interesting to explore the idea of boys placed in such conditons, females present, without much prior nurture of “civilization.” (not too many years old but have language to communicate). With food, etc. provided, scarce enough to stimulate competition however, not knowing they were being watched (no “look of the other” in the Sartreian sense) Your thoughts… Eat eachother alive, commons dilemma, or Marx Island?
), I’ll revisit this thread later, and maybe expand on a few ideas. Finally a thread about fight club whoo hoo 
) Anyway - primitive societies would have started out like this - alpha males eliminating anything they felt a threat to their position, by whatever means neccessary. Qualities like ‘mercy’ and ‘tolerence’ only develop after a ruler/ruling class feel secure enough in their position to relax their grip a little and let the little fish play.
As I’ve said fight club is my favorite movie. I’ve seen it maybe 10 times though… and I consider that a lot . Uhmm… I don’t know… I think you are over analyzing to some degree… or rather a large degree!!!