Is TV like Plato's cave?

[levinas12]

This thread may or may not elicit any responses but here goes.

Has TV, on the whole, had a positive or negative effect on our culture?

This question addresses not just the content of TV shows but the medium itself.

In the interests of disclosure, there has been, on another sub-forum, a more limited discussion of TV’s effect on one’s spiritual life. But I would like to expand the discussion to include TV’s impact on the culture as a whole.

I think an argument can be made that TV fragments consciousness … with disconnected shows, images, etc … without any context … empty signifiers …

 

[Michael19682]

In his Confessions Saint Augustine has a chapter entitled “A Lover Of Shows”, wherein he confesses as sin his being captivated by shows and their emotional appeals, when he could have more fruitfully turned to the gospels for true instruction without distortion of what you would appear to call “reality”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This thread may or may not elicit any responses but here goes.

Has TV, on the whole, had a positive or negative effect on our culture?.

Applied in moderation TV has it’s place. When overemphasized the consequences can be negative. In trying to balance the benefits and consequences I ask myself the question “If the clock were rewound and if I could prevent the invention of the television would the a desire to make society a better place motivate me to prevent it from being invented?”

I have to answer “No” to that question. Despite the shows that I and some others might cause “junk” or even “destructive” I find it hard to justify preventing the distribution of what could also be described as a communication tool. People can communicate good things, bad things, useless things, destructive things, share their creativity and their experiences. Disrupting the invention of the television might result in more isolation.

With all that being said I find it difficult to imagine a world in which the TV has never existed. I see the TV as being a side affect of the desire of people to reach out and communicate with each other. If I were to chart its lineage I would probably include Morse code communication, books, radio, news papers, and audio records. In charting its converging descendants I would need to include smart phones, computers, and other computing devices (I have three TVs in my house, none of which have antennas, but all of them access to streaming video services, twitter, and so on).

 

[John21652]

Applied in moderation TV has it’s place. When overemphasized the consequences can be negative. In trying to balance the benefits and consequences I ask myself the question “If the clock were rewound and if I could prevent the invention of the television would the a desire to make society a better place motivate me to prevent it from being invented?”

I have to answer “No” to that question. Despite the shows that I and some others might cause “junk” or even “destructive” I find it hard to justify preventing the distribution of what could also be described as a communication tool. People can communicate good things, bad things, useless things, destructive things, share their creativity and their experiences. Disrupting the invention of the television might result in more isolation.

With all that being said I find it difficult to imagine a world in which the TV has never existed. I see the TV as being a side affect of the desire of people to reach out and communicate with each other. If I were to chart its lineage I would probably include Morse code communication, books, radio, news papers, and audio records. In charting its converging descendants I would need to include smart phones, computers, and other computing devices (I have three TVs in my house, none of which have antennas, but all of them access to streaming video services, twitter, and so on).

Your question actually requires an entire study of communication theory to arrive at a conclusive answer and I’m not even sure a conclusive answer is possible. people tend to equate TV along with books and even smoke signals as another form of communication emplyed by mankind to convey a message. The pertinant aspect of TV is its ubiquity. It is available right across a society and to vertually everyone. the people of an entire society are not very likely to have all read one particular book, and smoke signals don’t actually send a signal very far. TV, however, has the capacity to send the one ‘signal’ to every corner of a society. In that sense, TV should be a socially unifying force, but that, of course, depends upon the content of the message. The ‘message’ is whatever the owners, or producers, of a TV station decide it should be. From that point of view, TV actually has the capacity to build culture from the top down as the owners and operators decide what it is that the viewing population should see and hear. Even a TV news story is edited, even censored and made to fit into a certain time frame and in the process of being edited, the owners and operators of a TV show once again decide what it is the audience sees and hears.

Considering the lack of control the viewing audience has over the images and stories presented, the alleghory of Plato’s cave is a good analogy for highlighting the role of TV as a representation of reality. In fact, the audience is in a far worse position than the prisoners of Plato’s story who can do no more than interpret what passes by them in the form of shadows on a cave wall. They must contend with the images being selectively chosen for them by their ‘masters’. In the modern megatropolis the TV viewer is depending on what it is that TV shows him as being represetative of the reality which exists further without the confines of the urban environment. Even a TV nature documentary can never be more than an edited, carefully chosen ‘message’ delivered by someone who wants to make sure the ‘message’ first appeals to the owners of the medium. There is no sense of smell and the view is restricted to what will fit on a screen.

Of course there are many different forms of ‘messages’ which are transmitted by TV. Advertising is the most pervasive in terms of delivering shortened, edited and deliberately chosen representations of reality. It is the one which is deliberately used to cause viwers to have a sense of what their culture actually is. Cultural reality is offered in idealised terms and its ubiquity causes a shift in the perception of what cultural reality is. In that sense, the TV viwer is short changed far more than the prisoners in Plato’s cave, because when they are released they can form their own perceptions of what reality is. The poor TV viewer, on the other hand, when he is released from his ‘isolation’, which is probably a contradiction anyway, is confronted by his compatriots similarly creating culture as they have seen it portrayed on TV. To that end, TV has shaped culture more than any other medium ever invented by humanity.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your question actually requires an entire study of communication theory to arrive at a conclusive answer and I’m not even sure a conclusive answer is possible.

I don’t think it is either. TV is too entangled with too many other things.

Of course there are many different forms of ‘messages’ which are transmitted by TV. Advertising is the most pervasive in terms of delivering shortened, edited and deliberately chosen representations of reality.

There is no escaping those. Even if you filter out the advertisements shown between breaks there are also advertisements embedded in the show content (product placement, so on).

 

[exnihilo]

I will not say TV is completely evil but it has many negative effects. I’ll admit that though I think it is bad I do watch it and too much.

TV is destructive to the family. And radio was as well. In the old days people commonly entertained themselves at night. They would play games as a family. They would also create their own entertainment as a family. This was often playing music for each other. TV is passive whereas these other things are true activities.

TV presents a false reality. Published works (and here I mean any media like newspapers, books, radio, TV) exert a greater influence over the mind. We tend to think that what is published must be true, though there is no reason to think that.

This false reality is reinforced through the idea that TV in particular presents the total picture. In fact TV presents at best a small slice of reality which may give the wrong overall impression. The best example of this was the Iraqis toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein. I remember seeing the TV report and from the camera angle it looked like a mass of people participating. But wide shots from above the scene where this took place, a plaza, showed the people to be only a few hundred who did not even come close to filling up the plaza. The wide shots were not presented by the mainstream media. Seeing those TV images, as real as they were, gave one a false impression.

TV presents a narrow outlook on things. It tends to define any issue and to define acceptable questions about that issue. Politically if you can get people asking the wrong questions then you are safe from the dangers of the public realizing just how they are being abused.

TV’s reality shows are particularly dangerous. The title itself shows what a great deception they are. The footage is real but the editing can and does create an impression that is not real. They take words out of context to make a storyline. As reality TV has progressed it has gotten worse as these shows mix in definitely staged scenes.

In summary yes, TV is like Plato’s cave. It is at best a mere shadow but it is specifically made to be a shadow that gives a dishonest impression of reality.

 

[johnq]

I asked a group of teens if they were disturbed by the shows they watched on TV. They replied, “not at all.” It is a major issue when we watch immoral shows and we are not disturbed by what we watched. The devil is known as the deceiver.

 

[John21652]

I asked a group of teens if they were disturbed by the shows they watched on TV. They replied, “not at all.” It is a major issue when we watch immoral shows and we are not disturbed by what we watched. The devil is known as the deceiver.

And where does the culpability for the immorality lie?

With those who dish up the immoral content, or with those who watch it?

Or both?

Or is an unsuspecting audience who has the immorality served up to them and who watch it uncritically, unthinkingly in the moment, absolved of moral culpability? As distinct from an audience which actually demands the immoral content?

How much has TV contributed to the shifting morality of a society, the standards of which are held up as the ‘objective standard’ when governments and the Judiciary decide on matters which have a moral aspect?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Television is a tool of Satan, used to lead us away from holiness one inch at a time. Whenever we intentionally take our mind off holiness we seriously risk falling into the grasp of Satan. People who watch TV, which probably entails most people on this forum, are unaware of the negative aspects of TV, and will deny that these evil aspects exist when presented with the truth. Tell the TV viewer that their TV watching behavior is evil and they will likely get upset in their denial.
*
“Pray without ceasing”* (1 Thessalonians 5:17).
*
“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”* (Deuteronomy 6:5).

 

[levinas12]

TV is destructive to the family. And radio was as well. In the old days people commonly entertained themselves at night. They would play games as a family. They would also create their own entertainment as a family. This was often playing music for each other. TV is passive whereas these other things are true activities.

TV presents a false reality. Published works (and here I mean any media like newspapers, books, radio, TV) exert a greater influence over the mind. We tend to think that what is published must be true, though there is no reason to think that.

This false reality is reinforced through the idea that TV in particular presents the total picture. In fact TV presents at best a small slice of reality which may give the wrong overall impression. The best example of this was the Iraqis toppling a statue of Saddam Hussein. I remember seeing the TV report and from the camera angle it looked like a mass of people participating. But wide shots from above the scene where this took place, a plaza, showed the people to be only a few hundred who did not even come close to filling up the plaza. The wide shots were not presented by the mainstream media. Seeing those TV images, as real as they were, gave one a false impression.

TV presents a narrow outlook on things. It tends to define any issue and to define acceptable questions about that issue. Politically if you can get people asking the wrong questions then you are safe from the dangers of the public realizing just how they are being abused.

TV’s reality shows are particularly dangerous. The title itself shows what a great deception they are. The footage is real but the editing can and does create an impression that is not real. They take words out of context to make a storyline. As reality TV has progressed it has gotten worse as these shows mix in definitely staged scenes.

In summary yes, TV is like Plato’s cave. It is at best a mere shadow but it is specifically made to be a shadow that gives a dishonest impression of reality.

Nice analysis. “Factual” TV (news, documentaries, investigative reports, etc) is just as staged as “fictional” TV (drama, comedies, etc). It reminds me of the movie, The Truman Show.

The problem with TV is that we lose the line between the real and the fabricated. It’s a huge “con” and we’re the patsies.

But we can wake up and walk out of Plato’s cave.

There are books, and, yes, even newspapers and magazines that are very helpful in this regard.

 

[Catholic90]

Nice analysis. “Factual” TV (news, documentaries, investigative reports, etc) is just as staged as “fictional” TV (drama, comedies, etc). It reminds me of the movie, The Truman Show.

The problem with TV is that we lose the line between the real and the fabricated. It’s a huge “con” and we’re the patsies.

But we can wake up and walk out of Plato’s cave.

There are books, and, yes, even newspapers and magazines that are very helpful in this regard.

Just waking up, so this may be a bit disjointed…(finally got back to sleep about 7 am! It is now noon. Ah, such a life of summer!)

Yes…books, newspapers, and magazines. They are all good!
Golden Compass, The Sun, World Weekly News, Enquirer, Playboy, Star, Globe…

Oh, wait…maybe not!

The fact is, TV itself is morally neutral. As are the generic “books, newspapers, and magazines”. It is what one chooses to view or read - and one can choose morally good, morally neutral, or morally bad.

To make a blanket statement and say “all TV is bad” is an inaccurate statement, just as it is to say “all newspapers are good”.

Most people (at least the people I know) live well rounded lives. They watch some TV, they work, they go to school, they interact with other people, they surf a little Internet, they play and relax a little, etc. The people I know do not just accept at face value something that is said on TV. With today’s ability to connect to the Internet, many immediately with search on the Internet to confirm or debunk something that was on TV. Knowledge and education are great things!

 

[levinas12]

Yes…books, newspapers, and magazines. They are all good!
Golden Compass, The Sun, World Weekly News, Enquirer, Playboy, Star, Globe…

As your list demonstrates, not all publications are helpful.

For alternatives, I recommend, e.g., the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, First Things … there are many more …

TV by its very nature cannot provide the analysis found in these publications.

 

[levinas12]

Just waking up, so this may be a bit disjointed…(finally got back to sleep about 7 am! It is now noon. Ah, such a life of summer!)

Yes…books, newspapers, and magazines. They are all good!
Golden Compass, The Sun, World Weekly News, Enquirer, Playboy, Star, Globe…

Oh, wait…maybe not!

The fact is, TV itself is morally neutral. As are the generic “books, newspapers, and magazines”. It is what one chooses to view or read - and one can choose morally good, morally neutral, or morally bad.

To make a blanket statement and say “all TV is bad” is an inaccurate statement, just as it is to say “all newspapers are good”.

Most people (at least the people I know) live well rounded lives. They watch some TV, they work, they go to school, they interact with other people, they surf a little Internet, they play and relax a little, etc. The people I know do not just accept at face value something that is said on TV. With today’s ability to connect to the Internet, many immediately with search on the Internet to confirm or debunk something that was on TV. Knowledge and education are great things!

I wish I could share your optimism about the “moral neutrality” of TV.

But TV has become a universal and, and, to a greater and greater extent, for many people, an exclusive medium of information. This makes it a very powerful “factory” of public opinion.

As opposed to written media, TV, with its ‘cinematic’ dimensions (perceptual immediacy combined with editing, misleading commentary, etc) is much more seductive. The French intellectual Baudrillard has explored this with his notions of simulacra and hyperreality.

There are pockets of resistance to TV’s hegemony. The Internet (but this too can be misleading). Certain newspapers/magazines (e.g., Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review). Some talk radio.

Also, there is even some good TV (Fox News, EWTN).

But most TV that dominates American culture is not helpful.

 

[Catholic90]

I wish I could share your optimism about the “moral neutrality” of TV.

But TV has become a universal and, and, to a greater and greater extent, for many people,an exclusive medium of information. This makes it a very powerful “factory” of public opinion.

I gather my news from several sources, the local morning newscast, the Today Show, my local online newspaper, a local online TV news website, a national financial news website, and a few other websites, like Comcast.net, yahoo.com, and a handful of others.

As opposed to written media, TV, with its ‘cinematic’ dimensions (perceptual immediacy combined with editing, misleading commentary, etc) is much more seductive. The French intellectual Baudrillard has explored this with his notion of simulacra and hyperreality.

If a story interests me, it is not uncommon for me to Google it and find other sources online and read about it there.

There are pockets of resistance to TV’s hegemony. The Internet (but this too can be misleading). Certain newspapers/magazines (e.g., Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, National Review). Some talk radio.

I find most talk radio inflammatory. I used to listen, but have gotten bored with it. Plus, I am not in the car as much as I used to be. I do not listen to the radio at home at all.

Also, there is even some good TV (Fox News, EWTN). Yep. And the cooking channel. The travel channel. The Discovery Channel. A&E. TruTV. FoxSportsNorth. ESPN. Spike. Nick. Comedy Channel. Cartoon Network. ID.
Animal Planet. NatGeo. Learning Channel. History Channel. among others.

But most TV that dominates American culture is not helpful.

 

[levinas12]

Catholic90,

For some reason, I cannot quote from your last posting.

I’m not sure, from your catalog of TV programming, whether you are arguing that a large segment of TV programming is unobjectionable.

So TV is not much of a threat to our way of life.

Well, while it’s true that certain TV shows don’t seem to be that morally offensive, they could nonetheless be considered escapist.

But “escapist” in what sense?

In this sense - to distract us from the coming storm.

I can’t help but think of the Vittorio De Sica film, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis.

In the film, the characters lived behind the walls of their estate in blissful ignorance of the
approaching Nazi nightmare … until it was too late …

 

[Catholic90]

Well, while it’s true that certain TV shows don’t seem to be that morally offensive, they could nonetheless be considered escapist.

But “escapist” in what sense?

In this sense - to distract us from the coming storm.

I can’t help but think of the Vittorio De Sica film, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis.

In the film, the characters lived behind the walls of their estate in blissful ignorance of the
approaching Nazi nightmare … until it was too late …

The coming storm…so does worrying about the coming “storm” make it any better? Worse? What storm? I see a few threads trying to convince people we are in the end days. The sky is falling. Except, there have been people proclaiming “the end is near” for centuries. Harold Camping thought the end was here a few months ago. The Mayans think the end is near on 12/12, or some such date.

Is watching a show on history, or how weapons work, or on the financial markets, or on law enforcement, or a comedy show, or a sporting event, or a show on how to grill a perfect flank steak going to change the world?

Worrying about something cannot make it better! What will happen will happen. If we are secure in our faith, then we should not be worried!

Place your trust in God and don’t worry so much.

 

[levinas12]

The coming storm… What storm?

Mock on, Catholic90, mock on …

Mayans, Harold Camping … give me a break.

Think of this scenario … Jerry Springer becomes world dictator after society collapses …

Notwithstanding your debunking, there are unmistakable signs of the decline of our civilization … and TV is a good indicator …

Don’t forget the days of Noah, before the coming of the great flood … a lot of people were watching TV non-stop …

 

[Catholic90]

Mock on, Catholic90, mock on …

Mayans, Harold Camping … give me a break.

Think of this scenario … Jerry Springer becomes world dictator after society collapses …

Notwithstanding your debunking, there are unmistakable signs of the decline of our civilization … and TV is a good indicator …

Don’t forget the days of Noah, before the coming of the great flood … a lot of people were watching TV non-stop …

Oh brother! Tv in the days of Noah eh?

I repeat - what good will come from 1 minute of worrying?

If one is secure in their faith, there is nothing to worry about!

I am secure, so I am not worried.

Btw, I have never watched a Jerry Springer show. Why would he be important?

 

[Rudolfo]

I dare you to not watch it for a month, and then see how you feel.

I have not watched TV in 30 years, and I am extremely well-informed.

 

[exnihilo]

I have not watched TV in 30 years, and I am extremely well-informed.

My favorite Jefferson quote, from memory, is ‘the man who reads nothing at all is more informed than the man who read nothing but newspapers’. In one sense the problem of TV is not new. I happen to think TV is more persuasive in presenting its, necessarily, incomplete picture of reality.