Sense of Life and Artistic Preferences

(Chapter 4 of the book Idealism: The Forgotten Principles of American Cinema)

Although most people don't have a fully formed and conscious philosophy, we all carry a series of values and philosophical judgments subconsciously, which form what Ayn Rand called a "Sense of Life".

This is a valuable tool she created and that I'll borrow here to better explain why people have such different preferences in the field of art.

Sense of Life is the total sum of a person's fundamental values, which results in a particular way of looking at the world. It is a subconscious assessment of man and existence, which establishes the nature of our emotional reactions - the "lens" through which we see the world. Our Sense of Life does not come primarily from our explicit, intellectual convictions; it is formed subconsciously, based on experiences and judgments we have accumulated since childhood, and which may or may not be in harmony with our conscious opinions. Even without understanding anything about philosophy, throughout his life a man has to make choices, form an opinion about himself and the world around him, and, depending on his conclusions, he will arrive at a generalized feeling about existence - a basic emotion that will underlie all his experiences.

You can't understand another person's preferences and decisions in everyday matters without understanding the concept of Sense of Life. It is on the basis of our Sense of Life that we choose our friends, our romantic partners, our favorite music and films. We are attracted to things that are in harmony with our Sense of Life, and repelled by those that are not.

To the extent that a person has control over their mind, their Sense of Life can be shaped by themselves throughout their formative years, and reach adulthood in harmony with their conscious convictions. But in most cases, a person's Sense of Life is formed by random influences, cultural osmosis, is full of contradictions and is often in conflict with their explicit ideas. Either way, no one can avoid forming a Sense of Life.

Here are some examples of philosophical questions that are essential in forming a Sense of Life:

- Is the universe a stable, logical place, governed by natural laws, or is it an incomprehensible chaos to man?

- Is our mind is capable of understanding reality, or is reason impotent?

- Does man have free will, or are his choices and character are determined by other factors (culture, genes, instincts, social status)?

- Is man capable of achieving success, happiness, or is life made of pain and tragedy?

- Is man essentially good, or is he evil by nature?

- Can people live together in complete harmony, or are their interests necessarily in conflict?

- Is seeking happiness important, or is avoiding pain what really matters?

- Should a man pursue his personal goals and be happy, or should he sacrifice himself for the good of others?

- Should man have ambition, self-esteem, dream big, or should he be humble?

Different answers to the above questions will result in people with different Senses of Life and will directly interfere with all their choices, preferences - including their artistic preferences. It's important to remember that, from one extreme to the other, there are intermediate positions between all these answers. For example, a person may feel that: 1) Happiness is the natural state of man and that conflicts are the exception; 2) That life is full of conflicts, but that they can be overcome with great effort; 3) That life is made of conflicts, and that happiness can only be achieved in moderation; 4) That life is tragic by nature and happiness is an illusion.

Our Sense of Life classifies things according to the emotions they evoke. In The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand gives a series of concrete examples and imagines what emotions these examples would evoke in people with different Senses of Life. For example: "a discovery, triumph, a heroic man, the skyline of New York, pure colors, ecstatic music", or "the folks next door, a known routine, a humble man, an old village, a foggy landscape, muddy colors, folk music". For a person with a more positive view of life and mankind, the examples in the first group should evoke admiration, exaltation, a sense of challenge. The examples in the second group should evoke boredom, disinterest or repulsion. For a person with a more negative view of life, the emotions evoked by the examples in the first group would be fear, guilt, resentment. The emotions evoked by the examples in the second group would be relief, comfort; the security of living in a universe that isn't too demanding.

A person's Sense of Life is something we perceive almost instantly, because it involves everything about them: every thought, emotion, gesture, posture, tone of voice, facial expression, way of dressing. In a work of art, an artist's Sense of Life is expressed through its content and its style (through what he decides to portray, and how he portrays it). These two aspects - content and style - can be in harmony or in conflict with each other, just as a person's conscious and subconscious values can be in harmony or in conflict.

The content reflects the artist's more conscious values. What kind of message does the story convey? What kind of events and people does the artist choose to portray? Heroes pursuing noble goals? Ordinary people with no great virtues? Or corrupt and immoral people? Are these people portrayed positively (being attractive, effective, successful) or negatively (being repulsive, ineffective, unsuccessful)? A hero portrayed positively indicates an artist with a benevolent Sense of Life. An immoral character portrayed negatively can also indicate a benevolent Sense of Life, as mentioned earlier. However, a hero portrayed negatively or an immoral character portrayed sympathetically indicates a malevolent Sense of Life.

Style reflects the more subconscious (and usually more revealing and true) values of the artist. For example: does the artist communicate his ideas in a clear, precise, understandable way? Or in a nebulous, murky, chaotic way? Is the story dramatic, exciting, structured? Does it have purpose, climax, a clear direction? Or is it monotonous, with episodic events that don't lead to any resolution? Does the artist portray admirable, attractive people? Or does he put ordinary figures on the screen?

Senses of Life are formed by the combination of countless perceptions about life, and can be extremely diverse. Nevertheless, it is possible to roughly classify Senses of Life as more malevolent and more benevolent. A Malevolent Sense of Life is dominated by negative answers to the most fundamental philosophical questions: life is tragic, the universe is chaotic, reason is impotent, man is despicable and doomed to suffering, our interests are in conflict, etc. A Benevolent Sense of Life is dominated by positive answers: life is essentially good, the universe is knowable, man is admirable and capable of achieving his goals, our interests need not be in conflict. As should be clear by now, Idealism is essentially based on a Benevolent Sense of Life.

Sense of Life is not enough of a tool to determine whether a work of art is good or bad, but at the same time, there is no way to arrive at absolute esthetic criteria that are not linked to a Sense of Life or to certain pre-philosophical judgments. Even merits such as "clarity" or "coherence", which seem like unquestionable esthetic qualities desirable in any work of art, are already an expression of a benevolent Sense of Life: they reflect someone who believes that the universe is intelligible, that reason is effective, that objective communication between artist and viewer is possible, that showing something harmonious and pleasing to the viewer is something desirable. It would be impossible for an artist with a completely malevolent Sense of Life, both in content and style, to make a great work of art, because if he really believed that man is evil (which would include himself and also his audience), incapable of achieving his goals, that communication is an illusion, he would have neither the motivation nor the ability to make a valuable work of art. Therefore, it is only to the extent that an artist possesses a benevolent Sense of Life, even if subconsciously, that he can achieve something of real esthetic value.

Although the Sense of Life is a big part of it, other factors can influence a person's artistic preferences - issues like temperament, cultural context, etc. For example: two people may have similar Senses of Life, but operate intellectually at different levels. One may have a greater capacity for abstraction than the other, a greater intelligence than the other, and this will attract them to more complex works of art that are more in harmony with their type of mental functioning.

Now, let me give you a concrete example of how our Sense of Life shape our artistic preferences:

WHY I DON'T LIKE GAME OF THRONES

Game of Thrones, from my point of view, has a conflict-ridden view of reality based on the idea of scarcity: that we live in a universe of limited resources and, therefore, that life is a great battle between men to see who will get control of these resources. It's an idea held by both left and right in the world of politics, but while the left focuses on what should be done about the weak in this context - on how they will take resources from the strong in order to guarantee a minimum for the less fortunate - those who believe themselves to be the strong (such as the characters in Game of Thrones), are focused on obtaining these resources and planning how they will reign over the weak once they are victorious (these people are usually very interested in warfare strategies, etc.). Both sides have the same conflict-ridden and pessimistic view of the world in which only a few can succeed, and therefore the others must inevitably be sacrificed in the process.

Another thing I reject here is the relativistic view of virtue that tends to accompany this kind of mentality: being powerful and successful in this universe is entirely related to beating others, defeating opponents. These people are incapable of thinking about virtue in an objective way, based on man's ability to deal with reality, to produce, and achieve his personal happiness. It's only the other person's defeat that proves their virtue - the ability to dominate, to defeat, to be relatively stronger on the battlefield (arrogance and aggressiveness are positive qualities for those who think this way).

It's a mentality that reflects a desire for the unearned, a desire to obtain values at the expense of others. While the weak (from this perspective) seek the unearned motivated by altruistic ideas, saying that they should have what they want precisely because they are weak and incapable, and that without the sacrifice of the strong they wouldn't stand a chance (in other words, the strong should give them what they want, even if they don't want to do it, because it's a necessity), the strong want the weak to give them what they want because they have power. Since they are strong, rich, have the best tactics, the most powerful weapons, the largest armies, and the weak depend on them to survive, then the latter must do what they want, they must obey them, serve them, love them, respect them, even if they don't want to.

It's the mother's ethics vs. the father's ethics in an archaic family dynamic: the mother who wants the child to do what she wants out of a sense of guilt, duty, because she is weak, helpless, even if it's against his will. And the father who wants the child to do what he wants out of fear, obedience, "respect", also against the child's will.

What these people fear in the end is finding out what others would to do if they were actually free. They dread dealing with people in full freedom, who can act voluntarily, based on their real values and desires - people who are seeking happiness and not just mere physical survival. This is because they feel deep down that if everyone were independent, free, and could choose with whom to share their values (material or spiritual), they would have no chance of obtaining it. So they are attracted to this tragic view of existence according to which sacrifices are necessary, people are dependent on each other and resources are scarce: it's the only way they can feel that they have any power, that they can get what they want from other people, because their personal wants will no longer pose a threat, will no longer be part of the equation.

Just as an example of how this view of reality is transmitted by the series, observe how often we see in Game of Thrones women who show contempt for certain men, don't seem to attracted by them, but end up going to bed with them anyway (in the first episode of Season 8 alone, I remember the scene in which Euron manages to persuade Cersei to have sex with him, and another scene in which Bronn is in bed with 3 women at the same time, apparently prostitutes). These are common scenes - characters who are despised deep down, but who nevertheless manage to make others act in the way they want, because they have the power, and because in this universe made of conflicts and wars, people have no choice but to serve them.

I don't want to suggest that everyone who likes the series does so for this reason, or because they share these values, nor am I saying that the series is artistically bad just because of its Malevolent Sense of Life, but it is through this lens that Game of Thrones makes me see the world every time I stop to watch an episode. The series transports me to a world where power is the most important and desired value - power over others, power of coercion - and this is not a world I want to spend much time in.