The Joker figure, some might say represents a grander scheme. Is he a villain in this grander scheme, or is he something else? Batman stands in supposedly clear contrast, the hero of the story.
Btw’s, I’m speaking only of my idealized archetypal figures of Batman and the Joker, not the actual fictional figures. So shoot me, I’ve stolen their names for my own purposes. Deal with it, it doesn’t detract from what I’m writing here.
Anyways
Batman is supposed to be the hero with a dark twist, and the Joker is the villain gone insane.
But has he?
I do rather feel that Batman is a villain working for good in his own way, but a villain still. He may work for good ends, but he considers his means to be above the law, and this is enough (for me) to label him a villain. Ends do not justify means so the saying says, and I believe that one at the least.
I actually like the Joker a whole lot more. His psychology is much more fascination to observe. Relate to. Can you relate to the Joker? I can, after a fashion. Through philosophy. Philosophy does so much, and one might say (perhaps convincingly) that philosophy is a social science design with the end of knowing an idealized world. First to understand the real world, and through understanding reality to then improve reality into ideality.
But the opposite then of that is to understand the world of reality, and thereby reduce it to something less… a state of nature, if you will. Some philosophers might think humanity a plague on earth (with some very valid reasoning) and they may then consider it justice to further the end of the destruction of our species. Another philosopher, thinking as the Joker does, might distance themselves from what is commonly known as “real”. Reducing reality such to the point that dream and imagination is as real as true experience, reducing reality to the point where one could believe the dreams and imaginations that we all share in our darkest hour.
I like the Joker, because I feel he sees this. The Joker is not a person, nor is Batman. They are philosophical and psychological identities that I see them as, and in that way I find them fascinating. The Batman is comparatively boring next to Joker; all I want to know about Batman is how he philosophically justifies his good ends.
IF dream and imagination are as real as experience, then where does that leave room for empathy? For conscious? It is easy to see here the necessary steps that Joker takes in making his own violence so allowable, and if anything it is difficult to know why Batman believes in what he does. Or maybe I’m letting myself be blinded by philosophic prejudice?
I see Joker as a hero in his own right. He works towards the destruction of civilization, not to the end that he wishes bad will on other people—it seems clear to me that he doesn’t give a damn about anyone except himself. He is selfish enough to enjoy violence not for its own end (the product) but for the end of chaotic ordering of an imperfect system. let me rephrase that: Joker enjoys violence not for the misery it produces, but rather he enjoys it for the chaos it produces in the system, a system which is believed by some to be perfect, good, or of reasonable quality. the violence exposes this system of justice for the imperfection that it is. Joker exposes injustice, because he does not himself participate in the system of imperfect justice that pervades civilization! By removing himself from justice, he stands above this. He doesn’t mince words and try and pretend like what he does will make anyone better off or happier, like Batman does. Batman wants to think himself just even if his means exist outside the line of justice; his end does, and because his end exists within the line of justice, this makes his means unjust.
Joker’s ends are beyond justice, as are his means. Joker’s ends are his own, the chaotic satisfaction of exposing an imperfect system for what it is. Maybe this is not The Joker that is presented in the comics, but it is the philosophic Joker that I speak of and conceive of in my mind.
To be clear:
I am presenting Batman and Joker as philosophic identities, inspired by but separate from the actual comic series. I’ve never read any of the comics I’ve only seen a few movies. My inspiration for this comes from the last Batman movie. Please don’t ridicule me for this, cause that would be senseless, if only because I make no pretense at this being accurate to the actual Batman and Joker.
Still, I’m reasonably confident every single Batman and comic book fan friend of mine I have will be upset with me for writing this. So what?
Anyways,
Taken in the context of philosophic identities, I think Batman is worse a figure than Joker, for the following reasoning:
Batman’s ends are in the line of justice that is he works towards the greater good. But, by making his ends in the line of justice this means that for him to be just he needs to have his means also be just, and this is not the case; his means operate above the law, and for this reason they are not just. I don’t think Batman is a good character just because he wants to save Gotham City. If he did, he’d go through legitimate means of getting there, exposing the injustice of the city publicly rather than fighting villains in cloak and dagger battle. Batman still wants the idealist world existing beyond reality, and he’s willing to sink low to achieve it.
Joker, on the other hand differs in his ends. His ends exist beyond the line of justice, as do his means. Joker is a philosophic identity that can see the reality of the world for what it is; a social construct. Further, Joker has observed that it is a fallacy for anyone to pretend to be just when the system of justice that “just” exists within is itself a corrupt system. So, what greater joy can a creature like Joker find than to expose other’s injustice for the corruption that it is? Aside, collateral damage doesn’t matter if reality is only a construction of a civilization and a mind or set of minds. What of it, to a being already admitting to injustice, if an innocent is then harmed? The chaotic order that exists beneath the layer of false reality that we’ve created for ourselves ought to be removed, Joker would say, and so and there could be no greater satisfaction than to open the flood gates of chaotic order.
On the sort of flipside to Joker, exists the notion of the state of nature. I think this is what Joker wants to return us to. Not because of some grandeur notion of environmental action, or the self-destructing belief that humans ought to be removed from earth; nothing so noble really. The state of nature is where we began, and maybe if we could return to there then we could begin anew. It might be the only way to wipe the slate clean. Only a figure such as Joker could return us to the state of nature. Of course, he doesn’t work towards this end of the state of nature because it is a just state to be; it is entirely unjust, in fact. Joker wants us to return to the state of nature because this is the only state where injustice is acknowledged as reality, and likely any Philosophically correct Joker notion would want us to remain permanently in the state of nature; it is the only real world we can have. Anything else is a false ideality, the sort that Batman would have us believe. It is the philosophy of Joker then that the philosophical ideality promoted by Batman and others is a false ideology and impossible (Plato is rolling in his grave right now, because I’ve been thinking of him the whole time as I’m writing this) to achieve, thus why deceive anyone in this? Deception we can acknowledge is an injustice, and deceiving the self into believing in justice is incorrect.
Or maybe Joker just liked the pretty lights and colors.
No comments:
Post a Comment