In order to keep from tearing itself to shreds, society needs to believe in the incorruptibility of good and the relative remoteness of evil. The Dark Knight points us to ways in which we cope with this need.
David Chen (via vasta) (via davereed) - see, this is what i didn’t like about dark knight. it’s not that society “needs to believe in the incorruptibility of good and the relative remoteness of evil” but rather that the two exist at all. society has to believe that Society - and Life itself - have any meaning at all; Good and Evil are simply subcategories of Meaning. yet without Something to mean Existence, a meta-narrative, Meaning really doesn’t mean anything.
what i did appreciate about dk is that the joker & harvey dent were the only honest and sane characters in the bunch, yet they’re the villians. they both realized that if this world is all there is, Good and Evil are irrelevant. “everything burns.” naturalism, when pursued to its logical conclusion, tells us that Chaos and Chance are the only moralities in a world without a Meaner. it’s horribly depressing, i know. but i think people know this without knowing it and that’s why the primary response i’ve heard from people who’ve seen the movie is something like, “it was dark; i’m still digesting it.”
i’d be curious to know what others think of both the philosophical nature of dark knight as well as my quasi-educated rambling on it.
(via hilker)
I don’t think I have anything to add, but I think you finally hit on why I appreciated and liked it so much - great thoughts Hilker.
