What is violence? It strikes us that this question answers itself. The trickier part is to put it in words in a way that neither cheats, short changes, nor prostitutes it.
Violence is the action of a biological drive to destroy.
A following question: is this constitutively bad?
From the above definition, the above question would be absurd. It would be like a never-ending javascript loading without a refresh button. Destruction is not a necessary evil, it is a necessary good.
Now, I said drive. When two cubs are playing, biting and scratching and wrastling, that is a violent drive. What they are exercicing is a drive to destroy, even when they are so young that the bites and scratches leave no marks, even where no intent to injure exists. The drive is violent.
When poetry is recited with a certain tempo, a certain passion, it is violent. An idea can be violent (not about violence, but simply violent).
Breaking a stick, if done in a certain way, is violent.
And this is where i took issue in the previous topic too. You are stretching the concept to itās breaking point.
Your own definition was āViolence is the action of a biological drive to destroyā
Does playing destroy or intend to destroy? The answer is no.
One of the reasons rough-housing fulfills is to learn how to NOT destroy and harm your playmate. The intent and purpose of the exercise is antithetical to the concept you are trying to attribute it to.
If we broaden the definition of violence to this level, then existence itself becomes violence.
Self-awareness is violence since the individual is always at odds with those who do not share in itās consciousness.
With all of the above said, i still agree with the end end conclusion. It was the position i started my original topic from too.
Death, destruction and violence are integral part of the biological entity that is life.
Even when we step down from that and try to fit this dilemma into todayās civilized society, you will very quickly find yourself in a position where you have to admit: You need to use violence for self defense and to fight back oppression, and thats the barest of minimums lest one wishes to be considered āfree foodā and unfit to be alive.
Youāre just using an arbitrary cutoff for yours. Why is playing destroy not violent? The only thing that separates it from intent to destroy is degree. Cubs playing destroy are training killing skills. They are also learning to have control over their violence, to be masters of their drives.
If I punch a friend in the shoulder, playfully, but also maybe juuuust hard enough that I am sending a message about something. Is that violence? Where is the line? There is no line. Violence is a directionality, not a section.
Hippies arenāt wrong that micro-agression exists. They are simply wrong in thinking that bitching about it doesnāt make them bitches.
Violence is good, not only because it protects you from violence, or from starvation. It is good because it is structurally part of life, as you also said. Health includes it. If a person suffers an injury that preempts the sexual act, does sexuality stop being a structural component of their overall health? Nonesense. Etc.
Because its not destroying? And fulfills the purpose of learning how not to destroy?
There is no line? So slapping your buddy on the shoulder and shooting him in the face with a shotgun are one and the same thing?
Good is a moral quality. Life has no inherent moral qualities.
Violence is a necessity, much like murder is a necessity. Its a requirement for staying alive and life organized itself around the ever present violence and death, but that does not mean that its good or something positive.
Removing testicles results in an instant drop in testosterone levels, directly leading to impotence and the removal of sexual drive.
You can by all means cause an injury that stops sexuality from being an overall component of their health. Not sure what your overall point was with this.
So now we are going to debate our feelings about arguments and not the arguments themselvesā¦?
Its a hyperbole. A hyperbole that is questioning your claim of āthere is no lineā.
If there is no line between punching your buddy in the shoulder and āsending a messageāā¦ i mean whatever, you know what? Iām a little disappointed by the level too.
Nothing. I just would like for you to paint an all encompassing definition of violence. What violence is in your opinion/view.
I could steelman your argument for you if thats what you want, but personally i find your position a bit hyperbolic exactly because its not lacking, its in excess.
BUT
I dont take an issue with it if you wanna go there, i just want you to go all the way with it and unpack it in that manner.
When i talk of violence i usually mean the standard definition of direct or indirect but intentional destruction inflicted by a living being, on a living being.
That does not mean that you cant press it to itās extreme and start to push it into metaphysical and existential territories. By all means feel free to.
The only problem i would take with that is that it removes the societal context.
There is no point in discussing how (i.e.) a politician denounces all forms of violence while they are basically the very representative of the system that capitalizes on violence, while we are exploring the idea that individuality itself is a form of violence because it creates competing existences that define, act, exist on their own terms and not according to the terms of others.
Etc.
This, this is my definition. It means that it is preintentional, among other things, but also only an attribute of DNA creatures. A plant cannot be violent, because it lacks drives.
Thus, if a cub bites another cubās ear, it is violent, because the drive is the same as when shooting its friend in the face with a shotgun. Itās in a very different degree, as part of an entirely different cocktail. But it is still violence.
Violence is the action of the drive to destroy. So even the drive itself is not enough. But intention is also not required, and degree does not limit.
Otherwise you are only getting away with it because you are not seriously exploring the subtleties, but the contradictions are there and rife. Like how somebody was quoting professional mixed martial arts competitions as non-violent.
Compassion, generosity, empathy, and charity should be the highest values of society or civilization but unfortunately nihilistic barbarian savages have almost taken over the entire world in modern times.
Violence and force should only be utilized as a form of defense or as a last resort but since nihilistic barbarian knuckle draggers have taken over a majority of the world violence is unfortunately necessary in a period of time where peace is becoming virtually unknown just about everywhere.
Cooperation and organization are superior methods of survival in contrast to the utility of violence or destruction.
Violence, intimidation, coercion, terrorism, blackmail, and the threat of death will only get you so far in life, but even then is just creates endless negative consequences until youāre surrounded by bad decisions with nowhere to go.
Young men are quick to violence, destruction, and savagery without understanding the wisdom of patience, smart older men of wisdom know the value of cooperation over violence. I would advise you to rethink your own values and priorities in life.
Okay butā¦ that just does not work.
If your definition is a biological drive to destroy, then how are you attributing non desructive actions and concepts to it?
Your very next example is a punch in the shoulder.
Is that aimed to destroy? Cubs playing and rough housing? Is that meant to destroy?
I am not sure where we are talking past eachother because im just taking your words at face value.
Your definition of violence is the action of a biological drive to destroy.
If so, then what do you mean by destruction?
Cause playing and punching someone in the shoulder is not an attempt at destruction in my book.
Not only is anything in this thread nothing like the posting and writing of the golden turd, but the golden turd is a rigid moral objectivist who could never be confused with someone glorifying violence.
What you just saw the invalid demonstrate was her incapacity and lack of comprehension of philosophy. She has been around the golden turd long enough to be able to identify himā¦ and yet she confuses him with someone he couldnāt possibly be.
How many other people might she be totally misunderstanding, then (aināt sayin no names)?
