|
Violence
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
Violence seems one of the most universal concepts to life. The idea associated with the term is often a necessary act of survival. A cat will gladly tear the throat from its prey in order to secure its sustenence. A man will readily kill another man with clear intentions of inflicting harm upon a victim. Someone "deranged" by all standards will committ greusome acts upon a helpless person to their death. But the word, itself, denotes only a concept - a taboo of our being that is regarded with fear and a multitude of other emotions. Our hands are but tools - tools for the ego to achieve - but is violence not just a tool of the mind to achieve as well? Achieve food, achieve satisfaction, achieve survival, secure the future of survival and resources necessary to sustain a given lifestyle. It is an inexcorable part of our being, yet is one where the denial of its rite is regarded with the utmost 'humanity'. To deny violence in oneself - to achieve by means of peace - this is often one of the most highly regarded virtues a man can exhibit. Is this just the result of Xtian hegemony? Or does it draw upon a far deeper part of our being?
Before any of you bring about the 'intention is all that matters' line, I implore you to second-guess the very nature of splitting atoms. That is to ask - what, exactly, is the morality of a knife? We have made a society that values peace and preservation at times, yet still does not hesitate to deify the veritable destruction of those who would oppose our tenets. If 'intention is all that matters', then is mere intention truly enough to justify our punishment? Is the mere occurrence of thought really enough when the exertion of physical status is so natural a concept to us and every other creature who seeks to survive?
If we are not a society founded upon violence, what are we? Could not everything we do be construed in some way as a form of consumption, as a form of decimation? What is the difference between sexual penetration and that of murder by way of stabbing? Do both acts not utilize a tool - blade or phallus - to achieve an emotion or an occurrence of sorts? |
|
|
| Gauss |
| Wow... That's deep. |
|
|
| tranceDJ |
I like the phallus analogy. Reminds me of rockets/bombs too...you can't see a penis-shaped bomb drop on people and kill them and not think about this.
As far as violence being part of human nature...humans all have a part of their brain that is similar to a reptile's. This is a result of evolution. There is a reptilian-like brain at the bottom/back of the human brain, then a part of the brain that resembles that of most mammals, and then the neo-cortex which is only found in primates and humans (this is the part that gives humans consciousness and reasoning ability). Now I'm no neurologist but this is how I've come to understand at least the basics of the human brain and how it has evolved.
It's IMO the humans that rely too much on the reptilian part of the brain that are violent, ignorant, and controlling. It's only from using our neocortex and reasoning skills that we can control our primal, violent instincts and use reasoning to solve problems instead. You are correct that we cannot deny that there is a dark, primal, and violent side to human beings...it's wired into our biology. On the other hand humans have the capacity and ability to control those instincts, many of us simply choose not to use and embrace this ability and continue to act like animals. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceDJ
On the other hand humans have the capacity and ability to control those instincts, many of us simply choose not to use and embrace this ability and continue to act like animals. |
And why is this, do you think? Is 'control' in this respect really a variable on mere biology or is it a social condition? Of course, in line with the majority of modern psychology, it would be a combination both in most cases, but a social construct is one more easily controlled, barring he prescription of mind-altering chemicals.
Perhaps one point I wanted to address the most is: why is violence as we know it such a large and inarguably instrinsic part of our society as a whole, yet considered one of the most taboo of resorts? You mention that people unable to control their violent disposition as being 'animals' - why is this an insult? why is being an animal such a terrible thing? If we regarded those animal instincts that are heeded as base or low, why is there such a stark difference between how we regard things like sex or eating - urges that come to us as naturally as violent disposition does? If the urge to kill is a natural one, and so is the urge to , why is love considered a high emotion, but violence a base behaviour? It seems an utterly misunderstood standard to me.
Let me relate a story/
I was watching The Last Samurai at work earlier and this little girl and her grandmother sit down to watch it for a while. It's a pretty explicit battle scene - lots of blood. I offer to change the channel for the little girl's sake, but the Grandmother says "she'll be fine". It's war - no different than mass murder, but approved by society due to...well, I dunno, why is that? Wasn't it Stalin who said something along the lines of 'the death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic?' Why is some violence elevated? Is it not just as necessary or more widely justified than if it were domestic or for personal reasons? Why is it highly regarded as a 'bad' thing and why are children 'shielded' from seeing it? It becomes no less real as we become older, so why is it considered 'good parenting' to heed to regulated censorship of entertainment? Why is it so often a form of entertainment in the first place? If it is such a frightening proposition, why do adults take to it so readily? Once more, why is its rejection regarded as virtue? |
|
|
| tranceDJ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
And why is this, do you think? Is 'control' in this respect really a variable on mere biology or is it a social condition? Of course, in line with the majority of modern psychology, it would be a combination both in most cases, but a social construct is one more easily controlled, barring he prescription of mind-altering chemicals.
Perhaps one point I wanted to address the most is: why is violence as we know it such a large and inarguably instrinsic part of our society as a whole, yet considered one of the most taboo of resorts? You mention that people unable to control their violent disposition as being 'animals' - why is this an insult? why is being an animal such a terrible thing? If we regarded those animal instincts that are heeded as base or low, why is there such a stark difference between how we regard things like sex or eating - urges that come to us as naturally as violent disposition does? If the urge to kill is a natural one, and so is the urge to , why is love considered a high emotion, but violence a base behaviour? It seems an utterly misunderstood standard to me.
|
I think that you're correct in that control is both a biological and sociological thing. We have a biological instinct to control territory in order to protect one's self and one's offspring. However when civilization came about control became more about conquering territory for one's personal gain as well as the gain of those close to them. Of course the issue is more complex than this but I'm speaking in a basic elementary sense here.
I agree with the idea that animal instincts are indeed necessary for humans to survive. It's just how a human uses reasoning to decide which instincts are good (i.e. eating, sex, etc.) and which ones are bad and should be controlled (violence, anger, etc.). The difference between humans and animals is that animals for the most part do not have the ability to differentiate between which instincts are beneficial and which are detrimental. They also do not have capacity to think of the effect of their actions on the species as a whole. Some may have the ability to think on the level of what affects their offspring or those in their immediate surroundings but most are focused on what happens to their individual self.
Humans just need to accept that they have these primal instincts and use some to their advantage while learning to control others. |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
Very profound subject.
Everyone has a side to them which is capable of violence. You can be passive and good natured but if your pushed far enough you'll use it. A lot of it is down to how well you can supprese aggression and rage, in a way it's down to emotional intelligence.
As a society we are formed on violence, be it for land, resources or religion, however we have evolved greatly since the dark ages, where a killing for the slightest offence was carried out without any remorse. If you look back in history a lot it was down to survival but also down to power too. The boundries are a lot different these days as most the worlds population do not feel the need to commit violence.
However you still get people for an example in gangs who'll kill someone just for the fact their from another area or a different race. Others who'll commit violent acts for their economic needs i.e. robberies to support a habit or family/friends and those who use violence to increase their standing with a social group. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceDJ
I agree with the idea that animal instincts are indeed necessary for humans to survive. It's just how a human uses reasoning to decide which instincts are good (i.e. eating, sex, etc.) and which ones are bad and should be controlled (violence, anger, etc.). |
So whatever action yields pleasure is good and whatever action yields pain is bad? Whether it is sex, eating or killing someone for pleasure, it is justifiable as a portion of 'survival'? Is pleasure truly that necessary to our living or is the preservation of way of life what we derive pleasure from?
| quote: | | The difference between humans and animals is that animals for the most part do not have the ability to differentiate between which instincts are beneficial and which are detrimental. They also do not have capacity to think of the effect of their actions on the species as a whole. Some may have the ability to think on the level of what affects their offspring or those in their immediate surroundings but most are focused on what happens to their individual self. |
To apply economic models to moral sensibilities, some would certainly argue that when people act merely out of self-interest, society, as a whole, is best served. A world where everyone is responsible for themselves would ensure that you do not have to facilitate the emotional or financial burden of others - in that sense, the 'weak' would be those ill-equipped to kill or reproduce or achieve survival by strict means - it would be anarchy, in a sense, as you would create [or destroy] a "culture" of nothing but self-reliance. Does this not seem contrary to how we understand society in the first place? Murder is vastly considered antisocial and the result of a breakdown in nature's best interest - is it merely misunderstood or is our natural proclivity towards society just as fundamental to our being as our natural proclivity towards reverting to animalistic behaviour such as violence? Is our nature in constant conflict and our action merely a result of this? It seems to me that if this were true, our sense of "self-control" would be nothing more than a paltry illusion. Benevolence a strict counter to our natural beings. If that is true, then why would it be elevated as an evolutionary step? why is magnanimity regarded with such reverence? Is that dynamic just a more complex form of control designed by those who would enslave us with a subtle form of violent thought? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
Very profound subject.
Everyone has a side to them which is capable of violence. You can be passive and good natured but if your pushed far enough you'll use it. A lot of it is down to how well you can supprese aggression and rage, in a way it's down to emotional intelligence.
As a society we are formed on violence, be it for land, resources or religion, however we have evolved greatly since the dark ages, where a killing for the slightest offence was carried out without any remorse. If you look back in history a lot it was down to survival but also down to power too. The boundries are a lot different these days as most the worlds population do not feel the need to commit violence.
However you still get people for an example in gangs who'll kill someone just for the fact their from another area or a different race. Others who'll commit violent acts for their economic needs i.e. robberies to support a habit or family/friends and those who use violence to increase their standing with a social group. |
To play Devil's Advocate, I would argue that we have not lost our penchant for violence one bit. It is just viewed differently as time goes on.
But it seems to me that the more things change the more they stay the same. That is, we in fact view violence with similar regard, it is just prescribed to us from far more central and controlling forces. Violence is an exchange now - a trade as many others - not that it has not always been, it's just that its regard is now viewed as an abhorable act by those who would be prescribed the fantasy of benevolence, and a great and terrible weapon of fear and, subsequently, control by those who would use it for their own gain. The world has changed much, yes, but fear and violence are now just the tools used to fuel the information war that man has declared upon himself. Propaganda is the battle axe, swinging around bloody fields, cutting off heads, severing egos. Who is our faceless berserker though? Perhaps we will only see our own faces behind that callous, animal gaze... |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
To play Devil's Advocate, I would argue that we have not lost our penchant for violence one bit. It is just viewed differently as time goes on.
But it seems to me that the more things change the more they stay the same. That is, we in fact view violence with similar regard, it is just prescribed to us from far more central and controlling forces. Violence is an exchange now - a trade as many others - not that it has not always been, it's just that its regard is now viewed as an abhorable act by those who would be prescribed the fantasy of benevolence, and a great and terrible weapon of fear and, subsequently, control by those who would use it for their own gain. The world has changed much, yes, but fear and violence are now just the tools used to fuel the information war that man has declared upon himself. Propaganda is the battle axe, swinging around bloody fields, cutting off heads, severing egos. Who is our faceless berserker though? Perhaps we will only see our own faces behind that callous, animal gaze... |
Certainly the threat of violence will always be there. Propaganda has been a tool used for centuries be through the media how it's been delivered since the days of print, or before that through religion and superstition. The population are mere puppets who unfortunatly are very susceptible to propaganda, be it the news or a documentary on tv or words spoken from a very charismatic person.
A lot of violence in the world still has strong links towards tribal/ethnic disputes or blood feuds. Centuries old which still exist today. The reasons why it'll always exist are hatred, survival, power, resources, fear, social recognition and economic stability. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| aw great it's deep saturday.. |
|
|
| wizniz |
there's hope... |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
The population are mere puppets who unfortunatly are very susceptible to propaganda, be it the news or a documentary on tv or words spoken from a very charismatic person. |
For the sake of discussion - why is this an "unfortunate" dynamic? The concept, itself, implies that there is no such thing as "fortune" anyways - there is power exertion and those who partake of the means to employ it to their benefit as well as those who allow themselves to be governed by it.
With this realization in mind, why do you not use violence, deception, and whatever means nature has provided you with to benefit yourself over others? Natural law would have us believe that only the fittest survive - why would you willingly subjugate yourself to be only the pawn of those who would lord over your will? Is this not a weakness? If it is so intrinsic to the human condition and our history as a civilzation, what difference will things such as "morals" really make upon the mark of the world? Might as well enjoy yourself and revel in violence and desire, as it makes no difference, no? |
|
|
|
|
