Violence Totally Unnecessary?

[Doggy]

If every problem can be combated with words, why fight?

It is a question of how every conflict is started that gives hint to how its solved. So are there some problems that can only be fixed by resorting to violence? To me unfairness is all psychological and all interaction is physical. Interaction as in resolve.

Is violence actually that barbaric? It seems like people give verbal negotiations a try first and then if that fails, they resort to means of physical violence. Like a quote I heard once, "For as long as there is man, there will be war." Does the same apply to violence?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Violence happens when rationality fails. How irrational the world is can be seen, heard, and smelled daily even by those not directly touched by it.

[Katy]

Violence happens when rationality fails. How irrational the world is can be seen, heard, and smelled daily even by those not directly touched by it.

I'm reading a book now talking about the rationality of violence. The author interviewed hundreds of criminals and didn't find any who didn't report "making a decision" to behave violently, even if that decision was only a moment or so before behaving.

Though it may not be rational thought, that does at least bring some hope, I think.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

That is saying the same thing. When one person still wants what he wants but has reached the limitis of his intellectual ability to communicate with the other person(s), he then decides to communicate physically. Physical communication is more basic than verbal communication. Before humans had the words to say "stop that" they had to physically stop the other individual(s). To teach children what the word "no" means, the word "no" must be accompanied by a physical demonstration of stopping the unwanted behavior. Physical communication is more basic than linguistic communication, so when linguistic communication fails either because the listener is too dumb to understand or because the communicator is to dumb to explain himself properly with words, but the desire for a particular outcome is still strong, violence ensues.

The fact that violence is a usually decision arrived at due to insufficient levels of higher reasoning does not bring hope to me.

[Doggy]

Here is a great way to put it. Human beings are evolving to become a more intelectual creature and people are gradually loosing muscle mass as a whole because there is no need to do something physically if you invent machines with your mind to do the task for you.

So I guess you can compare our physical stature with violence as in they both go together in the same train of thought, "I can't do this mentally, let me use my body instead."

[Nordicvs]

The next time you Spockites eat something, stop for even a moment and consider what violence happened in order for that food to be available...

Surely you don't think a cow voluteered, after being convinced to do so through logical argumentation, to become your dinner...? ;)

(If one of you is haughty vegetarian, I can't wait for the bullshit rationale for how non-violent that is, too.)

[Tharan]

Violence happens when rationality fails. How irrational the world is can be seen, heard, and smelled daily even by those not directly touched by it.

I disagree. Violence can be entirely expedient.

[Faust]

It also depends what you mean by violence. Aggression/Assertion is a type of physical coercion/minute violence. A more confident and aggressive man will necessarily violently intimidate another lesser confident man in a violent act to submission. In many cases the more assertive man doesn't want this to happen. I find it fighting with myself when I am 'not compensated' and 'striving for the truth' so to speak, and end up indirectly hurting others. Often I have sympathy for others, and encourage them to be confident, but many times they just don't see ultimate reality, and so I get tired and contemptful.

"All contact is bad contact, except with one's equals." Nietzsche.

[Carl G]

Violence Totally Unnecessary?

This thread is totally unnecessary, because the answer is fundamental and obvious.

If every problem can be combated with words, why fight?

Because man is unconscious and mechanical, thus is generally ruled by his lower nature.

It is a question of how every conflict is started that gives hint to how its solved. So are there some problems that can only be fixed by resorting to violence?

Really, nothing is "solved" or "fixed." Life simply goes on.

Is violence actually that barbaric?

Yes, most physical violence is barbaric. Certain ritualized forms are on another level.

It seems like people give verbal negotiations a try first and then if that fails, they resort to means of physical violence.

Yes, war is politics through other means, violence employed to attempt to achieve what negotiations could not.

Like a quote I heard once, "For as long as there is man, there will be war." Does the same apply to violence?

Carl Jung once said something to the effect of "There is so much outer war because there is such a lack of inner war." He meant purposeful inner struggle to transform oneself.

[Faust]

Carl Jung once said something to the effect of "There is so much outer war because there is such a lack of inner war." He meant purposeful inner struggle to transform oneself.

transform oneself not to be outerly violent that is.

[Nordicvs]

It also depends what you mean by violence.

Indeed.

Violence:

1. swift and intense force.
2. behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill.
3. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language.

Which? And in which context---human on human, animal on animal, animal on human, human on animal, living creature on inanimate object, inanimate object on living creature?

This thread is totally unnecessary, because the answer is fundamental and obvious.

Your opinion.

Yes, most physical violence is barbaric. Certain ritualized forms are on another level.

Why is it "barbaric?"

Because man is unconscious and mechanical, thus is generally ruled by his lower nature.

Define "lower nature."

[Carl G]

CG: Yes, most physical violence is barbaric. Certain ritualized forms are on another level.

N: Why is it "barbaric?"

It violates the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

CG: Because man is unconscious and mechanical, thus is generally ruled by his lower nature.

N: Define "lower nature."

Animal nature.

[Nordicvs]

It violates the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Okay, I'm going to track you down, handcuff you naked to a radiator, smear honey over your chest, and paddle your ass with a tennis racket...because that's how I want to be treated.

Animal nature.

Humans are animals.

So, you mean non-human-animal lower nature? And what exactly is that?

[Carl G]

CG: It violates the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

N: Okay, I'm going to track you down, handcuff you naked to a radiator, smear honey over your chest, and paddle your ass with a tennis racket...because that's how I want to be treated.

Whatever.

CG: Animal nature.

N: Humans are animals. So, you mean non-human-animal lower nature? And what exactly is that?

Humans are animals who have the potential to evolve beyond being strictly animalistic, that is to say, being unconscious and mechanical, and mostly concerned with survival (stomach) and procreation (genitals) -- i.e. lower.

[Nordicvs]

Whatever.

No, not "whatever." Explain how your "golden rule" works in that situation when applied to barbarism.

You stated that something barbaric means breaking this rule---"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," and I already told what I want done to me, thus I'm both breaking the rule (carrying out a barbaric act by wanting to inflict harm upon you, because that's what I want) and following it.

It is not logical.

Humans are animals who have the potential to evolve beyond being strictly animalistic, that is to say, being unconscious and mechanical, and mostly concerned with survival (stomach) and procreation (genitals) -- i.e. lower.

Any living being has the potential for that---its circumstances coupled with time dictate how it adapts and thus evolves. Chimps have exactly the same potential as we do; they dream, indicating a subconscious mind and by definition a conscious mind; they have basic intelligence and can learn, get smarter.

What's the difference between chimpanzee-animal nature and human-animal nature? (Optional: Which is more violent, causes more harm and death to its own species as well as other species?)

[Carl G]

You stated that something barbaric means breaking this rule---"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," and I already told what I want done to me, thus I'm both breaking the rule (carrying out a barbaric act by wanting to inflict harm upon you, because that's what I want) and following it.

I guess that makes you a barbarian. In that case, live by the sword, die by the sword. That is not the application of the golden rule I choose to follow. If you do, fine, however I doubt that.

CG: Humans are animals who have the potential to evolve beyond being strictly animalistic, that is to say, being unconscious and mechanical, and mostly concerned with survival (stomach) and procreation (genitals) -- i.e. lower.

N: Any living being has the potential for that

Unlikely. Actually, only a small percentage of humans have the potential to become conscious, wise, and free themselves from automatic behavior.

---its circumstances coupled with time dictate how it adapts and thus evolves. Chimps have exactly the same potential as we do; they dream, indicating a subconscious mind and by definition a conscious mind; they have basic intelligence and can learn, get smarter.

I don't know where you get such an opinion. Maybe you have a different idea of evolution or consciousness than I.

What's the difference between chimpanzee-animal nature and human-animal nature?

Humans' lower or animal nature is corrupted by more developed ego coupled with larger brain size, leading to greater potential for sin. Humans, however have the potential for spiritual evolution. Chimps may have the possibility, who can say, but there would need to be substantial biological evolution first.

(Optional: Which is more violent, causes more harm and death to its own species as well as other species?)

What is your point?

[Faust]

i stumbled on this old thread and it's good because I had something important to ask:

how do you stop physical aggression that doesn't involve physical contact? You know the one, where you're "aggressive" outwardly, and you don't think it's "physical" but it actually is, and psychological. Kevin Solway puts it very nicely, especially the part I underlined;


Our violence

Where there is ego, there is violence. The two always exist together because they are actually one and the same.

Violence is usually kept below the surface where it manifests as hatred and fear. It surfaces as physical violence and war.

Our violent forms of entertainment act as a safety valve, releasing pent-up tension and stress, helping us to work off our inner violence and hatred in the relative safety of the imagination. If the stress is not released in this way the pressure of it will build up to a level where it can no longer be contained, and will burst forth destructively.

Thus, violent forms of entertainment help to keep ugliness from reaching the surface. But meanwhile, inside, the seething mass of delusion we call "the soul" is being perpetually exercised and strengthened. Through such entertainment the seeds of physical violence are sown, and the fruit is sure to follow. When that time comes the release valves of wit and distraction will not be enough to cope.

There is only a hairsbreadth between the imagination and physical reality. It doesn't take much to push one into a mental state of no longer wishing to draw-up the line that separates the two. When the going gets tough, we do not hesitate to make our own reality. When desperate, we cannot afford to stop to consider the niceties of social behaviour and the rights of others. Happiness is a matter of life and death!

Do not think you can avoid the violent end. Your time will come when things change - and change is the way of Nature. Your happiness will come and go as Nature breathes in and out.

We are all murderers. Perhaps you have not yet murdered. Does this make you exempt? You may not have murdered, but have you been pressured to do so? Only when we are pushed to our limits do we reveal ourselves for who we really are.

Violence is very easy to understand. The ego feels it has a fundamental right to happiness, and will destroy anything that stands in its way. This may mean killing a mosquito - or a person. Yes, to kill even a mosquito out of anger reveals the mind of a murderer. So I say, where there is ego, and the hatred of suffering, there is violence.


I know that you can be aggressive against 'things' such as goals, catching the bus, being on time, walking briskly. But how do you not let this seep into being against people? I feel it's hard to do many times. Do you just "think with the body" it and it will happen? I've done that, but I don't want people to get the wrong impression.

[Pincho Paxton]

I know that you can be aggressive against 'things' such as goals, catching the bus, being on time, walking briskly. But how do you not let this seep into being against people? I feel it's hard to do many times. Do you just "think with the body" it and it will happen? I've done that, but I don't want people to get the wrong impression.

It starts by not letting it seep into your thoughts about situations. Don't have aggressive thoughts at all, if you can train yourself.

Being forced into aggression is a different matter, and it is not your true self, even though someone posted that is is your true self.

[Imadrongo]

No life without death.

[Pincho Paxton]

No life without death.

Yet.

[Faust]

Don't have aggressive thoughts at all, if you can train yourself.

what about being aggressive about 'things' such as walking briskly, thinking substantially and clearly, fighting for justice? etc.. I find that aggression is good for fighting off delusions and reaching perpetual thought.

Being forced into aggression is a different matter, and it is not your true self, even though someone posted that is is your true self.

how do you know that it isn't our 'true self'?? Sometimes I wasn't 'forced' into aggression but was aggressive anyways. Confidence works with aggression.

[Faust]

No life without death.

what does this mean?

[Imadrongo]

No life without death.

what does this mean?

It just undermines the common sentiment among Christians and sages that the world should be a better place with no suffering or harm or "bad". This view is really superficial and stupid.

[Nick]

Violence is all around us, it's just as much a part of nature as anything else. If the Big Bang Theory is correct then everything that we can observe was born out of an extremely violent explosion. Even our individual births were caused in part by our fathers violently fucking our mothers. There are countless things which rely on violent processes for their existence. As for me personally committing an act of violence, it all depends on how reasonable of an option it is at that particular time. It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to renounce violence all together.

[Ryan Rudolph]

The psychological violence happening within oneself is all that needs to be ended. by abiding in emptiness, the chaos of violent conditioned thought cycling within himself can be starved to a slow trickle, and eventually dried up altogether.

However, such emptiness of mind can only be attained if one is free from all attachments, as attachments are the ultimate cause of violence.