Thank you for the excellent point! Indeed, we could think that there is no violence when one behaves as a good citizen in the absence of the apparent state's exercise of coercive or violent ways of power. For Deleuze and Guattari, there is no citizen (or subject) before the synthesis of the unconscious. There is not a conscious I that produces, but a process of production of which the I is a kind of product. The aim of psychoanalysis is to aid the repression of the drives and strengthen the ego's adaptation to reality.Where exactly would the difference between the "positive" picture and the defining negatives be when we are talking about conscious processes? You can not think a "citizen" without a "state", but behaving like a citizen where there is no state might be possible. That is for the negation of the negation. But when we are talking about the "state" symbol there is the notion of "souvereignity" and we know the authority, although it is referred as a symbol and (hopefully or not) never realized. — Heiko
To protect their 'license to brutalize & kill', the police are rioting against peaceful 'anti-killer police' protesters while corporations and the investor class are wantonly looting government treasuries & public-private pension funds. Legacy of slaver capitalism: this neoliberal 'sugar daddy' plutonomy. The Counterrevolution Is Being Televised.Brutal and visible repression is no longer exercised
— David Mo
Be patient. When the State and it's corporate stockholders feel sufficiently threatened, brutal and visible repression will be very hard to escape. — Bitter Crank
I didn't intend to evaluate the violence. The first step is to define violence. The second step is to identify it. The third is to assess it.
I don't think it's possible to override violence in general. Therefore, only two criteria seem possible:
- Is it fair the end of this violence?
- Are the violent means proportional to the end?
Nullifying a child does not seem to be a valid end in any case. For moral reasons and because of its consequences. But verbal or controlling violence seems unavoidable in bringing up children. The less the better. Persuasion is preferable in almost all cases. — David Mo
Sports is just war without the killing — Ted Turner
I think that Foucault's view of discipline allows to consider seemingly non-violent methods of control - — Number2018
more saturated within wide domains of social practice. — Number2018
When the mass media shows a series of particular images for 24/7, so that a specific narrative and agenda should become dominating, one could consider symbolic violence as the leading one. — Number2018
Baurdieu concieved it as the way to impose not just a set of discriminatory or coersive positions. — Number2018
If general means popular, I agree. If general includes experts, I disagree.Nevertheless, you will agree that the general opinion on violence seems to be restricted to bodily harm — TheMadFool
What do you think of Ted Turner's statement. If you ask me, it seems to fit somewhat loosely with your beliefs on violence. — TheMadFool
If general means popular, I agree. If general includes experts, I disagree. — David Mo
Don't you think that this is actually part of the problem?It is the matter of the state of things. — Number2018
Are there experts in violence? — TheMadFool
I will think about it to see if I can give a condensed answer within my limited knowledge: — David Mo
Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and some philosopher. I don't know if politicians should be considered experts or part of the problem. — David Mo
what are the various human actions that fall under the category of violence? — TheMadFool
I would say that the institutions in charge of defending private property through violence are the legal ones, state or private. But personal violence against a banker who has stolen your savings, as they usually do, cannot be considered institutional. Although it may be more than understandable. Keep in mind that not all personal violence is reprehensible.Locke says personal defense is necessary to protect property. Would that be considered institutional violence, because it protects a system, or personal violence because it protects an individual too? — ernestm
In the end everyone is violent... more or less — David Mo
The problem is with those who can't control it or use violence for their own benefit. — David Mo
Yes, I think so. If you read Weibel’s essay, mentioned in OP, you could find that there is the evolution of perspectives on violence, starting from Benjamin and Schmitt to Derrida and Agamben. The simple view on violence considers it as the direct and primary device of the state’s domination. On the contrary, their thought is based on the assumption of the negation of the negation. The primary domain of violence has gradually become hidden and indiscernible. Thus, for Agamben, the dialectics of inclusion/exclusion leads to conclude that “human life…included in the juridical order solely in the form of its exclusion (that is, of its capacity to be killed)” (Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer).It is the matter of the state of things.
— Number2018
Don't you think that this is actually part of the problem? — Heiko
They're two different things. If you say that all x is y (all pain is pleasure) and you are identifying x and y (x=y) you are making a tautology that means nothing. Something like "men do what they are inclined to do".I don't know the exact reason why but some here are of the opinion that when one assigns a quality to everything it becomes meaningless. — TheMadFool
I think the relationship between means and end is complicated.So, you feel that the ends justify the means but what if the means, as is the case with violence, is in direct contradiction to the ends? — TheMadFool
The problem of ‘how can power be desired?’, (‘how can the subjugated group support domination?’) has allowed to develop the conceptual framework, explaining fascism as well as the contemporary capitalist production of our subjectivities. — Number2018
The problem of ‘how can power be desired?’, (‘how can the subjugated group support domination?’) has allowed to develop the conceptual framework, explaining fascism as well as the contemporary capitalist production of our subjectivities.
— Number2018
Sure. It's popularly known as the carrot and stick policy. If the carrot doesn't work to get the donkey to walk, the stick is used. The problem is that at the end you don't know if people are because of the carrot or because they are afraid of the stick. Within human psychology there is a reluctance to recognize that if you do something it is because you are a coward. Then you become a fanatic of the tyrant and hate those who draw attention to your cowardice and immorality. This is a classic of all cultures and submissions.
The coward who is caught hitting the weakest one with the herd, instead of stopping, he will intensify the blows to show that he does it this way because he is very macho. — David Mo
Humans are violent and compassionate, or cooperative, if you like. There is a predisposition to one thing or another that society reinforces or represses. This duality may explain how basically peaceful men can react in an aggressive sublimated or non-sublimated way.What is duality? Do you mean that it (duality) explains your position on violence? How? — TheMadFool
Therefore, in the end, the masses are responsible for the crimes of the Nazi regime. — Number2018
Humans are violent and compassionate, or cooperative, if you like. There is a predisposition to one thing or another that society reinforces or represses. This duality may explain how basically peaceful men can react in an aggressive sublimated or non-sublimated way. — David Mo
I think we're going off topic. But it's a very tough subject that can't be avoided in a thread about violence. — David Mo
Yes. All in all, violence (negatively understood) is not determined through theories and definitions.Can you formulate a theory of violence, one that explains the origin of, perpetuation of, and end to, violence with duality? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.