06 Aug 04
The causes and roots of violence in our society.
We all know there is a lot of violence in society.
From all kinds of political, religious and philosophical perspectives people have tried to analyse and describe this phenomenon, in order to try and get a grip on it.
What are your own thoughts on what causes violence in our society ?
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeViolence is a natural part of the animal kingdom. Despite the thin veneer of civilization that man has built for himself, he is still an animal at heart.
The causes and roots of violence in our society.
We all know there is a lot of violence in society.
From all kinds of political, religious and philosophical perspectives people have tried to analyse and describe this phenomenon, in order to try and get a grip on it.
What are your own thoughts on what causes violence in our society ?
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeA couple weeks ago, I asked bbarr to host a discussion
What are your own thoughts on what causes violence in our society ?
on the various theories of what causation is, in general.
That would be an enlightening discussion that would
give us a better framework within which to answer
questions such as this one. My request was in fact
inspired by the hypothesis at the time that rap music
caused violence
I don't think rap music or video games cause violence.
But without a better understanding of what causation
in general is, it's not clear exactly how to go about
attacking or defending a position on the matter.
For example, one interpretation of causation is the
strict framework of logical implication. If you say that
rap causes violence, I translate that into an implication
R--->V
and then if I can find one instance r without the
corresponding v, I have shown the claim to be false.
A different example of analyzing causality is the
"but for that action" approach. A man comes home
to find his wife cheating on him, and then kills her.
In a sense, she caused violence because "but for her
actions," he would not have killed her.
I don't think either of these two example frameworks
are the best for analyzing the problem of violence.
Hopefully bbarr will reconsider and offer some insight
into some better models of causation.
In the end, I think RWillis's answer is going to be
at the heart of the real answer. That is, violence
is the default behavior, so it doesn't have to be caused.
The reason we don't always act violently is the constant
conditioning against it that we have received our
entire lives. Perhaps the lack of proper conditioning
through faulty parenting and community support is
what lets the natural behavior shine through.
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by Cribs
A couple weeks ago, I asked bbarr to host a discussion
on the various theories of what causation is, in general.
That would be an enlightening discussion that would
give us a better framework within which to answer
questions such as this one. My request was in fact
inspired by the hypothesis at the time that rap music
caused violence
I don't think r ...[text shortened]... parenting and community support is
what lets the natural behavior shine through.
Dr. Cribs
We all know the phenomena of cause and effect in anthropological societal and social questions differ from the impacts they have in let's say matters of physics or mathematics. If you want to reduce the relations between social entities and the processes that go along with it to cause and effect relations than, in my view, you will make yourself guilty of what is called reductionism. Reality is much more complicated than that.
I never heard RHP people talk about dialectical logic. No, not even you Rwingo ..... 😉 ........ maybe that would be a tool with which we can deal with such problems in a more realistic way.
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm no philosopher. I don't know what dialectical logic is. I'll leave that one up to Bbarr and Cribs.
We all know the phenomena of cause and effect in anthropological societal and social questions differ from the impacts they have in let's say matters of physics or mathematics. If you want to reduce the relations between social entities and the processes that go along with it to cause and effect relations than, in my view, you will make yourself guilty o ...[text shortened]... be that would be a tool with which we can deal with such problems in a more realistic way.
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeI doesn't surprise me a bit that you are a fan of
I never heard RHP people talk about dialectical logic. No, not even you Rwingo ..... 😉 ........ maybe that would be a tool with which we can deal with such problems in a more realistic way.
dialectical logic, which embraces contradiction
as a mother does her child. It would be my last
choice of a framework, so hopefully we can find
something better.
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by rwingettOne of its fundamental principles can be worded in several ways:
I'm no philosopher. I don't know what dialectical logic is. I'll leave that one up to Bbarr and Cribs.
1. All claims about entities are contradictions
2. There are no true claims about entities
3. For any claim A about some entity, the claim Not-A is consistent with that.
4. (A and not-A) is a tautology rather than a contradiction!
Seen enough?
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeviolence isn't caused by anything - it is simply a decision we make.
What are your own thoughts on what causes violence in our society ?
no amount of pseudo-philosophical babbling can get around that.
one can always 'justify' violence -
"he started it, so i hit him back" or
"the oppressed rose up to defeat their oppressors"
but one cannot reduce it to being the cause.
we always have the choice and more importantly we can develop the understanding.
in friendship,
prad
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsPlease...make it stop. I can't take anymore!
One of its fundamental principles can be worded in several ways:
1. All claims about entities are contradictions
2. There are no true claims about entities
3. For any claim A about some entity, the claim Not-A is consistent with that.
4. (A and not-A) is a tautology rather than a contradiction!
Seen enough?
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by Cribs
One of its fundamental principles can be worded in several ways:
1. All claims about entities are contradictions
2. There are no true claims about entities
3. For any claim A about some entity, the claim Not-A is consistent with that.
4. (A and not-A) is a tautology rather than a contradiction!
Seen enough?
Dr. Cribs
Where can I verify this? Any site you can recommend ?
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsCribs: "I doesn't surprise me a bit that you are a fan of
I doesn't surprise me a bit that you are a fan of
dialectical logic, which embraces contradiction
as a mother does her child. It would be my last
choice of a framework, so hopefully we can find
something better.
Dr. Cribs
dialectical logic, ... "
Cribs, you are jumping to conclusions. Control your phantasy please.
06 Aug 04
5 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou brought up dialectical logic and you don't even
Where can I verify this? Any site you can recommend ?
know this principle on which it is founded?
Here are few links from Google:
http://www.geocities.com/uniwb/logic/dia.htm -- "The first principle of dialectical logic says that every thesis is contradictory."
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4487 -- "Contrary to formal logic, the law of dialectical logic is that everything is mediated therefore everything is itself and at the same time not itself. "A is non-A." A is negated."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/system2.htm -- "Secondly, again contrary to linear character of formal logic, dialectical logic is circular. Something is explained by Other, and Other is explained by Something."
I bet you love that last one. Does it sound familiar to anybody? Is the Bible the Word of God? Why? Because it says so!
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfNo, I used to be into physics a few years ago, before
hey cribs!
are you on the physicsforums.com?
neat! me too!!
in friendship,
prad
I became a full-time pimp, but I haven't kept up with
it. I used to work at NASA and at a DOE particle
accelerator, but my interests have since changed.
That thread just came up in my search.
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by Cribs
You brought up dialectical logic and you don't even
know this principle on which it is founded?
Here are few links from Google:
http://www.geocities.com/uniwb/logic/dia.htm -- "The first principle of dialectical logic says that every thesis is contradictory."
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4487 -- "Contrary to formal logic, the ...[text shortened]... e. Does it sound familiar to anybody? Is the Bible the Word of God? Why? Because it says so!
Oh, Cribs .... don't say such things, I never said it anyway.
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
Here's a link for you in case you're interested in developing your views .... *coughs* ....... 😉
It's very interesting but a bit too difficult for me ... lol ....
"According to Katalin Havas dialectical contradictions are fully compatible with classical logic, since, owing to a distinction between internal and external negations, graduality does not entail the existence of true logical contradictions. The distinction, though, is not sufficient to support her point unless further manoeuvres are resorted to, bringing about a complete mutual estrangement of both negations, and thus severing the tie between natural language and formalization. Implementing dialectical views through some paraconsistent logic of fuzziness seems a preferable procedure."
http://www.ifs.csic.es/sorites/lp/articles/logica/havas.htm
😀 😉