![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Definition
Here's an exercise, for all of us, apropos of my last post
What do you mean when you say violence? When I say it, and when I read it, it has the main meaning of "doing harm to another person, especially physical harm." Other people seem to have other definitions to it, with varying levels of positive stuff, negative stuff, and defensibility as moral action.
Being a word geek, I also immediately checked the dictionary after I wrote that. Now, I know that just 'cause some balding, middle-aged English professor wrote it don't make it so, but I think it is important to look at this and say "is this like what we mean? Is it strange or unexpected? What parts?" I'm presenting it as a tool for starting discussion, a neutral thing that we can react to, not as a final authority.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
My reaction to this: I think it's a pretty correct definition. Their (1) is clearly the closest relative of my definition, but much more strongly stated, because it includes the necessity of violation, damage or abuse. I would have said that the word carried that sort of connotation, but I wouldn't have gone so far as to say that it necessarily crossed that line. It makes sense, though. "Violence" and "violate" do come from the same root.
Some guidelines -- what this post is about is to explore other people's definitions and meanings. It is emphatically not to argue about what is the "right" definition or come to any sort of agreement about what the word means. Rather, it is aimed at gaining some understanding about what others might mean. If you reply to someone else, make sure that you are talking about "oh, I hadn't thought of that" or "that's interesting, could you expand on it" and not "you're wrong" or any of its veiled variants ("I don't see how you..." or "I can't understand this" or "that's stupid" are common ones.)
What do you mean when you say violence? When I say it, and when I read it, it has the main meaning of "doing harm to another person, especially physical harm." Other people seem to have other definitions to it, with varying levels of positive stuff, negative stuff, and defensibility as moral action.
Being a word geek, I also immediately checked the dictionary after I wrote that. Now, I know that just 'cause some balding, middle-aged English professor wrote it don't make it so, but I think it is important to look at this and say "is this like what we mean? Is it strange or unexpected? What parts?" I'm presenting it as a tool for starting discussion, a neutral thing that we can react to, not as a final authority.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.
My reaction to this: I think it's a pretty correct definition. Their (1) is clearly the closest relative of my definition, but much more strongly stated, because it includes the necessity of violation, damage or abuse. I would have said that the word carried that sort of connotation, but I wouldn't have gone so far as to say that it necessarily crossed that line. It makes sense, though. "Violence" and "violate" do come from the same root.
Some guidelines -- what this post is about is to explore other people's definitions and meanings. It is emphatically not to argue about what is the "right" definition or come to any sort of agreement about what the word means. Rather, it is aimed at gaining some understanding about what others might mean. If you reply to someone else, make sure that you are talking about "oh, I hadn't thought of that" or "that's interesting, could you expand on it" and not "you're wrong" or any of its veiled variants ("I don't see how you..." or "I can't understand this" or "that's stupid" are common ones.)
no subject
I think that this is the sticking point for the discussion and the difference in viewpoint of violence. While I will agree that application of violence throughout history has resulted in various good things; I would not argue that the use of violence was the best or right course of action simply because it resulted in those things.
Compare violence on a historical scale resulting in good things to violence on the personal scale resulting in good things. Let's take the example of corporal punishment of one's children as an example: Effective? Traditional? Sure, mostly.
Yes, one can effectively argue that it gets results, but that still doesn't mean it is a good thing to do. After all, would you throw your kid in a lake in order to teach them how to swim? Sure, it gets results...but that isn't really the point, is it?
I'm thinking that is where the main difference is for many of us, beyond definitions and semantics.