Inherently Violent?

There's different categories of violence....violence committed out of love, violence committed out of hate/anger/rage, violence committed out of fear, violence committed out of necessity...

Yes it's a natural part of life...humans, though, are the only species that seeks to rid themselves of this vital tool. Likely to demonstrate our superiority to the rest of the animal kingdom....

RyuJin, you touch on something Master Wescli and I spoke of some time ago. Setsuninto and Katsujinken. Setsuninto is the principle of 'The Sword That Takes Life', while Katsujinken is 'The Sword That Gives Life'. One is drawn for murderous intents and purposes, the other to preserve order. Both exist, unfortunately...but exist they do. My hope is that as long as Setsuninto has a place in this world, taciturn warriors channel Katsujinken to counterbalance it.

As an entrepreneur of violence, if I do not understand the effects it will have on a given situation...I do so to the detriment of everyone around me. As I have matured, I understand that while violence is a tool...it is rarely the best tool, the only tool, or the first tool. Shaping an environment properly so you never have to draw either sword...that is the sage answer - if you can swing it. Barring that...the truth will be in the consequences. They never lie.

Reacher wrote:
As an entrepreneur of violence, if I do not understand the effects it will have on a given situation...I do so to the detriment of everyone around me. As I have matured, I understand that while violence is a tool...it is rarely the best tool, the only tool, or the first tool. Shaping an environment properly so you never have to draw either sword...that is the sage answer - if you can swing it. Barring that...the truth will be in the consequences. They never lie.

Great point!

V-Tog wrote: Is violence a natural feature of human nature? Would it be possible or even desirable to ever live in a world/society with no violence?

Yes, violence is a natural feature of human nature. Read history books for evidence, or perhaps review what we find entertaining. Yes, it would be possible and desirable to live in a world/society with no violence. Alot of people do. A story of violence is not violence and that is all the violence some have experienced. Favorable because your not being hurt but undesirable because you are disconnected with reality.

To amend my last sentence without going back and editing the post, I think it would be more appropriate to say It is both desirable and undesirable state of living because you don't get hurt.

Which is to say violent things allways teach something, but is the lesson taken for better or ill?

rugadd wrote: Yes, violence is a natural feature of human nature. Read history books for evidence, or perhaps review what we find entertaining.

Ah, here is a common mistake in reasoning: mistaking what has been for a long time as natural.

I do not believe violence is inherent or natural. I believe that aggression is natural, but I believe violence is something more than that. I think that we have been conditioned to think of violence as an intrinsic part of human nature, in part so as to justify the horrible things people do to other people. From Aristotle on down to politicians on both sides of the major US political parties; the argument that violence is inherent is used to make an excuse for the violence of those in power towards the powerless.

I'm stating it like it is. I'm not saying I personally think violence is a great answer to my problems nor do I make excuses for it. As a specie the proof is in the pudding. We are studying spirituality here(presumably)to raise ourselves up to a higher level of being. We mustn't forget what the first floor looked like just because we can sit safely behind our desks and type about it.

Also, on my earlier point, a violent act can break things, people places...however, I believe in this word:

kintsukuroi: to repair with gold: the art of repairing pottery with gold or silver lacquer and understanding that the piece is more beautiful for having been broken.

rugadd wrote: I'm stating it like it is. I'm not saying I personally think violence is a great answer to my problems nor do I make excuses for it.

But in defending an ahistorical, tacitly accepted assumption about how the world works, you are indeed making excuses for it. That's what I'm trying to point out. By saying that because violence has been around for a very long time that it must also be natural is not logically sound.

Jamie Stick wrote: By saying that because violence has been around for a very long time that it must also be natural is not logically sound.

It doesn't mean that it isn't true, however.