Close Topic Options

Violence Necessary For Change

Violence Necessary For Change

Humans and violence seem to be interbred. What do you think about the statement, "hardly anything changes without violence". You may be quick to disagree, but given the shape of the world politically, religiously and otherwise it seems that violence is really necessary for change with humans. We will take it from a Philosophical angle though... what are your thoughts?

Change Necessary Violence

Violence almost always equates to change. However I do not think violence is a requirement for change. Change does cause upheaval, unrest, discomfort or a variety of chaotic phenomena. Not necessarily all at the same time. As humans we are creatures of comfort and in order to effect change we have to move outside our comfort zone. Violence is one type of discomfort but not the only type.

Edited: alskann on 22nd Sep, 2008 - 4:28am

Violence Necessary For Change Health & Special Psychology

Violence is not necessary for change, but will usually produce the quickest results. Violence and pretty much any living thing go hand in hand, not just humans. It is nature's law that the strong prevail as the weak survive, and many great changes in any sphere of reference have come about as a result of a violent act.

Change Necessary Violence

Change without violence is slow and at times methodical. Sometimes it is this type of change that causes the most violence when people actually figure out that has been taken from them. Quick change that comes from violence can lead to some very sweeping changes.

Change Necessary Violence

from a philosophical point of view, viololence is incorporated into animocity which would be part of the nature of Animals. As humans, being in a much higher level than animals mentally, we should be involved in the least amount of violence possible or even none. This is how one can be purely human. I love and respect the nonviolent ways of Ghandi, the Indean leader. It's true that with him, change came slow, but the fact that he was acting nonviolently made this slow change so much more valuable and honorable than when blood is spilled. Nonviolent change should be the method that we should all be looking for because change is about protecting human values, and achieving it should be in the same manner.

Violence Necessary For Change

Violence always brings change. That change is always damaging to the its victim and positive to the winner. From an anthropological view violence is what created civilization and it is the method that was used and (still at times) to control civilization. (take conflict theory for example) Governments use violence to keep society running. They allocate wealth (taxes), they imprison people, and serve capital punishment and other structural violences. Anciently violence is also used to make change, when society is falling apart. This was done through sacrifices and ritual I.e scapegoating. For a good read on violence and how it brings change may I suggest reading Rene Girard.

Violence Necessary Change

Violence is not necessary for change. The only good change comes from love. Like the first person states, change comes through discomfort. You step out of your comfort zone when you try to love another person. Humans were built up from instinct so they either kill or be killed. Loving another person requires not killing. That concept in itself causes change. Change is also a product of necessity. If you love without ever expecting something back you'll get the most back. If you need money you can give some away and never expect any back. One example I heard from one of the priests I heard doing a homely was when he was younger beggars would always come out and ask for money they would line the streets he said asking for money. He would always take a handful of change when he went out and he would give some away. His friends said he was crazy and when he really needed money about 10 years later he got a check in the mail for 5000 dollars. If you need to be not racist love. The only thing needed to end slavery was love and then the whole thing would've ended like that. Great change would've occurred much more quickly than if violence was used.

Violence Necessary Change Psychology Special & Health

I think violence has its place because some people only know violence like the Huns. Nothing but a good battle is all they wanted. If you tried to be diplomatic they would just enslave you. Its like the Matrix quote I just read.