Technically it is “owning” someone if you make a threat in bluff, and your bluff is believed. And it would also technically be owning someone to make a credible threat or use of violence- the term is commonly used in sports and even in reference to combat. Making the biggest threat is not “owning someone” because if your threat is ineffective then they are not afraid of you or otherwise beholden to you- and thus they are not “owned” by you. The less PC and more antiquated term for “owned” would be “made then your b$tch..” and I assure you that as a matter of public record, one can be made another’s b$tch through use or threat of violence.
To the first question- is it admirable or commendable to use threat of or application of violence to get compliance? In an ultimate sense I would say no- from a progressive social stand point at least. It isn’t what we’d consider a pillar of “enlightenment” or an advanced society.
That said- law and government are derived from violence or threat of violence. Most forms of authority are rooted in a form of violence- even employment where in economic force is used as a substitute for physical force- but the ultimate economic threat of termination is one of potential starvation and destitution. The worlds leading nations use violence to meet violence and even to combat ideology or enforce philosophy.
And violence is the simplest and most universal tool in the human lexicon. When a person fails at all other means, violence is the only remaining tool we have. I cannot call it a disagreement when someone marginalizes or refuses to acknowledge your existence or basic dignity.
Realize that:
1. Violence has many forms. In the fundamental sense it is merely an expression of power over another. To do harm or exert your will against their own because they lack the strength to stop you. Economic power, political power, legal power, intellectual power are often used as tools by those who have them to take from those who do not, to force their will because others can’t stop them. This is a form of violence and how is it different to say that if you don’t comply with me I will hurt your life with my money or influence than to say I will break your arm? Your arm will heal faster than you can mend financial ruin in most cases no?
But what we have isn’t a disagreement as much as it is a lack of respect. If my name is Tim and you feel I look more like a Lucy- and you refuse to call me Tim- Tim is my name. It is the fundamental right of a sentient being or group to name itself. It isn’t appropriate to call all people of Asian decent “oriental” or to refer to the country of “Siam” because those are not the pronouns chosen by those people. In point of fact most have openly rejected those pronouns- and to use them even after being told that in the same conversation is a fundamental disrespect.
Disrespect is an exercise of power. We only can disrespect those who we have the power to do so, and most people only disrespect those they know they can disrespect without consequence. That itself is a form of violence. Power dynamics- you are in a position of power to disrespect this person without consequence.
This person, in this case, made it very clear that they are not subservient. That there are consequences. It’s primitive- but so are we humans. You can be an enlightened being and be diplomatic, debate, reason and appeal to a persons decency and kindness and respect- and this guy didn’t have any of that, and surprise- threaten violence once and suddenly he is listening, because he’s no longer the most powerful person in the room in his mind. There are consequences to his actions.
Say it’s wrong- but that’s how the law works. It isn’t on the honor system. The police won’t debate you and lecture you on why robbing that bank is wrong. They will use superior force to make you comply, and take from you your life and freedom if you step out of line- even when no human life or harm is in danger or direct danger.
We did not spend years finding Bin Laden to bring him in and debate with him how his thoughts and deeds about America were misguided and we’d really like for him to chill out, but if he didn’t... it was ok. We hunted him like an animal and killed him like the dog he was. “That’s different! He used violence first. He KILLED people!”
Yes. Yes he did. Along with countless other terrorists including George Washington. And why didn’t these men sit down calmly and say something like: “King George, this is uncool. We identify as our own country, and we expect you to stop treating us as though we are British. But if you don’t... well... that’s cool too I guess we an just talk more...” that’s not how the American Revolution went down is it?
Because king George wasn’t listening. Didn’t have to. He was in a position of power. He didn’t really fear the consequences and didn’t feel the need to do anything else but what he’d been doing no? Because when people don’t have the tools and outlets and ability to make themselves be heard- there’s always violence. A (should be) last resort when a conflict cannot be resolved elsewise.
Was it wrong for the Americans to use violence against the British? Fundamentally yes. But it was prudent- many would say necessary- at the very least it was necessary to secure what they wanted and to have some control of their own lives as they wanted them to be.
At the end of the day- that’s the truth. Wether it is social influence or money or military and police or whatever else- people use what power they have to exert their will. When people with conflicting goals meet, one gives in, or inevitably there will be violence given enough time. The application of violence to secure human rights is not fundamentally better than any sort of violence- but the hallmark of a bully is that they only understand violence. You don’t use soft language to dissuade a mountain lion from eating you- effective communication requires adopting a communication style the other entity understands, this man was being a bully. The clip shows he understands violence and doesn’t understand human respect.
Violence is not merely an expression of power. Feelings of power can come as a result of violent interactions, but that does not mean that violence necessitates power to come about. Violence can be most broadly defined as something that can lead to injury, physically or emotionally (if emotionally, the connotations seem to imply to the point past mere feelings of offense). Power is not involved in the definition, and rightly so, as any mobile organism is capable of committing violent acts.
.
To the question of whether threatening violence is acceptable as a retort-- in a place where the premise is to talk peacefully with no direct physical result, absolutely not. If one were to talk of the morality of pet owning in a coffee house and the listener were to suddenly propose to break a bottle over the speaker's head in response to any perceived insult, it would be reasonable to call the listener quite in over their own heads as they are using a non-arbitrary act of harm to respond to an...
I think you need to be extremely careful saying that disrespect is a form of violence because that can legitimise the use of actual violence in response
... arbitrary line that caused a feeling of offense. In contrast, if a dictatorial community leader were to propose that everyone ought to hand over all of their possessions to the communal government and the people rioted, we have a non-arbitrary act of harm being used to counter a non-arbitrary act of deprivation. Since the deprivation includes every possession, the leader in question is bringing every person in the community into harm's way by taking away everything they had used to live up until that point. Thus violence as a tool can be used if it becomes necessary to remove the leader from power (provided the leader refuses to step down and attempts to solidify their political place).
In fact, according to the Oxford dictionary, violence has to involve physical force
Thus (if we go by that definition) @guest_ is factually incorrect to say that disrespect is violence
In the playground sense, violence is "owning" people because the fear it generates makes people shut up. But that method of "owning" people is less conducive to any actual exchange of ideas than "owning" people via cleverer insults. We can demonstrate that physically violent reactions to perceived insults is an authoritarian reaction. The best evidence is playground behavior, where violent bullying is often used to create environments of subservience. Other evidence can be found in virtually every form of power where one person holds all. Dictatorships, absolute monarchies, and so on all bear the stain of violence against remarks of arbitrary value.
I would be careful about the partial reading and comprehension of dictionary entries when speaking of sociological issues. Webster’s defines several meanings for the word- including discordance, an often destructive use of force (with force not defines as PHYSICAL force) and also as the act of being VIOLENT- with violent likewise not being confined to physical acts but including emotional or other forms of harm or damage. Oxford B and D define violence as both as to inflict harm upon- NOT limited to physical harm; or to outrage- as well as to violate, or to interfere with natural process (such as existence and self identification) or apply constraint to development. So the dictionary is not limited to your abridged definition I am afraid @cakelover.
Violence is not MERELY an expression of power- but it IS always an expression of power I would counter diminuendo. While you make some very astute points and observations- for a living thing to harm another it must have the power to do so. By default- you cannot harm a thing you are powerless to harm, and so to cause harm requires exercise and expression of ones power. You could not harm the sun with your bare hands and naked self. You have very little power over the sun, and really your only power is indirect- to avoid it or obfuscate its power over you- but you are ultimately in most app practical sense- subject to its power so long as you remain within its gravitational pull and its radiation.
Violence is both a fundamental root of power (not all power comes from violence- but most power is- or at some point must be), and also the most basic expression of power available to anything in existence. As humans- we can choose- assuming all parties agree- to rod ourselves of violence and rely strictly on logic and procedure, so long as all involved willingly abide by whatever such discourse would render. Of one party does not.... well.... we use the tools we have to win when winning is all that concerns us or matters.
Lastly- as I said- I agree that resorting to violence or threat of violence is always wrong in the absolute sense. It is a failing or a lazy and primitive solution when we lack the power or intelligence to solve things otherwise. BUT- when we frame it as being in a forum for discourse- I can’t say that a person threatening physical violence is any more out of like than a person being disrespectful as far as being counter to the spirit of what such exercise is to be about. Both are wrong- but the woman didn’t threaten violence to further her argument- she threatened violence against personal affront. Still not noble- but it’s an important distinction. At some point- little shits get popped in the mouth. Debate respectfully- and we can disagree. Court offense, and receive the fruits of your labors. Ie: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I think this is one of the few times I hold a quite different viewpoint from you. Most of what you said seems quite logical in its progression and it may in fact not be wrong or not all wrong. The main problem I have with labeling things as violent simply because of perceived power of another is that it quickly moves into the subjective. We're already seeing it on some college campuses where they label speech, not a call to action, just expressing your opinion as violence. Then because they claim it's violence they feel justified in enacting physical violence against that person. Which they then call self defense.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying we should label these things as violence, or even that violence justifies violence. As I’ve said- the use of physical violence in a civilized society is a mark of failure in society. The need for violence or that which can be considered violent is a failure. The “goal” would be a society without any violence or need for it. A society that didn’t produce people who we would need to use violence against, and the methods to solve problems other ways. That goal may very likely never be achieved, it’s unrealistic and idealistic- but striving for that goal is certainly worthwhile if it nets us any improvement.
One may have the thought that using any known practical means for a society with effectively no persons we’d need violence for is probably more a dystopia from our perspective than a utopia- a place with, as you elude to- strict moral and social controls and measures- that so far in human history have proven to be violations of human rights to try and achieve a “greater good.”
In academic context, with people capable of understanding nuance and precision- I would apply the concept of violence to power dynamics in non physical social interactions. But I’m not advocating society label these things as violent. People are, by the numbers, not mentally capable of handling such ideas. This is why there are no systems of mass and successful government on earth that are truly direct democracies. You can’t let the inmates run the asylum. I don’t trust people to understand the distinctions between types of violence or roots or what any of that means. This thread has been full of insightful and intelligent comments- but also demonstrates my point. Big ideas are dangerous in the hands of small minds. It’s like giving a nuclear reactor to a tribe secluded from society for 10,000 years. It doesn’t end well.
People can gradually be made to understand things- but this is often a process that takes life times. We still have Holocaust deniers and civil war revisionists. Ignorance doesn’t disappear over night. My point is simply that there are two levels to this issue. The first is a deeper and more complex philosophical level- and the second is a basic and practical level.
We must not allow mental masturbation and high ideas to prevent practical administration of society, but we also mustn’t act on instinct as animals and refuse to consider change and deeper understanding of things. So it’s a balance. Her threats of violence were wrong- but they were practical. She applied the tool in the effective way for the situation where no other tool she had worked. She was successful in her immediate mission. So long as there are humans who are primitive- we will likely need some bridge to cross the gaps of understanding. Violence is one such tool.
I again disagree with the notion that violence requires power in the social sense. Violence has been performed by people who are in a position of lesser power. Take a situation in which a bully has been physically harassing a victim for some lengthy period of time, and the victim finally pops the bully in the jaw. There can be a number of reasons why the victim chose not to react in self defense earlier, whether it be concern for their own safety or risk of the school ruling in favor of the bully. In whichever the case is, the bully clearly held the more powerful position up until that point. That act of violence is not an expression of having more or able power. But that act of violence can result in power-- namely, if the bully begins to treat the victim with distance, we can argue that the popped jaw has granted the victim personal power over the bully.
By your definition of violence, in order to make something incapable of violence, we need to put them in a perpetual state of lesser power than everything else. But we can see that this is not a viable solution, as the thoroughly power-neutered Third Estate of monarchical France managed to overthrow the very power-endowed Second and First Estates. We can attempt to reconcile this by broadly defining power in terms of physical capability, but then we have a trivial tautology. Every mobile living organism by definition has the physical capability to harm. Although fruit flies and the like may not be able to harm larger organisms, they can harm each other in their mating competitions. Power becomes a redundant requirement.
I believe you misunderstand me. You speak of power in absolute terms. Power is a dynamic. It applies to a specific instance and or circumstance. The President of The United States is theoretically one of the most powerful or most powerful people in the United States- in absolutes they are more powerful than “Joe the stock boy at the piggly wiggly.” However- Joe the Stockboy has power to remove the president or even countermand his will. If the president and Joe the stockboy were to arm wrestle- in most physical contests joe the stockboy would be more powerful.
Power between two parties is dependent on circumstances and other factors. What it is they have the power TO DO? Power is meaningless unless it is able to perform some unit of work or exert some form of force or interaction. Most All living creatures have power, various types of power and ways to manifest that power.
Violence is a fundamental form of power. An average earthworm does not have the power to do violence against most any life form larger than itself. It’s only “power” in resisting YOU putting your will against its own is to not cooperate, or to flee/hide. It can do nothing else and has almost no power to force the will of the earthworm upon YOU, does it?
So when a “scrawny nerd” is bullied by some “big jock,” the “nerd” usually must either:
A. Resign to giving in to the “jocks” will and whims on all matters.
B. Get aid from someone with the power to compel the “jock” (such as a body of authority or superior force)
Or
C. Utilize a form of power the “nerd” has and can leverage against the “jock” to enforce their own will or influence the “jock” to decide to take actions in line with the “nerds” will.
Option D is the wild card- the “nerd” totally CAN use violence against the “jock”. Generally speaking, to maximize the chances of their success they will be tactical in application, or strategic- yang weapons, brutality, or setting up a battle where they will have favorable conditions.
In other words- a force of 200 poorly equipped men vs a force of 1,000 well equipped men of equivalent skills and motivation- the superior and better equipped force would be quantified as having “more power” than the smaller group. This doesn’t mean that the smaller group cannot do violence to the larger group- AND, if the smaller group were to, for example, lure the larger group into a choke point, where the smaller group had cover and concealment, and the larger group effectively did not (such as having “low ground”) and use other factors such as keeping the suns to the backs of the smaller group- the advantages provided would give the smaller group the power- they may well be able to defeat the larger group, when “on paper” such a victory would seem impossible.
So:
1. “power” is not a state of being between two entities. It is relational and changes based on circumstances at any moment.
2. Violence as an expression of power doesn’t imply that one must have absolute power over another to do violence. The violence IS your power over them. That is CRUCIAL to understand. If you cannot out speak them, out think them, out wit them or out maneuver them- convince or compel them- you CAN use violence and force compliance, or in most circumstances achieve de facto victory through their existence being ended.
Tl:dr- you BY DEFAULT, by the known laws of physics, CANNOT commit violence against a person whom you have no power- no ability- to do violence to. How will a head in a jar which is in a coma do violence to you? It is literally powerless. How will an earthworm do violence to you? How would a person- shot into space in a capsule, 900 lightyears from earth with no means of communication or weapons that could ever reach you- do violence to you in this second right now? They cannot. They have no power to do so.
It’s a self truism. To do violence to another person requires the power to do violence to them. To put on your pants requires the power to put on ones pants. To walk across the street requires the power to walk across the street. To do ANY of these activities is to express your power to do them. Every time you start your car and drive to the store it is an expression of power. Your power to own and operate a vehicle, to have the freedom and autonomy to do so.
The broadest definition of power available to us can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which simply is "ability to act or produce an effect." When we use the term violence, we typically use it as an expression of agency. So the thing doing violence must have the ability to do harm. Using that broad definition of power is, as I already asserted, a trivial tautology. But that's not the definition of power you intend on operating with, is it?
We need to clearly distinguish the kind of power we're referring to when we engage in an argument of terminology. Your attempt to assert that violence requires power is indefensible on political grounds, as those with lesser political power have historically found ways to violently topple those with greater political power. Similarly, those with "authority" power can be the target of violence (as demonstrated with the bully and the victim example). Influential power is similarly ineffective in totally protecting one from violence. So clearly, violence cannot rely on these kinds of power differences.
Can we say that violence relies on physical power? If we seek to understand only physical violence, of course. You would need the ability to physically act in order to be capable of physical harm, and that capability can lead you to do an act of harm. But emotional violence cannot rely on physical power, as emotional violence is done by other factors. Can emotional violence rely on political/authority/influential power? In many cases, yes, as we can see with the 1984-esque landscapes of NK and China. But does emotional violence rely on those forms of power? Absolutely not. Emotional violence can be done by someone whose every measure of power is less than yours, all that is required is knowledge of something that can be violated. That knowledge does not have to go deep-- some emotional violence has been based purely on social norms and not on personal information. Insult of a religion, for example, can constitute emotional violence to believers.
We must be extremely careful that our use of the term does not imply more than it should. Words are more than just their definitions, and it would do us well to know when to use "ability" or "power." Violence requires ability, yes, but it does not require power. Power as a term is very specific, often referring to the ability of an actor to do something against someone. Ability as a term is not as specific, not requiring anything other than the actor and their own qualities. To illustrate the difference more clearly, we would never say you have the power of a plumber when we mean to say that you have the ability to do the job of one. The ability to do violence, then, is just that. The power to do violence is significantly heavier as a phrase and ought to be treated with care.
Oh no. I very specifically mean power in the broad definition. The sense of the ability to create effect. The more specific definition of power you speak of comes from ones ability to correctly apply the former. A psycho killer kills, and this is the broad use of power. They have affected the world they live in. But their application is generally without any real logical end. Killing 1,000 random people will likely have some serious effects- but these effects will largely be as random as the people killed. Killing just 1 person who is specifically chosen, and in a specific way, can gain one the power in the specific sense- some form of control over things.
We must always ask what the goal is. When we speak of power, such as political power- what are we really talking about? We are talking about a single humans desire to shape the world. You can shape the world many ways. Art shapes the world, to build a home is to create for yourself a space, that is yours, your imagination manifest. What is in your head- made real.
But how do you build a house? You need land no? In absence of order- in the deep forest- how does one get land? You could see some land, no one is there, you take it. Ok. No “violence” is really done. But- the moment someone else tries to put a conflicting vision of reality into effect- another person, a bear perhaps- who believes that land would be better without a house there, or you there, or perhaps that their reality has them living in that house or on that land- your ability to manifest reality is challenged.
So why are there police? Why do almost all countries have militaries? What force compels adherence to the constitution or law of a land? What stops a president from deciding they don’t care for the election results and will stay at least 3 more terms? Consequence. And how are these consequences enforced? Violence.
Our system is tiered- designed to avoid and insulate from direct physical violence, but that is its foundation. You are expected to comply to honor and manners. Failing that you are asked. Failing that you are warned. Failing that you mat be summoned by a court or authority figure. Failing to honor that summon you will be escorted by, likely armed and or superior force of men. Failing that you will be taken by force against your will. Failing to come by force or comply with these agents, you may be killed.
The ultimate consequence underpinning supreme disobedience is death or violence in our society. In pretty much every society, everywhere. Ever in recorded history. All other instruments of the state, and all instruments of compliance relying upon e ultimate enforcement of the state in their failing- are extensions of that.
It is through this mechanism which violence is implied. Money is an instrument of this. Power. We defer to those in these positions largely and most often, not out of inherent respect for their accomplishments or even from the deduction that their superior wealth is some indicator of superior intelligence and ability to our own (for the record- it is not inherently so..) but because their money represents the ability to do us harm. We love “David and Goliath” stories because most of us are the underdogs- everyone is to someone at some time surely. But that which makes good entertainment is most often that which we do not see in daily reality. When a small town or single parent beat a corporation or wealthy powerful person it is news- because it is newsworthy.
As a generality, many people do not even attempt to resist even the unjust of their superiors in social currency because they are aware from the onset they will lose. This is even seen when you “win” I can go find citations, but it’s common knowledge that a good deal of the time, wether legally “right” or not- the legal battle with the government or a large corporation or wealthy/powerful entity- is almost always costlier and less practical than simply rolling over. Small business owners for example- one notable case, a man who had a domain name a large company wanted and he wouldn’t sell- he fought them for decades and won- but at great personal cost and financial loss. He’s said that it was foolish to do and he doubts he would ever bother again. A common sentiment of such “winners.”
The threat is there- that you will be broken. We agree we must be careful about what we label as “violence” amongst the unwashed masses or even in law- but philosophically there isn’t a distinction. It isn’t so “enlightened” to take what you want at the tip of a pen because you have the power to and they lack the power to stop you- vs the tip of a spear or the tip of a gun.
A system of “pen tip” violence is touted as so civilized- but it is not. The same thuggish values are there. Same motivations. Often the same consequences with people dying not by billet but by quill. What it DOES do, is change who an have social currency from those with physical gifts or prowess or anyone capable of their mastery- and makes a system where the politician and paper pusher is the most dangerous person- the person who thusly has the most social power. And by codifying and legislating such violence by pen, our- “civilized violence” is backed by what? The state and its agents, and an actual threat of physical violence.
So I cannot say it isn’t violent to have a system where by you comply, roll over, under the implied threat of physical violence if you don’t. That’s just violence with extra steps. No different than saying “you can agree to do this because you want to... or I can punch you in the face if you don’t agree and then punch you until you agree...”
You are most certainly not taking power at its broadest definition. You refer to a power dynamic, which a priori takes power to be more than being able to cause an effect. It requires that we be able to quantify the ability of two things capable of agency. Not only that, but we must be able to do this continuously for any agent that is a part of this power dynamic. Even if we can split this dynamic into separate scales and declare that some agents are more powerful than others in specific regards, the "dynamic" nature of this definition means that we can still rank every agent relative to each other in terms of every power we're considering. Even if we have someone who is an excellent orator and can wrestle with a large black bear, we can consider them lower on the power scale than a national politician by the emphasis we put on political power over physical and persuasive power.
There are two definitions of ability. The first use is in qualitative cases where we merely refer to whether one is able to do something. For example, every properly socialized child has the ability to learn a language. The second use refers to quantitative proficiency, which we measure usually by visible results. We can say that a doctor has a lesser ability if they issue more incorrect diagnoses than others. We can certainly try to refer to an ability dynamic, which takes the second definition. But we cannot create a dynamic for what is not at least theoretically quantifiable. The broadest definition of power takes the first definition of ability, i.e. the state of being able to perform an act. It is not quantitative unless you take the narrower definitions of power, all which take on very specific types (political, physical, authoritative, and so on).
Violence, which requires merely the qualitative state of being able to cause some form of harm, does not require quantifiable ability. It therefore does not require the quantitative definitions of power. Taking the qualitative definition of power gives us a redundant tautology since it becomes interchangeable with the qualitative definition of ability. And even then I can assert that power has no place in the definition or causation of violence on the basis that we do not use power to mean merely being able to do something. The common uses of "power" grants it much more implications than mere "ability."
To your more specific scenarios: Your situation with the home in the woods takes on a very particularly solipsistic approach. I don’t believe that reality is individually manifested, but for now I’ll assume so. If Agent A manifests the reality that they should have a home in the woods, but Agent B manifests a reality where Agent A does not take residence in the woods, then what we have is an irreconcilable situation. Two conflicting realities cannot manifest at once, but we can take the idea of superposition into place. Until the reality is properly manifested via observation, both realities can happen. How each reality can happen is different. Agent A can be scared by Agent B and allows Agent B's reality to happen. Similarly, Agent B can back off, allowing Agent A's reality to happen. There is no emotional harm done, merely an instinctual reaction to an emotional response.
But now for a moment, let us consider if Agents A and B react with violence. For the sake of the argument, assume Agent A has a lesser physical power than Agent B, and that both agents are otherwise equal in all other respects of power in the situation as it unfolds. If Agent A wins, whether by a miracle or not, we have a situation in which the violence resulted in Agent B forfeiting all of their power to Agent A, even if temporarily. And vice versa. But the real question is, did the violence happen specifically because of the difference in power between the two?
If we begin to add more agents into this scenario with additional conflicting views (for example, Agent C might believe that there should be no forest, and Agent D might believe that the forest should encompass all of reality), we can begin to see the problem with viewing reality as something to be manifested. We would have to assert that each agent is equally likely to have their own visions of reality manifested, but we haven't reconciled what happens to the agents if their realities fail. Do they disappear? Does their version of reality remain existent in some form, ready to be manifested at any moment? I assert that we do not bring imagination into reality, we merely make attempts to mold reality into the closest form that we want to imagine. This is more consistent, I believe, as once one agent manages to mold reality closely to their own imagination, other agents have no choice but to accept and work around it.
The rest of your examples don't seem to prove that a power dynamic is necessary to violence. On the other hand, you mostly prove that power dynamics can come about as a result of violence, whether implicitly or explicitly. A society for which violent punishments are given for breaking a law does not prove that these violent punishments necessitate power. On the other hand, it shows that violence can be used to maintain that power dynamic, however it came to exist. It also shows that a desire to maintain the power dynamic can lead to violent acts, but this is not directly evident.
My argument isn’t that a power dynamic is NECESSARY for violence- we can break into parts my points as such:
1. To do violence one needs he power to do violence. One must have some ability to do violence. This is an inherent truth. I do not see it as debatable.
2. The use of violences requires the power to do violence and thus is itself an expression of that power, potential energy made kinetic.
3. A dynamic between the parties is not necessary for violence to occur- but once violence occurs a dynamic is created regardless. As you say- to a specific instance of violence- the “loser” forfeits their authority in a matter. They no longer have power to back that authority.
4. On the subject of manifesting reality- perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. My point is that all organisms known seek to change the world in some way as suits them. All other earthly power comes from where an organism wishes to have the world be one way, and can or cannot see that reality be made real.
So to be clear- we are in agreement on the subject of reality. I misspoke- used a dash of hyperbole. But I agree to your definition- we attempt to shape our reality to be more in line with what it is we want it to be.
To the final comment- I am not trying to prove that a power dynamic is necessary for violence. If there were no violence- the point would be moot. Violence is the result of power dynamics. A conflict between two people reconciling reality with their image of what reality should be. There doesn’t need to be a power dynamic for their to be violence. There must be power to do violence. It’s a very important distinction. A power dynamic is created when two people interact.
Person A walks up to person B and begins to brutally murder them. Person B is fine with This. Person B dies. No power dynamic. Person A has expressed power. They have the power to kill. Person C observing is now acutely aware of this. But as there was no conflict between person A and person B- there was no power dynamic beyond that of 2 people with mutually aligned goals collaborating as equals in the murder of person B.
This is VERY unlikely. More likely- person A walks to person B and begins to brutally murder them. Person B is not ok with this. Person B will then likely use whatever tools they have and are willing/able to employ to prevent their murder.
Scenario A. Person B fights back.
If they fight back- they may win or loose on physical or tactical means. This would override the will of person A this demonstrating an ability to overcome the will of person A. They have taken person A’s power to enact their will. However- person B may be injured or maimed. Likely not to their will. In this case- they lacked the power to completely secure their own will.
Scenario B: person B calls for help and with aid of persons C and D survives- had person A had the power to overcome all those peoples collective wills- either as an individual or by employing additional persons to their cause- the reverse of this would be true. But person B. Used their social connections as a form of power to thwart the will of person A and see their own will done.
These are very simplified. We could explore thousands of examples and permutations- but in the end- if there is violence without conflict then yes- there is no power dynamic. There is a single will and all involved are aligned. This is very rare. Violence is seldom employed as a tool where subjugation of some sort is not a goal- except in cases of psychological abnormality.
- You MUST have the power to do violence to do violence.
- most people of any basic cognitive ability do not employ violence when they do not believe that the consequences of the use of violence would be worse than those of they do not use violence.
- violence is a tool. It is a tool used by all humans and almost all living creatures.
- violence is a, not THE, but A fundamental basis of power, and almost any power beyond that which is voluntarily given, is derived at its core from violence or threat of violence.
- if there is no power dynamic between two entities- there is no use for violence as a tool. Any violence employed would be random. The moment violence is not random, but serves a purpose, and the moment violence with purpose is used against an entity which would not will for the same outcome as the entity using violence- a power dynamic is created.
- violence as a tool requires a power dynamic between entities not to initiate, but in its commission. Entity 1 seeks something of which entity 2 possesses or would serve as a potential block to. Regardless, the moment entity 1 decided to do violence against entity 2, unless entity 2 is a willing recipient of violence without qualifier- a power dynamic is created. In most practical senses- any interaction between 2 entities will create a power dynamic.
This leads me back to my original premise-- the use of the terms "power" and "ability" are NOT interchangeable, even if we take power at its broadest definition. Power as a term is significantly heavier than ability, and thus use of it suggests a stronger, narrower view of violence. Mere ability, as the weaker/broader of the two terms, gives us significantly more latitude in determining whether something is capable of violence. Power creates a very specific stipulation since it includes very specific imagery insofar as physical, political, or authoritative prowess, and makes it so that we must refer to violence within a specific context in order to make your assertion viable. Violence in general does not require this specific imagery, and therefore has no need for power.
Virtually every macro-organism can be said to be capable of some form of violence, regardless of the perceived scale and the method of doing harm. Therefore power cannot be a factor in determining whether one can do violence. Ability can be said to be a factor, since the organism can become complete immobilized/disabled and thus lose any innate ability to do harm. Complete immobilization and death are two common ways to remove this ability, and neither require assertion of power, a power dynamic, or even a deliberate culprit.
We may be quibbling semantics- I’m not really sure myself. But I would have to disagree with your assessment and specifically our micro organism.
1. Not all harm done by one to another is violence. Violence requires intent to harm. That alone could be its own tangent as to the nature and intent or understanding of various organisms and how we gauge intent- but personally I would say (though admittedly cannot prove or disprove- even if a body of scientific understanding strongly suggests micro organisms lack the capacity for such reasoning) that a micro organism would generally not intend harm to a person, and unlike more complex life, I don’t know there’s a lot of hard ground to debate wether a micro organism can even intend harm.
* I don’t want to edit. I used the word intent. I suppose violence could also encompass a reasonable expectation of knowledge an action would cause harm where intent cannot be proven.
2. Predation would, I would say, constitute a power dynamic. Perhaps one of the most fundamental between living creatures, as even those who show little or no social structure still interact with their own species and other species on occasion, be that the hunt or a chance encounter. And what more fundamental and simple example of the opposing wills of two beings could there be, than one who seeks to live by eating the other, and one who seeks to live by not being eaten. Ultimately perhaps neither wishes the other dead (assuming those concepts even register to them), but there they are- two living beings with a conflict of interest, each- assuming it is capable of some form of thought and action beyond the most basic instincts as we would recognize it- will likely employ whatever advantages they can natural or otherwise to see their will be done- to live.
And like almost all power dynamics, like previously discussed- it is fluid and not one way by default. The snake eats the mouse to live- but leave a mouse trapped with a snake and it might kill the snake. Spiders- tarantulas- are often fed live bugs such as crickets. But the cricket can rarely kill the spider instead.
Human cognition is poorly understood by humans- and we ARE human, so the cognition of other creatures is... speculative at best. That said, not quite universal but extreme prevalent seems to be a drive by most all living things- most of all “complex organisms” to continue living and tend the basic wants of that goal. So we can pretty reasonably assume outside of pocket cases, that where one organism seeks to end the life of another, or where both organisms lives are endangered by the others continued living- there will emerge a struggle of power should they cross paths under these circumstances.
It is also notable that even when not actively playing hunter and hunted- prey animals tend to be wary of their predators, or that which they see as a potential threat. The concept of threat, comes from ability- power I say, you have said you don’t see the two as linked, I cannot see how they could not be linked as the ability to do a thing requires the power to do so- the term “powerless” quite literally makes that clear by implication- powerlessness- the inability to take action on a matter. A lack of ability to change something or prevent it.
Used interchangeably quite often- “super power/super human ability” the “power to move a crowd” the “ability to move a crowd.” You won’t likely hear energy which is in use be referred to as ability- we call it electrical power- it possesses ability to do work as an attribute.
So there are distinctions between power and ability. One can theoretically have the power to do a thing but lack the ability I suppose- but then it is theoretical and we are discussing potential and not something measurable. Sort of like saying what the world would look like if WW2 never happened. Speculation based on extrapolation. But ability would certainly be an aspect of power I would think. Ability without power isn’t ability beyond again- theoretical potential. Lacking opportunity for example, by chance. But then- if one does not have the opportunity to press a button- they are too far away for example- they don’t have the ability to push THAT button. They have the theoretical ability- assuming they’ve pushed a button or posses the basic criteria that we think they could push a button- were the opportunity present.
Likewise- if you are standing next to the button, and I say “push the button...” you have the opportunity. You have the theoretical ability. But what if you do not desire to push the button? You lack the intent. Now we have... a power dynamic. You do not want to push the button. I want the button pushed. How badly I want it pushed and my own fortitude and will to a task will conflict to yours. One of us will over power the other, or the other will relent and relinquish their power. UNLESS- one of us persuades the other to change their mind.
Ow it gets interesting. To force you to change your decision will require power of some sort, compulsion, coercion, etc etc. to CONVINCE you that it is the right thing to do to push the button, or that you wanted to push the button... does power come in to that if there is no forcing but a meeting of minds?
Perhaps not. Perhaps it isn’t my power to inflict my will through you, but some ability by one or both of us to make an understanding or adapt our thinking. But... perhaps not. As our truisms tell us and was covered earlier- if there is no conflict- there isn’t a power dynamic necessarily. We are just two people doing what we want and we happen to align on that fact. So we then must wonder if you were convinced, or if you already knew or wanted to push the button on some level and simply were using me as a tool to place your mind where it needed to be to make the decision you were already going to make.
Human Cognition is poorly understood and seemingly not universal after all. In point of fact- a single individual COULD possibly even experience a power dynamic within themselves of conflicting systems and directives and or levels of cognition and thought. Now we are way out in left field though. I cannot say for certain. There’s much to think about on the issue- but for practical means the system I personally apply is as stated more or less.
Violence is a tool and it is part of our nature. Violence is both a source of power and, where others oppose the violence you would choose to do- an expression of your power to do as you please and or avoid consequence. Power is a currency that is borrowed and lent and spent and printed and constantly in flux. Much like the complex dealings of a global economy, you can simultaneously owe a debt to the same entity who at this moment has taken a loan from you- and so on. It’s not exactly linear. But I would hold that as. Fundamental currency that governs all non mutually synchronous acts between creatures, that power is a fundamental force of relationships by which work is performed.
1. "Macro" organism, not micro.
2. I disagree. A power dynamic absolutely requires our concept of "power" to be theoretically quantitative, otherwise we have no means of comparing and ranking every party involved in the dynamic. In the conventional sense of who hunts what, the "power dynamics" of predation is typically one-way (namely, predator > prey). In some cases it may be two-way, for example Organism A may be simultaneously the prey and predator of Organism B (this is usually the case for cannibalistic species). We clearly define power here as "the ability of one species to consistently eat the other species," which gives us a clear power dynamic since we can compare two organisms in a true/false manner. If A can eat B, then A has more power than B. If A and B can both eat each other, then A has the same power as B. If A does not eat B, no conclusion can be drawn. No exact numbers, but this comparison makes this idea of power theoretically quantifiable.
When you attempt to abstract power to mere ability, you get a contradiction. Mere ability is not quantifiable at all, and therefore cannot be placed in a dynamic nature. Proficiency may be quantifiable, but we're not dealing with proficiency, so that definition of ability is irrelevant to us. So when we seek to understand power in terms of a power dynamic, as I believe you are, we cannot be working with the idea that power is simply ability. Power must necessarily be more than just ability. If we instead define power to be "an ability that can be expressed over the abilities of others," then we get a quantifiable definition that we can use in a similar manner to the above definition of "the ability of one species to consistently eat the other species." Even this might be too broad to work with-- what abilities are we taking into account? How narrowly do we define what an ability is, and how many abilities must be oppressed before we determine that one thing has more power than another?
For now let's ignore all the potential problems and take power to be "an ability that can be expressed over the abilities of others," since it is at least theoretically quantifiable. This is still a narrower term than "ability," and again restricts the idea of violence arbitrarily. I'm going to work from here on assuming that "the ability to live" is not a valid ability, as that is a generalization that encompasses a variety of other abilities (the ability to breath, eat, move, and so on). So when we take violence to require this kind of power, we must then show that in every instance of violence, at least one of the attacker's abilities overshadows enough of the victim's to enable the attacker to do violence. If the victim has enough abilities to overshadow the attacker's, however, the attacker cannot have "the power to do violence" to the victim.
I believe we both have discussed situations in which this is the exact opposite. If we take a snake to necessarily be the predator and a mouse to be the prey, then the snake ought to have abilities that overshadows the mouse's. For example, the snake's ability to slither may outpace the mouse's ability to run; and the snake's ability to constrict may stop the mouse's ability to claw at it. By this definition of power, the snake clearly has the power to hurt, kill, and eat the mouse (therefore doing violence). However, the mouse can still fight back, despite the disadvantages. In the cases where the mouse does kill the snake, can we say that the mouse had more power than the snake? The answer, I think, is no, since the mouse may still die of its wounds soon after. We cannot retroactively say that the mouse had greater power either, since we have already established that the snake must have more power than the mouse in order for it to be capable of preying on the mouse.
So then even this, the broadest quantifiable definition of power, fails in at least one case, and therefore cannot be considered the end-all condition for any act of violence. We can say that it fulfills a conditional definition of violence, if we intend on expanding or redefining violence to take on a couple of new connotations. But the matter of the fact is that violence in its most general understanding is merely harm done with intention. Intentional harm may require agency, but that agency does not require quantifiable power. And, as I have already stated before, the literal definition of qualitative power ("the ability to cause an effect") is trivial when used as a condition for violence. We can say equally "the ability" and "the power" to do harm, but each take on different connotations that change what it means to do violence.
To make my point clearer-- we often say that one has the ability to swim, but not the power to swim. Why is that? The reason, I think, is clear. Ability is not power. They are necessarily different concepts, and therefore should be treated as so. The mere ability to swim is qualitative. We make no additional judgements whether or not one can swim in relation to others. But when we say "the power to swim," we must necessarily think of why we need a narrower understanding of ability. Swimming does cause an effect-- it propels your body forward when submerged in liquids and without ground to step on. But then the literal qualitative definition of power becomes a redundancy; we can say "the ability to swim" just fine and mean precisely the same thing. But if we consider the additional connotations of power, "the power to swim" becomes a vastly different statement.
Taking the broadest quantitative definition I proposed-- whose abilities are being overshadowed in order for our swimmer to have the power to swim? In most cases, there are none. So quantitative power is not viable to use as a condition to swim. With that out of the way, we're left with only "the ability to swim" as the condition for swimming.
I believe that I can apply this same logic to violence. We are not always violent to other living organisms. We can be violent to nonliving objects, and we in fact include harm against nonliving objects in our everyday use of violence. We can do violence to a table, perhaps by taking an axe to it or using our fists to try to break it apart. Does that mean that the table has some innate ability that we are overshadowing with our own abilities? Of course not, we don't take that nonliving objects have abilities. Furthermore, quantitative power forces us to prove that at least some of our abilities overshadows *at least one* of the table's. If the table has no ability, how can we say that we have power over it? So quantitative power is not a requirement to do violence.
If we try to take the qualitative power, we get a redundancy. We may as well say "the ability to do violence" and mean precisely what we meant to say if we tried to use "the power to do violence" to mean "the ability to cause an effect that constitutes violence." We're talking in meaningless circles when we try to inflate what it means to be capable of violence, and then we muddy the waters when we attempt to introduce additional baggage to the word "power" when we previously did not add that baggage in our definitions.
I agree with your point that ability is not equal to power in the sense of ability as the potential to do something or the skill at doing something.
As stated- where we have potential, we don’t have an expression of power. When that potential is used as leverage- such as in a threat, then it may perhaps be an expression of power, and quite quantifiable. We can use all sorts of metrics to asses the number of threats a person has made or a number of unilateral requests or commands that have been followed without the need to force the person.
But I believe you take my meaning wrong again. Ability in the sense I have used is, I even state in an early comment that potential isn’t valid unless somehow used, even indirectly. When I say ability- I mean expressed ability. Not ones ability as in
Potential, but as in: successfully completed. Your ability to do a thing is not proven until you have done that thing. Up until the thing is done, all we have is potential.
Being no stranger to violence, it is my personal experience that your examples of advantages are somewhat off base when discussing a snake and a mouse. Tactics is the art of advantages, making ones disadvantages to strengths and using an opponents strength as a weakness. You can get some IDEA of the potentials of two adversaries, odds on who is favored in advantage- but those are imperfect and beyond that- can only apply when we have a set of rules which must be followed.
In other words, in boxing, where we know the combatants must keep to a set of rules and “fair play” or be disqualified- we know some things will provide advantage, stuck in a small ring, only able to use fists and so on. Muhammad Ali in his prime in the ring vs a 140lb guy? I’m calling that pretty much 99% Ali’s win. But- change the rules, change the venue- things become less clear cut. Digital boxing on PlayStation? Maybe the 140lb guy has the edge now? But take away all the rules and put them against each other in a fight for the death- biting, running, traps, weapons, joint locks, etc.... Ali has a physicality that offers advantages, but are those advantages going to offset the tactical or other factors his opponent can now bring? Depends on the opponent I suppose. Most men die when they fight a bear with their fists or clubs- but men hunt bears with relative ease.
So a bear is physically a more powerful creature. A bear is far stronger, faster, and in its natural habitat at an advantage in general. But.... is a bear more powerful than a guy with a large caliber rifle and a blind and a tracking device and.....
Man is more clever in that sense- but if you go and hunt big game, even common game like deer- you may end up dead. Power does not mean absolute power.
I believe you are conflating terms, piling things up into a simple set of silos that lack precision. Being more powerful at one thing, or in one circumstance, doesn’t make one more powerful does it? A specialist will often be given absolute control over an area of expertise- a pilot doesn’t call his missions and such, but on his craft and as far as the safety of that craft and any crew are concerned- he has authority. If the president of the United States is sitting in the bitch seat yelling at him to do something that will get everyone killed- in that moment the pilot has all the power. When they land- some folks might not be too happy, and the power ends at the ramp- so there is an example of a toggle where power dynamics pass like a ball.
But- our bear and our human- the bear never stops having physical strength. Better smell, etc. it never stops being a threat- at least in theory based upon its theoretical potential. The human likewise, so long as armed or with their wits and some form of tactical advantage to exploit- is always a threat. Both entities are powerful, they enter a play of power dynamics, and assuming one of them wins or achieves their ends- the dynamic is settled and we know who has the power in that specific interaction.
As for swimming- we certainly do say that people are “powerful” swimmers, “powerful boxers” “powerhouse” power is a word that gets used all the time in athletics because athletics are a competition, a form of expression for power dynamics, and generally used as a substitute for violence as a way to allow the as earlier discussed- hard to quantify without actually using, ability of individuals or groups to be gauged and measured against each other. Life is often one big “d%ck measuring contest,” even when we are competing with ourselves. This term is unisex in my usage.
We not only say that the swimmer is powerful, we often routinely call waves powerful, refer to the power of the surf and so on. Ones ability and ones power are linked on many cases, in all sense of the words more or less, but aren’t the same. Power referring to ones aptitude and success to put their advantages, attributes, or other factors in to action to cause a desired result. Power is a unit of work and is measured to a purpose. The term “raw power” refers to that potential power or work that is not directed to a purpose.
The purpose doesn’t necessarily have to be intentional- it can be contextual. The sun creates powerful radiation- near as science would say, the sun has no purpose- but when we say the sun has “powerful radiation’s” we speak of that radiation in context to ourselves or whatever system of physics we are discussing in which the suns radiation is performing work- causing an effect.
Alternatively- when we speak of an engine- it’s power output, it’s ability to do work, is not absolute. Power by an engine builder is often given as brake specific horsepower or some other measure of work performed at the engines output or flywheel. However, by changing the sizes and materials and weights and other factors of things like the flywheel or any sort of system to translate the engines internal motions into work, the geometry and physics of those things will change the work being done towards whatever specific purpose that engine is being used for.
Gear train and losses, torque multiplication and such, these all factor in to what the ACTUAL real world power of an engine is to perform a specific operation. That is without factoring in external considerations. In two theoretically identical machines other than the engines- where A has output power measured at higher power than B at sea level, it is possible for B to be more powerful at high altitude. If A is naturally aspirated and of higher output, but B is forced induction at lower output, the altitude change would effect A more than B due to physics and mechanical considerations of the systems.
So we mustn’t confuse some idea of “absolute power” with the concept of power. It is entirely possible to say that Jeff’s father is a powerful man, he sits on the condo board! This is true- especially in Jeff’s condo. The Queen of England is a powerful woman. Arguably more powerful than Jeff’s dad on a global scale. We wouldn’t really know who was more powerful in any specific matter unless Jeff’s dad and the Queen had a disagreement they couldn’t compromise on. Then we would find out in that instance who’s will be done. But in an ultimate sense- the fact that the queen could be said to be more globally powerful doesn’t necessarily mean Jeff’s dad is not powerful. That’s like saying that the leading sports teams 3rd string backup isn’t a good player, perhaps they are not as good (or consistent etc) as the starter- but likely they are better than most people on earth at their sports related tasks. Asides perhaps the other starting players.
So it’s very linguistically finicky, and perhaps I lack the proper use of language to convey the concept. Or perhaps I’d just need far more time than most are likely want to give on the subject. But for all the semantics and back and forth, we still don’t have anything that disproves the statement that a person cannot do a thing unless they ha e the power to do it. Once the thing is done- they obviously have the power to do it. How would they have done so otherwise? There is that which is within our power, and that which is not. That which we have the desire to do, and that we do not. That rare willing to sacrifice or live with the consequences of, and that we are not. You have the power (I assume- I don’t mean offense of you have no arms or such..) to punch any person you meet in the face. More than likely, to kill any person you meet.
Your theoretical ability to do this, and your desire to do it, your willingness to live with the consequences.... if you aren’t going around punching people in the face, you either don’t have the ability, AT ALL, or you don’t have the desire/drive, or you have the first two but cannot avoid consequences or do not want to deal with consequences, including self inflicted consequences of personal morality.
Life is a power dynamic, wether you live in the deepest jungle food chain or the urban jungle of social politics. There are things you want to do but cannot. You have no way. If you were born in 1802- you were never setting foot on Mars no matter how badly you wanted to. There are things you can do, but do not want to do. Ignoring politics, in THEORY, voting is an example. People theoretically have the power to impact millions plus with their voices, some choose not not. Then there are things you theoretically could do, and you want to do, but you know there will be some aspect of doing them that isn’t worth the doing for you. Perhaps punching an obnoxious boss, or cashing out your savings to go live lavishly for a little, or even simple things like buying that new car/tv/whatever that costs too much. You can afford it. You have the power to buy it, but you choose not to even though you want to- because what comes after.
And here you and I and everyone are, trying to live our lives the way we want by our own priorities- have the career we want, make the money we want, have the friends and family we want and spend our free time how we want. And we are often in competition. Perhaps you and I have competed for a job without knowing it. Perhaps we’ve bid on the same home. Perhaps we’ve courted the same love interest or one of us grabbed the last bagel the other wanted.
There are different kinds of power, different ways of showing power. People without what most would call power in a global and meaningful sense often do petty things as symbols of empowerment or resistance. An assistant who sometimes does things like order a certain food because they know it will agitate their boss but won’t likely have consequences to them in a meaningful way, a person who makes an embarrassing comment on a public figures social media- an act likely free of consequence but allowing them to feel like, at least in that case, they got the “upper hand” or “stuck it to them.”
Power is complex, but it is at the heart of almost everything we do. Even those things we do not realize. It makes us uncomfortable. Even our personal and family relationships carry dynamics of power and tension and politics. Most people ignore it when it gets uncomfortable. Most people don’t want to examine these things too closely, so they don’t, and when others do, they reject it- because frankly it is a bit offensive to many sensibilities to truly consider.
But it’s wired into us. We came fighting and clawing our way as beasts. We still have the wiring of the animals that we are. If one strips sentimentality and some idea that we are special inherently and not simply special on our mutations and adaptations- we can see uncomfortable truths about human behavior in almost everything we do. Most people cannot reconcile this. People have enough trouble reconciling harsh reality against a sheltered view fostered from the artificial safety of many developed nations world views.
The same mechanisms that make two gorillas beat each other bloody are at play in the board room or the Oval Office. If we watch these things closely we can even see that largely, many of the steps and even specific body language and such remain evident. So every day you wake up, if one keeps their eyes open, one will see that most of their day is filled with little exchanges of power and maneuvering and such. One will realize that there is no “most powerful person” on earth- who would that be? Everyone answers to someone, is beholden to someone, is able to find themselves at the mercy or whim of someone. The rest is all circumstances and specifics.
I'm interested in your thought that an ability (as potential) is not valid unless expressed. It is my understanding that an ability is always valid, regardless of whether it is expressed. Take some infant, named Baby A, that is old enough to crawl, but hasn't yet. Do we say that Baby A's ability to crawl is invalid? Now take Baby B, another infant who has crawled at some point. Clearly Baby B has expressed their ability to crawl, but does that make that ability "valid"? What does "valid" mean in this sense? Does it mean "realized"? Or does it mean "existent"? If we take the latter ("existent"), then clearly Baby A's ability is also valid. It exists, but remains unexpressed. If we take the former ("realized"), then we get into a solipsistic argument about what it means to realize an ability.
If you mean "invalid" as in "not expressed," then I think I would have to disagree with your choice of terms. Not only is it confusing, it is difficult to work with since "valid" and "invalid" necessarily imply some sort of truth value, while "expressed" and "unexpressed" only refer to states of being. While I can grant that expression and non-expression are dichotomous, this does not mean that we can simply label one as "true" and the other "false" (or in this case, "valid" and "invalid"). There must be something more to why you would label the expression of abilities as valid and the non-expression of abilities as necessarily invalid.
As for the majority of your other arguments-- perhaps the confusion lies in the fact that you're referring to power in various different contexts, and are (to me) conflating them into a mysterious catch-all concept. Power as energy is not synonymous with power as ability, and power as political authority is not synonymous with power as political ability (we usually consider most young children as politically inept, but in cases of absolute monarchies we see them ascend to positions of political authority). This is, perhaps, the main issue I take with your arguments so far. You use power in many different ways, each of which are intrinsically different. My arguments focus on very specific kinds of power, definitions that I hope are at least somewhat clear and cannot be confused for another.
I realize that not everyone argues with a high focus on specifics, but I do not believe that your arguments held in every context. My hope was to show that by focusing on specific versions of power, I could show that the use of the term "power" to describe a condition to be able to do violence is contradictory on some level. It may not be a contradiction if we view power in a very specific lens, though my hope is that we don't also distort other terms around it without good reason. But so far, I will say that I do think that your arguments inflate power beyond mere ability. When you also consider circumstances and unknown factors, we go past saying "mere ability" or "mere power" (as is found in the dictionary). We enter an argument of conditionals and what-ifs, something I want to avoid since we can go into any variety of what-if scenarios. Descartes found that out very quickly with his "we cannot prove we are not in a dream" thought experiment.
Lol. Well said. I have admitted, and do so again, that I may not be able to express the words appropriately here. The problem being in my mind, that there are multiple definitions as you say, so depending upon which definition we are referring to in a specific usage, it changes everything. So while one example holds true when we use “power A” it will not hold true when we use “power b” and the next sentence after using power as in “power a” might then use power to mean “power b.” There’d need to be some sort of index to reference since the problem is fundamentally that we can use synonyms for power to alleviate confusion- but that will cause confusion as then we won’t be able to tell if we are using the synonym to mean a type of power, or as a precise word to convey the thought or emotion of what we said exactly. It’s a bit of a mess and would be best served with a simple program or a graphic I think. At least in my case, as I am more confident that I could express the relationships..
As for potential being invalid unless expressed- it may again be poor word choice on my part. I will try to use plain language and hope that doesn’t make things worse. Lol. So, you have 2 buckets. In one you place 3 dollar bills. In the other, you place all the potential that you have, in your entire life, if you exercise every advantage and gift to make money. Now, count the money in the buckets. One bucket will have $3 in it. The other bucket will be empty.
I have seen many burn outs in my life and careers. People who are exceptional- some of the best examples of gifts a human being can have, and who went on to do absolutely nothing that required or utilized those gifts. These people had exceptional potential. Many had been accepted to programs and organizations which only a fraction of people even qualify to try for, let alone make selection. And then, for many reasons each their own- they just... stopped using their gifts. This is one example.
Another example, is the potential in the moment. Something happens, you’re driving, working, whatever. Something happens and it’s going to be bad, and you COULD stop it. This is a touchy one- but on 9/11 one plane didn’t hit its target. Now- every person on all those planes had the potential to do exactly what those folks did- and they theoretically had the potential to succeed or at least get as far as the plane that didn’t hit. But no one did. So the fact that they could have- doesn’t matter. What DID happen? There isn’t a point on second guessing in that regard because we know what DID happen. 1,000 steps along the way from the FBI and other law enforcement agents to gate agents to after things went bad- many people had the potential to stop 9/11. None did.
When we examine specifics, look for ways to improve things or prevent things, we need to understand what was missed and why. What could be done differently reasonably, next time? But in the ultimate sense when we discuss what did happen- what could have happened isn’t relevant.
So here is an adorable German Shepard. Your best fuzzy buddy. Loyal and brave, full of love, had it since a pup and doted on it as much as it’s doted on you. And yet- this is an animal. A breed used in combat and to subdue criminals and guard property. Or pick another breed- what I say even applies to your little floofy terrier. So this animal, has the potential, at any moment, to kill or meme you or your family. The kind of our canine friends is full of twists like ours is- and it’s relatively rare- but even lap dogs, even loyal loving dogs “raised right” and “never showing bad signs” and with good breeding- if something fires in that head just right- they can take your eye, take your life.
And they have the ability to do it. On paper, they have everything they need to enact the physical damage. On paper we know it is possible in their nature and has happened. And on paper, they have the access to you- unlike perhaps (for the average person) something like a rare poisonous millipede which you aren’t likely to encounter and less likely to knowing let in the same proximity for the same duration to your intimate person, with your guard down, as a canine.
But very few family dogs do eat peoples faces. You’re largely relying on the dog not wanting to eat your face more than you are being proactive to prevent it from eating your face. If the dog never eats a face, the question of wether it could eat tour face is Academic, in a practical sense moot, as the reality is that it didn’t eat your face. Was this because it didn’t want to, or because it’s nature makes you a leader, to not be challenged in such a way, or a follower, to not be injured unless you challenge its authority in a certain way? Or is it not in this particular dogs nature at all?
This is where it gets a bit philosophical. But- a brush is a brush. A car is a car. A ball is a ball, and numbers are numbers. Yet some humans are exceptionally gifted at using these things in ways that few if any other humans can touch, often for decades or centuries- or “ever.” But physics is physics, a tool is a tool, and in THEORY- anything that you can do with a paint brush (that doesn’t require double joints etc...) I should be able to do? But I’m terrible with a paint brush. Is it because I don’t practice? But some people practice their entire lives at things. Some kids play sports as soon as they can walk and don’t stop until they are physically unable. Often practicing just as long and hard and to form- sometimes more- than kids that go one to hold records as adults, while they never make it beyond casual or even break semi pro.
So in this sense of the word- we can’t say that potential is universal I do not think. It may be in theory. But if Joe’s dad can quit smoking, why can’t June’s mom? Could be a lot of things. But that’s the fallacy of the “bootstrap” mentality- not everyone can or will, for whatever reason, lift themselves up” out of force of will. Of all the men (and now women) who dream of being jet pilots or elite special forces agents or presidents- very few make it. Some maybe didn’t REALLY want it that bad. But others wanted as bad as they want to breath. Some kill themselves when they don’t make it. Now- genetics plays its role- some people are advantages physically, some are bigger, have stronger hearts or lungs etc-
But there’s more at work. And we can’t say what. It sounds a bit like a foolish thing to say- but hard science cannot say that if I dropped this phone right now- that gravity would pull it down. Stay with me. I know it sounds crazy. So look, this phone COULD float into the air, or travel back in time the second I let go of it. It has never been credibly recorded. It has never been reproduced and peer reviewed. It ALMOST CERTAINLY will not happen. If I drop this phone right now, it will almost certainly, I’d bet money and I do not bet- fall.
But we cannot say it will fall until it has fallen. We can predict it will fall. We can say it should fall. We can, as we must do, make an educated guess on what it will do based on what we have seen happen before, or what we can use to relate to the problem and apply. But we cannot say it will. You must remember that gravity is just a theory. A theory that has held up very well for a long time. A theory that while some of the particulars may be debated- is generally agreed to be a functional theory to use for most applications- certainly almost anyone’s day to day routine they can count on the tried and true theory of gravity. It is verified and observable.
But when we start talking about living organisms and intent- the consistency becomes less concrete. There is a certain consistency to most individuals. Patterns. But even those who have been married and lived a routine and measured life in close proximity and shared states for decades are often surprised- sometimes very unpleasantly, by what the person they know better than anyone except for MAYBE themselves, can do and why.
So it becomes less clear when we say- if I let go of this phone, it will almost certainly fall, but would you catch it if you were standing there? Would I? Do we theoretically have the ability? Yes we do. Does most any human with some sort of limb at their disposal? Yes. But... things still fall. We can watch a person who’s entire life is standing in a tiny goal box catching balls- who’s practiced this art decades a d thousands of hours. We can watch them practice and stop 100 balls in a row. But then they may miss that ONE ball that loses their team the championship.
Ability. Did they have the “ability” to stop that ball? In one sense- yes. They had the ability. They’ve stopped many balls at that same post. This ball is no different. Regulation ball. They stop balls. That is their livelihood- for many, a good part of their existence and purpose in life. If any human on earth could be said to posses the tailored skill set to be prepared and able to stop that ball, conditioned and practiced and experienced- it is them.
Ability- were they able to stop it? They were not. In this sense- they didn’t have the ability to stop it. The only way that they could fail to stop it AND be able to stop it at once, would be if they did not want to stop it, or did not try to stop it. The fact that the ball got through, and they tried to stop it, tells us they were not able to stop it. Self evident truth. Why this 1 ball out of all balls? What were the exact conditions, their mind and awareness, the spin and position of the ball, their visibility, glare, etc, their state of readiness and physical status, etc etc- what is it that made this one ball go through when they’ve likely stopped many others under virtually the same internal and external factors (in abstract sum)?
I go to machines again, for I know them well. We have an engine, the most powerful engine ever made by man. 1000000 hp let us say. The compression ratio is so high, that no device created can get the engine turning fast enough to start and operate- to do work. So what we have- is in THEORY the most powerful engine ever made. If we cannot see it work, we cannot measure its actual power when it works. If we cannot make the engine do work- it has no power. What is the difference between a 10000000 hp engine that doesn’t run and a rock as far as providing work in moving a load across the floor? Neither will power a machine.
If Superman never used his powers, he wouldn’t be a super hero would he? The fact he COULD stop a train before it plunged into the ravine doesn’t matter if he does not stop it. And if he never uses his powers, but he tells us he has these powers, how do we even know he really has his powers? If we got our 1000000 hp engine started somehow, and put it into a car next to a 700 hp engine- most people wouldn’t really tell the difference- both would largely spin tires and break drivetrain. Unless we put them into motion, perhaps then we would see the difference- but it is only when that power is applied to a task, and only when it successfully completes that task, that it can be said to be more than theoretical, and we are still in the moment, as some things are more consistently repeatable than others.
I think I will say that ability is not always intrinsic. There are times when an ability is gained or lost due to the environment. If, for example, you placed a person in a completely dark room, we could say that they don't have the ability to see. Our vision relies on at least a little bit of light being present and reaching our eyes. Without that light, we can't perceive what is in front of us-- we don't have the ability to see what's in front of us. Place even the weakest candle in that room, and our person in the dark room will be able to see. Their ability to see has been gained, due to the presence of one other condition necessary for that ability.
Ignoring the idea that there could be other agents in our room, what can we say about our person's visual abilities? If we assume that all of their organs are undamaged, then clearly their eyes are still trying to process any of the information they receive. But the information they need to construct an image-- light-- is the determining factor of whether we can claim that our person is able to see. But we can do a variety of observations on our person before they are given light, and we know (for the sake of the argument) that their eyes are capable of receiving light. What do we say about their potential ability to see, then? It is more than just theoretical-- it is real, but not demonstrated, in the same way that the destructive power of modern nuclear bombs is real, but never seen.
I don't believe we can label potential as merely theoretical. A suspended piano has every potential to fall, but we don't write that potential off as merely theoretical. It is real, regardless of whether we take measures to stop it from falling. If the piano is just floating in the air with no other support helping it, we have a justifiable reason to say that the piano's potential to fall is theoretical. We don't know what's holding it up, or if it needs to be held up at all. But when we suspend the piano ourselves with ropes, cranes, and any other necessary equipment to stop its descent, we don't reduce its potential to fall to a mere theory. We know that its potential to fall is strikingly real, and failure to stop it from falling will result in a pretty bad outcome. In the best case scenario, we just get a pay cut.
For better or for worse, when we refer to potential, we must not consider it as merely theoretical when we don't directly observe an effect. The potential to be dangerous is still quite dangerous. But what we can do is justify why we don't consider that potential to be threatening in specific circumstances-- a pet dog typically will never be dangerous to its human companion, because the human formed a sufficient emotional bond to make it consider them inviolable. But the dog can still yet hurt an intruder if it believes that the intruder can violate its inviolable human companion. That potential is not theoretical up until that point. We cannot justify that, because that would necessarily imply that we can't directly prove that the dog can be dangerous. Their teeth and jaw strength alone are sufficient proof of the dog's potential to harm (as long as neither are damaged beyond usability).
We call the "theory of gravity" a theory because we can't unconditionally prove that it is an innate property of everything. We can inductively assume so-- every object within our solar system seems to exhibit the same attraction properties that we see objects have to Earth, so we can retroactively say that at least every object within the solar system exhibit this concept we call gravity. We haven't come across a counterexample yet, so the inductive logic still applies. We can, on the other hand, prove that sharp teeth and strong jaws unconditionally lead to torn flesh on a human. Beyond mere inductive reasoning, we can use physics to demonstrate that the force of the jaws closing, combined with the teeth, will result in torn flesh. Since such a thing will cause bleeding and will lead to death by blood loss or infection, we can consider this dangerous beyond a theory.
Whether or not an ability is intrinsic or environment-dependent is irrelevant to whether it is expressible. Any ability that is not merely theoretical is expressible, even if it's left unexpressed. Every person with two arms and two hands have the ability to clap them together. But if they never clap their hands in their life, despite showing amazing dexterity, can we say that that ability to clap is a mere theory? They clearly have the motor functions and range of motion to clap their hands together in front, back, and to the side of them. That potential is not just theoretical-- we can prove that it is real, but left unexpressed. After all, all we need to show is that their motion range allows their palms to press against each other.
I get you, and largely agree- but I do see nuance. You say, and I had said- gravity is a theory but it is one which we haven’t seen counter to (unless some includes quantum science, we have yet to resolve quantum and classic physics, and the traditional model of gravity has some issues when viewed with many newer discoveries). The point being that we may be off on gravity, but in all practical applications something exists, and we can observe it’s behavior, and it appears to be consistent for most intents, so we can’t say it doesn’t exist. But as to your statements on theory- I suppose it’s semantics- but I wouldn’t call anything a theory that didn’t hold truth. It might not be THE truth, but it must hold some truth to be properly called (and not just informally referred to) as a theory. To get to a theory we have to have enough to see something is there, even if we don’t yet understand what that something is or how it works.
Proofs are for mathematicians. Scientists can’t get any stronger than theory unless they gain omnipotence. But as you and I both agree- many theories are so well worn that we can conflate them to “proof” even if it isn’t accurate to say. At the least, we need some sort of foundation of assumption to act upon in the now, and so we must use the most logical, even if not “perfect and complete” information we have to form the basis of our understanding of reality and inform our decisions.
We don’t know that the piano would fall if there was no wire, but That which we DO know, wether flawed in some way or not, says that the piano will fall. It is what has been observed and otherwise or contrary hasn’t been. So it is prudent, it is conducive to our functioning, that we act as though the piano will fall. If we use levels, I’ll call that “lv 2 cognition.” Lv 0 is an animal which cannot connect that the piano would fall, that the cable holds it, that there is a possibility of danger there. Lv 1 is an animal that has at least some instinct of danger by recognizing things above it pose danger, or anything odd to it is danger.
“Lv 3” is Lv 2, but while being aware of the relationship between what the piano is expected to do, and what the piano could do in hypothetical, and being conscious of your reconciliation of the data and how you came to a conclusion.
So while it’s of more practical importance to be aware of the potential danger, and to recognize the patterns involved in using wire to suspend things, in wires being able to fail, in objects falling and how they fall- being aware that they don’t actually have to- they just more than likely will- is the next stage to understanding and reconciling your reality.
It seems perhaps silly. But let me give you an example. Just about anyone should be able to create simple electrical circuits. The concepts are easy enough for children. Even without more than maybe a passing awareness of the subject, an intelligent and curious being can create a simple circuit of power to a light bulb. Once one has learned or through experimentation realized some very basic things about electricity- some concept of poles and a complete circuit- there isn’t much more to it. You can wire or rewire just about anything you like. But.... not really. Because you can gain the understanding through no training or serious study, just messing about with odds and ends, to power lightbulbs and wire car radios and repair broken phone chargers and such. You may even be able to figure out simple logic gates using basic electrical components and circuit design.
But... if you don’t understand the fundamentals- you can’t think bigger. You can’t design a micro circuit board and a micro processor and such. You can’t safely or reliably wire up delicate instruments and such. You may wire up a DC motor to a micro controller. You look. The motor operates at 20 amps. The controller has a pass through max of 22amps. A simple and clean circuit- the controller is wired to power on one side, an input, and then straight out to the motor and switches power on and off on command. Except.... a DC motor at 20amps constant can pull way more than that peak draw, enough that when you run the current through your controller you cook it. You needed to isolate your motor circuit from your control circuit.
Here’s one I saw just a month or so back. A friend was creating a control system. A central computer unit with multiple input sensors and then outputs to monitors and power distribution and to electromagnetic coils. He showed me his concept and he had no where to bleed current, and a single elegant circuit loop. When the coils operate they create a magnetic field. When they stop, the field disperses. When that happens, the energy must go somewhere. The simplest way to get rid of it is with a diode across the coil circuit. If you don’t get rid of this bleed- you can build enough energy in the circuit to trigger operation of various components without a control signal to trigger them.
You can damage sensitive electronics or skew sensor readings from changes to flow across the circuit. And even something as simple as hooking up a positive and ground isn’t so simple as hooking a wire to terminals of a battery- HOW you do that, you can create instabilities or other issues. These sorts of things could possibly be learned through much trial and error (that’s how we know about them to begin with right?) but most people self taught through experimentation aren’t going to learn about these things unless they find out “the hard way” and invest the time, and have the capability, to figure out what is happening.
If you understand the fundamentals, the mechanicals of how these things work and behave, when your micro control melts in our above example- you can puzzle out what happened. You can understand it. That is life as a “YouTube tutorial” vs life as a skill. Almost anyone can be told how to do a thing, monkey see, monkey do. A monkey can copy, imitate. Figure out that if another monkey gets treats more, and another monkey is doing something different- if you do that... you can probably get more treats.
But there is a required intelligence to being able to figure it out, or better than figuring out why it failed, knowing how to succeed to start. To do this, one must understand things from a fundamental level. Now you probably don’t need to spend hours of preparation or deep thought on microwaving a bag of popcorn. You certainly don’t need a double doctorate to use the microwave- but being at least aware of what you are doing and why- personally I believe in purpose. Sometimes it’s ok for the purpose to be “no purpose” or “because...” but in general, from the moment we wake and brush our teeth to our drive to work etc- each of these moments should be done with purpose, intent, and understanding. The piano, we must understand, is there for a purpose, and if we understand the fundamental theories of what is going on- we can approach the situation with similar purpose.
One such purpose would be- not be killed by piano. We could make another purpose for the occasion- not destroy expensive piano. Add: don’t kill or hurt anyone with piano.. and so on. As many as we like. If something would take me under the piano by necessity- then assuming I have no reason to suspect the piano is not secured correctly and the mechanisms are in good order; I would not let the potential for the piano to fall stop me. That said. I also would understand that there is the possibility that it could fall. The unpredicted happens every day. The unexpected every day. We are leafy with mysteries of science and engineering, “flukes” and “miracles” that remain unexplained for decades, centuries, millennia. What we know is a fraction of what is to be known, and time has a way of proving many established truths to be wrong.
So my advice would be to not fear the floating piano, but to not d$ck around underneath it or with it on some idea of certainty that it cannot kill you. We had never seen (recognized as seeing) uncontrolled nuclear fission until we set off the first atomic weapon. Yet here we are. Such a thing exists, and most surely the “scientists” of not so long before wound have laughed had you said you’d create an explosion of that order with a weapon of that mass. We stepped on our moon and sent robots to a distant world. We’ve teleported matter* and in quantum physics seen things that our understanding of science would have said was fantasy. The verdict is still out. Perhaps it’s all Newtonian physics. Perhaps we aren’t seeing what we think we are.
But while we must be anchored to the patterns that define our understanding of our world and our abilities to interact with if, we also have to be ready for that day the metaphorical piano floats without a wire. To say what we have not seen is not possible is dangerous and restrictive- but to rely on what has not been seen or even causally observed is a bit foolish. But there is a measure of faith in science. One must be compelled to explore an idea, and before we can think to explore it, we must believe it is possibly real. Science doesn’t spend a lot of time tryin got synthesize fairy dust. We can’t say fairies do not exist- but we also have no indication they do. No where to start a study. With all the unknowns to study- chasing fairies would it be prudent. That said- only a fool would rule fairies out as the cause of a phenomenon until and unless a better lead was discovered.
And lastly- to our potential and light. How do you know that this person can see? Yourself, I assume you are sighted (please forgive me if I am wrong. Let us proceed as though you are.) You are seeing as you read this. Ok. If you walk into a pitch black room right now- no light. You cannot see. But... can you still see? How do you know that your vision didn’t suddenly leave you? It does happen. Stroke, all sorts of things can cause sudden vision loss. It would be a heck of a coincidence- but it IS possible.
You cannot know for certain, in “total blackness” wether you can see or not until you are back in the light. Now you SHOULD be able to clap. You’re at home. In bed. It’s dark. You decide to clap. You cannot. Sleep paralysis. Your body hasn’t restored motor control. You’re at the theater. You were there last week. You clapped. You go to clap. You cannot. Stroke etc. you may regain the ability to do so or not. Irrelevant. In those moments- you cannot perform these actions which, to the best of your knowledge, you should be fully capable of. Actions you have performed before, and that to an external observer or even in many cases yourself- you cannot see any reason why you cannot do them. You simply cannot.
As the all seeing narrator, or perhaps with some diagnosis and equipment- we can discern the truth, or a better view of it. But... in that moment, to you and all present, the truth is unknown. What is known, what is relevant, is what can you do, and what cannot you not do? What do you wish to do, and are you doing it?
Every one of us* has the capability to murder- theoretically. I have never met a human being who I gauged as not having the potential in their heart or mind, under the correct applications of forces, to murder another creature or human. Any person with above a very minimal level of mental activity and... well... if you’ve got no limbs but your mouth works you can kill someone of the stars align and you’ve got the knack for it. But we do not generally approach every interaction with every unknown human as through we speak to a murder- a rapist. And yet... the danger is there. In some situations, under certain circumstances, settings, or based upon our internal bias and cognition- we assign a greater weight to the potential danger another human may pose.
Keeping in mind that people are routinely killed by terrorists and such in “safe places” with “safe people”- hell- the “safe person” like a spouse or parent or trusted friend is often the perpetrator of danger against us- the whole thing gets a bit messy and complex.
But the potential is there. Just like our furry pals. It’s rare- but dogs do kill or maim their believed human families. It happens. It can happen. It is in their nature and well within their theoretical ability. And yet.... it’s rare.
Now- you mention teeth, sharp teeth and strong jaws. Well... people have fallen from airplanes without parachutes and survived. Loved through explosions relatively unscathed, all sorts of unpleasant applications of physics in manners that will generally- sometimes in every recorded case- result in death or severe injury, and sometimes... they don’t. Again- rare. But a man was cured of AIDS*. Something never seen before or since. And medical texts are full of one offs and flukes. These things shouldnt be relied upon, but they do happen. Now- admittedly, it may be a stretch to compare that which is at least hypothetically scientific explainable but implausible compares to a piano lifting itself with no “trickery”- which science would likely be at a complete loss to explain.
That said we can’t rule out the possibility. We can never be so certain in our understanding of the universe, or any one thing, as to not be open to the possibility that we are completely wrong. The distinction there is superstition. Quite the opposite of what most would think. It isn’t superstitious to believe that clovers could give luck- it’s superstitious to believe it is impossible for them to give good luck.
Because if we say what cannot happen- IF it does happen, when we discover quantum phenomenon classic models say can’t occur, when we split the atom- or when we observe these things in nature... instead of exploring them and saying “let’s try and explain this, understand it...” we look and we say: “science cannot explain this. It flies against all we know, so it either cannot be happening or it must be some miracle.” Well... maybe? But more likely, what we think we know is wrong, or we do not properly understand and apply the things we know. But in any given moment- all we have is what we know in that one moment. All that matters is what we can do in that one moment. What has happened cannot be changed. What will happen cannot be known, only estimated based on what is known and inferred, what could happen and what does happen are only related if what could happen, is what happens.
wrapping up. We finish in the dark room. Are you blind, or will your eyes work when you leave? If you never leave the dark room it doesn’t matter. If you are blind, you cannot know or do anything about it while you are in the dark room. You’re already blind at that point anyway, so what has happened is. The fact you could be blind doesn’t matter either, because you don’t know that you are blind. It’s all irrelevant in that moment. You can’t see anything, so having eyes or not wouldn’t change anything. You don’t have to worry about being blind until you step out of the dark room. When you step out, it should be clear immediately if you are blind or not. If you are not, then nothing has changed. If you are, every room is the dark room so you never left the dark room. Regardless of what room you are in- the question is do you want to see, and can you see. If you cannot, can you affect actions that will allow you to see? If not... you can’t see.
I don't think you're being deliberately willful, but you haven't addressed my examples straightforwardly. You added factors I had already dismissed for the sake of the argument, such as rare incidents and blindness, which I take to mean either damage to the nerves or photoreceptors in the eyes. While I do dismiss a lot of things in my example, the point of it is to show why we can't just dismiss abilities from an armchair point of view. And from there, without being able to dismiss abilities based on whether they are expressed, we can't claim that power is a necessary requirement to do violence.
Yes, reality is often much more mysterious and nuanced that I take in my examples. We haven't modeled the world perfectly, that we know based on the fact that we have an entire field of study dedicated to estimating the possible variance between our perfect-world calculations and what could happen in the real world. But that is quite beside the point when we model real-world behaviors. Our models provide a framework, and from there we have something to investigate. My objective is to aim for the model. If we can't prove that something works on a basic level, we can't prove it always works for specific cases.
From my point of view, your arguments take a very large leap. It goes beyond just terminology. There is a specific thought process that makes you assert that violence is an expression of power. I would believe that you then believe that violence requires power, which you seem to affirm. So from there, my objective is to show that power as a concept cannot be a requirement for violence, particularly considering that we can come up with examples that counter a variety of conceptualizations of power. I took a semantics approach, particularly since using definitions and common-use connotations is the most straightforward manner of deciding what a term should mean in the broadest use of it. If we can't conceptualize power in a way that will work in every instance of violence, then we can't claim that power is absolutely a requirement for violence.
For now I think I'll preemptively say that this isn't an argument worth continuing. We're not getting anywhere, that much is clear to me, and I don't think we'll be able to given that we seem to be working with vastly different philosophical approaches.
.
This discussion has been quite fun. Have a nice day/night!
this is an argument that there is never a clear winner, a person born biological male, grows up male, has the size, strength and speed of a male, can say they are now transgender and compete against biological females and it's considered fair.
It's rather misrepresenting the situation, this meme. They were having a debate, but really more of a discussion, about the issue. The show invited Shapiro to this discussion because he has the views he has. You can't really have a debate if everyone espouses the same viewpoint on the topic. To paraphrase Ben from some of his other speeches, in private he's more than willing to call people what they would like to be called. Whether he agrees with it or not at that point it doesn't really matter it's the polite thing to do. What he's not going to do is go against his viewpoint in a public forum where he's supposed to be arguing for his viewpoint. You don't "win" a debate or argument by conceding to your opponent. To then enact violence and threaten more in what should have been, at most, an impassioned discussion is reprehensible.
https://youtu.be/YgQy70_LPS4
Is that okay?
1. Violence has many forms. In the fundamental sense it is merely an expression of power over another. To do harm or exert your will against their own because they lack the strength to stop you. Economic power, political power, legal power, intellectual power are often used as tools by those who have them to take from those who do not, to force their will because others can’t stop them. This is a form of violence and how is it different to say that if you don’t comply with me I will hurt your life with my money or influence than to say I will break your arm? Your arm will heal faster than you can mend financial ruin in most cases no?
It's certainly not physical violence, which is what I assume most people mean when they use the term violence?
.
To the question of whether threatening violence is acceptable as a retort-- in a place where the premise is to talk peacefully with no direct physical result, absolutely not. If one were to talk of the morality of pet owning in a coffee house and the listener were to suddenly propose to break a bottle over the speaker's head in response to any perceived insult, it would be reasonable to call the listener quite in over their own heads as they are using a non-arbitrary act of harm to respond to an...
Thus (if we go by that definition) @guest_ is factually incorrect to say that disrespect is violence
A. Resign to giving in to the “jocks” will and whims on all matters.
B. Get aid from someone with the power to compel the “jock” (such as a body of authority or superior force)
Or
C. Utilize a form of power the “nerd” has and can leverage against the “jock” to enforce their own will or influence the “jock” to decide to take actions in line with the “nerds” will.
1. “power” is not a state of being between two entities. It is relational and changes based on circumstances at any moment.
2. Violence as an expression of power doesn’t imply that one must have absolute power over another to do violence. The violence IS your power over them. That is CRUCIAL to understand. If you cannot out speak them, out think them, out wit them or out maneuver them- convince or compel them- you CAN use violence and force compliance, or in most circumstances achieve de facto victory through their existence being ended.
1. To do violence one needs he power to do violence. One must have some ability to do violence. This is an inherent truth. I do not see it as debatable.
2. The use of violences requires the power to do violence and thus is itself an expression of that power, potential energy made kinetic.
3. A dynamic between the parties is not necessary for violence to occur- but once violence occurs a dynamic is created regardless. As you say- to a specific instance of violence- the “loser” forfeits their authority in a matter. They no longer have power to back that authority.
4. On the subject of manifesting reality- perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. My point is that all organisms known seek to change the world in some way as suits them. All other earthly power comes from where an organism wishes to have the world be one way, and can or cannot see that reality be made real.
Scenario A. Person B fights back.
If they fight back- they may win or loose on physical or tactical means. This would override the will of person A this demonstrating an ability to overcome the will of person A. They have taken person A’s power to enact their will. However- person B may be injured or maimed. Likely not to their will. In this case- they lacked the power to completely secure their own will.
- most people of any basic cognitive ability do not employ violence when they do not believe that the consequences of the use of violence would be worse than those of they do not use violence.
- violence is a tool. It is a tool used by all humans and almost all living creatures.
- violence is a, not THE, but A fundamental basis of power, and almost any power beyond that which is voluntarily given, is derived at its core from violence or threat of violence.
- if there is no power dynamic between two entities- there is no use for violence as a tool. Any violence employed would be random. The moment violence is not random, but serves a purpose, and the moment violence with purpose is used against an entity which would not will for the same outcome as the entity using violence- a power dynamic is created.
1. Not all harm done by one to another is violence. Violence requires intent to harm. That alone could be its own tangent as to the nature and intent or understanding of various organisms and how we gauge intent- but personally I would say (though admittedly cannot prove or disprove- even if a body of scientific understanding strongly suggests micro organisms lack the capacity for such reasoning) that a micro organism would generally not intend harm to a person, and unlike more complex life, I don’t know there’s a lot of hard ground to debate wether a micro organism can even intend harm.
2. I disagree. A power dynamic absolutely requires our concept of "power" to be theoretically quantitative, otherwise we have no means of comparing and ranking every party involved in the dynamic. In the conventional sense of who hunts what, the "power dynamics" of predation is typically one-way (namely, predator > prey). In some cases it may be two-way, for example Organism A may be simultaneously the prey and predator of Organism B (this is usually the case for cannibalistic species). We clearly define power here as "the ability of one species to consistently eat the other species," which gives us a clear power dynamic since we can compare two organisms in a true/false manner. If A can eat B, then A has more power than B. If A and B can both eat each other, then A has the same power as B. If A does not eat B, no conclusion can be drawn. No exact numbers, but this comparison makes this idea of power theoretically quantifiable.
As stated- where we have potential, we don’t have an expression of power. When that potential is used as leverage- such as in a threat, then it may perhaps be an expression of power, and quite quantifiable. We can use all sorts of metrics to asses the number of threats a person has made or a number of unilateral requests or commands that have been followed without the need to force the person.
Potential, but as in: successfully completed. Your ability to do a thing is not proven until you have done that thing. Up until the thing is done, all we have is potential.
.
This discussion has been quite fun. Have a nice day/night!