Subject:
|
Re: Children and Violence
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:46:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
195 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John J. Ladasky, Jr. writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> > Hey Y'all:
> >
> > I was just sitting here contemplating my navel when I began to think about
> > violence and its causes. • [...]
> > In allowing children to view a slasher flick are we doing the kids harm, or
> > granting them a socially acceptable vent for their collective anxieties? I
> > say the latter. [You can easily see how I might expand this argument to
> > include other media, toys, and etc.]
>
> All I can say, Richard, is don't count on answering this question easily.
> The debate is over 2,000 years old.
>
> In Plato's _Republic_, it is stated that only "wholesome" entertainment
> should be permitted in the ideal society. Violence in play is said to beget
> violence in everyday life. And yet the term "catharsis" is introduced
> shortly thereafter, by Plato's near-contemporary Aristotle (in
> _Nichomachean_Ethics_, I think?). Aristotle believed, as you do, that an
> outlet for strong emotions in the realms of play and entertainment
> *prevented* violent behavior from spilling over into the real world.
This is especially interesting to me because they're part of the
same intellectual "line." Plato was a student of Socrates, and
Aristotle a student of Plato. They differed on that and many other
points, but the idea behind both of their viewpoints was that there
were certain "universal" forms or ideals. Aristotle differs
primarily by allowing for some relativism (or the quality of things
being subjective rather than objective), which is why he can make
that argument--it's a modification of the Platonic position.
I don't know if it's from Nicomachean Ethics, though. I don't
know when Aristotleian thought really became internal the way it
is today either.
> Why we still haven't obtained a definite answer to this question, with the
> benefit of a century of reasonably scentific psychology, is a mystery to me.
Because, like most sciences, it tries to reify its subject and
derive certain laws of behavior. That works well for the physical
world, but when we try to apply it to our own mentality, we tread
onto the shifting ground of subjectivity, where both people and
disciplines are not static but evolving. Psychology is, in effect,
firing at a moving target while standing on shifting sands. Recent
developments in psychology and psychiatry have begun to address
that, but it's really hard to do when the discipline derives from
the very same mentality we're trying to analyze. Thank you, Thomas
Kuhn and Oliver Sacks (among others).
I fear I may be a dedicated nonpositivist. I pray I'm not a
postmodernist as well, but how would I know? Ack.
(...running from cries of "burn the heretic! burn the heretic!" :D )
best
LFB (taking his minor field exam this Friday, ack)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Children and Violence
|
| (...) [...] (...) All I can say, Richard, is don't count on answering this question easily. The debate is over 2,000 years old. In Plato's _Republic_, it is stated that only "wholesome" entertainment should be permitted in the ideal society. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
