# The Folly of Violence and The American Ideal



## Freestyler777 (Sep 13, 2007)

The Buddha said, "Do not hold wrong views, do not prolong the suffering of this world.  He who does so lives happily, in this world and the next."

Most people have base and contrary values.  Men in America create ideals that even they themselves cannot reach, and then wonder why they suffer from low self-esteem, the root of most self-destructive behavior!

If it truly was 'survival of the fittest', then how do such meek and mild people make it to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, and scientists?!  And how come strong, violent people end up in jail?  I would think the opposite would be true, if only the strong survive and the weak get rooted out.

Don't hold wrong views.  Violence is stupidity and it doesn't make you a man.  A man is someone who fulfills his obligations, does his duty, and takes care of his family.  Violence is for very insecure people who feel they need to prove themselves to others.  A true man of strength doesn't need to prove himself to others, because he has proven himself to himself.


----------



## Blindside (Sep 14, 2007)

You've conflated about three different topics.



> Most people have base and contrary values. Men in America create ideals that even they themselves cannot reach, and then wonder why they suffer from low self-esteem, the root of most self-destructive behavior!


 
An ideal is something that most do not reach, if everyone could reach it, nobody would care, it wouldn't be impressive, rather, it would be average.  Ideals aren't supposed to be easily obtainable.



> If it truly was 'survival of the fittest', then how do such meek and mild people make it to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, and scientists?! And how come strong, violent people end up in jail? I would think the opposite would be true, if only the strong survive and the weak get rooted out.


 
I have no idea where you are going with this evolution analogy, it makes no flippin' sense, unless you are suggesting that modern society is so effective in rooting out violence that is stops the perpetrators from successfully reproducing.  



> Don't hold wrong views. Violence is stupidity and it doesn't make you a man. A man is someone who fulfills his obligations, does his duty, and takes care of his family. Violence is for very insecure people who feel they need to prove themselves to others. A true man of strength doesn't need to prove himself to others, because he has proven himself to himself.


 
Violence is only stupid if misapplied.  Violence in defense of yourself or your loved ones is not a bad thing.  If you study martial arts you study violence and its application.

Lamont


----------



## Big Don (Sep 14, 2007)

If you truly believe that violence is never appropriate, you have no business in the martial arts. The word martial is defined by Dictionary.com as:


> 1.	inclined or disposed to war; warlike: The ancient Romans were a martial people.
> 2.	of, suitable for, or associated with war or the armed forces: martial music.
> 3.	characteristic of or befitting a warrior: a martial stride.


If your beliefs exclude violence, that is fine, but, perhaps a martial arts website is not an appropriate place to display them...


----------



## Freestyler777 (Sep 14, 2007)

Thank you for responding.

First of all, an ideal should be attainable, if it is based on objective impirical observation and precidence. A man should honor his father and mother.  That is an attainable ideal.  It is based on the rather practical need for obedient children.  Disobedient children do reckless things, and often hurt themselves or others.  If Ideals are unattainable, then they are just fantasy.  

When I refer to the evolution idea, what I am trying to express is that men base their whole self-worth on distorted values.  It is not 'survival of the fittest'.  I don't think it ever was.  Man is a social animal that lives in a comlex society.  Even so called 'primitive man' lived in hunter-gathering societies where there was tremendous specialization.  No man is an island.  Even big strong thugs wouldn't last long by themselves in the jungle.  Might doesn't make right, and if you need evidence, look at what becomes of strong, violent criminals, and what becomes of frail, scholarly types that often get names like 'nerd' 'geek' or even worse.  Bill Gates is more succesful than some 280 pound thug in jail.  He didn't get to where he is in american society by mauling and brawling.  Yet, if you observe or talk to the average american teenager, I'm sure most of them value things like strength, fighting ability, and condone fighting done fore the most trivial reasons.

Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing when we speak of 'violence'.  Simply doing combat and violence is not the same thing.  The word violence is rooted in 'to violate', implying a lack of mutual feeling in both parties.  Even something like a wrestling or MMA match is mutually agreed upon, while a criminal mugging an innocent victim is 'violence'.  It is impossible to avoid killing or combat, since we all need to eat and live and even to defend ourselves if someone is violating our selves or our nation.  I have a great admiration for cops and soldiers.  But basing your whole masculinity on fighting is rather babyish.  That is what I attempted to state in the original post.

Fighting, or combat, can be appropriate in many ways, including self-defense, sport, protection of one's nation, a cop doing his job, killing animals for food (which should be done with great reverence), killing insects that attempt to ruin our crops, etc...

Much of the fighting and killing and hurting that is done is unnecessary and harmful.  One has the right to stay alive, protect one's self and one's loved ones, but do not base your values on primitive ideology.  There are more important things in life.


----------



## Blindside (Sep 14, 2007)

> Bill Gates is more succesful than some 280 pound thug in jail. He didn't get to where he is in american society by mauling and brawling. Yet, if you observe or talk to the average american teenager, I'm sure most of them value things like strength, fighting ability, and condone fighting done fore the most trivial reasons.


 
If you want to talk about attainable goals, lets not compare Bill Gates against some punk, Gates is an exceptionally successful geek.

I'd suggest that the "American ideal" is not best understood or represented by 13-19 year old males.  I suspect alot of this is genetically hardwired, and isn't really a reflection of "American society."  Actually, as a challenge, find a society where young males don't test each other for dominance, that is probably the far rarer condition.  Find a society where the mythical heroes don't beat the hell out of their opponents, but rather are intellectuals and diplomats and geeks.

Is it really American society or all societies?

Lamont


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 14, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> If it truly was 'survival of the fittest', then how do such meek and mild people make it to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, and scientists?!  And how come strong, violent people end up in jail?  I would think the opposite would be true, if only the strong survive and the weak get rooted out.



Are the violent people that end up in jail strong?  Define strong.  In my opinion, those violent people are weak.  Physically, they may be strong, but we don't live in a world that requires that kind of strength to survive.  In the world we live in, it takes a different type of strength, to become successful or "survive".  I see those doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, and scientists, as strong individuals.  It really is how one perceives the world around them.


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 14, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> ...In the world we live in, it takes a different type of strength, to become successful or "survive". I see those doctors, lawyers, engineers, nurses, and scientists, as strong individuals...


 
To build on Bigshadow's comment, the reality of "Survival of the fittest" has evolved along with the human race. The "fittest" in our modern society are the most intelligent, not the strongest/meanest.


----------



## Blindside (Sep 14, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> To build on Bigshadow's comment, the reality of "Survival of the fittest" has evolved along with the human race. The "fittest" in our modern society are the most intelligent, not the strongest/meanest.


 
"Fittest" is only meaningful in evolutionary terms if the "fitter" examples have higher success at reproduction.  I have nothing to back this up, but I have no reason to believe that in our current society intelligence is a major factor in reproductive success.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 14, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Thank you for responding.
> 
> When I refer to the evolution idea, what I am trying to express is that men base their whole self-worth on distorted values. It is not 'survival of the fittest'. I don't think it ever was. Man is a social animal that lives in a comlex society. Even so called 'primitive man' lived in hunter-gathering societies where there was tremendous specialization. No man is an island. Even big strong thugs wouldn't last long by themselves in the jungle. Might doesn't make right, and if you need evidence, look at what becomes of strong, violent criminals, and what becomes of frail, scholarly types that often get names like 'nerd' 'geek' or even worse.


 
Well, by profession, I'd  fall into that 'nerdish, geeky scholarly-type" category, but there's nothing frail or geeky about me-in fact, I'm what you'd call strong and violent, and, by appearance, quite thuggish....

...of course, that's by design-I got tired of being a frail,scholarly type as a child, and did something about it...

As for the "tremendous specialization" of primitive man, there really wasn't much. One can look to current hunter-gatherer societies and see that-each male is a hunter, a warrior and a craftsman. While one will find specialization in the area of religion, as in the tribal shaman-and might find authority figures or chieftains-these individuals are usually also hunters, warriors and craftsmen. 

Your notion that "men base their self-value" on distorted values probably has some validity, but I don't necessarily equate strength, or the knowledge, ability and willingness to commit violence with distorted values, or even something that one who qualifies as such might base their self-value on-or _solely_ upon, at any rate.


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 14, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I have nothing to back this up, but I have no reason to believe that in our current society intelligence is a major factor in reproductive success.


 
Depends on how you define reproductive success.
We all know that many people are attracted to physically attractive idiots. Now, I don't know if it's a _major_ factor by your definition, but many other people are attracted to successful people. And these days, you almost always need to be intelligent to be successful. So, these intelligent people get together -> reproduce -> produce intelligent children (via both nature and nurture). Does this make sense, or did totally miss the point of Blindside's post?


----------



## Bigshadow (Sep 14, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> So, these intelligent people get together -> reproduce -> produce intelligent children (via both nature and nurture). Does this make sense, or did totally miss the point of Blindside's post?



Unfortunately, these intelligent people are aware of the cost of off-spring and they typically keep their costs to a minimum.  It is the others that procreate at alarming rates.


----------



## JBrainard (Sep 14, 2007)

Bigshadow said:


> Unfortunately, these intelligent people are aware of the cost of off-spring and they typically keep their costs to a minimum. It is the others that procreate at alarming rates.


 
Good point. Damn, it's sad but true.


----------



## Blindside (Sep 14, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Depends on how you define reproductive success.
> We all know that many people are attracted to physically attractive idiots. Now, I don't know if it's a _major_ factor by your definition, but many other people are attracted to successful people. And these days, you almost always need to be intelligent to be successful. So, these intelligent people get together -> reproduce -> produce intelligent children (via both nature and nurture). Does this make sense, or did totally miss the point of Blindside's post?


 
Makes sense to me, but if you  are dealing with "evolutionary fitness" you have to approach this on population averages.  Do these more successful people have more children than people in jobs/careers that don't select for intelligence?  If not, the traits of intelligence are not a significant factor for evolutionary fitness, they aren't pushing the population average anywhere.

Lamont


----------



## Freestyler777 (Sep 14, 2007)

You guys are missing the boat, somewhat.  What I am trying to say is, physically strong and violent people are not the most 'successful' in modern or any other society, so why base gender roles and ideals on something that isn't useful in the first place?!

Masculinity is defined by duty and responsibility, not by fighting prowess.  That is what I am saying.  

However, I will admit that training in the martial arts makes one strong, healthy, confident, and productive, all of which are good traits that carry over well to success in society.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 14, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> You guys are missing the boat, somewhat. What I am trying to say is, physically strong and violent people are not the most 'successful' in modern or any other society, so why base gender roles and ideals on something that isn't useful in the first place?!


 
Well, I'm physically strong, and some would say violent-I have, at least, used violence in the past-and I'm most successful. As for "any other society," history and most anthropologists would disagree-the most successful were the strong and violent.



			
				Freestyler777 said:
			
		

> Masculinity is defined by duty and responsibility, not by fighting prowess. That is what I am saying.


 
"Masculinity?" What do you mean by that, exactly?



			
				The Merriam Webster English Language Technical Manual said:
			
		

> Main Entry: 1mas·cu·line
> 
> 
> Pronunciation: \&#712;mas-ky&#601;-l&#601;n\ Function: _adjective_ Etymology: Middle English _masculin,_ from Latin _masculinus,_ from _masculus,_ noun, male, diminutive of _mas_ male Date: 14th century 1 a*:* male b*:* having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man2*:* of, relating to, or constituting the gender that ordinarily includes most words or grammatical forms referring to males <_masculine_ nouns>3 a*:* having or occurring in a stressed final syllable <_masculine_ rhyme> b*:* having the final chord occurring on a strong beat <_masculine_ cadence>


 
...thought you were talking about "violence and the American Ideal." Women can and have been pretty violent, you know....


----------



## Freestyler777 (Sep 14, 2007)

Let me put it this way:

To a criminal, preying on others is seen as strength, since he is able to bully and cheat the weaker-than-him law abiding citizen.

To the law obiding citizen, the criminal is one who cannot make it on his own in the legally acceptable way, so he uses violence and brutality to get what he needs.

It's like two ways of looking at the same thing.

I favor the latter, not the former.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 14, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> To a criminal, preying on others is seen as strength, since he is able to bully and cheat the weaker-than-him law abiding citizen.
> 
> ...


 
While i can agree with these two statements, I don't see what they have to do with "the folly of violence," or "the American Ideal." (???)



			
				Freestyler777 said:
			
		

> Men in America create ideals that even they themselves cannot reach, and then wonder why they suffer from low self-esteem, the root of most self-destructive behavior


 
Well, I don't know that I can take credit for creating my ideals, or say that I've reached _all_ of them-though I can say that i've reached at least some of them. I don't suffer from low self-esteem, though...(hahaha!)

Think some of us might be more inclined to agree with the roots of what you're trying to say,  but there's some confusion around your choice of terms.


----------



## Freestyler777 (Sep 14, 2007)

I think I am often misunderstood when I post, because I tend to liberally intepret terms at my own whim.  What my original post was about was the values that men have in Western Society, and how they conflict with empirical observation of who is succesful in western society.  I think one should be strong, but not violent, and brave, but not rash.  "The Strong and Violent do not come to a natural end- I will take this as the principle of my study" Lao Tzu said that in the Tao Te Ching.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 14, 2007)

Freestyler777 said:


> I think I am often misunderstood when I post, because I tend to liberally intepret terms at my own whim. What my original post was about was the values that men have in Western Society, and how they conflict with empirical observation of who is succesful in western society. I think one should be strong, but not violent, and brave, but not rash. "The Strong and Violent do not come to a natural end- I will take this as the principle of my study" Lao Tzu said that in the Tao Te Ching.


 

No time right now, but I think your observation is flawed-there is probably very little conflict between the values men have and who is succesful in western society...you might want to elaborate on this, though-exactly which values that men have, and how are they in conflict? Are policemen, many of whom are 'strong and violent" by necessity, succesful? Are professional athletes? how many "strong and violent" people are doctors, or engineers and physicists like me, for instance? 

How, exactly, is "violence" an American value?

Oh, and one more thing, while a violent end imay be no more or less desirable than any other, a natural end is not necessarily a _noble_ one.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2007)

Blindside said:


> "Fittest" is only meaningful in evolutionary terms if the "fitter" examples have higher success at reproduction.  I have nothing to back this up, but I have no reason to believe that in our current society intelligence is a major factor in reproductive success.



With all due respect, Blindside, you are conflating natural selection and sexual selection here. While they are clearly related, the former is about survival while the latter is about reproduction.


----------

