tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post7010206238383326477..comments2024-03-07T22:31:37.969+01:00Comments on Philosophy by the Way: About a saying of Bart de LigtHbdWhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05358668804898517772noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post-38610145438473631052008-10-20T15:25:00.000+02:002008-10-20T15:25:00.000+02:00It is simply not true that all change in progress ...It is simply not true that all change in progress is based on violence. If that were so, we would live each day in struggle and violence. But most changes in society take place in a peaceful way, also political changes. And not all major revolutions in society are violent revolutions. Think of the revolutions caused by progress in science. I mentioned a few political revolutions in my blog, and also the unification of Europe is something that takes plays in a non-violent way now. I think that you confuse conflict and violence. Conflicts happen and will always take place. But conflicts need not be solved by violence, as daily life shows. There are many other ways for solving them. If we want to avoid violence, we need to look for functional equivalents of violence (cf. Gene Sharp), and as some present political changes have shown, that's certainly possibleHbdWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05358668804898517772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6398699458159756321.post-54195029068536049082008-10-17T16:34:00.000+02:002008-10-17T16:34:00.000+02:00If you look at history you will see that all not o...If you look at history you will see that all not only all societies but the social progress achieved once societies were created were related directly or stemmed from violence. This is inherently true for the American Revolution, the Latin American Revolutions. and if we go all the way back to the age where the roots of our modern philosophical and pyschological understanding were born, Rome was a prime example of violence leading to a new society that created many social advances. Also another point being made by Marx, is that where there is scarcity there is conflict, and that when there is abundance there is less conflict. By understanding this we can understand that VIOLENCE doesn't always take the form of physical violence but can take place within the conflict of contradiction, where by even ideas violently clash against each other when a thesis battles an anti-thesis and eventually creates an antithesis whereby a new structure is created out of the destruction of the contradictions of the old. This is a process Marx identified when detailing Dialectical Materialism. These ideas directly relate to a natural phenomena called the negation of the negation, whereby every thing is in constant motion and constantly facing contradictory conditions that lead to construction, while at the same time recreating themselves.Nico Solón.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16192617588986495871noreply@blogger.com