--- John Wager <johnwager@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But we DO force people to learn to add and subtract, > no matter HOW much they hate it, because we think > that having fellow citizens who can do > this is something that's good for ALL of us. We > REQUIRE students to learn about the constitution and > history because we need them to be able to make > intelligent political decisions. The problem I have > here is I don't know where to put violence like this. > Is it something that we should REQUIRE students to > deal wtih because "real" violence is NOT Hollywood > violence? Do we want students to be aware > of the difference? If so, can we require students to > deal with it REGARDLESS of their squeamishness? What > makes violence different than algebra? Well, unlike say algebra, violence is not abstract. Someone actually hurts someone else. Logically speaking I think it ought to be thought as a relation, V(x,y). Failure to grasp this leads to such vague questions as how violence affects us. But to answer John's question, yes we should insist that kids deal with violence. When is the hard part. The ethics we pass to children are very simple, we tell them for example they should not never hurt other people, even if know that there are exceptions to this rule. Which is wise, because we can not expect children to grasp the finer nuances of Just War Theory or to distinquish cases where use of violence would be legitimate for self-defence. We try our best to make things so for children that they are in an environment where they don't have to deal with issues like this; the essence of being child is being protected from various worries and conflicts of adult world. But at some point they will figure out that it is not so simple. Hollywood violence is not real in the sense that the characters, settings or concequences are often not realistic. But, in most films there is a distinction between good and bad guys, good and bad violence. I do believe that even bad films are helpful when trying to figure out what's good or bad, it's not that the answers given are right, but you can't get to the right answers without something to start with. People, even small people, are not just some containers where behavioural model inputs compete for dominance. Violence is a form of conflict. Conflicts are inevitable, and there is nothing unnatural about resolving an argument by a fist fight as such. The idea that if we would not be exposed to violence we would not be violent, is like saying that if we just didn't listen to bad music we would all have great taste. The trick is to learn non-violent ways to resolve a conflict, and certainly educational system should try to help. I don't know what this means in practice. What I'm pretty sure it does not mean is talking about violence as some sort of genetic defect or natural force, typical of criminals and generally speaking others. Also it doesn't mean learning to pretend that there is no conflict. What it could mean is showing how conflict can be good: competition is good in many ways, argumentation can lead to better knowledge. The great thing about learning to argument in the philosophical sense is that you can disagree as much as you want but still be civilized. Or for another matter, when I was in school there was this nurse who toured schools showing pictures and describing in a very matter of fact way the effect of punches and kicks. Gruesome, but very effective. Or examining how people end up in resolting to violence, speaking of films Mystic River would be a good base for discussion (I guess the book would do too, but I haven't read it.) Cheers, Teemu Helsinki, Finland __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html