jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (7 posts)

Disfunctional social habits, for example: Idle Threats

  1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    Critical Philosophy.  Wikipedia says, "The critical philosophy movement sees the primary task of philosophy  as criticism  rather than justification of knowledge.

    Immanuel Kant, looked at the possibilities of knowledge. As I understand it, in critical philosophy or in critical theory, one does not looked to facts for justifying reasoning, making something true or not.  Rather, to measure knowledge or worth, is done by weighing it against certain variables known as criticism. Variables such as "ought," "should have," "what if..." If the knowledge presented measured up- then it was consider truth, knowledgeable or factual.  Basically the theory regarding truth and knowledge, was weighed by how well that fact withstood criticism.  If it could withstand strong criticism, then it's worth was consider a means. This type of thinking was developed primarily around the 18th century.  However, I think it is more like a basic instinct, we as individuals are born with.  Therefore that brings me to my questions.

    Is this why people sometimes behave badly?  Is it because they figure they can make their way the right way, through idle threats and bullying?  Is that the secret behind the scare of "Obamanation," subjects concerning religion, or in politics in general?

    Also- aggressive behavior like bullying, is viewed as a developmental disorder.  Such as a person bullying and threatening people, being a person with little self worth and low self esteem.  So my question is, do you continue to indulge this bad behavior or pity the person for being dysfunctional?  Or do we take a philosophical approach to dealing with this kind of behavior?  Shall we begin to 'chalk up' bad behavior to someone trained in "Critical Theory or Philosophy." 
    Because lately it appears, that aggressive behavior is more instrumental these days to tearing down facts, and disrupting theories. 

    Anyone else see seeing a connection there?

    1. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Actually studies have shown that bullies have high levels of self-esteem.

      Human behavior has always been like this, it's our nature. Our arguments have almost always been like that too.

      1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
        IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I tend to think that debates in years past had a more civilized tone to them.  This old/now new ideololgy of turning facts against themselves, by shouting the loudest or making the most threats, is a different sort of debating nature.  A nature that seems to evolutionary from its design. I'm curious as to why it is acceptable.

        1. profile image0
          LegendaryHeroposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          People usually just accept things that have been around for long periods of time.

          Read this:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln– … es_of_1858

          These debates were pretty bad.

    2. Shadesbreath profile image86
      Shadesbreathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see the connection.  Bullying is typically associated with low self esteem (causes being numerous). 

      Kant's theories, and critical theory in general, have to do with how we know things.  It has a lot to do with what the justification for the "knowledge" is.  Some of that is based on assumptions/knowledge preceding the idea or new knowledge being examined. Some of it is in regards to the approach with which knowledge is gained (theoretical/logical or through sensory experience).

      I would go on, but I'm sure people would be annoyed and call me names for it, so I'll stop there.  But, in my opinion, there is no connection between the first part of your post and the behaviors you are speaking of.

  2. mega1 profile image78
    mega1posted 7 years ago

    LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!  Haven't y'all been listening to O'Reilly (you don't have to watch him, that would be way too much to ask) on Fox News?  He really gets it on, don't he!  Man, that fella just waiting to call someone a "pinhead"  and all that good stuff.  Course, I know that's not philosophy or political theory even, what he does.  Sure makes a lot of money, that one. 

    The age of capitalism!  is it dead yet, mommy?

    knock knock


    Interrupting Cow?

    W    mooo!    who?

  3. wingedcentaur profile image84
    wingedcentaurposted 7 years ago


    This is an interesting question. I was recently thinking about something like this. Let me start by saying, I think bullies are people who don't know they're alive unless they are involved in conflict of some kind. They are afraid they have nothing to give society except violence, but this is not true.

    As you know, some people think of the United States as an international bully - I would say a similar reason guides U.S. international behavior. I would reccommend to you an excellent documentary film by Adam Curtis on the BBC called The Power of Nightmares - which is available for free viewing, in full, online.

    If there is a specific bully you have in mind, and if he is a child - I would reccommend the gentle approach of carefully analyzing and reporting to him just exactly those gifts he has to offer society besides violence. He clearly has no idea and is suffering inside for it.