Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"That Violence Is Not Practical."

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

No. As I have already explained, it does not matter where you are or what situation you are in, it is a situation in which you must apply violence -- or perish. it could be anywhere at any time. That is not for you to decide. The only thing that you can decide is whether or not you will use violence or perish.

What's the best way to do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely, as a long time student of the martial arts, you recognize that you possess an arsenal of tools at your disposal. No single technique is used to the exclusion of all others. Many techniques, properly deployed, can be defensive as well as offensive.

"How to apply violence?" Is there a 'one size fits all' application? Why teach different kicks, striking or blocking techniques? Among some styles of traditional Japanese martial arts, the phrase ikken ni satsu, one blow, one kill is central - train to deliver the most efficacious technique with the maximum effectiveness along with the minimum exertion.

"What is the best way to gain the use of violence as a tool of survival?" As a martial artist, how did you gain the use of violence as a tool of survival? You studied, trained, practiced in a personal concerted effort to automatize the skills necessary to deploy if necessary. In general, though, only a small segment of individuals are willing to do this for themselves. Even those acquiring a CCW should recognize that practice is beneficial, and beyond that, one still has to develop the mindset required to make the correct decision should the need arise.

"What is one's most potent weapon in violence?" Aside, again from is there a 'one size fits all', the answer is clear to me: Reason. The ability to ascertain the situation and select the most efficacious response tailored to the situation available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the minimum amount of force necessary to eradicate the threat should be used, otherwise you are just adding to the problem. So, all those different methods of violence can only be assessed as valid methods in context, and they should be judged by how effective they are in those contexts. For example, you don't use a pistol against a child who picked your pocket. But it might be proper to call the police in that circumstance.

In any case, if this discussion is shifting towards a discussion about what kinds of weapons to use in different situations, then it is no longer a discussion about Objectivism and probably shouldn't be in this part of the forum.

Tristan

I'm not talking about using a pistol against a child who is picking your pocket. I am talking about violence. The type of violence during which you must respond with violence or become its victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the inquiry seems a bit wrongheaded. We cannot deduce the answers to these questions from thin air. Context means we need a framework from within we can apply logical reasoning to find the answers, otherwise there is no foundation from which to start any analysis. We need a framework that tells us as much as possible about the entire background situation in the real world as to what is going on in these particular instances. Just saying "violence" doesn't help, because we know there is violence, the question is about violence in the first place. We need to know violence against whom, where at, why, what are the consequences upon your values?

Somebody attacks me, should I use violence? Well, am I in a football game and the guy attacking me is simply playing the game and trying to tackle me because I am carrying the football? Then, no I shouldn't pull out a handgun and shoot him in the face, I should run for the end zone. Okay, I'm being attacked by a mugger who wants my wallet, and he will stab me if I don't give it to him, what violence should I use? Well, am I working in a nuclear reactor with dangerous equipment all around me? Then I probably shouldn't try to shoot him and risk contamination or a leak, I should ask myself how confident I feel that I can disarm him. Well, I had some karate classes, but that's not really enough, maybe I should just give him the wallet. Or maybe I am a Krav Maga expert and he will be an easy target, so I should use those skills. Or am I Batman, and if I don't do something, then a train will be derailed and kill the girl I love? So then maybe I should take a huge risk. See what I am saying? We don't have the ability to tell you what you should do apart from the context and its effects upon your life and values.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not having a problem with it at all. Again, it's a situation in which you must apply violence to another human being or perish. He/they are attacking you and if you don't attack him/them he/they are going to kill you. What's so hard to understand about that? How much more "context" do you need? It's any situation where you must apply violence to another human being or be killed, become his/their victim.

What is the best way to learn and to do this?

You didn't strap on some pads and a helmet and enter a football game of your own volition and get knocked around. You were forced into a situation in which a man or men are going to kill you, escape is not possible, you will apply violence to him/them or you will become their victim.

What is the best way to learn and to do this?

It's incredibly simple, just as violence is incredibly simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the only ways to learn and do anything?

Seek out someone who knows what you want to learn, and implore them to teach you and be willing to develop the skills required. Study the situations that can arise by your own cognizance, and determine the best course of action you could take and develop the skills required to do so.

Out of curisoity, Ted, in the many years you have studied the arts, how many times have you used the skills you have developed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how does combative science differ from martial arts, essentially?

I'm seeking along the lines perhaps that martial arts is learning defensive skills that involve the use of ones person or perhaps an object at hand which could be used, as contrasted with carrying specifically a weapon of choice, or using the efforts of an opponent to redirect his force against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The type of combat science I practice deals strictly with asocial violence (the anti-social is to be avoided), has an incredibly rapid learning curve and deals with any and all ancillary weapons available and especially the primary weapon, which is the mind.

The mindset is purely offensive and blocking is not advocated or practiced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The type of combat science I practice deals strictly with asocial violence (the anti-social is to be avoided), has an incredibly rapid learning curve and deals with any and all ancillary weapons available and especially the primary weapon, which is the mind.

The mindset is purely offensive and blocking is not advocated or practiced.

I should have said, 'blocking and defensive skills are not advocated or practiced.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much more context do we need? A lot more. You haven't really given us any at all. Another human being is attacking me? Okay, is he attacking me in a dogfight in a jet airplane? Is he attacking me on a tightrope walk? Is he attacking me walking down the street? What does he have, what do I have? I don't get what you're going for. There is no such thing as an attack without context, as there is no such thing as reality without context. The answer as to "what is the best way to apply violence" will depend entirely on the situation.

It's like you're saying: we have a patient that is ill. He needs curing. If you don't cure him, he will die. The context is curing. What is the best way to apply curing? No, I refuse to give you any details! Curing, damn it! Just curing! What is the best curing? I don't know, you tell me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much more context do we need? A lot more. You haven't really given us any at all. Another human being is attacking me? Okay, is he attacking me in a dogfight in a jet airplane? Is he attacking me on a tightrope walk? Is he attacking me walking down the street? What does he have, what do I have? I don't get what you're going for. There is no such thing as an attack without context, as there is no such thing as reality without context. The answer as to "what is the best way to apply violence" will depend entirely on the situation.

It's like you're saying: we have a patient that is ill. He needs curing. If you don't cure him, he will die. The context is curing. What is the best way to apply curing? No, I refuse to give you any details! Curing, damn it! Just curing! What is the best curing? I don't know, you tell me?

Keep reading. There is plenty of "context" for you to choose from in many of the posts above. If you can't find any, make some up. If you need more help than this, just give me a call and I will do what I can -- and if I'm not there to help you get started in five minutes -- start without me.

Enjoy. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually do not see how your 'type of combative science' differs from any other study of self-defense based on your very broad abstract description. Even the suggestions or explanations that I have provided and offered are situational, or context dependent.

Even your distinction between "anti-social" (I read an aggressive individual there) and "asocial" (I can only envision an individual that is withdrawn or essential non-social in nature, in which case, why would you be defending yourself against them or attacking an asocial person in that context), leave much to be desired.

While a person may be attacked by another at just about anytime or any place, even the likelihood of such an event is going transpire depends on the context of where they are, and what they are doing. Is this the grounds you are basing what comes across as the necessity for every human being on the planet to specialize in "combative science"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe anti-social refers to actions within the social realm, for instance the typical bar fight or whatever. Asocial refers to actions where communication is not possible and someone really tries to kill you. Search for Tim Larkin and Target-Focus Training and you should find further information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It differs in that a defensive mindset is not discussed (other than to refrain from entering it) and that the offensive mindset is the key to success in violence, as opposed to blocking and defensive techniques or methods.

If one goes on the defensive in violence, he is more likely to be hurt or killed. When one takes the offensive, i.e., the initiative in violence he is more likely to survive the violence.

I do not raise the question of the necessity of every human being on the planet to specialize in combat science. To my mind, that question is already answered.

My question is, what is the best, i.e., the most efficient, most productive, most effective way to acquire and apply the tool of violence for use in everyday life?

I am not talking about anti-social and asocial persons, rather I am talking about anti-social and asocial violence. These are the two types of violence we are discussing. It makes no difference what kind of person is attacking, what matters is that he is attacking and that I need to do something about it or I am going to die.

Again, what is the best, i.e., the most efficient, most productive, most effective way to acquire and apply the tool of violence for my use in everyday life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe anti-social refers to actions within the social realm, for instance the typical bar fight or whatever. Asocial refers to actions where communication is not possible and someone really tries to kill you. Search for Tim Larkin and Target-Focus Training and you should find further information.

Excellent. Tim Larkin does have an excellent discussion on those very topics.

And I am speaking on the asocial. As I said, the anti-social is to be avoided at all costs.

What are the best methods to apply in antisocial violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see, he looks to be parroting back the same kind of things from this video:

http://www.targetfocustraining.com/about/tftabout

I still don't know what the question you're asking is about. You want us to imagine up some random situations and tell you the most efficient way to use violence in them... cause why? I don't get what this has to do with anything in here? Why don't you tell us the answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you need me to tell you answers? Can't you think for yourself?

The Target Focus Training video is a good context for one of the questions I am asking. And now that we're on the subject of Target Focus Training, how 'bout it? Would this be a good way to learn to apply the tool of violence in everyday life? Or do you have something better, more effective, more efficient, etc.?

********

OK, have it your way. You want "context"; tell me then, what would you, personally, do in this particular situation, i.e., context?

You are just skateboarding along the sidewalk, or walking or running or carrying your groceries home or going to see your girlfriend or whatever -- and a guy just comes out of the blue, for whatever "reason", i.e., he don't like the way you look or because you're ugly or because he wants to rob you or because he's pissed that his mommy didn't get her welfare check this month and has to go out hookin' again -- he sticks a gun in your face and starts messin' with you. What would you do here?

And also, is this anti-social violence or asocial violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't think one can infer that because I don't understand what you are getting at that I can't think for myself, don't you think that's a bit rude? I'm only trying to get to the bottom of your question here.

There are techniques (e.g. gun disarming techniques) that one can try to employ in that situation if remaining calm and persuation won't work. Is that all you were wanting to know? I'm still confused...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's context within Atlas Shrugged itself. Dagny shot a guard dead in order to sneak into the institute and save Galt from further torture. Her explanation/justification of how easy/fast she shot that guard was that the guard could not decide for himself whether to let her pass or not.

so there, an example from the same source (not the bible, LOL!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you need me to tell you answers? Can't you think for yourself?

Yes, he can think for himself. I've seen it on this board for years. Alternatively, can you explain your questions better so that perhaps you can get some meaningful answers? Many times on this board, when people ask questions, they have an answer in mind themselves and sharing that answer can frequently lead to more elaborate and productive discussion while potentially clearing up whatever confusion may be present. 2046 is earnestly trying to understand you and being rude in routine is not called for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...