Desensitized?

[IntravenousJava]

In the film My Dinner with Andre, Andre Gregory suggested that modern man seems to have grown incapable of perceiving reality. The vast majority of my reading, ancient to present, both fiction and nonfiction, suggests that we humans may have lost the ability to perceive reality at roughly the same time we began to be "civilized."

I know this is probably a can of worms, but I would like to open it anyway if anyone would care to join me...

[Calidore]

I'm afraid that's a bit vague. What did Andre say about that exactly? More context may help.

My first thought upon reading that was that civilization has both given us the ability to and allowed us to create more of our our own realities, as well as itself being an example of that. But as far as our ability to "perceive reality", without elaboration I'm not sure what reality he means. The wild world of animals that we previously lived in? Our own natural internal feralness that civilization has made unnecessary? Our ability to now see the far reaches of the universe taking us away from the here and now of Earth?

[Alexander III]

Depends on what you mean by Reality. Give me two men, one who can live off the land for weeks, the other an einstein like scientist. Now with one definition of reality, the former is a real man, the latter is superfluous. As the latter's skills only are of use within society, which in and of it's self is a human construct and thus can be perceived as more of an illusion than real.

[Charles Darnay]

This question doesn't have much substance. In order to address it we would need a working definition of "reality."

[IntravenousJava]

I'm afraid that's a bit vague. What did Andre say about that exactly? More context may help.

You're too kind. I was more than a bit vague.

I think Mr. Gregory was referring to the various layers of insulation foisted onto us by institutions, media, gov't propaganda, etc.

Of course, this train of thought leads inevitably to the question of an objective reality, if there is such a thing. If I had to guess, I'd say Mr. Gregory would posit an objective reality, and cite the many inanities and irrelevancies of modern life as insulating or distracting us from an accurate perception of that reality.

If, on the other hand, one tends, like me, toward a subjective conception of reality, then there must result just as many "realities" as there are perceivers, thereby rendering Mr. Gregory's concern moot.

Still, I'm inclined to believe there is something in what he suggests. To borrow loosely from Orwell, isn't it possible that, although all realities are equal, some are more "real" than others?

[IntravenousJava]

This question doesn't have much substance. In order to address it we would need a working definition of "reality."

Fair enough. If I encounter a certain object of a distinctive shape, texture, hardness, etc., I will most likely call it a rock or a stone as these are the symbols with which custom and convention have equipped me to represent such things. Still, it might be argued that something more persists in this object I have dubbed a rock, some physical reality of which I can never quite partake.

In broader terms, "reality," to me, is the physical universe as it actually is, above and beyond any subjective representations. Lest I seem to contradict myself, I do believe that perception of reality is purely subjective. Therefore, by definition, we humans, in our abject finitude, could never fully perceive reality as such, but, I nevertheless maintain, with determined study a contemplative subject might draw nearer than a more disinterested subject.

I realize this bears a suspicious resemblance to a sort of Platonic Ideal conception of reality, but I actually find Heidegger's idea of Authenticity more satisfying (subjectively, of course). What appeals to me, personally, is the idea that there exists a certain potentiality in all things, with Authenticity (or Reality) representing its utmost Realization.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This question doesn't have much substance. In order to address it we would need a working definition of "reality."

Good point. We could all be in the Matrix. As the wise Morpheus says: "If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

[Calidore]

It occurs to me that the argument about perception of reality is being made by someone recorded on film while performing from a screenplay and eating in a "restaurant" that's actually in an abandoned hotel.

[IntravenousJava]

It occurs to me that the argument about perception of reality is being made by someone recorded on film while performing from a screenplay and eating in a "restaurant" that's actually in an abandoned hotel.

It occurs to me, from what I've seen since joining this forum ~3 wks ago, that many members are more concerned with clever quips and contentiousness than with any serious exploration of literature and its themes.

I'm quite willing to concede that the fault may be mine, owing to my ill-conceived and/or ill-defined posts. If this is indeed the case, then let me attempt to ground my topic more firmly in the proper framework of this forum.

Mr. Gregory's remark, cited by me in the initial posting of this thread, left an indelible mark on my consciousness when I first saw the film nearly twenty years ago. Ever since, I have viewed most of my experiences through the lens of that sentiment.

It becomes painfully acute as I watch my wife and daughter perpetually struggle with social pressures and influences on the idea of "woman." They are constantly bombarded by the cosmetic, fashion, and fitness industries, and perhaps most of all by the entertainment industry, to the point where they have lost the ability (and quite possibly the will) to discover the essential woman in themselves.

These pressures, albeit in smaller doses and different forms, abound for men as well.

I begin to see that the issue I've raised is perhaps less about "reality," howsoever one chooses to define it, and more about value and meaning from a cultural perspective. So how do we appraise the value system of our culture? Here is a possible clue: entertainers and professional athletes draw inordinately large salaries, while teachers receive a pittance. We attach the highest value to the individual or group which performs the function most important to us. In other words, it seems we would much rather be entertained than edified and enriched. Those who insulate and distract and allow us to escape from our mundane existence are inestimably more valuable to us than the molders of our young minds.

What prompted me (more than any of the aforementioned thoughts) to raise this issue now is an ongoing project of mine, a rereading of Dostoevsky. It seems to me that Dostoevsky, with his repeated use of certain themes and characterizations, was precisely concerned with contrasting the actual (and arguably empty) value set he observed in everyday life with the idealized value set of his imagination (one which was much more intellectually and spiritually charged than most). Slavophile though he may have been, he did not exactly paint his beloved Russia in the most flattering lights and colors.

Dostoevsky seemed particularly unimpressed with the "reality" he observed and recorded in writing: stuffed shirts, social climbers, and drawing rooms devoid of any real substance or meaning. What seems to have impressed him, and myself for that matter, was the infinitely richer interior lives of the social "failures" he created to illustrate the difference.

I know that we, too, live in an age of acute myopia, where excess has become the rule, and entitlement its byword. Surely there must be something more, something better, something more "real" than our present "reality."

[Charles Darnay]

Thanks for the further clarification. It seems as though you are struggling with a sort of 21st century (or we could just say modern to include Dostoevsky) form of Platonism. We have all abandoned the search for the ideal in favour of what is directly in front of us.

Interestingly, this seems to conflict with your earlier definition of realty: that is, the physical world around us.

Instead of teasing out your arguments point by point, I will offer my views on the matter.

The modern idea of reality is a strange matter. Up until the 17th century, there was the prevalent idea that there was more to what is here, largely due to the universal acceptance of a creator. The Scientific Revolution brought the focus into the physical world and "reality" became constrained by the senses. Fast-forward a century or so and the idea of physical understanding becomes unsatisfactory when we try to understand ourselves. Our identity cannot be expressed in physical terms. So in a sense we go back to Plato sans Creator. We look to the world of metaphor, and now our "reality" is a blend of the physical and symbolic/analogous. Symbols begin to consume our reality as things become faster and smaller. Enter the virtual world of today - the symbolic went from representing ideas to representing ourselves. An online persona is becoming as much a part of ourselves as our physical beings. Furthermore, we are so busy that we are capable of focusing only on what is immediately in front of us (like the prisoners in Plato's cave) and thus we have reverted back to a Platonic view qed.

[Calidore]

It occurs to me, from what I've seen since joining this forum ~3 wks ago, that many members are more concerned with clever quips and contentiousness than with any serious exploration of literature and its themes.


?! Not sure where this came from. In my initial post I was the first of several to question the vagueness of the original post, and I also offered a few possible interpretations. Later on, it occurred to me that the setting that the question was being posed from was itself completely unreal but meant to be perceived as real, which I thought was funny enough to bring up. I don't see how something like that, or any joke in general, lowers the level of a conversation. Serious doesn't have to mean ponderous.

[IntravenousJava]

Interestingly, this seems to conflict with your earlier definition of realty: that is, the physical world around us.

Yes, there always does seem to be an inconsistent, if not contradictory, logic in my metaphysics. Try as I may, I can never quite eradicate my own ambivalence regarding these matters.

I suspect I will never arrive at a satisfactory answer to the wide range of existential questions until I can answer one which seems somehow prior to all the others, namely, can the totality of human experience be explained in strictly physiological terms?

Thanks, by the way, for sincere and lucid feedback.

[IntravenousJava]

?! Not sure where this came from. In my initial post I was the first of several to question the vagueness of the original post, and I also offered a few possible interpretations. Later on, it occurred to me that the setting that the question was being posed from was itself completely unreal but meant to be perceived as real, which I thought was funny enough to bring up. I don't see how something like that, or any joke in general, lowers the level of a conversation. Serious doesn't have to mean ponderous.

Apologies... you were the undeserving target of my growing frustation with responses in general (not only with respect to my posts). I never should have singled out and quoted you, as your response, although admittedly light-hearted, was not at all impertinent. I'm truly and sincerely sorry...

[Charles Darnay]

I suspect I will never arrive at a satisfactory answer to the wide range of existential questions until I can answer one which seems somehow prior to all the others, namely, can the totality of human experience be explained in strictly physiological terms?


The simple answer to that - no, no it can't. But it doesn't address the issue at all. I am thankful that I, too, "will never arrive at a satisfactory answer to the wide range of existential questions": what a terribly boring world it would be otherwise.

[Polednice]

From what's been said in this thread, I think "reality" was a misleading word to use, so I won't use it myself. Instead, it seems we're talking about the superiority of certain cultural values.

While I will be the first to proudly admit that I don't care for others' opinions, don't care for light entertainment, and don't care for brands, I believe we tread on slippery ground to point to those who do and condemn them for not having a broader, more ambitious relationship with the world. Such an approach whiffs of self-aggrandising elitism. If these people are genuinely happy, can their pursuits really be bad?

This defence is not to say that people aren't hood-winked in a Huxleian manner by being distracted from the important issues of the day with low quality entertainment. However, such people are victims of our own biological predispositions for gossip and voyeurism - there has been no magical lessening of cultural integrity in recent decades. My own speculation would be that we are just as culturally dignified or undignified (depending on you view it) as we have ever been, give or take some minor deviation, but, more than ever, we are capable of seeing our entire culture, and how far these things extend, and many of us don't like what we see. Nevertheless, it's probably always been that way, we just haven't had the technology to hold a mirror up to it.

[cafolini]

As far as I am concerned, and from what I have read in this thread, I have been given the right to define reality as a lemon tree. It wouldn't make any difference with other possible derfinitions, and, according to this thread, I agree.

[Calidore]

Apologies... you were the undeserving target of my growing frustation with responses in general (not only with respect to my posts). I never should have singled out and quoted you, as your response, although admittedly light-hearted, was not at all impertinent. I'm truly and sincerely sorry...

No problem or harm done; I was just surprised. Thanks for the reply, and have an IV Java on me. :cheers2:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

?! Not sure where this came from. In my initial post I was the first of several to question the vagueness of the original post, and I also offered a few possible interpretations. Later on, it occurred to me that the setting that the question was being posed from was itself completely unreal but meant to be perceived as real, which I thought was funny enough to bring up. I don't see how something like that, or any joke in general, lowers the level of a conversation. Serious doesn't have to mean ponderous.

Pretty sure it was directed at me. Note to self: no joking in Java's threads.

[IntravenousJava]

Pretty sure it was directed at me. Note to self: no joking in Java's threads.

I really don't take myself as seriously as I come across sometimes. In fact, the best thing I ever did for myself was admit that I was a complete ****-up, and reconcile myself with that fact. Unfortunately, I do still tend to represent myself a bit too intensely, which, incidentally, is probably why I have never had more than a few people in my life that I could rightly call friends.

Perhaps you can find it in your mirthful heart to forgive me, and I, for my part, will try to be less irascible with respect to jokes at my expense. My skin has actually become (out of necessity) quite callous over the years. So, by all means, jest away...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hey, it's all good. :D

[Paulclem]

I say, I'm glad all that's been sorted out. As i read through it I was inclined to call Jeeves and get you thrown out. It has been a particularly muted and polite exchange of differences. So much so that it reminded me of a tipsy squabble in a Gentleman's club.

Anyway - reality. Are we talking about a perception of social reality?

[Calidore]

It has been a particularly muted and polite exchange of differences.

Think that'll catch on?

[IntravenousJava]

Anyway - reality. Are we talking about a perception of social reality?

If I were to reduce my initial post to its simplest terms, which I should have done in the first place, I'd say I wasn't talking about reality at all, at least not in any metaphysical sense. I suspect that, in my habitually passive way, I was venturing a subtle social commentary.

I can only guess at what Mr. Gregory meant when he said that "modern man had become incapable of perceiving reality." What I mean to say is that modern man (myself included) seems to have a relatively myopic and superficial value/goal set and that, if there were any deeper metaphysical truths to be discovered, they would be lost on the human race, which has become too disinterested and preoccupied to notice. For all I know, this may even be close to what Mr. Gregory was hinting at anyway...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, technology is definitely having an effect on kids and the way they interact that could be seen as desensitization. Kids are displaying less and less emotion, it seems. They don't laugh or smile as much as they used to, nor do they cry or get angry. Many believe that it's largely due to the prevalence of cell phones and social media--they now communicate laughter and happiness with "lol" or an emoticon. There's also a debate as to what this means--are kids not feeling these emotions at all, or are they just expressing emotion in different ways? If there's any truth to the original claim, I'd say it's probably a combination of both.

I don't remember where I heard all that, but it must have been credible enough of a source for me to remember. In any case, kids are glued to their cellphones, and as someone who taught high school for a short time, many of them are quite apathetic, but then again, I seem them in the classroom--I have a feeling it's always been that way.

[IntravenousJava]

I can't speak for the classroom, but I have noted a significant decline in the work ethic of young Americans, most likely related and corresponding to the growing sense of entitlement, i.e., more compensation for less effort.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Have young Americans ever been hard workers, though? There seems to be a consistent trend of adults always looking to the past and saying, "I miss the old days, when things were better." When looked at objectively, though, the old days are usually worse than now in many ways. I think it's usually because we look remember our youth in terms of the idealization of youth.

Plus, there are plenty of older American slackers.

[IntravenousJava]

Have young Americans ever been hard workers, though? There seems to be a consistent trend of adults always looking to the past and saying, "I miss the old days, when things were better." When looked at objectively, though, the old days are usually worse than now in many ways. I think it's usually because we look remember our youth in terms of the idealization of youth.

Plus, there are plenty of older American slackers.

I completely agree with you. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable decline in the work ethic. I don't pretend to know the cause(s), but over the last 20-25 yrs. I've found the workforce (of all ages) to be increasingly less willing to be held accountable for performance.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

May I ask how old you are, Java? I'm 25. And it really doesn't surprise me that work ethic has gone down. As much as it pains me to say this, and it'll be the joy of some posters to rub this in my face if they see it, but I think it's due to the liberal stance we've taken as a society towards consequences and punishment when it comes to kids. In school, we can barely do anything, now. The worst punishment is a suspension or expulsion, and the kids who get to that level most likely don't care and see it as an education. If a student puts in even a modicum of work, they'll pass. Parents are always against you, and administration insists on pushing kids through because the more kids that pass, the better the school looks and the more money it receives. So, kids learn to get by with as little work as possible. And if a teacher tries to take a stand, well it's good bye to them if they're not tenured, and if they are, they'll just transfer whatever student that you want to fail into a class that will pass them. I've seem it done, personally.

Frankly, I'd be completely okay with corporal punishment being reinstated. A couple years ago, I would've never said that, but the system we have now doesn't work. That kept kids in line, every single older teacher agrees.

[IntravenousJava]

I'm 42, which means that corporal punishment was still a valid "teaching aid" when I was in school (I can testify to it personally). I did not then, and I do not now, view such methods as excessive or abusive. In fact, such tangible consequences tended to be an effective deterrent and form of correction. I suspect, however, that the court of public opinion, swayed by liberal rhetoric, has passed its final judgment on such "barbaric" practices. As a conceptual liberal, I often find myself at odds with liberals at large.

A dear friend and mentor of mine from college used to speak candidly to me about his frustration with academic policy and the "numbers game," as he called it. Being near retirement age at the time and having grown up in an era where hard work, study, and individual merit were more in vogue as measuring tools, he resented the constant departmental and institutional pressure to meet the criteria on which state funding and approbation depended. I felt for him at the time, and I feel for all teachers now, especially those teachers for whom it's more than just an arbitrary career choice.

Having two children in school at present myself, and being actively invested and involved in their education, I hear pervasive echoes of a sense of forced futility in the majority of teachers today. My home state of PA appears to be fully onboard with the "no child gets left behind" ideology, a feel-good philosophy to be sure, but what it amounts to is a very precipitous and thorough dumbing-down of America, prompting my wife and I to almost annually revisit our dialogue about the pros and cons of public education vs. home schooling.

I almost hate to go here, but what individual or institution stands to gain by a wholesale decline in literacy and intellectual acumen?

[Alexander III]

As much as it pains me to say this, and it'll be the joy of some posters to rub this in my face if they see it, but I think it's due to the liberal stance we've taken as a society towards consequences and punishment when it comes to kids. In school, we can barely do anything, now. The worst punishment is a suspension or expulsion, and the kids who get to that level most likely don't care and see it as an education. If a student puts in even a modicum of work, they'll pass. Parents are always against you, and administration insists on pushing kids through because the more kids that pass, the better the school looks and the more money it receives. So, kids learn to get by with as little work as possible. And if a teacher tries to take a stand, well it's good bye to them if they're not tenured, and if they are, they'll just transfer whatever student that you want to fail into a class that will pass them. I've seem it done, personally.

Frankly, I'd be completely okay with corporal punishment being reinstated. A couple years ago, I would've never said that, but the system we have now doesn't work. That kept kids in line, every single older teacher agrees.


I think Emil just got a boner.

But in all seriousness I agree, and another thing which maybe you can relate to and many of us in the 20's age bracket can, is that awkwardness of discovering that you are the conservative one and your parents are the liberal ones. It's like a total inversion of the 60's. For instance I was talking to my mother on skype and she was telling me how if she could go back in time to when I was a boy, she would never have used the heavier punishments such as slapping me. I could not help but feel the very opposite, that she should have slapped me more and been more strict, because that might have instilled a sense of discipline in my life which I sorely lack. Awkward conversation.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't think the work ethic is too bad for Canadian students. In some of the science courses I've been in, the girl next to you would slit your throat for an A.

Regarding corporal punishment, my parents were big fans (and look how meek I turned out) so when I see the generation of birthers in my town coddling their children, never daring to raise their voice let alone their hand, and never letting them out of their sight, it confuses me. Why so much concern? Kids have historically always been forced to be tough, it's had to be that way because adulthood is difficult. If you soften everything for them it seems to me they'll become too weak.

Haha, this thread reminds me of something interesting: Tasmanian Devil mothers only have four nipples. The pups don't share, so only four will survive. The thing is, they give birth to FIFTY PUPS. Not only does that mean that 46 pups will starve to death within hours, the intersting part is that nature designed them that way. The four strongest babies survive, the four who are fast enough to reach the nipples and big enough to shove the other aside, the rest all perish. That's how the species remains strong.

[IntravenousJava]

Haha, this thread reminds me of something interesting: Tasmanian Devil mothers only have four nipples. The pups don't share, so only four will survive. The thing is, they give birth to FIFTY PUPS. Not only does that mean that 46 pups will starve to death within hours, the intersting part is that nature designed them that way. The four strongest babies survive, the four who are fast enough to reach the nipples and big enough to shove the other aside, the rest all perish. That's how the species remains strong.

Nature, of course, has always known the way, but I don't see much evidence of natural selection at work in a social sense today. We, in our misguided notions of "progress," have simply installed too many impediments to render any real and lasting progress plausible.

Now, how to tie this thread back into literature...hmm...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think Emil just got a boner.
:lol: One can only hope.


But in all seriousness I agree, and another thing which maybe you can relate to and many of us in the 20's age bracket can, is that awkwardness of discovering that you are the conservative one and your parents are the liberal ones. It's like a total inversion of the 60's. For instance I was talking to my mother on skype and she was telling me how if she could go back in time to when I was a boy, she would never have used the heavier punishments such as slapping me. I could not help but feel the very opposite, that she should have slapped me more and been more strict, because that might have instilled a sense of discipline in my life which I sorely lack. Awkward conversation.
Well, I still consider myself a liberal, but I'm not, and refuse to be, someone who follows every belief that people ascribe to a way of thinking just to keep up appearances. Me and my father are pretty much on the same page politically, and my mom usually just stays out of it. My dad definitely used to be more conservative, but then I got him watching The Daily Show and Colbert and that changed.

I'm not for kids being beaten, or even slapped, really--not that a spanking on a younger child isn't a bad thing. I'm just for parents actually taking control; more parents these days just let their kids do what they want. Kids don't fear their parents. When I was in school, that was my motivator; I didn't want to disappoint my parents. I respected them (and still do). You don't see that as much as you should.

I don't think the work ethic is too bad for Canadian students. In some of the science courses I've been in, the girl next to you would slit your throat for an A.

Regarding corporal punishment, my parents were big fans (and look how meek I turned out) so when I see the generation of birthers in my town coddling their children, never daring to raise their voice let alone their hand, and never letting them out of their sight, it confuses me. Why so much concern? Kids have historically always been forced to be tough, it's had to be that way because adulthood is difficult. If you soften everything for them it seems to me they'll become too weak.

Haha, this thread reminds me of something interesting: Tasmanian Devil mothers only have four nipples. The pups don't share, so only four will survive. The thing is, they give birth to FIFTY PUPS. Not only does that mean that 46 pups will starve to death within hours, the intersting part is that nature designed them that way. The four strongest babies survive, the four who are fast enough to reach the nipples and big enough to shove the other aside, the rest all perish. That's how the species remains strong.

Well, it's not like all students have bad work ethic. There're still students who work their butts off to get straight A's, join after school clubs and all that. And then there are students who can get A's without even trying.

[Polednice]

I notice that the diatribes against the school system on here seem completely founded on distorted perceptions of reality with no recourse to data or mainstream psychology - this is the definition of ideology, and none of it can be taken seriously.

I'm not a fan of the education system - I think it's dire, but that regards its contents. I find it very difficult, however, to swallow generalisations about the effectiveness of its disciplinary systems from people who have likely not attended a school in decades, not bothered to visit one to learn how they function, and who do not have psychological training. Is anyone here making judgements based on anything other than hear-say?

[Calidore]

I notice that the diatribes against the school system on here seem completely founded on distorted perceptions of reality with no recourse to data or mainstream psychology - this is the definition of ideology, and none of it can be taken seriously.

I'm not a fan of the education system - I think it's dire, but that regards its contents. I find it very difficult, however, to swallow generalisations about the effectiveness of its disciplinary systems from people who have likely not attended a school in decades, not bothered to visit one to learn how they function, and who do not have psychological training. Is anyone here making judgements based on anything other than hear-say?

Actually, Juniper, Alexander, and Mutatis are all university students, and Mutatis has also taught high school himself and is going for a teaching career. Meanwhile, Java said above that he has two children currently in school. So aren't you kind of making assumptions about others making assumptions?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Actually, Juniper, Alexander, and Mutatis are all university students, and Mutatis has also taught high school himself and is going for a teaching career. Meanwhile, Java said above that he has two children currently in school. So aren't you kind of making assumptions about others making assumptions?
This. I've taught high school. There are several high school teachers on this forum, most of them veterans, and all of them (but one, usually) agree with my sentiments.

What are you basing your judgements on, Polednice? It seems your basing your judgements on the basis of other people's judgements assuming those judgements aren't valid for no apparent reason.

[OrphanPip]

I think there is little evidence that hitting your kids will actually instil a better work ethic, at least not more effectively than taking an interest in your kids' lives and making sure they are properly educated and understand the consequences and reasons behind their actions.

My parents never laid a hand on me, I was maybe grounded once in my entire childhood. They were indulgent and gave me everything I ever desired. And then I went on to attend the most elite schools in the country despite growing up in the ghetto. My brother, likewise, was a self-made millionaire by his mid twenties.

Under what mechanism would hitting your child instil a work ethic? If I were a betting man, I'd think that the best that would ensure is that one works harder at least when someone is standing over you with the threat of violence, but how often in life do we have to work with that threat looming over our shoulders? It is better to find motivation in other places.

Edit: Personally, I was probably always motivated by a need to be better than other people. I'm like that girl who sits next to Jun and would slit your throat for the A.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, some kids can't be controlled. My cousin for one. He was a complete smartass and trouble maker. He smarted off to my grandpa once (my grandparents being his main caregivers) and he smacked him across the face pretty good. It was quite a while before he smarted off again. Now, maybe it was only out of fear, but I ask, so? He behaved better, and he needed to, because he was most likely a very unpleasant presence when he was acting up. And, despite the shoddy relationship with his actual parents, my grandparents always took an interest in his life.

I'm not advocating beating your kid at every whim. Some spanking here and there is harmless, though, and effective. I think it's probably more effective if used seldomly, though, to drive in the point when needed.

I'm like you, Pip. I was indulged as a kid; I got pretty much whatever I wanted, was almost never punished. I think I was spanked twice as a kid, and that was only when my mom was really, really pissed. But I behaved nonetheless because I respected my parents, and still feared them--not so much feared the repercussions of bad behavior, but what they would say about it. I didn't want to disappoint them. Unfortunately, not all kids feel this way, and too often parents don't deserve a kid's respect.

All I'm saying is an occasional spank or paddle or whatever isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some kids need it.

[JuniperWoolf]

For me, my parents hitting me occasionally and letting me scrape my knee and play without hawk-like adult supervision, basically had the benefit of ensuring that I'm not afraid of being hit and I can handle conflict, and that sounds harsh but it really is a useful skill. I don't think it's had any impact on my "work ethic," I study because I like it and I work because I need money. One benefit to corporal punishment, as I see it, is that harsh conditions make you strong (that is, if they don't, you know, emotionally destroy you and leave you a neurotic shell of a human being). What would a coddled kid do the first time a classmate calls him a fag for no reason and punches him in the stomach?

[IntravenousJava]

I started to wonder aloud how this thread veered into a discussion about corporal punishment, but then I stopped myself because it actually doesn't seem inappropriate at all in the context of my initial post. So here's my perspective:

I was spanked liberally as a child, and as an adult I abhor violence and conflict, though I recognize the latter as an inescapable facet of human interaction. Being punished in this manner did not teach me to view violence as an acceptable method of conflict resolution. It merely taught me that there are boundaries, the transcendance of which will and must bear consequences. Of course, I was always made to fully understand why I was being punished (a meaningful distinction, I think).

That being said, I do not have a clear stance on the issue today. I am as ambivalent about corporal punishment as I am about any other actions which carry a potential for unpredictable psychological impact, which, moreover, is extraordinarily difficult to measure and all but impossible to generalize. Just as the ideal teaching methodology is one which tailors itself to the specific (and often widely varied) constitutions of individual children, I suspect that the application of corporal punishment may yield inarguably positive results in some children but quite the opposite in others. Then of course there are the arbitrary elements (such as how often and how much) which are left up to the practitioner's discretion.

[Polednice]

Actually, Juniper, Alexander, and Mutatis are all university students, and Mutatis has also taught high school himself and is going for a teaching career. Meanwhile, Java said above that he has two children currently in school. So aren't you kind of making assumptions about others making assumptions?

Of course I was making assumptions because of the low calibre of arguments presented, but I asked a question to see if my assumptions were wrong - they were - and I am now even more surprised that such people can hold these reactionary views.

[hawthorns]

All I can say is, good luck instituting corporal punishment in the ghetto. In my neck of the woods, educators would get filleted with butterfly knifes or find themselves on the business end of concealed .45s--I'm not kidding. More likely, they'd flee the profession in droves or be forced to invest in multi-layered kevlar. With the utter disintegration of the family here, corporal punishment sounds like a scary prospect that would turn educators' classrooms into a bigger zoos than they already are. But I'm not a teacher and could be totally wrong.

I'm anxious to hear what St. Luke and other veteran instructors have to say about this...

[dark desire]

Whatever I have read or seen in cinema about corporal punishment has aroused a lot of anger in me. I just watched this movie (Dancer in the Dark) about a chek single mother in US, going blind, being sentenced to corporal punishment. Then the way Camus and Dostoyevsky have described - life concluding in a high precision certain way - I think corporal punishment is most horrible of crimes. I'd like to read/watch something in which a person carrying out these sentences is sentenced to such a death.

Coming back to the thread posted "...that we humans may have lost the ability to perceive reality at roughly the same time we began to be "civilized.""

I'll paraphrase Nietzsche here. Apollo, the god of light, symbolizes dream, the mind, contemplation, ideas, the plastic arts while Dionysus represents darkness, the body, instinct, intoxication and the art of music. The tendency in modern culture for the Apollonian to prevail over the Dionysian is therefore the tendency for that culture to decline or decay, as it prioritizes the ideal and the rational at the expense of the life-giving, darker material forces.

The darker aspects of humanity have been criminalized and then reworked into the system with competition and consumerism. People living active lives are still in touch with the darker material forces of life while people who watch humanity from a distance through the lenses of philosophy of Enlightenment find their own lives, that of others and that of the human race devoid of grounding in reality. Our perception and not just perception, our language too is imprisoned by civilized ways of being, living and thinking. Reading Nietzsche and Foucault can take one beyond these limitations of perception.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think a spanking or mild paddling isn't on quite the same level as the torture of a blind single mother.


Of course I was making assumptions because of the low calibre of arguments presented, but I asked a question to see if my assumptions were wrong - they were - and I am now even more surprised that such people can hold these reactionary views.

Well, Polednice, you're obviously much more informed and experienced than everyone here on the issue, so maybe instead of making such condescending statements instead of actually offering a viewpoint, you could do just that, and explain why the viewpoint opposing yours is so wrong.

As for schools, I'm not completely serious (though not completely unserious, either) when I say corporal punishment should be reinstated, as some teachers would use it in appropriately. Teachers do need more control, that's the main issue.

[IntravenousJava]

Teachers do need more control, that's the main issue.

Agreed. At the risk of sounding trite, teachers truly do hold the "whole world in their hands," and should therefore be afforded the necessary authority and control to adequately handle their precious cargo.

[Calidore]

Of course I was making assumptions because of the low calibre of arguments presented, but I asked a question to see if my assumptions were wrong - they were - and I am now even more surprised that such people can hold these reactionary views.

"Low caliber of arguments"? "Such people"? Good lord.

What would you consider a higher caliber of argument?

Re. the discussion itself, my views on corporal punishment are:

1) If a parent feels they need to do it, it should be a last resort and only happen once to let the child know it's an option. If it happens more than once, it's either not working or it's become an easy way out for the parent, and both are problems.

2) Teachers or anyone else, hell no. Nobody should ever hit someone else's kid. Teachers need to have total control over their classrooms, and that should extend to who's allowed to be in it. Anything else needs to be handled by the parents.

[JuniperWoolf]

Of course I was making assumptions because of the low calibre of arguments presented, but I asked a question to see if my assumptions were wrong - they were - and I am now even more surprised that such people can hold these reactionary views.

Haha, nice save, not obvious at all. :rolleyes:


All I can say is, good luck instituting corporal punishment in the ghetto. In my neck of the woods, educators would get filleted with butterfly knifes or find themselves on the business end of concealed .45s--I'm not kidding.

Actually, that's true in my neck of the (literal) woods, too. Some of these redneck kids man, I've seen them come this close to punching their teachers in the face, and once or twice fights just broke out in the middle of the classroom before they seperated the academics from non-academics in grade nine, just this ball of fists rolling around and knocking over desks and other people. I've heard a few crazy things about goings-on in the non-ac classes even after that, when we were in grade eleven one of the non-ac kids lit a pile of oily coveralls on fire in elite and almost burned down the school. If a teacher decided it would be a good idea to paddle one of these kids, kids who are in fact quite a bit larger than he or she, they'd be considered fair game and he or she would probably lose a few teeth at the very least.


1) If a parent feels they need to do it, it should be a last resort and only happen once to let the child know it's an option. If it happens more than once, it's either not working or it's become an easy way out for the parent, and both are problems.

2) Teachers or anyone else, hell no. Nobody should ever hit someone else's kid. Teachers need to have total control over their classrooms, and that should extend to who's allowed to be in it. Anything else needs to be handled by the parents.

Yeah, I agree with this.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, before corporal punishment was banned outright, teachers would have to call and ask for permission from the parents before paddling. Parents were also allowed to come in to oversea it. In one humorous story I was told, a parent came in to observe the punishment and told the teacher, "Hit him as hard as you can!" Still, the whole asking parents for permission kind of defeats the purpose.

At the end of the day, if I was forced to make a decision, I'd probably say "no" to corporal punishment. But, goddamn, it is enticing.

On a side note, when I was in grade school, on a kid's birthday, the kid would be brought up to the front of the class and spanked the number of however old he/she was. Not hard at all--it was a goofy ritual. I doubt any teachers do this today; way too easy to get sued. It's probably against most schools' policies.

[The Dilettante]

Regarding corporal punishment, I do not think it is wise to teach children using fear. I may be idealistic, but I think we should be able to teach them in a more sensible manner, which is only possible if the parents are good parents.

[Alexander III]

Anyone else notice the irony that we live in a society where our Governments say it is wrong to teach children through fear, and yet fear is one of the principle tools governments use to keep their people in check?

[The Dilettante]

It is indeed rather amusing, or unnerving. Fear in general is an effective teacher, albeit a very superficial one. It does not teach the child to think, but rather to obey. I believe that this is the reason governments love fear. It is so easy to exploit.

This leads me to wonder, if fear is so useful for obedient citizens than why was it abolished at all? Perhaps ignorance is an even greater tool than fear.

[IntravenousJava]

It is indeed rather amusing, or unnerving. Fear in general is an effective teacher, albeit a very superficial one. It does not teach the child to think, but rather to obey. I believe that this is the reason governments love fear. It is so easy to exploit.

This leads me to wonder, if fear is so useful for obedient citizens than why was it abolished at all? Perhaps ignorance is an even greater tool than fear.

I prefer that my children obey out of respect and reason rather than fear, but in matters of sufficient gravity, I'll settle for obedience period.

From a governing perspective, obedience is not the only consequence of fear; dependency is likely the proper aim of the ruling party.

[The Dilettante]

I agree Java.