I’m curious how people here think about violence from a historical and humanistic perspective — particularly the distinction between ego-driven violence (honor, insult, reputation) and defensive violence (protecting oneself or others from harm).Many historical societies treated honor violence as necessary or even virtuous — dueling cultures, warrior aristocracies, blood feuds, etc. In other contexts, restraint was viewed as wisdom or moral superiority.My questions are:>Was ego violence ever an intelligent social mechanism?>Did it serve real stabilizing functions, or mostly escalate harm?>How have different cultures justified or rejected it (e.g., Greek, Roman, Christian, Samurai, Enlightenment)?>At what point does honor-based violence become irrational or unnecessary?I’m interested in perspectives from history, philosophy, religion, and anthropology.
hide AI threads
Fanon thought it was a necessity he called it a "cleansing force", defending yourself allowed you to reclaim your dignity and personhood against forces attempting to erase it.
