Philosophy Discussion Forums

Mistery wrote:If you are tortured by professionals then they will use both physical and verbal violence. The combination is more painfull than pure physical but pure verbal will never be as painfull as pure physical.

Do you have any statistics on this?

No I only saw documentaries on the matter about how professionals torture people If I recall corectly it one of them was "SAS training" which can be found on youtube and another one which focused more on the matter about how they torture prisoners to obtain information but I don't remember it's name.

Think of it this way: If someone was to torture with either pure physical or pure verbal violence to make you say something you don't want which one would be more effective? Bear in mind that if he makes you listen to him and take him seriously with anything other than words then it's not pure verbal violence (like keeping you locked in a room without your free will until you listen to him, or keeping you hungry and thirsty to make you emotionally vulnerable).

Mistery wrote:No I only saw documentaries on the matter about how professionals torture people If I recall corectly it one of them was "SAS training" which can be found on youtube and another one which focused more on the matter about how they torture prisoners to obtain information but I don't remember it's name.

Think of it this way: If someone was to torture with either pure physical or pure verbal violence to make you say something you don't want which one would be more effective? Bear in mind that if he makes you listen to him and take him seriously with anything other than words then it's not pure verbal violence (like keeping you locked in a room without your free will until you listen to him, or keeping you hungry and thirsty to make you emotionally vulnerable).

Fair enough, I can envisage that in both cases the pain inflicted has to be gradual. Human beings are quite resistant, we can withstand, for long, physical difficulties. As I say I was tortured but that was sadistic, so he enjoyed the torturing, I could tell him any thing and everything and he would carry on, it was not for the purposes of breaking me into submission. I find it difficult to be categorical about which one I would give in first. I think it will depend on the individual and whereas he/she could withstand quite happily the physical pain and not withstand the tiniest of verbal pain or vice versa.

It would be interesting to see the you tube video of the SAS.

Bermudj wrote: Fair enough, I can envisage that in both cases the pain inflicted has to be gradual. Human beings are quite resistant, we can withstand, for long, physical difficulties. As I say I was tortured but that was sadistic, so he enjoyed the torturing, I could tell him any thing and everything and he would carry on, it was not for the purposes of breaking me into submission. I find it difficult to be categorical about which one I would give in first. I think it will depend on the individual and whereas he/she could withstand quite happily the physical pain and not withstand the tiniest of verbal pain or vice versa.

It would be interesting to see the you tube video of the SAS.

Imagine that you go to hell. And satan is giving you an option, to be eternally verbally tortured or eternally physically tortured (both taken to their extremes as much as possible) which one would you choose?

Mistery wrote:

Bermudj wrote: Fair enough, I can envisage that in both cases the pain inflicted has to be gradual. Human beings are quite resistant, we can withstand, for long, physical difficulties. As I say I was tortured but that was sadistic, so he enjoyed the torturing, I could tell him any thing and everything and he would carry on, it was not for the purposes of breaking me into submission. I find it difficult to be categorical about which one I would give in first. I think it will depend on the individual and whereas he/she could withstand quite happily the physical pain and not withstand the tiniest of verbal pain or vice versa.

It would be interesting to see the you tube video of the SAS.

Imagine that you go to hell. And satan is giving you an option, to be eternally verbally tortured or eternally physically tortured (both taken to their extremes as much as possible) which one would you choose?

I am not sure what we achieve if I give you an answer, which could be wrong, to this very hypothetical scenario. I could say physical and then realise that it would be better had I said was verbal and vice versa. Furthermore, which one causes me more pain is neither here or there. Statistics of a wide population would be more useful to gage better which of the two pains is more damaging.

I made a new topic on general philosophy on this subject and my argument is that every society makes a taboo out of physical violence while not so much out of verbal violence. They might even see it as a game when two people confront each other with verbal violence.

IMO, overcoming psychological torture is easier than overcoming physical torture (physical pain).

Once again, I must begin by noting that I have not had time to read the entire thread, or to faithfully recall those comments I have read. Okay, my two cents:

My ultimate answer: I don't know.

I think it's important to admit that, as the question is fundamentally an empirical one. Scott's hypothesis seems plausible enough, but I imagine the are many alternative explanations as well. And, given the complexity of the human mind, it could be true that for some people it is a sign of weakness, while for others it is one of the alternatives.

Possible other hypotheses:

The emotions could be taught and learned without a person's feeling weak or strong. If you grew up with role models that were continually angry, discompassionate and hateful, the emotions will replicate themselves in you. While some might retort that the original angry, discompassionate and hateful people were weak, at the very least, the causes of generation are not necessarily the cause of perpetuation.

Moreover, weakness might not be the root cause at all. A person could be traumatized into experiencing those negative emotions. Unless we are going to categorically define all trauma as weakening, which I don't think would appropriately convey the kind of "weakness" contemplated in the original post, we should consider that trauma is a mental injury that leads to all sorts of emotions a person might not have had before the traumatic event.

We should also consider that some people might just have a neurophysiological chemistry that causes such emotions to come careening into consciousness. We can't necessarily call such people weak. Indeed, they might be very strong in having to deal with those emotions in the first place. Weakness might not precede the emotions at all.

Finally, I wanted to add that anger can be a very positive emotion when utilized properly. It can be perfectly rational to be angry upon learning of injustice done to yourself or others, and healthy to channel that anger into action. To use the OP's example, I would agree that MLK Jr. is an excellent historical figure to emulate for his compassion and love in the face of oppressio. But somehow, I doubt he was not angry about the oppression against which he fought so valiantly, or find it perfectliy plausible that he used his anger somehow in a positive way.

My position is that, for the most part, any negative or unpleasant emotion is based on weakness, but there are exceptions. In rare cases, an unpleasant emotion is not weakeness at all, but is a valid expression of a very traumatic event, like the loss of a loved one. But generally speaking they are manifestations of weakness. After all, who would choose to experience a negative emotion if one did not have to?

Being "strong" largely means being "strong" in relation to our emotions. A man who is always submersed in negativity certainly does not give the impression of strength. To the contrary, a man who is always whining, complaining, crying, etc is viewed as weak, and rightfully so. But a man who is able to resist and overcome his negative feelings in order to achieve some goal is certainly called "strong".

Let us suppose that some man is drowning in a river, and two men are close by. Both of them feel compelled to jump in and rescue the man, but both also feel great fear of risking their own lives in doing so. One of them succumbs to his fear and does not act, the other overcomes his basic feeling of fear and dives in. Which of those two men would we consider the "strongest"?

Or conversely, let us suppose that two men both lose their son in a car accident. Both of them are at the scene in the presence of many people. Both of them feel immense grief at the loss of their son, at seeing his dead and mangled body. But both of them also are cognizant of all the people who are around, and both feel a bit of resistance to releasing their sadness in front of everyone. One of the men, in spite of his profound grief, suppresses it in order to save face, and does not cry in front of all the onlookers. The other man, however, quickly sloughs off his feeling of embarrassment, and releases all of his anguish by weeping openly and freely. Which of these two men would we now say is the "strongest" ?

So, you see, the question is not as simple as it may appear to be at first glance. Generally speaking, the release and expression of negative emotions is merely human weakness. But in exceptional cases the expression of negative emotions is, on the contrary, an expression of our humanity, and not expressing them (suppressing them) is actually the result of "weakness".

And learning to properly differentiate between the two enables us to understand what "being emotionally healthy" means in the fullest sense of the term.....

In the absence of some sort of psychological patholgy I am well unequipt to figure out, anger, lack of compassion and hatred would seem to stem from a feeling the one is not being understood by those whom one respects. In the presence of a pathology, I imagine it would be more about a twisted Hierachy of Needs pyramid thing. Maslow and that...

I believe that these three things are best handled separately, but generally speaking any response [here] is neither positive nor negative (i.e. in this case weak or not weak), because the proper focus is best put on the appropriateness of the response to the situation.

Regarding Anger: Anger can be a good response to an injustice. In it, of itself, it is more related to the emotions and therefore its appropriateness is related to cultural or ethical norms. One question that comes up is how we are expressing or dealing with the anger that arises from something. The second is, whether we are appropriately angry.

Are we too angry? Or not angry enough? ...The problem with more anger, is that it can often create more anger. But I would say, maybe find another solution besides smothering/suppressing anger like many do. You can try letting it go, but sometimes that doesn't work. If you can find an outlet that is good for others and you, use that. It is very important to make sure that your anger does not hurt you if it is becoming too much, so finding an outlet is very important to do if it is a lot of ager!! If there is something that keeps making you angry, it is important that you distance yourself from it and/or minimize it from your life.

On the other hand, not being angry enough may mean that we are not being honest with our nature or not being appropriately considerate about the situation in front of us.

Might I ask why the three topics started by Scott are pinned to the top of the Morals section?

Anybody can become angry - that is easy,
but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way -
that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.
Aristotle

The inability to do the above is a weakness.
The principle within the above quote is applicable to all emotions and instincts.

However, 'hatred' per se in whatever degree is a perverted emotion and preferable should be avoided.

I note Buddhism is the most effective philosophy and practice that address the above principles in detail and holistically. There are other methods but they are not sufficiently holistic.

Suppose, if you will. A man, racked with discompassionate treatment from people all his life never retalliating and being nice. With not a way for the pressure to escape, as such things would cause pressure. All on top of that not being instructed to deal with it. Would not one crack under such g-forces (if you will). To be lead to also become those who tormented him. Should one turn the other cheek or rise against it?

Scott said: In another example, if you back an animal into a corner, making it feel scared and weak, it will lash out violently and erratically, which in humans would be called anger, discompassion, or hatred.

I agree with your post that people, when broken down, are more likely to commit crimes or do bad things. However we forget that an animal is also a predator. I think there are still, (and has always been), predatory instincts in humans. We also cannot act as if the rational mind is the only one at the wheel all the time. Our rational consciousness is easily pushed aside by our “animal” will for reasons other than just weakness. I do, however believe that someone with a regrettable and sad history of abuse or suffering will be more likely to draw upon their “wild” instincts. However genes also play a part, psychopaths have “missing-genes” that make them more aggressive. So no, it is not a one size fits all, though I find great merit in your argument none the less.