One of the difficulties in speaking of violence is its position: from, to.
China M's text indicates the inseparability of force and the use of law. The very fabrication of equal rights sets up forces that then must decide by force. Benjamin seems to suggest in his essay that you cannot separate violence from law because violence is either preserving or breaking and therefore necessary making, law. He suggests that only violence can decide if its use was justifiable. (again, the term USE might not be the right term here).
I feel like I understand what is meant by only violence can decide its violence but it also seems an impossible situation. This also seems to link to our discussion of the incommensurability of bearing/being witness.
What is it about violence that makes language itself questionable? In many ways, the oddness that we speak of the absence of violence as non-violent which hints to an indeterminate state. Or am I confused?
China M's text indicates the inseparability of force and the use of law. The very fabrication of equal rights sets up forces that then must decide by force. Benjamin seems to suggest in his essay that you cannot separate violence from law because violence is either preserving or breaking and therefore necessary making, law. He suggests that only violence can decide if its use was justifiable. (again, the term USE might not be the right term here).
I feel like I understand what is meant by only violence can decide its violence but it also seems an impossible situation. This also seems to link to our discussion of the incommensurability of bearing/being witness.
What is it about violence that makes language itself questionable? In many ways, the oddness that we speak of the absence of violence as non-violent which hints to an indeterminate state. Or am I confused?
No comments:
Post a Comment