Chat

7498 readers

1 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

AskBeehaw

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Passion and destruction - a collective exploration (beehaw.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Lionir@beehaw.org to c/chat@beehaw.org

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've recently been thinking a lot about self-destruction.

I've been thinking about how passion and destruction are interlinked. I've also thought that for creation to exist, destruction must proceed it.

I've had quite the difficulty to try and make sense of these feelings. I thought I'd try to explain and explore this idea with other people.

So here I am - Let's start from the premise above.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So the obvious potential confusion here is in the case where I changed a sandcastle how would you decribe it?

I think all 3 are examples of destruction and creation. I think destruction often has a negative connotation. I think this is why we like to use the word "change" : to describe both destruction and creation at the same time.

“I created a sandcastle” is actually "I destroyed the smooth beach to create a sandcastle"
“I changed a sandcastle” is actually "I destroyed the sandcastle as it was to create a new one"
“I destroyed a sandcastle” is actually "I destroyed the sandcastle to see the pile of sand that it was"

Destruction entails that what existed no longer does. Creation entails creating something that didn't exist.

[–] insurgenRat@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok so we can take that stance. I would disagree that these are useful semantics because of the case I mentioned where I feel like adding a turret to a sandcaste is something meaningfully distinct from reducing a sandcastle to a pile of sand, walking 100 meters down the beach, and making a new one with the turret.

Do you disagree that this is meaningfully distinct? If you do would you feel that it's equivalent to do those two things? That you feel the same way about them?

If you agree that it's meaningfully distinct then why insist on framing it in the same concepts instead of using the concept of change?

[–] Lionir@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I would disagree that these are useful semantics because of the case I mentioned where I feel like adding a turret to a sandcaste is something meaningfully distinct from reducing a sandcastle to a pile of sand, walking 100 meters down the beach, and making a new one with the turret.

I guess to some level, this is the ship of Theseus problem. At what point is it still the same sandcastle?

I guess my theory of destruction assumes that for something so small - the addition of a turret seems to change the nature of the sandcastle. For example, in my mind, a sandcastle is simply an old medieval house for the aristocracy. If you add a turret, it no longer seems like a simple house - it gives new meaning to the castle.

If you agree that it’s meaningfully distinct then why insist on framing it in the same concepts instead of using the concept of change?

I think people certainly use it in distinctive ways but I think that framing it as destruction and creation makes people understand that to build something new, we must first abolish and deconstruct the old. I think the origin of my theory is harder to apply to a general context because of that.

For example, let's say that we have a big friend group or some kind of self-governing body and we want to make it more diverse and inclusive. The first steps would be to deconstruct why the existing structure is pushing people away and once we've found why (say, people use slurs or regularly make "racist jokes") then we have to destroy the ideas that made these behaviours socially acceptable. Only then can we build something anew.