Padriag
Posts: 2633
Joined: 3/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KnightofMists
This has become a debate about semantics.
Not entirely, what we have are two sets of definitions behind which follows two very different bodies of thought.
quote:
Punishement in of it self is rather clearly defined... However.. adding the qualifiers modifies the definitions.
I disagree... there seems to be a great deal of confusion about it. However, I would hope we can clarify that. To wit..,
We have essentially two definitions/meanings for the same word. One definition comes directly from almost any dictionary and essentially does talk about punishment being a retributive and/or punitive penalty applied for some form of unacceptable behavior. This is the definition that most think of, its the one that has developed from literally centuries of social history and has its roots in those same ancient origins of which I previously spoke. From it developed a many practices, such as weregild, penance, fines, and other forms all aimed at balancing one injury with another... essentially an eye for an eye in a thousand myriad forms.
There is however a second definition which you seem to ignore, one I know you've seen me discuss before, one that comes from behavior psychology. This definition was created to define a functional aspect of human behavior which was necessary in understanding how we, our nervous system, our minds work. In behavioral psychology an aversive stimulus is a "punisher". The application of an aversive stimulus is "punishment". There is no intent or social context included in that... only the behavior in its most basic raw form. Thus qualifiers such as punitive and corrective must be added to address the issue of intent.
You prefer the former definition, as do many for whom it is the only definition they know. That's fine if that's what you prefer, however it is not fair to state that it is the only definition because it certainly is not.
quote:
Punishment has often an intense negative emotions tied to it.
In your view, which assumes the use only of the above dictionary definition. However, punishment used in the context of that second behavioral definition is merely the application of an aversive stimulus to effect change, and does not imply or require the presence or absence of emotion. It states the functional process, no more no less.
quote:
However, when one wish to instill correction... negative emotions are not very useful to teach or guide some on how to do something right.
This I agree with and have said as much at length.
quote:
They are often dealing with enough emotions becuase they did something wrong. One need not add to the emotional baggage by tying correction as an act of punishment.
Not always true. First, I've already discussed our differences on the usage of punishment and correction. However, you are wrong in another sense. For some, punishment is a form of catharsis that gives release for those very emotions they are struggling with, which are themselves a consequence of what they did wrong.
Its another curious facet of human social behavior that it is not always the "punisher" who seeks to restore a sense of balance through inflicting an injury as "payment" for another in kind. At times it is the one who did the original injury, the one to be punished, who seeks this as means to restore their own inner sense of balance, of a sense of indebtedness they feel, as a means of escaping the guilt that results from that "indebtedness."
quote:
Correction and Punishment are two very different words in my life.
I understand that, but I would hope you would understand that while that is true of you, it is not true of everyone else.
_____________________________
Padriag
A stern discipline pervades all nature, which is a little cruel so that it may be very kind - Edmund Spencer
|
RE: Discipline, Punishment, and a Crazy lil thing calle... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread