What has violence to do with philosophy? Violence is still struggling to find itself in its Begriffsdefiniton. This alone seems tremendously violent expire. Where up until the 1960s, the focus was on the physical violence, transformed by Habermas, this focus, because ultimately it could be argued, that everywhere around us around violence is. Social, linguistic, political … Violence is common to all media, in art and in their parents- and being a child.

Even Sartre indicates, that violence does not exist without the presence. Thus guilt are anyway the other. And who does not know the? Not only of his children and himself there seems to be getting easier to relativize. He or she started and thus acts to be justified.

A definition, which appeals to me personally, is the, that violence is negated and violated the others in their diversity. Where otherness describes not visible otherness necessarily, which of course can (starting with big ears) but often is just something, what is not tangible, what makes us different in our way from the others.

Children are particularly affected, one hand, in their own distinct from the others and on the other hand in the Injured If by words and language and behavior. You can be at least equally injured, as by physical force. But we see, unfortunately, often the only visible injury and not the other.