My friends constantly tell me how different I am, how I am too serious, or too opinionated, or whatever. They also think I’m funny, so who knows?
I think there is an impulse in almost everyone to believe that the world’s problems would be over if only everyone would adopt their philosophy, or world view. It’s most prominent in college students, and seems to ebb over time.
:::flip:::
I know I suffered from that presumption as a college student, and I have to fight the impulse even today. Because I know it’s wrong.
To demonstrate my point I’ll use pacifists. I am not a pacifist. Sometimes I think pacifists are right, and sometimes I think they are wrong. But if everyone agreed with me, there would be no pacifists.
When a war is wrong and needs to be prevented, or ended, we need pacifists. We need pacifists to strongly question the validity of any proposed use of force, even when that use of force is necessary.
We need people who oppose violence as a matter of principle because without them there would be no counter weight to people that think all problems can be handled with force and coercion.
The same is true for a number of other issues. For example, defenders of the first amendment can occasionally go too far. But we need passionate defenders of the sanctity of free speech, exercise of religion, and assembly. Without a rigorous defense of these liberties, those liberties will be weakened.
I see the value in some right-wing absolutists too. Libertarian arguments against taxation and coercion help to keep the government from becoming an all-encompassing behemoth that violates our liberties.
People that oppose abortion AND the death penalty, keep a spotlight on the value of each life, real or potential.
When I feel assaulted by right-wing absolutists, I try to console myself by remembering that we need passionate people to defend us and our freedoms, even though they may be wrong as often as right.
As John Prine said, “It’s a Big Old Goofy World”. We are actually stronger because so many people are wrong about so many things. But I still cannot see the virtues of the Tony Perkins, James Dobson crew. Try as I might, they just strike me as a menace.
That’s nicely put, Boo. It’s part of growing up and growing older. It’s a gift to be exposed to different viewpoints. But it’s scary sometimes to express them … i found that out one day at DKos when I posted about anti-abortion Democrats. I have my own unique set of views on all that, but do not feel free to express my views.
Looking back: I was raised by virulently Republican, racist, class-ist parents.
When John F. Kennedy was running for president, of course I was passionately for Nixon. I’d read his book, My Six Crises, and he was my hero.
One day we girls were talking about the presidential race, and I blurted out, “You can’t be for Kennedy. He’s a Catholic!”
Then I died inside because one of my best friends, Patricia, was standing there. And she was a Catholic.
I was parroting what I’d learned at home about how the Catholics would take over the country, the Pope would rule us, and on and on.
But thank god for my embarrassment and terrible regret that I’d hurt my friend’s feelings … it seared a lesson in me that I’ve never forgotten.
of being right and wrong at the same time:
I formed the opinion in early 2002 that we were going to war in Iraq no matter what. I was right about that, as has now been amply demonstrated.
I could see a lot of merit to the idea of removing Saddam Hussein from power, but I ultimately thought it was a very, very dangerous, risky idea.
Rather than focus on stopping what I thought was inevitable, I focused on making a risky war less risky. But it was pointless to do this with the current crop of theives in office. They were not taking advice.
What would Iraq be like today if France and Russia had given us our second resolution? What would it be like if we had built a coalition comparable to 1991? What would have happened if we had used the right force levels, had access from Turkey, and had used the State Department’s post-war plan?
I don’t know. But I know that Iraq and America would both be better off. We’d be better off still if we had never invaded Iraq, or asked the world to assist us in a war built on a pack of lies.
Who did the right thing? The people that saw the dangers and tried to avert them, or the people that opposed the war all the way through? We both had no hope of doing anything but watching BushCo make history.
I heard allah and buddha were singing at the savior’s feast
And up in the sky an arabian rabbi
Fed quaker oats to a priest.
Pretty good, not bad, they can’t complain
Cause actually all them gods is just about the same
[LyricsCom]
Sometimes the wrongest I have ever been has been in attempting to shove my rightness on whatever point down someone else’s throat.
It was a great breakthrough for me personally when I realized one day that being right is not all it is cracked up to be.
There’s a difference between being right and being righteous.
Those are some mighty awesome reflections, and like most everyone else, I’ve had my share of being wrong about what I thought I was oh so right about. Learning to say, wow I was wrong about that and apologize was a little tricky at first, but then I got to liking it and it has served me pretty well. And yeah, seems like age and experience don’t preclude any of us from being wrong or mistaken about anything.
I have to agree with you about Perkins and Dobson. . .I have a hard time finding any reason at all for them and their agenda, unless it is to wake up people who can still wake up and see what they are trying to do. They do make it sort of hard for some of us to maintain any apathy.
If I were in charge….
things would be screwed up differently!
that, and my user name, are two basic worldviews I try to live by.
I wish us all Grace, Peace, Clarity, Passion, and Justice.
Namaste
there is conquest. A lot of what we’re up against is conquest. In that case there isn’t always a ‘right,’ but there certainly is a ‘wrong.’
Did we get Hitler because the German people didn’t want to bitch without offering a positive alternative?
Bringing up Hitler is not very productive, in my opinion.
Bush won two very close elections. Both houses of government are controlled by his party. That gives him a lot of power. However, there are more elections coming up (soon: 16 months) that will be good opportunities to change both the house and senate. In order to make that change happen, there has to be an alternative. Bitching is not enough.
Blowing off steam is fine, but without alternatives that are perceived as good and practical, there will be two more years, after 2006, at least, of Bush & Co. government.
In contrast to Bush, Hitler had massive support due in part to a magnetic public personality (Bush: Not), in a country that suffered a terrible financial collapse (USA: Not) and that had a huge sense of wounded national pride due to the WW I reparations (USA: Not). He was elected in 1932 with only 32% of the vote (Bush: 51%). Shortly after the election he set himself up as dictator. (Bush: Out in 2007.)
Which part of this has any comparison to Bush? None.
The Democrats have lost a few close elections, and much of the blowing off steam is frustration about being the minority party. That’s a hugely different situation from gallant resistance to a “conquest.”
Bush has used 911 in much the same way Hitler used German’s wounded pride after WWI. It was just layed on us again in last week’s speech at Ft. Bragg. I have no problem making the connection between Bush and Hitler whatsoever and really don’t appreciate being told that it’s unproductive. What’s unproductive is forgetting the lessons of history because Hitler has been elevated to the be all, end all of evil. I suppose that since only 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died thus far Bush can’t be completely equated with Hitler, but IMO he is off to a good and all too familiar start.
I thought we were supposed to be the reality based party, the one which appreciated nuance. Those who compare Bush to Hitler always remind me of the fools on the right who argue that anyone who opposes the war on Iraq is an al Qaeda sympathizer. Or perhaps more closely that idiot legislator in Texas who said something along the lines that supporters of universal health care are Stalinists because Stalinists supported universal healthcare.
I really can’t see how on the one hand so many can get outraged over the ugly conservative rants against liberals as traitors yet at the same time engage in the ‘Repubs/Bush = fascism’ meme. When you do that it’s just the pot calling the kettle black.
First of all, nice of you to squeeze in the fool and idiot label in such a “nuanced” way. There is a time for nuance and a time for directness, and Bush and his little pecker complex, along with his malevolent disregard for the lives of others, is directly responsible through his lies and his willingness to create a boogeyman out of thin air, for the invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation that threatened us in no way whatsoever. He is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He is directly responsible for the torture and deaths of prisoners who should have been afforded their rights under the Geneva Convention. He is clear that he intends to carry out further incursions and invasions of other soveriegn nations based on threats that don’t exist. He has attacked the patriotism of those who question the direction he is leading the country. He is actively engaged in subjugating the media in order to control the message. He is attacking those in positions of power who attempt to shine light on the truth. He is, through his surrogates, guilty of, if not election fraud, then without doubt, massive voter suppression in order to maintain power. I’m sorry, but that just sounds a lot like another well known madman. I measure things by how they are. Not by what the republicans are doing, or what they think of me.
that I applied ‘fools’ to ‘the right’ and ‘idiot’ to a Republican legislator. But yes, I do think they equally apply to our own wingnuts. It’s not a moral issue, just one of rationality. The fact that Bush is a very bad president does not make him a fascist anymore than the fact that Saddam was a truly horrible person, much worse than Bush, made Saddam a threat to the US.
If you really think the current administration is ‘fascist’, kindly explain how. When doing so remember that fascism is a specific form of political system rather than a synonym for ‘very bad.’
Well said… we do need people of all views pushing and pulling and hopefully eventually getting us right.
I don’t know if I am a pacifist… I suppose some would consider me so. I am anti violent measures for a number of reasons, but the biggest one would be that most times… it doesn’t work. At least in my lifetime experience. I was in a minority of people who was against the Afghanistan attack/invasion because I thought it was an insane way to go about things… and wouldn’t work. I think I consider myself less a pacifist and more just a rational person ;).
Dobson, Perkins and so on are indeed a menace… mostly because I think they’ve figured out how to ride people’s feelings and religious beliefs/fears into great power and wealth, and will do everything possible to avoid giving that up.
I understood it a long time ago, even before Yoda, but seem to need repeated reminders.
I agree. Each repeated reminder is a new epiphany.
One thing I can’t get past is what Bush has done and continues to do to this country and Iraq. I can’t help thinking that anyone who doesn’t see this by now is dead stupid. And I find it hard to give a pass to those who didn’t question going into Iraq.
You have to be a borderline fool to ignore the list of indictments these people have against them.
If that makes me close-minded and narrow, so be it.I’m not interested in how their small, nasty minds work. I don’t want to hear the words,’ ” hearts and minds” ever again. Or Orwellian, or quagmire, etc. “cut and run”, “stay the course.” Just UGH. Oh, Yes: Nuclear option? Steroids?
They do it so openly! They’re brazen! They’ve seen what they can get away with, and they’re going to take it all the way. It is really time to stop appeasing Republicans. It’s way past time to start beating our representatives over the head to remind them whom they’re representing. Our Democrats in Washington have got to feel shame. They have lost “all conviction,” and the “center cannot hold.” (Yeats)
Thanks for the use of the soap box. (Why SOAP box?)
is really out of balance in a few areas right now. He would say it in that Yoda way though.
to make your point. I can’t buy into it as an unwavering principle, but have the greatest respect for those who do and live their beliefs. This is what diversity is all about, I think — it makes us stronger as a whole just as a healthy, complex ecosystem is stronger, more resilient, and more beautiful than a monoculture. I spend time here and at similar sites because I want to test ideas, not hear them echoed — which seems to bring down some wrath a remarkable lot of times.
I’d also go further than a lot of folks here in respecting cultural differences worldwide because I think the same principle applies at the global level. That clashes with the belief among some women’s rights folks that there needs to be worldwide enforcement of sexual “equality”. That’s another thorny issue, I think, because it pits respect for other peoples’ culture against the idea of universal human rights.
That said, I think you’re preaching the wrong sermon to a liberal congregation. Our error has not been in being too assertive of our rightness, but in being too tolerant and polite to the psychos and crooks trying to sacrifice all of us on the altar of their lust for power. We’ve given a pass to anything that claims a “religious” basis, especially when it smells of Christianity, instead of asking hard and uncomfortable questions — not necessarily to attack, but to see if that side really has any answers. Now we’re tending to do the same thing with Islam and all who claim to be justified by it.
You’re right: we absolutely need pacifists. But we also need warriors sometimes, and this is one of the times when liberals need to take up the sword, not the concession. And yup, we’ll never know that for sure. I hope we finally act on it anyway.
These thoughts lead in a number of interesting directions.
One is label and definition: what is a pacifist? Do all pacifists adhere to exactly the same beliefs, or share a certain subset of beliefs and don’t have another group of particular beliefs? Does it matter?
Another is choosing between what you believe is right and what you believe can be done that’ll make it less wrong. And just how much one person can expect to get done.
Another is how we handle disagreement. At what point does disagreeing with me threaten me?
But the main point is relevant to several stories of the past week, or brought up on this and other sites. Take the NYTimes/Plame situation. To me it’s like a Greek drama. Everyone is acting exactly as they should. The prosecutor is doing what he needs to do to prosecute the case. The Times is defending confidential sources so it can be a newsgathering organization. The reporter is going to jail, though we don’t yet know why, but some sort of self-interest is at work, as apparently is the case with the source who did not give permission to be disclosed, as the Time Magazine reporter’s source did.
Who is right, who is wrong? From out here in the audience, they are all playing according to the script. Yet the play isn’t over, and the climax is to come. So part of the indecision about wrong or right is lack of information.
But it’s likely that somebody in that mix is being wrong and right.
and I was having the same thoughts yesterday as I read the NYT defense of Miller, which made me want to puke even while I knew they were doing the right thing to write it.
That thought process probably germinated for a while only to be pollinated by my musings on absolutist wingnuts that have convinced half the country that evolution is a bunk theory.
For many philosophies, this is indeed the case. However, expecting everyone to agree to adopt a philosophy is unrealistic. Ensuring they adopt the same interpretation is even more unrealistic. Ensuring they actually live by it is nigh-impossible. Many, for example, rely on perfect information (which humans lack) or rational actors (which humans aren’t).
Sometimes I advocate pacifism, other times not. Sometimes I advocate less govt. regulation, sometimes I see a need for more regulation. Sometimes I rail against the hypocrisy and destructive divisiveness of organized religion, and sometimes I perceive other gentler persuasions toward unity and mutual respect.
Yin and Yang, right and wrong, good and bad, these are not absolutes despite our best efforts to make them so. We all require exposure to a multitude of feelings and perspectives in our lives at different times and to different degrees in order to recognize the fullness of the world in which we live, to remind us of both the beauty of living and of the tragedies that occur.
Up until recently I took a lot of things for granted in life. Recent events in my life have now led me to a profound sense of gratitude for virtually every breath I take and every experience I have. I see more value in everything. I even see the value in things I disagree or disapprove of. This doesn’t make me endorse those things, and in fact in many ways I’m just as opinionated as I was before, but I seem to have a stronger empathy, a more significant connection to even those with whom I disagree. It’s not always pleasant, acknowledging such connections, but it does help in the effort to communicate the desire for finding solutions to the terrible problems we’re confronted with in the world. In a way I believe I’ve almost stopped thinking in terms of right or wrong. It’s more like I think about things in terms of what I would like tosee happen and how I might behave in order to facilitate that result.
I might have veered off topic here a little but I’ve wanted to find a place to say this for a while, and something about BooMan’s tone here awakened my blabbering self.
I live in a life of shades of gray (which drives my wife nuts), and I agree that I have more empathy than I used to for those I disagree with (though I also agree that Dobson, etc. make it challenging.)
In my case I think that mindset came before my becoming the most spiritual point in my life that I have reached and continue to search for more, but whatever order it came in they support each other well. I am part of a church community for the first time in my life, and receive far more than I give — but I do give, in money but most rewardingly in time.
I wouldn’t consider myself a pacifist at all, I believe in having a very strong military, prepared to DEFEND us against all enemies, smartly and ready for the 21st century. Now, you want to talk wars of choice and distraction, and the choices made to squander $100 billions and 100,000 innocents, and you have a different shade of gray.
It is unfortunate that too many Americans want their comfort level, their black and white world, us vs. them mentality, Jesus the Christ vs. anything else (including Christians that are liberal). I suppose it is easier for them to sleep at night. It is more complex to understand what John Kerry said to the N.Y. Times months before the election, about hoping terrorism would be a nuisance along the lines of prostitution or organized crime. I wish Republicans, particularly of the neo-con ilk, could think of terrorism in that shade of gray, the black and white vision has cost us, and cost us dearly.
You raise some very good points.
As to the “black or white” simplicity so many of us seek, the conditions that lead us toward this kind of perspective are generally most unfortunate. Fear is usually involved in this. When we are made afraid, simple solutions that might alleviate that fear are very appealing. With fear comes uncertainty, with fear and uncertainty comes desperation for relief, and so we grasp at the easiest proposed solutions for our dilemna that are presented to us. Hardly anyone wants to bother with thinking through a complex problem when their level of fear is high. Ideas of whether proposed action is right or wrong rarely intrude on such emotionally charged perceptions. After all, if you’re afraid, the only priority for many is to alleviate that fear, and whether it involves invading other countries or attacking your own neighbors often times makes little difference.
We demonize our “perceived enemies” in order to justify anihilating them, in order to legitimize the killing of innocent civilians for the sake of the greater good. This sort of rationalization represents the worst sort of cowardice we express as a species, something to be ashamed of and to work on overcoming.
War may not always be the “wrong” thing to do, but it is always an atrocity. War is always based on lies, and those who are engaged in war never take direct responsibility for their own action. Aggressors always blame those they aggress against for causing them to attack. Another great failure of human awareness and responsibility. War is always an expression of fear and weakness, not strength and security.
When our fears are weaponized by the clever rhetoric of ambitious warmongers, we’re made resistant to any attempt to understand our adversary and seek non-violent resolution. We allow ourselves to believe that the only solution is to attack and annihilate. The Cheney/Perle/Wolfowitz gang of psychopaths have done a remarkable job of weaponizing the ignorance of and duping the American public in this way, and we, in our desire to feel safe without being responsible for our actions, we enable them to impose their crackpot mythology on us. We accept their simpleminded “solutions” because we’re simply too afraid and too self-absorbed to examine things for ourselves.
And just as James Dobson and his ilk are the ones whose rhetoric and actions most vigorously undermine the experience of security and strength so many receive from the Christian faith, so too the Bush regime poses the greatest threat of all to our way of life and to civilization as a whole.
We pacifists forgive you Boo 😉
“It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it’s nonviolence or nonexistance!”
-Martin Luther King, Jr., 3 April 1968
It’s ironic or strange to see your essay today and the one yesterday about “brooding” because it’s clear your mind’s been getting to some very root issues, which I’m delighted to see. It’s easy for websites lke these to always focus on just the “top level” issues like taxes and wars.
What you have to understand is the very root of civilization is “everyone should live just like us”. That’s true for every civilization on the planet today, from Bhutan to Zanzibar.
The word “civilization” itself comes from a Latin word meaning “city” but it’s an inaccurate metric. There are societies of human beings left on the planet however who don’t believe everyone should live like them – they go under various names but in general they are referred to as “Tribes”.
In all the millenia existance of the Hopi, for instance, there never was a Hopi missionary who tried to convert Navajo to be Hopi. And there never was a Hopi military chief or warrior who said “convert to our lifestyle or die”. Never… we like to think the reason for that today is because Hopi is an “ethnicity” or something and you have to be born a Hopi. But being Hopi is a lot more than just who your parents are, its a culture, a way of life, traditions, religion.. a society.
But societies that are “civilized”.. they use missionaries and warriors to convert people to their way of life (or die!) because they are all predicated upon the belief that their way of life is “best”. It’s what Bush is appealing to with his “spreading democracy” talk. It’s what Jakarta is talking about when it sends troops to Aceh. It’s what Beijing is talking about last week at the SCO in Almaty. It’s what France was talking about at the EU meeting 3 weeks ago. It’s what Museveni is talking about when the UDF goes into Acholiland…
The IMF and World Bank are the two largest missionary organizations in the world.. doing their best to get people to live the “right” way, the one and only “right” way, the same for everyone…
For the sons and daughters of “civilization”, the feeling that there is one right way for everyone to live doesn’t ebb when the get older.. it just transmutes into something broader. But it’s still there.
Pax
to have you post in this thread.
I think I could talk to you about this endlessly and we still would find it rewarding.
I’m in a very overcast mood, which I am trying to turn to productive uses.
When I consider that some of my greatest heros were absolutist pacifists I realize once again that Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative was the worst philsophical construction of all time.
I’m not sure what an “absolute pacifist” is, to be honest with you.
If I try to discuss being an advocate for peace, sometimes people say well are you saying that people should’ve let Hitler rule the world and not fight him?
Let me tell you something.. Hitler was one man, with two arms and two legs. It took millions of supporters to do his evil. And if those millions had said “no” there would never have been an invasion of Poland or anywhere else.
And as for those nations he invaded, there were people who collaborated with and obeyed their occupiers. If those people had said “no”, there could not be an occupation.
People say to me, well if you were an ordinary Pole and said “no” to the German occupiers, you would’ve been shot. Yes I would’ve. And I would’ve died and nothing would have changed. But if everyone said no, then everything would’ve changed.
I really have no interest in converting everyone to my beliefs. I have them because they work for me. I’ve seen violence and I’ve seen what it does to people’s lives. I choose to live my life differently. And since we all die anyway, I have to choose the best life for me.
Pax
would you care to elaborate on the Categorical Imperative comment? I’d agree that it’s leaky, like all pithy “rules”, but no more so than, say, the Golden Rule. What are you getting at, and how did this revelation occur in connection with pacifism?
the imperative asks us to act at all times as though our actions would be taken up by all people.
You should never expect, or want, all people to mimic your actions. It’s pig-headed.
The imperative suggests that the test of a behavior is whether you’d be willing to allow everyone else to do the same thing. There’s nothing about WANTING them to, or not wanting for that matter. It’s just another way of saying act in such a way that the world would get better, by your lights, if everybody acted the way you do.
It has its flaws and exceptions, but no more than the golden rule, of which it is basically a more socially concious restatement.
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”- Immanuel Kant
I’m not in the mood for Kantian exegesis. If you look into hypothetical vs. categorical imperatives, and then look at the big ‘C’ imperative, you’ll realize what I’m talking about.
Aristotle’s proto-utlititarianism is a better model. Kant’s argument rests on the theory that we cannot be moral if we pursue ends that we would not like to see universally pursued. My whole point here is that it is better to have a world where different ends are pursued than one in which all ends are agreed upon.
This is a little simplistic for brevities sake, but Kant was suffering from the same hubris that all ideologues suffer from: the will to make everyone agree with them.
“maxim” means standard of behavior, not “end”. He’s saying that if you’re wondering whether it would be OK to cheat on your taxes, think about whether you’re willing that everybody else do it, too. I don’t see how you can argue that the world would not be a better place if we all did that little thought experiment. He’s not talking about making laws. Jeez.
If you’re saying that it’s an inadequate guide, I agree. So’s the golden rule and every other short try at Ethics for Dummies. If King W is taxing my pittance at 50% and Cheney’s at 1%, the “imperative” doesn’t really tell me much about whether it’s ethically OK to cheat. It doesn’t, IOW, cover ethics in unjust societies.
I guess it’s really the accusation of ideological hubris that annoys me because it’s too shallow to be worthy of you or him. Reminds me of me ol’ grandpa when he told all who would listen that a Bach etude sounded like a box of drowning cats. (He was pissed because the church had brought in a piano instead of staying with all organ all the time.)
If I were in a good mood I suppose I’d just be amused at accusations of ideologness from somebody who runs an ideology website. But I’m in an even worse mood than yesterday, so we are not amused. How’s your mood doin”?
Yes! Perhaps the biggest problem with “civilization” is self-delusion. Civilizations always believe they’re “civilized”, and this very belief prevents them from achieving such status.
Good diary. I’m exhausted and just got back from the bahhh (bar in boston) so bear with me.
What I wonder is that maybe your argument debunks pacifism. If pacifists can not stand up to violance than this shows a serious problem with the ideology. However,the benefits of a pacifist perspective, the ideas to opposition of the use of force is not conditioned per se on pacifists, many folks here that probably do not consider themselves pacifists articulate similar if not identical arguments against the use of force in certain matters.
I don’t know exactly where I stand, I think you make good points about balance and the ideas of right wingers being tight with money. I just wonder if this indicates the value of philisophical introspection more than the need for people to “stick to their guns”.
If pacifists can not stand up to violance than this shows a serious problem with the ideology.
There’s more than one way to stand up against violence. That is the ideology.
Yes. I totally agree with you about there veing various ways to stand up against violence. I have deep admiration for many pacifists.
I think the point I was trying to make was that one can engage in non-violence civil disobedience or choose not to conspire in a given situation without being an absolutist pacifist.
*non-violent
everyone would adopt their philosophy, or world view…
I doubt that most people ever take the time to really develop a philosophy, or world view, of their own. If they did then they would be questioning their reality , as good philosophers do, and the world would be a better place simply because of all the inquisitive, curious, minds proliferating.
For most people their “philosophical mindset” is handed to them in easy, bite sized, chunks. —-> Have a slab of libertarian beef to go with your Christian theological soup, there you go. You can’t possibly believe in that socialist nonsense bcause it’s obviously been discredited because i say so.
Next!
^_^
I’m a pacifist…and I’m right…all the time…deal with it.
yeah, right… 🙂
well, I am a pacifist at least…
my daughter’s natural father grabbed her when she was a baby and he was angry with me. He looked me in the eye and called me a name and gave her a small shake and he did it again, and then one more time. That was the day that I was no longer a pacifist. I don’t know what I am now. After I persuaded him to give me my daughter and I made sure she was safe I went after him, I think I meant to kill him. He ruptured my ear drum taking a wild swing at me defending himself. I had quickly snatched his “very strong” perscription glasses right off of his face and tied them in a knot. Now that I reflect back on that I’m almost sure that I meant to kill him. He swung wildly though and caught me on the side of the head and ruptured my eardrum. I didn’t have any balance so decided to lay down for a bit. I layed there and cried while he apologized for hurting me, but it didn’t really hurt it just felt odd and I didn’t have my balance. I cried because I never knew that I had that in me and it scared me to death, I didn’t know what to do with it. I had had arguments around the table with my friends about how I would rather die than kill someone or hurt someone robbing my house and I meant that…….then I had kids. That part of me that I found that day I respect. I know that it is there and it will do me no good to attempt to hide it from myself, it just is and I have to deal with it.
in retrospect, would the world now be a better place if you had killed him (and gotten away with it), or would it have been a tragedy?
I wish I knew. I didn’t desire to do anything that I might regret later and my balance returned in about 20 minutes. I left and never looked back. When our daughter was a year old he obtained visitation rights which just about killed me emotionally. Years down the road he couldn’t seem to make paying his child support a priority and my husband wanted to adopt her so he was more than glad to get her off of his hands it seemed. She has needed some counseling due to his “whatever” approach towards her or his “whatever will make your mother miserable” approach. For me the jury is still out and may always be. I don’t think that I could deal with my child knowing that I had offed their father though, so for her I’m glad that he still walks the earth for all we know right now.
What happens to our reflections on right and wrong if we shift this from “if only everyone would adopt my philosophy, or world view” to “if only everyone would ACT like me?”
I find the review of my actions (besides being sooo uncomfortable) gets me out of my head and into my heart.
My answer is, it would be a disaster–not because I’m a bad person, but because we need the diversity of people with different gifts, dispositions, and goals.
And I’m one of the BEST kind of people! 😉
In fact, I’m such a good person, I constantly fall short of my own high ideals . . .
The world has become such a grey dark place and if ALL people don’t start thinking and reflecting about their thoughts-which is ALWAYS HEALTHY!-we will prove the Dumb-downed factor as succesful.
Everyday I wonder if I am thinking correctly. I use to be a pacifist, until Bush came into office- now all I want is to see that man GONE in any way shape or manner.
The atrocities associated with ‘HIS’ group, assault every part of my emotional comfort and security.
At Kos they are now attacking those of us who consider Conspiracy Theories. I say how can we not consider them with all the lies and the NO TRUST in the White House, MSM, etc.,?
An example- if anyone has ever lived with an abuser, drug or alcohol addict you understand the ‘lack of trust factor’. One is always on guard in those situations.
Bush is all of these things and he holds what is considered the most important powerful position in the whole world.
Mind Blindness is running rampant and I’m sick of the Blind leading the Blind.
I am pleased to see that you Boo are open and honest enough to question yourself openly-unlike Kos who seems quite politically close-minded.
I needed this post this morning – not sure if I’m the wild-eyed radical or the easy-going crone today. Woke up ready to cut the wild-eyed one loose on another thread after you slapped me down – oh why not?
I don’t know anything about those people you mention, but I gather that they are definitely wrong according to my lights, and you are one of those lights.
Even my own brothers (who love me totally) cannot agree with my worldview, hence my own personal motto ‘we’re ALL nuts!’ We are all different parts of a Great Spirit, each living in his own version of reality. The struggle is learning how to share this world.
It’s simple – “E Pluribus Unum” – Out of many, One. Diversity of life is the thing that persuades me of God’s existence. It seems to make sense that America be the focal point for defining religion.
Yak, yak,yak. I think we’re all trying to work out where we stand on everything, but for now standing with the flock, making a ruckus about it. I study animal behavior to understand humans. To me BT is a big flock of seabirds on a cliff squawking away. Occassionally one or two birds will fly off and return, but here we sit, together.
One way of looking at it is as an “ecosystem of ideas.”
In a given world situation (“environment”), some ideas will be more productive of human health, wealth, and happiness than others, and will tend to be adopted by more and more people. A new philosophy, like a new species, may be developed (“evolve”) to address unmet needs. No philosophy to date has met all needs in all cases, but some do better in most situations most of the time, and become “generally accepted as true” (at least for now).
The more ideas that are floating around at any given time, the more adaptable a culture will be to changes in the world. A culture that is fixed into a very narrow set of ideas or that does not allow any “deviancy from truth” will find itself falling behind other nations over time, seen as a cultural, political, and economic backwater by others (East Germany; North Korea).
And when there are a number of ideas floating around, they can be arranged on any particular axis one would like, from one extreme to the other: pacifist – militarist, individualist – communitarian, theist – atheist, etc. As the world changes, sometimes one extreme will be more useful, sometimes the other.
As the Dood wisely pointed out above, you need both the yin and yang to make the world go ’round.
“Ultimately, America’s answer to the intolerant man is diversity…” – Robert F Kennedy
And for an individual, there’s no crime in admitting “The ideas I held then doesn’t seem to work in our conditions now; maybe I need to change my mind.” Call that humility, which is “generally accepted as being better than” pride; or call it “adaptability.”
A “wise” person or society would be one that is well adapted to – and adaptable to – the world around it (among other traits), while realizing that there are certain meta-truths, such as the freedom of the marketplace of ideas, that are non-negotiable precisely because they foster human/social well-being and survival in a wide range of circumstances, as evidenced by history.
Or as somebody else once said:
For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
There is a time for being ahead,
a time for being behind;
a time for being in motion,
a time for being at rest;
a time for being vigorous,
a time for being exhausted;
a time for being safe,
a time for being in danger.
Tao Te Ching, #29
Well written. The word “opinion” is implied here, and should be mentioned, given our propensity to form passionate views about so many things without any real knowledge of them or experience with them. And although it seems people do this less as they age, in some cases its because they now choose to hold these views in versus speak them outloud.
There are cultures that emphasize the idea of refining one’s mind–then travelling and gaining experience–and schooling, too–before getting into the habit of forming passionate views. In fact, most cultures view dispassionate people as more intelligent, as they have demonstrated NOT that they suppress emotion (as many americans guess) but that they are no longer slaves to their emotions (obviously different).
And the idea of counterweights is interesting, as I am sure that the situation you have described does work like that, sort of. But you could also say that then everything is balanced, but stays in a less developed stage (or like Gandhi is reputed to have said–an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind).
So rather than debate this, I can say it would be an improvement, to say the least, if we in this country learned to outgrow forming passionate views, and learned to truly come to understand a topic–the whole topic, not the parts that we are attracted to or disagree with (after the education and experience, whatever passion remains is not a problem, in case someone is going to argue passion is good).
People that oppose abortion AND the death penalty, keep a spotlight on the value of each life, real or potential.
Pardon me but this is not true and it’s particularly not true when a person wishes to criminalize abortion in a culture where the human lives forced to carry pregnancies to term do not have access to the necessities of life and in which the biological father is not going to be helpful.
The women and girls whose lives they would impact are, demonstrably, human lives also. I understand that they are not valued human lives in the eyes of many but that bias and world view is a large part of the problem.
My main political concerns center in poverty eradication and my concern about reproductive rights for women is centered in this. I don’t see how it’s possible to come down on the side of criminalizing abortion, particularly in the current social reality, without devaluing human lives. In the abortion (and contraceptive) debates the choice is between devaluing potential human lives or actual ones. This unpleasant and irresolvable conflict is what makes abortion debates so often acrimonious. If we actually valued ‘human life’ we would be working towards alleviating the social conditions which make abortion the only or most viable alternative in a difficult situation.
with what you’re saying, Colleen, is that I could argue that because almost all capital crimes involve murder, anyone who opposes the death penalty is devaluing the lives of those that have been killed.
Sure, there is some truth to that position, but it’s grossly unfair to twist principled opposition to the death penalty into disrespect for life.
The same is true with what you are saying about people that oppose the death penalty AND abortion.
I think that there is no realistic way of banning abortion that wont violate other principles, like privacy, and that it would inevitably damage the quality of health care for all women. So, I think the pro-lifers should focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies, not banning a medical procedure.
But, there is some value from passionate people advocating for the sanctity of all-life, even early-term pregnancy. It helps people realize that they should treat their sex-lives seriously, and be responsible about birth control.
It’s another example of where being principled, and wrong, can still have positive effects.
Of course, the net effect of the pro-life movement is negative. But without people advocating for respect for life, we would be worse off.
Notice I excluded pro-lifers that are pro-death penalty. They are not principled and have nothing to contribute but hypocrisy.
they are a tiny, tiny, minority in the “pro-life” cults. I agree with you, Boo, in at least respecting the views of folks like the late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago, who stood equally against judicial murder, war, and abortion as part of his “whole garment” philosophy, which also included universal health care and deep wealth redistribution. I disagree with him on abortion because of the side effects of criminalizing it, but still had great respect for the philosophy of which it was a part.
I knew a particular philosphy major in college who was very good at turning a phrase to make his points seem so very sensible. Problem was, he used this talent to try to talk girls into bed. Taken on their own, in their own context, his arguments seemed to defy questioning. Take one step back, into reality, and you could see that he was full of shit.
So it is with any point of view that is insulated: they may sound wonderful and logical and unassailable, but in the clear light generated by many points of view, may be revealed as less than realistic. Extremists tend to be very insulated from views and ideas that may question their beliefs. Democracy is all about kicking around many points of view and then compromising. It’s about listening to each other and being willing to bend. Extremists don’t listen. The problem that we have now is that extremists are in charge. Our president is like one of those college girls buying into the bullshit… and we all get screwed for it.
on a similar theme:
It has occurred to me that we on the left and those on the right are really separate only if we allow ourselves to be. We need to challenge them and ourselves to go beyond the name calling and the biases and find common ground. We have allowed ourselves and our country to become split and fertile hunting ground for the vampires of greed and power lusting leeches. Yes we have right on our side (they probably think they do to). But unless we find a way to heal the split only the corporate dogs will find anything of a meal from any decisions coming out of DC for the next era. We have common ground in how we view the media. We actually have common ground in how we view the judiciary. They don’t want Gonzales either.
But here I can go further. I think we need to drop repubs and dems both and go for character, forthrightness and, for lack of a better word, steel. We can’t do business with the blobs that try to cling to money.
If some of the cultish Christians were smart, they would view their leaders with a jaundiced eye if they wear rolexes and Italian suits. I think of Billy Graham and his sartorial splendor. And I think he is putting it all over people. He is no better than you or I. Nor are all the Jame Dobsons, Ralph Reeds, etc.
I wish we could look to all our commonalities and find space for those.
There are facts. Disagree with a fact and you’re wrong. The speed limit is 186,000 miles per second. Deal with it. 😉
There are Deductive Truths. Disagree and you’re wrong. No matter how one feels about it: (p -> q) = (~p V q).
Inductive Truth is somewhat different. In these types of Truth there are some that have been shown to be Universal (Always) Truths, such as the Theory of Gravity. There are some that are only Existential (Sometimes) Truths: connect the emitter to the base of a transistor without a cut-off will lead to thermal runaway; hook the emitter and base with a cut-off will eliminate thermal runaway. The only answer to the questions, “Does hooking the emitter to the base of a transistor cause thermal runaway” is, “Maybe.” A Yes/No (Excluded Middle) answer is dependent on the Condition of a cut-off in the circuit.
To keep this post within limits, I’m going to brazenly assert: The ‘World as We Know It’ fundamentally exists in the Existential (Sometimes) where we can apply the system of Modal Logic. I’m not going to explain Modal Logic in-depth (everyone breathes a sigh of relief) but only say there are two distinct figures: the Necessary,’that which must’ and the Possible,’that which may,’ roughly matching the Universal and Existential Truths.
Denotic Logic, the logic of praxis (human action,) is comparable to Modal Logic with ‘Obligatory’ replacing ‘Necessary’ and ‘Permitted’ replacing ‘Possible.’
Postulant I: I’m going to pull on my bootstraps until I land on the moon.
This is false-to-fact; you can’t do that.
Postulant II: Poverty can be eliminated if everyone works hard.
This is True only conditionally: (A) Some people are in a condition to achieve wealth through some condition_ that is Possible and Permitted; (B) Some people are in a condition to achieve wealth through some condition that is Possible but Not Permitted – e.g., drug dealing; (C) Some people are in a condition where it is Permitted but not Possible – e.g., they lack an education.
To point at II.A only is as False-to-Fact as Postulant I. The total potentiality is A AND B AND C and anything said about Poverty must include all of these to become Truth-to-Fact.
The same exposition can be applied to Pacifism.
Postulant III: Violence is never morally correct (Permitted.)
Violence exists, it is Possible, so the question becomes is it Permitted? Since it is Possible, we can assign – however arbitrarily – a probability: say 10/90. Within the 10/90 Possible there will be Conditions where Violent Action occurs and Conditions triggering a Non-Violent Action. Just as with Postulant II to point at the 10% and forbid the label ‘Pacifist’ is to illogically ignore the 90% and visa versa.
The label, or Property, ‘Pacifist’ is thus dependent on whether one points at the 10% or 90%.
Most of us manage to struggle through the day without hacking other people to death with an axe in the normal course of human interaction. (This is what Moral Philosophers deem ‘A Good Thing.’) But, say, 99.999999999999999999999999% of the time we have ‘non-hacking’ and 0.0000000000000000000000001% of the time we achieve ‘hacking’ under some condition. What then?
The same reasoning applies which intimates (argument elided) there is something wrong with our Postulant. So let’s re-formulate it to something we can logically deal with:
Postulant III(A): What Possible conditions exist such that Violence is Permitted?
And now we have asked a question we can answer and, just like the transistor example above, we have weasled out of the Excluded Middle into Yes/No/Maybe Conditional Logic.
So when BooMan writes, “When a war is wrong and needs to be prevented, or ended, we need pacifists. We need pacifists to strongly question the validity of any proposed use of force, even when that use of force is necessary.” We readily see that the Necessary is NOT the same as the Permitted and there is a valid argument from the stance of (Possible + Not-Permitted.) To put it another way, the Necessary does not, ipso facto, equate to the Obligatory.
Further, when one “feel[s] assaulted by right-wing absolutists” – someone stuck in the Excluded Middle – there is an ‘out’ by being able to nuance by invoking the Conditional ‘Maybe.’