Pacifism

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
Fomalhaut
Posts: 169
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:16 pm

Pacifism

Post by Fomalhaut »

I have been thinking a lot about Pacifism lately. What are your thoughts about it?

I have been interviewed by a person for her bachelor's thesis and during out conversation she reminded me the verse from Luke "And to him who strikes you on your cheek, offer the other, and from whoever takes away your cloak, withhold not your coat also.”

When I take this verse literally, I see two-ways violent action. One for the person who is turning his other cheek when he is hit and additionally for the person who hits him- this effects his whole karma. So I do not see this as pacifism. I am not a bible expert and there might be a symbolism behind the verse but this is my simple approach to it.

For me, pacifism is simply about taking the right action.
"I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become."
— C.G. Jung
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Pacifism

Post by Nefastos »

The talk we had a couple of years ago in the Finnish forum (here) made me realize more fully than before that pacifism as a form of quite extreme idealism is an esoterical practice. This makes sense considering the passage you cited, & how Tolstoy & Ervast saw that it was the Nazarene's pacifism precisely that made the crucial (no pun intended) point in his esoterical school.

For if we think pacifism as an element in the world, it quickly starts to see as utopistic by most people. The trick is, we use non-idealistic, hence non-esoteric logic in that. To be an idealist is to believe that there are things that have their effective power regardless of how the outcome first may seem. For example, thinking that not raising arms against invaders will give us best results in the long run even though the immediate results of our (non-)action will be painful & humiliating.

Luckily that is not the case in many countries, but here in Finland a male person will be imprisoned as soon as he comes to age if he's an absolute pacifist.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Jiva
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Pacifism

Post by Jiva »

Personally I find the relationship between the extremes of “an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” a difficult one. Ultimately, I don’t think a Kantian maxim is appropriate. On the one hand “an eye for an eye” simply propagates more violence, while on the other “turn the other cheek” seems to me to be quite similar to Nietzsche’s Last Man hypothesis, where people become so passive and conciliatory that nothing really happens due to the tolerance of everything. Perhaps predictably though, I think Nietzsche was essentially correct with his Amor Fati principle in trying to see the beauty and necessity in everything, something I consider a much more active approach. It allows for a larger range of approaches than the black-and-white Biblical examples, as there are more courses of action open to me if someone tries to punch me than taking it on the cheek or punching them back. On a larger scale, I wouldn’t take Gandhi’s suggestion and throw myself from the cliffs, as there are other options available…
'Oh Krishna, restless and overpowering, this mind is overwhelmingly strong; I think we might as easily gain control over the wind as over this.'
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Pacifism

Post by Wyrmfang »

Jiva wrote:Ultimately, I don’t think a Kantian maxim is appropriate.
Just a note about the categorical imperative, this is from Deleuze´s Kant´s Critical Philosophy:
We have seen that faculty of desire is capable of a higher form: when it is determined not by representations of objects (of sense or intellect), nor by a feeling of pleasure or pain which would link this kind of representation to the will, but rather by the representation of a pure form. This pure form is that of a universal legislation. The moral law does not represent itself as a comparative and psychological universal (for example: 'Do unto others! etc.). The moral law orders us to think the maxim of our will as 'principle of a universal legislation'. An action which withstands this logical test, that is to say an action whose maxim can be thought without contradiction as universal law, is at least consistent with morality. The universal, in this sense, is a logical absolute.
The well known basic structure of Kant´s moral philosophy is not that much about anything normative like the golden rule (although no doubt Kant thought it was about that too) but it is an essential element in a metaphysical justification that there truly is such thing as morality (or more precisely, that we necessarily believe so), and as such I find it very successful.

See if I have to say something about pacifism some other day.
User avatar
Cancer
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:45 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Pacifism

Post by Cancer »

Jiva wrote:... “turn the other cheek” seems to me to be quite similar to Nietzsche’s Last Man hypothesis, where people become so passive and conciliatory that nothing really happens due to the tolerance of everything.
In my opinion this verse isn't about passivity. It's about saying no. No to violence of course, but also no to fear and no to the worldly, non-idealistic point of view. Someone who turns the other cheek isn't trying to lessen violence here and now (as Fomalhaut pointed out, giving someone an additional chance to hit you probably just causes more violence), but rather just disregard it, act like it isn't even there. This is a form of idealism so extreme that it can be seen as destructive or even evil, and it's everyones own business to decide if it should be followed or not. The question is: is it right to resist violence, and thus inevitably end up using it, or just ignore it, which means also to ignore real problems in a very cold way?
Tiden läker inga sår.
User avatar
Insanus
Posts: 835
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Pacifism

Post by Insanus »

Pacifism as a passive personal trait is as far from esoteric practice as possible.
Only through the problems of violence vs pacifism we might find a deeper goal &/or understanding for which we make the decision whether or not to use violence. Pacifism works IF it's a form of esoteric practice, but otherwise it's fear. In a nietzschean context. Without readiness to violate principles, there's no understanding, just a Demiurge to please whether or not it's called Christian God, Kantian Maxim or psychological trauma.
Jumalan synnit ovat kourallinen hiekkaa ihmisen valtameressä
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Pacifism

Post by Nefastos »

Anything "as a passive personal trait" is as far from esoteric practice as possible... But in a situation where one is actually facing the other's violent side, & makes a personal choice neither to retaliate nor run, I wonder if that ever can be a form of passivity. Stubborness & even idiocy at some situations, maybe, but passivity - I don't think so.

I see the question much like Cancer above, including the open-ended question at the end. Although I'm not as convinced that "turning the other cheek" (which I understand as a metaphor for absolute not-retaliating, not as a form of hubris and/or masochism that it would be if taken literally) would necessarily equal to ignoring the problems. For we can always take another kind of actions even if not using violence, as shown by e.g. Gandhi. One doesn't even need to be altruistic: a yogi choosing the pratyêka path (the path of spiritual solitude) & believing in karma could well choose to be a pacifist simply for his own spiritual benefit.

I think that reading esoteric instructions (like the Sermon on the Mount) in the context is often necessary. In Matthew 5:38-48 - in where the teaching in question is given - Jesus discusses reaching for the God-like perfection, and giving the absolute non-dualism, including absolute ahimsa (non-violence) as a path for this. I see the Nazarene's seemingly almost fanatical teachings as a form of shaking his pupils out of their dualistic thoughts of justificating their anger, petty hatred, fear, &c. Of course, some Christian theologians & zealots took those words literally & ended up creating a millennial martyr-cult of self-degrading masochism & glorified weakness, aptly criticized by Nietzsche & others. But I really can't see the later Christianity being the same as Jesus' original teachings. At all.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
RaktaZoci
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:32 pm
Location: Salo

Re: Pacifism

Post by RaktaZoci »

Nefastos wrote:But I really can't see the later Christianity being the same as Jesus' original teachings. At all.
Agreed.
die Eule der Minerva beginnt erst mit der einbrechenden Dämmerung ihren Flug.
-Hegel
User avatar
Cancer
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:45 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Pacifism

Post by Cancer »

Nefastos wrote:I see the question much like Cancer above, including the open-ended question at the end. Although I'm not as convinced that "turning the other cheek" (which I understand as a metaphor for absolute not-retaliating, not as a form of hubris and/or masochism that it would be if taken literally) would necessarily equal to ignoring the problems. For we can always take another kind of actions even if not using violence, as shown by e.g. Gandhi.
With "ignoring the problems" I was trying to describe the way in which a pacifist attempts to see trough the world as it appears here and now. I purposefully formulated my opinion provocatively, because I can sympathize with the point of view that sees pacifism as a negative thing, either as fear or as something frightening, something almost non-human that is extremely hard to understand.

In a limited sense, a pacifist's refusal to retaliate means tolerating violence ("seeing through" it). This shouldn't be taken to mean that violence could be reduced by violence, but that a pacifist must - in order to avoid emotionally collapsing - forgive the world for being violent. This could in turn be seen as accepting all the outrageously pointless suffering out there, which is why the question at the end of my post remains open-ended. There are no right answers.

In practice pacifism, or what people usually mean by pacifism, is a great world-view that I can support without reserve. It is true that there is nearly always some peaceful action to take, something that's neither violent nor passive. But as a philosophical concept pacifism is not such a simple thing.
Nefastos wrote:I think that reading esoteric instructions (like the Sermon on the Mount) in the context is often necessary.
Amen. Bible quotes are really often interpreted as random, disconnected aphorisms (which I'm also doing above :oops: ). This certainly doesn't make understanding Christianity easier.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tiden läker inga sår.
User avatar
Jiva
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:13 am

Re: Pacifism

Post by Jiva »

Wyrmfang wrote:Just a note about the categorical imperative, this is from Deleuze´s Kant´s Critical Philosophy:
We have seen that faculty of desire is capable of a higher form: when it is determined not by representations of objects (of sense or intellect), nor by a feeling of pleasure or pain which would link this kind of representation to the will, but rather by the representation of a pure form. This pure form is that of a universal legislation. The moral law does not represent itself as a comparative and psychological universal (for example: 'Do unto others! etc.). The moral law orders us to think the maxim of our will as 'principle of a universal legislation'. An action which withstands this logical test, that is to say an action whose maxim can be thought without contradiction as universal law, is at least consistent with morality. The universal, in this sense, is a logical absolute.
The well known basic structure of Kant´s moral philosophy is not that much about anything normative like the golden rule (although no doubt Kant thought it was about that too) but it is an essential element in a metaphysical justification that there truly is such thing as morality (or more precisely, that we necessarily believe so), and as such I find it very successful.
Yeah, I still haven’t been able to appreciate Kant from a more esoteric perspective. It’s the link between the physical and the metaphysical that eludes me, if that makes sense. I realise it’s just a summary, but what’s described above could be crudely summed up as a framework that excuses actions that the conscience (or perhaps super-ego) otherwise wouldn’t allow. I think this is what Insanus was referring to above.

Nefastos wrote:I think that reading esoteric instructions (like the Sermon on the Mount) in the context is often necessary. In Matthew 5:38-48 - in where the teaching in question is given - Jesus discusses reaching for the God-like perfection, and giving the absolute non-dualism, including absolute ahimsa (non-violence) as a path for this. I see the Nazarene's seemingly almost fanatical teachings as a form of shaking his pupils out of their dualistic thoughts of justificating their anger, petty hatred, fear, &c. Of course, some Christian theologians & zealots took those words literally & ended up creating a millennial martyr-cult of self-degrading masochism & glorified weakness, aptly criticized by Nietzsche & others. But I really can't see the later Christianity being the same as Jesus' original teachings. At all.
This was one of the reasons Nietzsche considered Christ the last true Christian. Actually, it’s only just occurred to me that Jesus wasn’t an advocate of the total passivity that could be inferred from the ‘turn the other cheek’ parable as his example of the Cleansing of the Temple demonstrates.

Nefastos wrote:I see the question much like Cancer above, including the open-ended question at the end. Although I'm not as convinced that "turning the other cheek" (which I understand as a metaphor for absolute not-retaliating, not as a form of hubris and/or masochism that it would be if taken literally) would necessarily equal to ignoring the problems. For we can always take another kind of actions even if not using violence, as shown by e.g. Gandhi. One doesn't even need to be altruistic: a yogi choosing the pratyêka path (the path of spiritual solitude) & believing in karma could well choose to be a pacifist simply for his own spiritual benefit.
I wrote my post pretty quickly and mentioned Gandhi in a needlessly oblique way. The quote I was referring to was Gandhi’s comment on the holocaust:
Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.
Essentially, his advice was to basically transpose his experiences in India to a different situation, something I don’t think necessarily works on a practical level. And yes, as Cancer said, this leaves an open-ended question for every such situation, each with a variety of possible answers.
'Oh Krishna, restless and overpowering, this mind is overwhelmingly strong; I think we might as easily gain control over the wind as over this.'
Locked