Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

What is non-violence?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» What is non-violence?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Violence is just that thing that deprives us of love and good, brotherly attitude to people. However, it can never give us what it promises because actually when one applies force, he does that to protect his material state. But all those things are indifferent to our happiness, and everyone having arrived at possession of them may well see that. So having sacrificed his mental peace, possibility of brotherly love, one is struggling for his Nothing.
Seeing all that, real world teachers taught non-violence, non-resitance. However, all they failed to prevent their adherents from violence. Why? I think because those teachings became themselves value, just as previous material things. So, I think that in order to really give up violence, one should not be attached to any ideology or religion: be that Christianity or Buddhism, or Hindooism. Only when one may, as Ch'an saying states, 'kill the Buddha if he meets the Buddha', he may be called non-violent.

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

Violence is just that thing that deprives us of love and good, brotherly attitude to people. However, it can never give us what it promises because actually when one applies force, he does that to protect his material state. But all those things are indifferent to our happiness, and everyone having arrived at possession of them may well see that. So having sacrificed his mental peace, possibility of brotherly love, one is struggling for his Nothing.
Seeing all that, real world teachers taught non-violence, non-resitance. However, all they failed to prevent their adherents from violence. Why? I think because those teachings became themselves value, just as previous material things. So, I think that in order to really give up violence, one should not be attached to any ideology or religion: be that Christianity or Buddhism, or Hindooism. Only when one may, as Ch'an saying states, 'kill the Buddha if he meets the Buddha', he may be called non-violent.

It is natural behavior made deliberate...

@Eudaimon,

A conventionalized or institutionalized ideology is dangerous because such a situation is the seedling for manipulation and authoritative enslavement.

Spiritual autonomy is necessary but it results in a coherent worldview, ie, an ideology. If no ideology existed we might as well walk around with our heads cut off, never knowing exactly where in the greater scheme of things to file away beliefs or knowledge. Spiritual autonomy does, however, result in an amorphous ideology that alters itself to fit new info, rather than the other way around, and is willing to absorb and embrace better ideas as they come. However, it does not eschew the "gut feeling"; instead it conditions itself with it.

Is non-violence the absence of passion?

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey wrote:

Spiritual autonomy is necessary but it results in a coherent worldview, ie, an ideology. If no ideology existed we might as well walk around with our heads cut off, never knowing exactly where in the greater scheme of things to file away beliefs or knowledge. Spiritual autonomy does, however, result in an amorphous ideology that alters itself to fit new info, rather than the other way around, and is willing to absorb and embrace better ideas as they come. However, it does not eschew the "gut feeling"; instead it conditions itself with it.

Why should we have ideology at all? To do what is good for me I don't
need any ideology or belief.

rhinogrey wrote:

Is non-violence the absence of passion?

That depends on what we understand under passion. If it is uncntolling desire than it is certainly alien to non-violence.
To be non-violent one needs to be free from everything. But Freedom, as an Arab proverb states, is not when thou dost not possess anything, it is when nothing possesses thee.

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

Why should we have ideology at all? To do what is good for me I don't
need any ideology or belief.

We have questions that need answers. Our answers are our beliefs.

If we didn't have beliefs, we would have no need for violence. Violence is, more or less, the physical imposition of our answers upon other people. If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. I think this is about intellectual independence. What I read online was that the Buddha's followers were horrified at the idea of killing the Buddha and supposed to realize that they identified with the Buddha - they were the Buddha - intellectual authorities in their own right. That is my take, anyway.

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon,

It took me a little while to actually digest your short post on this topic. It's not that what you wrote is confusing or anything it's trying to figure out where you were going with it. I do however; have some issues with what claims you make in it.

When you say:

Quote:

Violence is just that thing that deprives us of love and good, brotherly attitude to people.

Couldn't the simple use of words cause deprivation of love and good brotherly attitude? So words can be violent even without physical actions. Yes, No, maybe?

Quote:

Seeing all that, real world teachers taught non-violence, non-resitance. However, all they failed to prevent their adherents from violence. Why?

Yeah teaching non-violence is actually violent words against people who love violence. This is why teachers get killed for using peaceful tactics to end violence. Through non-violent confrontation violence in inactivity arises. This is why Gandhi was killed. His non-violent approach to the struggle between the Hindu and Muslims created additional conflict which ended up with his death as a result.

So I will further add that non-violent approaches to solutions actually create verbal violence simply by existing. But teachers neglect this and teach it anyways...

It is also why protests can easily become viewed by those protested against as violent demonstrations even if people are holding hands and singing love songs.

@Krumple,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

We have questions that need answers. Our answers are our beliefs.

Can't we have answers without beliefs?

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

If we didn't have beliefs, we would have no need for violence. Violence is, more or less, the physical imposition of our answers upon other people. If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. I think this is about intellectual independence.

Yes, this statement means intellectual independence. As it seems to me, it teaches not to be attached even to those things that made one free. Only this leads to real, ultimate liberation and freedom from violence, so that even even if someone comes and says: "I hate your Buddha, Christ, Gandhi and their non-violence", one may remain peaceful, undisturbed.

Krumple wrote:

Yeah teaching non-violence is actually violent words against people who love violence. This is why teachers get killed for using peaceful tactics to end violence. Through non-violent confrontation violence in inactivity arises. This is why Gandhi was killed. His non-violent approach to the struggle between the Hindu and Muslims created additional conflict which ended up with his death as a result.
So I will further add that non-violent approaches to solutions actually create verbal violence simply by existing. But teachers neglect this and teach it anyways...
It is also why protests can easily become viewed by those protested against as violent demonstrations even if people are holding hands and singing love songs.

Non-violence becomes violent when it turns into kind of belief, one's personal conviction. Real non-violence does not need demonstrations and protests, it's just cold consideration what is better for me. If I say to some one that it were better for him to be non-violent, where is here grounds for rise of violence for him against me?
Though Gandhi was killed, he died peacefully, without hatred. Non-violence was good for him, does not matter what the others were doing.

@Eudaimon,

How can I answer a question if I don't believe there is a question and an answer, and that my words answer the question?

If words can be violent, can some words be more violent than others? If so, what are the least violent words?

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

How can I answer a question if I don't believe there is a question and an answer, and that my words answer the question?

I am perplexed with this statement:perplexed:. If I am asking how stone falls on earth, need I believe there is question?

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

If words can be violent, can some words be more violent than others? If so, what are the least violent words?

I think violent in general are words uttered with hatred. So, non-violent words are those uttered without hatred.

@Eudaimon,

If you are asking how a stone falls, you are asking a question. I believe so.

It is perplexing. If you say the ocean is blue, you some have some measure of conviction, correct? If you say the ocean is orange, you are probably just joking. The difference is you believe the ocean is blue, not orange. So it is with everything. We ask what color is that? and we have answers we believe.

Hateful words can deprive another of his brotherly attitudes, is that right?
If I say, "I hate so-and-so's taste in music!" am I, in this instance, violent?

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

We have questions that need answers. Our answers are our beliefs.

If we didn't have beliefs, we would have no need for violence. Violence is, more or less, the physical imposition of our answers upon other people. If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. I think this is about intellectual independence. What I read online was that the Buddha's followers were horrified at the idea of killing the Buddha and supposed to realize that they identified with the Buddha - they were the Buddha - intellectual authorities in their own right. That is my take, anyway.

Beliefs are the wrong answer...The right answer is almost always: I don't know.. Beliefs kill... Certainty kills...Better to be uncertain and do no harm... We make much of Jesus dying for us...How many people have got to die for Jesus before we say enough with these fool beliefs that excuse so much suffering and murder???

@Eudaimon,

I think violence is less of people needing belief, thats religion. Violence may simply be something to entertain our minds. I think violence may have more to do with us wanting excitement, chaos, and anything out of the ordinary. Violence represents quite a few things, in some cases anger, in some cases honor, in some cases defiance, and in some cases just plain excitement and attention-getting. It's hard to tell why us human's thrive off violence. Some may say it's because of our bottled up emotions from past experiences. It's very complex and i'll have to take a better look at some information on this.

This is what explainly my views on violence more than well Tool - Vicarious lyrics

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

How can I answer a question if I don't believe there is a question and an answer, and that my words answer the question?

If words can be violent, can some words be more violent than others? If so, what are the least violent words?

All words are concepts, which is to say judgements...Just because we use words to express a judgement, say; that the sky is blue, does not mean we have to follow up the judgement with an execution...

Consider the joke about the wisest man in the world... When the man who had quit his job, and left his wife and family, and traveled half way around the world through jungles, over deserts and montains to find what was life, and the wise man said: Life is a Garden, then the seeker grew irate...He said: You mean to tell me that I came half way around the world over every kind of obsticle and quit my job and left my family to hear you tell me life is a garden??? What kind of shet is this??? And the wise man said: So, it's not a garden...

People need to stand up for right and justice when it reduces violences and stand up for peace when ever justice can be achieved without violence...Sooner or later all people give ground if they do not want to be buried in it... One should concede every possible point...People may stand on principals, but they live on necessities...We are playing the long game...

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

I think violence is less of people needing belief, thats religion. Violence may simply be something to entertain our minds. I think violence may have more to do with us wanting excitement, chaos, and anything out of the ordinary. Violence represents quite a few things, in some cases anger, in some cases honor, in some cases defiance, and in some cases just plain excitement and attention-getting. It's hard to tell why us human's thrive off violence. Some may say it's because of our bottled up emotions from past experiences. It's very complex and i'll have to take a better look at some information on this.

This is what explainly my views on violence more than well Tool - Vicarious lyrics

I think there may be some sic fcccks who crave ciolence for excitment... The can tell that from people with slow heart rates at birth, and they would eliminate them if they could...Instead they will try to make them, maybe with an identity chip... For most people; I think violence is a form of communication... When we endure violence we cannot communicate it except through violence... Can you express a punch in the nose with a poem??? Perhaps with a bit of music, or a painting???What if you have starved, been robbed, or raped??? How do you tell some one how it feels...The weak express what they feel when they feel violent... The intelligent try to endure it, and hang on to their humanity...Speaking personally...It is a challenge...

@Eudaimon,

"One should concede every possible point"

Belief is necessary and good. It is vital. Will you concede this point to me?

I understand you to say that belief is folly and we do not live on principals on the one hand. On the other, I understand you to say that "I don't know" is the principled answer to any question and we should stand up and oppose violence because we believe violence is wrong. I am confused.

@Eudaimon,

It is not possible to concede that point entirely... We know so little, and believe so much, that desiring violence, or suffering avarice we can find any excuse to do each other in... Admitting our ignorance, and rejecting as much belief as we can we deny to ourselves the false right to do harm... Consider old Socrates... When he was ordered to go and arrest a man by the Oligarchs, he went home...He may have been very responsible for the anti democratic feeling of that group, but he could not compound the injury he had done, which goes to his credit...Rather than believe, people should accept what is obvious, that we are all human, all have needs, all feel pain, all have a common thread running through us which should bind all of humanity to a common purpose that only by choice and profound belief will anyone break with another..Will you concede that point???

@Fido,

Yes and no.

I would agree with the proposition that we should accept the obvious. I would agree with we should admit our ignorance.

I would disagree with the idea that we should reject as much belief as we can.

Socrates questioned our beliefs, but he did not discourage us from having them. That is just assertion, I actually don't know much about Socrates.

@Ultracrepidarian,

I doubt you can question without challenging the basis of belief...In any respect, I feel inhibited about replies at this time, so I will leave you to your beliefs...

@Fido,

Oh, okay. Let's leave it there.

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Yeah teaching non-violence is actually violent words against people who love violence.

Please be elaborative on what you mean by this statement.
Thanks,
William

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------

The English language, especially how Americans use it is entirely too ambiguous to extract true meaning and can be manipulated to do just that. Passion and desire when used in any other context other than that relationship between a man and a woman gets us in trouble every time.
Passion and desire when used to justify wants can get totally out of hand as the "self" and greed overtake common sense.

If one has the talent to draw, or sing does not necessarily mean they have a passion or desire for it. That would indicate a lack of the ability to do so, In that case, there would be a passion or desire that would transform to "discontent". No person should be stifled from that for which comes natural to them for that indeed generates passion and desire and that can lead to violence. Power, greed, and status are not "natural". They are man made and all are products of passion and desire gone wrong.

For what it's worth, in my humble opinion, my two cents.

William

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» What is non-violence?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

What is non-violence?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know