What is non-violence?

@William,

Originally Posted by Krumple

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

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

Quote:

Please be elaborative on what you mean by this statement.

I'll do that by answering this next quote...

Quote:

If I say, "I hate so-and-so's taste in music!" am I, in this instance, violent?

Yes, but it depends on the volume and who's listening and if there are any torches or pitchforks in hand prior or after saying it.

No but really, words can be violent.

If you talk bad about someone because maybe someone pissed you off and you wanted to vent to a friend about them then next time your friend sees that person their perspective on them changes. I bet not for the best either. Now is this a hateful or harmful thing? Well not initially no, but all that has to do is have a few more things happen and you got a fist fight or an all out brawl on your hands. So yes, I would say words start the spark of violence but it is rare to ever be given credit for in sighting the riot.

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

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.

If I say the ocean is blue, I use the word "blue" so as to express what I perceive. Where is here belief?

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

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?

Hateful words are only those which express our hatred. If I say: "I hate that music", it does not necessary mean that I cannot bear it. It's just that language is too limited and words do not always express our real inner state.

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

If you talk bad about someone because maybe someone pissed you off and you wanted to vent to a friend about them then next time your friend sees that person their perspective on them changes. I bet not for the best either. Now is this a hateful or harmful thing? Well not initially no, but all that has to do is have a few more things happen and you got a fist fight or an all out brawl on your hands. So yes, I would say words start the spark of violence but it is rare to ever be given credit for in sighting the riot.

Thank you for you clarification. Still it is hard to imagine anyone "loving" violence. Violence is a consequence of human frailty. To love something is a desire for something. If someone is angry at someone does not necessarily mean they wish violence to befall that person. A scenario to fit your thought would be someone who instigates a riot because he loves to see people fight, but does not participate in the fight. Perhaps there is a 'real life' circumstance that would validate that thought. But other than Nero fiddling while Rome burned, I can't think of one. IMO.
William

@Eudaimon,

Words can be violent, but what does it take, in the way of (hateful) words to deprive each other of brotherly attitude? It depends upon what we mean by the words, the volume of our voices, and body language.

I have vented or been the "ventee" an incredibly high number of times, but the number of fistfights has been few. My impression is something like a thousand to one.

In the case of of barfights, alchol is the spark.

Words can be deprive another of brotherly attitude, and can also incite physical violence, but what does it take?

Do we sometimes listen to other people and deprive ourselves of our brotherly attitude? I am thinking that most of the time, it is hard for people to agree on who is doing the depriving.

@Ultracrepidarian,

I shall make my standpoint clearer: Bad is that what makes me feel bad. Therefore violence is bad only since it makes me feel bad. Therefore only those words are bad which makes me feel bad. If some one can offend others feeling love and good, there is nothing bad in it.

@Eudaimon,

Quote:

I shall make my standpoint clearer: Bad is that what makes me feel bad. Therefore violence is bad only since it makes me feel bad.

This assumes you mean actions from a human to another human? Can I open a can of worms by asking, well does violence towards animals make you feel bad? If it does then can't we use your definition here that it would be bad?

Someone had to kill the chickens and the cows you eat, but since you don't experience it first hand, is it no longer bad?

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

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.

The point that requires emphasis is that systems, theories, ideologies are worth less than a single material thing; and that all the material things in the world are worth less than a single human life.
Beliefs have their place; and so do things; but in an existential hierarchy of values they are worth relatively little when compared with the richness in properties of a life. "better" means "more valuable." And value is a function of meaning. Lives are more meaningful than ideologiesi -- but, ironicaslly it takes Logic to prove it.
If you agree that life is valuable, then why would you want to abuse it, or assault it -- that is, use violence? You may want to quarantine some anti-social types or those who have what a recent book calls "evil genes." But if you intend to hurt them, then you are on the same level as they: you are an equal meance. We should examine our own assumptions-it may turn out that we have fanatic tendencies (if we are willing to use violence in the name of some good cause -- some belief-system.)

Speaking pragmatically, the record shows that less lives are lost when people engage in nonviolence than when they counter violence with violence. Do we want such an outcome?

It behooves us to get the facts: we should look up, on our favorite search engine, satygraha (truth force) or 'nonviolence' and learn all we can about it, so that we can discuss intelligently. Find out where it's been used, and when, and analyze how effective it has been.

Yes words can harm; and words can heal. There actually is an internet sight named www.wordscanheal.org It was founded by Goldie Hawn and other celebrities. Nonviolent persons strive to avoid abuse - whether physical, verbal, psychological or otherwise. That site gprovides tools on how to form new habits if we have the fault of commiting verbal abuse. Such habits contribute to one's immorality. Using words that heal helps us gain in morality, and become more true to our true selves.

In re your second point, and I quote:

Quote:

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?

No words can deprive someone of his brotherly attitudes if he is really committed to them, is aware of the ABCs of rational-emotive-cognitive psychology, and/or is dedicated to inner peace and knows how to practice it. Refer to the life of Epictetus, the Stoic.

No, you are not violent if you express an authentic feeling of dislike. Hopefully you will do it in a respectful, diplomatic manner revealing your gentle, humble, and compassionate disposition. {Deep down you have one, you know.} :flowers:

@deepthot,

Ah, I was misunderstanding. Does this mean that you would say it is impossible to do deprive others of their brotherly attitudes or that it is possible, but you wouldn't call it violence?

Put simply, I feel good, but make someone else feel bad. Impossible or possible but not violence?

The third alternative is that I am still not seeing the standpoint clearly.

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

Life is more valuable than belief in the sense that life is everything we do, and belief is not. In this sense, life is more valuable than any one thing we do, because we would always give up a small part for the whole. If we have a bad belief which we must give up for the sake of our whole life, we do so. If we have a good belief, we keep it. To live and to believe are not alternatives. Belief is a way to promote life.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

Eudaimon wrote:

If I say the ocean is blue, I use the word "blue" so as to express what I perceive. Where is here belief?

I feel we are at an impasse. I can only think to say that the belief is the expression of what you perceive as opposed to the expression of what you do not. If I lie, I do not believe what I say.

@Ultracrepidarian,

Krumple wrote:

This assumes you mean actions from a human to another human? Can I open a can of worms by asking, well does violence towards animals make you feel bad? If it does then can't we use your definition here that it would be bad?

Someone had to kill the chickens and the cows you eat, but since you don't experience it first hand, is it no longer bad?

Actually, thou art right, if we do not kill animals/humans. But I am still vegetarian just because I thnk it's not preferable/noble to contribute to killing animals. If thou art not, this won't be violence or bad either.

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Ah, I was misunderstanding. Does this mean that you would say it is impossible to do deprive others of their brotherly attitudes or that it is possible, but you wouldn't call it violence?

Put simply, I feel good, but make someone else feel bad. Impossible or possible but not violence?

The third alternative is that I am still not seeing the standpoint clearly.

I feel we are at an impasse. I can only think to say that the belief is the expression of what you perceive as opposed to the expression of what you do not. If I lie, I do not believe what I say.

If it is possible to do violence without harm to oneself, then let him do that. But I doubt that perfect man can ever come to violence. Just because there is nothing he may be deprived of.
Strange definition of belief thou hast given:perplexed:! If I lie know that I lie. If 'to know' means 'to believe'...

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Ah, I was misunderstanding. Does this mean that you would say it is impossible to do deprive others of their brotherly attitudes or that it is possible, but you wouldn't call it violence?--------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

Life is more valuable than belief ...

To live and to believe are not alternatives. Belief is a way to promote life.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

... If I lie, I do not believe what I say.

It is possible to deprive others of their brotherly attitudes, especially if they have a delicate nervous system with a very low frustration tolerance, and they "don't suffer fools gladly!" I wouldn't call it "violence" unless one persisted in "pushing that individual's buttons" -- or as they might speak of it: "aggravating" them.
The point I was attempting to make is that we all are our own worst enemy, and we all manufacture our own feelings - based upon what we tell ourselves [our beliefs.] Our belief system is a set of internalized sentences, such as "I must fear that person." Or "everyone should love me." Or "the world ought to be fair." False beliefs can and do lead to neuroses. They result in self-defeating and counter-productive behavior.

When you write: "Life is more valuable than belief ... " I am happy to see that you agree. I would add: You have good values!!

You say: "To live and to believe are not alternatives. Belief is a way to promote life."
I thoroughly agree with that. I am not opposed to believing. I just would prefer that the beliefs were not held dogmatically and superstitiously. I would like people to have evidence for their beliefs, and that they be coherent and logical.

When you write: "
... If I lie, I do not believe what I say." I have no quarrel with that. It is often true.
The science of Psychology has advanced to a point where it has a lot to say about belief that is useful to know. All those who want to analyze that concept I would refer to learning what is available in the scientific literature which makes the concept more precise - and well-defined within some logical frame-of-reference - before proceding to argue it further. This applies to the concept "lying" also.

---------- Post added at 03:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 AM ----------

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Ah, I was misunderstanding. Does this mean that you would say it is impossible to do deprive others of their brotherly attitudes or that it is possible, but you wouldn't call it violence?--------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

Life is more valuable than belief ...

To live and to believe are not alternatives. Belief is a way to promote life.

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

... If I lie, I do not believe what I say.

It is possible to deprive others of their brotherly attitudes, especially if they have a delicate nervous system with a very low frustration tolerance, and they "don't suffer fools gladly!" I wouldn't call it "violence" unless one persisted in "pushing that individual's buttons" -- or as they might speak of it: "aggravating" them.
The point I was attempting to make is that we all are our own worst enemy, and we all manufacture our own feelings - based upon what we tell ourselves [our beliefs.] Our belief system is a set of internalized sentences, such as "I must fear that person." Or "everyone should love me." Or "the world ought to be fair." False beliefs can and do lead to neuroses. They result in self-defeating and counter-productive behavior.

When you write: "Life is more valuable than belief ... " I am happy to see that you agree. I would add: You have good values!!

You say: "To live and to believe are not alternatives. Belief is a way to promote life."
I thoroughly agree with that. I am not opposed to believing. I just would prefer that the beliefs were not held dogmatically and superstitiously. I would like people to have evidence for their beliefs, and that they be coherent and logical.

When you write: "
... If I lie, I do not believe what I say." I have no quarrel with that. It is often true.
The science of Psychology has advanced to a point where it has a lot to say about belief that is useful to know. All those who want to analyze that concept I would refer to learning what is available in the scientific literature which makes the concept more precise - and well-defined within some logical frame-of-reference - before proceding to argue it further. This applies to the concept "lying" also.

@William,

William wrote:

Thank you for you clarification. Still it is hard to imagine anyone "loving" violence. Violence is a consequence of human frailty. To love something is a desire for something. If someone is angry at someone does not necessarily mean they wish violence to befall that person. A scenario to fit your thought would be someone who instigates a riot because he loves to see people fight, but does not participate in the fight. Perhaps there is a 'real life' circumstance that would validate that thought. But other than Nero fiddling while Rome burned, I can't think of one. IMO.
William

Loving violence is easy, and natural... Life is incredibly frustrating, short, and demanding...Even he best of societies often are very demanding, and harbor a lot of jealosy, anger, envy...Is it any wonder we love a good fight, or a bloody hunt???Much of our violence is covert, and justifed by distance, or circumstance... Boxers are paid, and bouts are sactioned, and it is only when you have met some old boxers do you realize the damage done to people...In some comedies there are bad guys built up to be monsters, and when they are killed, it is from three different camera angles, with lots of gore and usually a fall from a high rise...It does not help...People leave frustrated without the catharsis offerd by higher drama... They need to forgive themselves for being human, and the first step in that is to forgive others for being human...We should attack garbage cultures and not other people, but try it some time and some will decide that if you are attacking the culture you are attacking the people...And... get banned...Anyway, the problem is not violence, which all people are; but with culture which offers its own justification for the sort of violence it desires... And for this reason, violence should be redefined... We think of violence as sudden, and it is anything but... When a child is starved to death, it is an act of violence and perhaps many acts all rolled into one....And the fact that it could be stopped at any number of points by any number of people makes it all the more tragic...Violence is not a cause, but an effect however slow and drawn out...

@Eudaimon,

Theses on non-violence:
1) Non-violence is non-resistance. Those who commit violence almost certainly think they do justice. Thus, non-violence is beyond justice.
2) Violence has its causes. This causes are false understanding of true good and true evil. If some one knows that material goods are nothing, he will not apply violence so as to protect them. Because violence deprives man from real and only good: mental peace.

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

Theses on non-violence:
1) Non-violence is non-resistance. Those who commit violence almost certainly think they do justice. Thus, non-violence is beyond justice.
2) Violence has its causes. This causes are false understanding of true good and true evil. If some one knows that material goods are nothing, he will not apply violence so as to protect them. Because violence deprives man from real and only good: mental peace.

Can you really define one non by another non??? Does that presume that we all already know the meaning of violence???

Just because all injustice is justified does not mean it is just... When ever I find myself justifying anything I begin to think What I am doing does not justify itself...

I agree that violence has a cause, but it always has its justification, and people are that point where the justification becomes action, and I hope we can agree that violence is some kind of action...If people were to examine their own behavior they would find themselves doing less and thinking more...

@Ultracrepidarian,

Ultracrepidarian wrote:

Ah, I was misunderstanding. Does this mean that you would say it is impossible to do deprive others of their brotherly attitudes or that it is possible, but you wouldn't call it violence?

Put simply, I feel good, but make someone else feel bad. Impossible or possible but not violence?

The third alternative is that I am still not seeing ...clearly.

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 PM ----------

Life is more valuable than belief... life is more valuable than any one thing we do...

If you know the ABCs of Rational-Emotive-Behavioral Therapy, a form of cognitive therapy which you can research, we don't make someone else feel any of their feelings: they do it to themselves!!!

I can't make you feel extremely sad if you have trained yourself to be a peaceful and happy person. If you have formed such a habit and I tell you sad stories, or perform cruelty in front of you, or at you, you will keep your peace even though you may be very disappointed by me. You may have some regrets, but you will not be crushed nor depressed -- if you have formed the correct ethical habits ...if you live your nonviolence. You will feel compassion for me, maybe, if I am hateful, just as you would for anyone who's sick, but you wouldn't take it personally.

If you feel you contributed to it, you would telll yourself: "I made a mistake, and I will now work out a program so as not to make the same mistake twice." You would not feel (the bad kind of) guilt. You would have learned from The Stoics. q.v.

Nows, regarding the question, What is Nonviolence?, a grasp of principles must be supplemented by specific facts - since "value" as defined by Robert S. Hartman, is partly intensional and partly extensional - it really helps if your awareness of the harm violence does to living individuals is supplemented by an awareness of current events, of possible sources of power, and of loci of undelegated power.

Relevant to the issue of sources of power, I call your attention to this marvelous book: Joan V. Bondurant, CONQUEST OF VIOLENCE, (Princeton N.J.: Prenceton University Press, 1958). Read it, if you really want to understand the topic subject of this thread.

As to loci of undelegated power, be sure to read this fine, readable book: Anatol Rapoport, OPERATIONAL PHILOSOPHY (New York: Harper, 1953); especially read pages 139 to 150.

Both books may be hard to locate, but it is well worth the effort. Let me hear your reviews of them once you have done the reading.

@deepthot,

Fido wrote:

Can you really define one non by another non??? Does that presume that we all already know the meaning of violence???

Just because all injustice is justified does not mean it is just... When ever I find myself justifying anything I begin to think What I am doing does not justify itself...

Actually such a definition was made to express the thought that violence cannot be just. For instance, this term non-violence, ahimsa, comes from Hinduism and Jainism where it is considered to be just to do violence against offenders (even though it is forbidden to kill animals and sometimes plants). Therefore I thought it wouldn't be unnecessary to point out that non-resistance is essential.
It is not criterion for justice: just is that what does not require justifications. Mountain dwellers on Caucasus think it is shameful not to vengeance on their enemies. So, they feel remorse if they do not revenge. Justice is relative. In order not to reap fruits of violence we should not perform it even though it is required by justice.

deepthot wrote:

If you know the ABCs of Rational-Emotive-Behavioral Therapy, a form of cognitive therapy which you can research, we don't make someone else feel any of their feelings: they do it to themselves!!!

Thanks for thy energetic explanations, deepthot. I have heard that some psychologists created such a therapy based on Epictetus' method. Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to lay my hands on those books. Is there sth. available in the internet?
I do not think we should apply violence even against those with "bad genes" if we don't want to do harm ourselves. Violence is always violence.

@Eudaimon,

Here a couple of non-commercial links about that school of therapy (which is eminently suitable for verbal types, intellectuals, people who can reason):
Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy

Rational emotive therapy - Definition, Purpose, Precautions, Description, Preparation, Aftercare, Risks, Normal results, Abnormal results
I'm confident a good library can get to you a copy of a classic book by Albert Ellis, REASON AND EMOTiON IN PSYCHOTHERAPY, (NY: Lyle Stuarrt Books, 1962).

And here are some links teaching about Nonviolent Communication, a school of thought founded by Marshall Rosenberg, which has followers all over the world:

BayNVC - Bay Area Nonviolent Communication

Anger and Domination Systems | The Center for Nonviolent Communication

I hope this proves to be helpful. I am sure you will learn a lot at these sites if you study carefully, and follow though.

@deepthot,

deepthot wrote:

...we don't make someone else feel any of their feelings: they do it to themselves!!!

I can't make you feel extremely sad if you have trained yourself to be a peaceful and happy person.

How about the second case? The case in which I have not trained myself to be a peaceful and happy person.

I don't care to agree or disagree. I think you are making a big to-do over my use of the word "make". Can one person make another feel bad?

I recognize that I have the power to say something mean. When I do, the person I am talking to often feels bad in one way or another. If you wish to assert that it is that person's responsibility to train themselves to be peaceful and happy, I will not go out of my way to disagree with you. By my use of the word "make" I meant no comment on the extent of one's own personal responsibility for their emotional welfare.

I could reword my question.

It would read, "I feel good, but try to influence another person to feel bad..."

No matter, I sought to better understand Eudaimon's conception of violence and he did overlook my poor word choice and answered my question about a week ago now.

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon wrote:

Actually such a definition was made to express the thought that violence cannot be just. For instance, this term non-violence, ahimsa, comes from Hinduism and Jainism where it is considered to be just to do violence against offenders (even though it is forbidden to kill animals and sometimes plants). Therefore I thought it wouldn't be unnecessary to point out that non-resistance is essential.
It is not criterion for justice: just is that what does not require justifications. Mountain dwellers on Caucasus think it is shameful not to vengeance on their enemies. So, they feel remorse if they do not revenge. Justice is relative. In order not to reap fruits of violence we should not perform it even though it is required by justice.

Thanks for thy energetic explanations, deepthot. I have heard that some psychologists created such a therapy based on Epictetus' method. Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to lay my hands on those books. Is there sth. available in the internet?
I do not think we should apply violence even against those with "bad genes" if we don't want to do harm ourselves. Violence is always violence.

Violence is not bad, but is often pointless or self defeating...If you look much at ancient societies you can see people who did violence at the drop of a hat to protect their honor...Your people in the Caucuses are a perfect example since they have a different economy, an honor economy that often demands violence in defense of justice...We think we can reach the same end with law, but in fact we are only debreeding humanity, letting little shits hide behind the law, and people of no personal merit seek positions of authority they would never have held in former times... Today the followers have become the leaders... People with good minds and little honor run the world, but they take too much to themselves, and they continue to do so until their worlds are destroyed in war, or collapse... There is a reason primitive societies were so heroic, and so democratic, and so obscessed with justice, and there is a reason we are all everywhere the product of these primitive democracies...They may some times have been destroyed, but they did not destroy themselves with war, or disipate themselves with immorality... All people had to think, and all people had to fight, and every man was his own cop, and every man was his own judge, so general intelligence was raised rather than certain classes drawing all intelligent people to itself and preying upon those less educated or able...The fact that we are preyed upon by our own kind, and suffer injustice to a high degree in our own lands until that injustice spills over into wars only means the violence which was small scale and healthy and rejuvenating has now become mass destruction...Blood feuds were healthy...Wars are not healthy, and wars represent a process at work within society of powerlessness, stupidity, culpability, and irresponsibility all being bred and used by some for an easy life on the backs of others...It would be a better world if like Cu'chalain we could strike down all who dishonor us wtihout a warning...I wish everyone would carry guns, and use them when they are dissed, or short changed... The fact that we accept so much does not mean less violence, but actually means more is in the mail...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Violence is not bad, but is often pointless or self defeating...
It would be a better world if like Cu'chalain we could strike down all who dishonor us wtihout a warning...I wish everyone would carry guns, and use them when they are dissed, or short changed... The fact that we accept so much does not mean less violence, but actually means more is in the mail...

What is injustice? If some one wants to steal my money, is it unjust? Maybe to some extent,.. but justice is relative and has its roots in our conditioning. Is it just to force people to join army? Some people say: yes... To carry guns? What for? No one can deprive thee of what is really thine. What is that they can take from thee? Money, respectability, life? All that shall be parted from us some day, and it is better not bother oneself with it so much. On the other hand, is it nothing to act noble? Is it nothing to feel freedom from things to the extent that thou canst let others to have them?
And why those ancient society were better? Because there every one could kill his neighbour because of his injustice? What prevents us from this now? Cowardice. So, if one is not coward, let him pick up his gun and do what he wants. I can't see the difference. Maybe it is in that in olden times society encouraged such action. But excuse me, if it was so, that was a result of social conditioning, just as our modern 'moderation', so it wasn't merit or catharsis, rather an obligation like today.

@Eudaimon,

It is not for me to define justice for you except in the most general terms... Justice is a form of relationship between two people... That one who stole your money is the one who has to inform you as to the nature of justice, and you should inform him, and that does not mean you should let him get away with it, but to be honest; to put all things in the perspective of justice, and honor...I will tell you that when you two find justice, that it will be the same thing for each of you...It is a coin with your face on one side and his on the other...You cannot have it without sharing it...
For lack of a better term, it is the social contract that prevents blood shed... We all give up resort to violence in pursuit of justice for the promise of justice under law... Since we have peace, those who are charged with delivering justice take care of themselves and forget about the people, so the people arm themselves and fall back on previous behavior... Justice has to be at the end of law...It cannot all be about protecting the gains wrought of injustice, and leaving the injured to cry about the unfairness of life....

Philosophy Forum

What is non-violence?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know