An eye for an eye
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am
Re: An eye for an eye
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: An eye for an eye
I don't think that is what the text says. He says that the fact that although the 'faster and surer of foot' did not stumble themselves, this 'removed not the stumbling stone'. Similarly, saying that 'when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling stone' it indicates that the stone is something we must all pass. If he thought we could and should remove the stone, why doesn't he say so? The other metaphors, like the leaf on the tree, do not contain the notion that the other leaves ought to be preventing some leaves turning yellow.Valentine-turjery wrote: Me: I don't think Gibran does say this for the reason... I don't read it that way. It isn't saying that we are responsible for wrongdoing in the sense of cause and effect, rather that we all share the traits of the wrongdoer - they aren't 'other' to our own natures.
He says that as well - as pointless a theme as it is. However when he goes on to say that those who run ahead do not remove the stumbling block, he suggests, firstly, that others easily resist the criminal urge, and also that had they removed it, the now-criminal wouldn't be a criminal. He removes the responsibility of the criminal, and places it on the selfishness or laziness of the frontrunners. I mean, he just says it: "and he falls for those ahead of him, who, though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone"
'Hidden' will, hidden in our nature, not deliberate choice."So the wrongdoer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all." What nonsense. As I asked of Stormcloud, have you ever abetted anyone in committing a murder? A rape? A theft? I know I haven't.
Once again, the poet is careful in choosing their words. If he meant 'everyone abets in murder' he would have said so.
Do you think you are incapable of murder, rape, theft etc.? Surely we can observe that all sorts of people, in all sorts of societies have turned out to be capable of doing all those things. So reluctantly, I have to accept that this probably also includes me - and you.
Civilised societies take it into account. We would have to be blind not to recognise that brutal environments and extreme circumstances create abnormal behaviours. We make allowances for it both in social policy and in the justice system.Me: To address your last sentence, if it was true that identical circumstances produce different outcomes, that indicates that the reason must be within the nature of the individuals. But if that is so, then how would it make sense to punish people for acting according to their own nature?
Well, flip it around: if it was true that different circumstances determined a person's criminality, how could we punish them for acting according to the accident of their environment?
It sometimes comes across as if you are keen to find some opportunity to 'punish'! Why? Is it for our enjoyment, or to achieve a purpose? If it is the second, then the rational approach is to work out what we expect to achieve, and whether the methods we use are working.
I can't believe we really disagree about this. Would you respond to all crimes identically? Execute everyone who kills, irrespective of whether it was self defence, a depressed mother killing their baby, or a war criminal? If the answer is 'no', then you agree with me that a rational and moral response has to take into account both mental states and circumstances. This in turn is an acceptance that those who commit crimes are not some different species to you and me...which is what the poet says.
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am
Re: An eye for an eye
- Valentine-turjery
- Posts: 57
- Joined: January 13th, 2014, 11:18 am
Re: An eye for an eye
Very sneaky. When you found you had to cut bits from the original quotation, did it not worry you?...I don't think that is what the text says. He says that the fact that although the 'faster and surer of foot' did not stumble themselves, this 'removed not the stumbling stone'.
Those... who... removed not the stumbling stone. I'm afraid he just actually says it. It is semantically clear. There is no 'this', only 'those' who did not remove the stumbling stone. The sentence is about as unambiguous as Gibran gets, not a matter of interpretation.and he falls for those ahead of him, who, though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone
He very carefully strove to be vague and proasic, I'll give you that much. And because of that, I can counter your argument in the exact form yours took: "If he'd meant that society is in part responsible for criminal acts, he'd just have said it." By couching all of these incomplete and contradictory notions in winsome and looping rhetoric, he seeks to say everything and nothing at all. There's always an escape hatch. Which, if I'm not mistaken, was the point of my very first response.Once again, the poet is careful in choosing their words. If he meant 'everyone abets in murder' he would have said so.
I am easily capable of all those things. I'm two out of three already.Do you think you are incapable of murder, rape, theft etc.?
If I admit that I am capable of murder, though, or that everybody is capable of murder, it goes nothing towards saying that all murderers should be let off the hook, nor that I share their criminality - for the very plain reason that despite being very well capable of murdering someone, I don't.
Oh, hidden will? The will that I don't know about (because it's so secret) but that Gibran does know about? Very convenient. Or... perhaps... I'm right, and this elusive, stealthy consent for others to brutalise society doesn't exist, and Gibran instead made it up. Would you consider it a valid argument if I was to say to you that you think it is okay to rape young children, and, when you protested, claim that you just didn't KNOW that's what you thought because it was 'hidden'? Of course not, you'd think I was an idiot.'Hidden' will, hidden in our nature, not deliberate choice.
I've interrogated myself. I've spent long hours dredging my conscience and, I can tell you: I don't secretly egg criminals on; if I could do something to prevent a crime, I would. I've asked my friends: they feel the same.
I will repeat my first response here, because it very succinctly outlines my position. Everything I say can be derived from his passage in the same way everything Stormcloud says (well, maybe not everything Stormcloud says) can.
Interesting, isn't it, that the poor fallen yellow leaf is completely absolved of conscious intent, being swept along by forces he cannot control, whereas everybody else toeing the legal line is willing him to fall and selfishly not removing stumbling stones and generally MAKING him rob banks, rape young girls and kill grannies? The same determinist garble can be turned around to defend the dogooding hordes. I'll have a quick go:
"Many a time have I heard ye criminals laugh at the incredulity of your victims, yet I say to you: it is those same victims that leave stumbling blocks in place for you, enabling you to pillage with moral impunity, making your excuses and taking your blame for you. Do not be as the ivy who by its untempered parasitism destroys that on which it depends." etc. etc. etc. bla. bla. bla.
-- Updated January 22nd, 2014, 5:45 am to add the following --
You mean, "Nice to see someone has my feel for what the poet is saying".Stormcloud wrote:Nice to see that someone 'has a feel' for what ther poet is saying
-- Updated January 22nd, 2014, 6:16 am to add the following --
Neither is the act of a leaf turning yellow representative of a crime. Neither does this suggest that we share in the responsibility of the yellowing leaf. Neither does one leaf turning yellow affect the other leaves. Neither do the other leaves will it to turn yellow. It's a bizarre and hazy metaphor.The other metaphors, like the leaf on the tree, do not contain the notion that the other leaves ought to be preventing some leaves turning yellow.
Why would he look at the loom if only the black thread breaks? Just don't buy that thread again. The white thread held up well enough.And when the black thread breaks, the weaver looks into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also."
See, it's mumbojumbo with a feel-good vibe.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: An eye for an eye
I cut bits to draw your attention to what I thought was the meaning.Very sneaky. When you found you had to cut bits from the original quotation, did it not worry you?
..and he falls for those ahead of him, who, though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone
Those... who... removed not the stumbling stone. I'm afraid he just actually says it. It is semantically clear. There is no 'this', only 'those' who did not remove the stumbling stone. The sentence is about as unambiguous as Gibran gets, not a matter of interpretation.
What do you think the function of the word 'though' is? Why would being 'faster and surer of foot' cause a stone to be removed? His point is that the fact that 'though' some people managed to avoided the stone does not mean the stone isn't there to trip those who follow.
The picture of the 'stumbling stone' as one specific and movable object is your own. Maybe it is a massive boulder embedded in the path! Or one of thousands of small stones! Seriously, the metaphor as life as a journey with various hazards is readily understood. When Bunyan's pilgrim encounters the 'River of Death' most readers aren't baffled by why previous travelers haven't constructed a bridge.
I don't think he is vague, incomplete or contradictory. He uses several metaphors to convey the same message. As I said before, you could just about interpret this one phrase in the way you suggest, but if you do it would contradict everything else in the piece, which rather suggests it isn't how we should understand it.He very carefully strove to be vague and proasic, I'll give you that much. And because of that, I can counter your argument in the exact form yours took: "If he'd meant that society is in part responsible for criminal acts, he'd just have said it." By couching all of these incomplete and contradictory notions in winsome and looping rhetoric, he seeks to say everything and nothing at all. There's always an escape hatch. Which, if I'm not mistaken, was the point of my very first response.
It suggests we are all alike in that we all have that propensity to 'turn yellow', which is something that is true of leaves. You are quite right in saying that your other interpretations would be bizarre, which is why they are unlikely to be what the poet was trying to say.Me: The other metaphors, like the leaf on the tree, do not contain the notion that the other leaves ought to be preventing some leaves turning yellow.
Neither is the act of a leaf turning yellow representative of a crime. Neither does this suggest that we share in the responsibility of the yellowing leaf. Neither does one leaf turning yellow affect the other leaves. Neither do the other leaves will it to turn yellow. It's a bizarre and hazy metaphor.
So do you want to murder people? What restrains you? If you think you can murder, rape or steal from people and escape punishment, will you go ahead and do it?Me: Do you think you are incapable of murder, rape, theft etc.?
I am easily capable of all those things. I'm two out of three already.
If I admit that I am capable of murder, though, or that everybody is capable of murder, it goes nothing towards saying that all murderers should be let off the hook, nor that I share their criminality - for the very plain reason that despite being very well capable of murdering someone, I don't.
Yes, 'hidden', that's what the verse says. And it isn't so secret. As I have already pointed out, we see that all sorts of people commit criminal acts; you admit to your own propensity to do so. So I can't see where you disagree with the poet.Me: 'Hidden' will, hidden in our nature, not deliberate choice.
Oh, hidden will? The will that I don't know about (because it's so secret) but that Gibran does know about?
You seem to be demanding to fight some straw man who is saying 'ignore crime'. That isn't me and it I don't think it is the poet either.
- Valentine-turjery
- Posts: 57
- Joined: January 13th, 2014, 11:18 am
Re: An eye for an eye
It is a very basic sentence, it doesn't need cutting up to reveal its meaning. I will quote it once again.I cut bits to draw your attention to what I thought was the meaning.
What does 'though' mean? Are you testing me? It means, 'though': despite, think 'even though'. A boulder!? Are you serious? Pure desperation. Once again, this is not a passage for interpretation. It is semantically very clear: it was not removed by people who had no fear of tripping on it. You would have to change the sentence to have it mean what you want it to mean. He simply says it. It might be unpleasant to you, but it is there in print. To be honest, I believe if this discussion was proceeding in a nicer tone, you would have conceded this point by now. That is probably partly my fault. (And with that in mind, I restrain myself from saying what I think of the attempted Pilgrim's Progress comparison)..and he falls for those ahead of him, who, though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone
Quite the reverse. The complete opposite. It would supplement it all very nicely. "Look to the cloth and to the loom, rather than the black thread" "cannot without the hidden will of us all"... it is what the passage is about! All the metaphors, muddled and misaligned and unsatisfactory as they are, say the same thing. Show me how that sentence, meaning what it says, would contradict anything else in the piece....it would contradict everything else in the piece
As for the rest, you'll have noticed I've never said that there is a fundamental difference between a criminal and myself. I accepted it gleefully from the off. I did, however, say it was a bland and useless theme, which I still think. Who doesn't know this? It is hardly worth mentioning.
I quoted my first post for you. I'm trying very hard. I really am...You seem to be demanding to fight some straw man who is saying 'ignore crime'.
Did I, or did I not, very explicitly, and repeatedly, say that what Gibran attempts to do is transfer the blame from the criminal to us, the law-abiders? It seems to me that I did. And clearly at that. Will you now, for me, deny that he does this?
so the wrongdoer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all
when the black thread breaks, the weaver looks into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: An eye for an eye
The sentence is:What does 'though' mean? Are you testing me? It means, 'though': despite, think 'even though'.
and he falls for those ahead of him, who, though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone
if we substitute the word 'despite':
and he falls for those ahead of him, who, despite (being) faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone
it doesn't make sense. Having the quality of being 'faster and surer of foot' doesn't make it more likely you would move stones.
It is like saying: 'Despite being strong, Fred had blue eyes'.
Yes.Did I, or did I not, very explicitly, and repeatedly, say that what Gibran attempts to do is transfer the blame from the criminal to us, the law-abiders? It seems to me that I did. And clearly at that. Will you now, for me, deny that he does this?
And if you are not persuaded we will just have to agree to differ.
But unfortunately you did not respond to my question about whether you would like to murder, rape, steal etc. and are only deterred by the fear of punishment, which I think would have been interesting.As for the rest, you'll have noticed I've never said that there is a fundamental difference between a criminal and myself. I accepted it gleefully from the off. I did, however, say it was a bland and useless theme, which I still think. Who doesn't know this? It is hardly worth mentioning.
- Valentine-turjery
- Posts: 57
- Joined: January 13th, 2014, 11:18 am
Re: An eye for an eye
and he falls for those ahead of him, who, though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone
I'm afraid not. Faster: explains why they are further ahead. Surer of foot: explains why they didn't stumble themselves. He is saying that these people had the chance to modify the landscape, because they got there ahead of the others, in a way that would assist the clumsy, but they chose not to, intent as they were on themselves and their own progress.it doesn't make sense... It is like saying: 'Despite being strong, Fred had blue eyes'.
It has nothing to do with making them more likely to remove it (indeed, what phrase could he have used to insinuate that?)... it is that they were able to remove it without risk, and they did not. See, Gibran anticipates the argument that other people have gone before and not stumbled, and attempts to resolve it by casting blame on to them: being above it, they could have changed society to prevent these metaphorical trips and falls, but they didn't, they were too focused on themselves. I'm saddened, in a way, because the sentence is very clear. 'Those' is connected directly with 'removed not'.Having the quality of being 'faster and surer of foot' doesn't make it more likely you would move stones.
Yes.
And if you are not persuaded we will just have to agree to differ.
I'll cut you a deal. I will, in all good faith and level temper, answer your question as honestly and completely as I can. In return, I ask that you indulge me as to your reasons for denying that Gibran suggests that society is to blame for the actions of criminals. I'm quite genuinely fascinated. Because it seems so clear to me, which tells me that I haven't the capacity to see as others see, and I'd like to learn. As a gesture of good will, I'll go first:But unfortunately you did not respond to my question...
Hmm. If I felt guaranteed to escape punishment, would I do it? If we take - and this is important - punishment as meaning any kind of censure or retribution - emotional, physical, penal, any backlash at all, then... quite possibly, yes. Not wantonly. But if I deemed it necessary. For example, if I had too little wealth to purchase food, and stealing entailed no punishment, I believe I would steal - and I believe it would be foolish of me not to. If, while sitting on a country bench pondering the emptiness of my sexual experience, a pretty little maiden walked my way, and I was certain that she would think no ill of me and I would receive no punishment, then I think I might have my way. If by murdering a man I could confiscate his wealth and his estate, and I held no comeuppance in prospect, then I might think myself foolish not to chance it.So do you want to murder people? What restrains you? If you think you can murder, rape or steal from people and escape punishment, will you go ahead and do it?
I can't be sure, mind. But I can't be sure I wouldn't, either. I must stress though, I don't think it is in me to, say, steal knowing that I might deprive another; nor ravish knowing the girl had not consented; nor kill knowing one might grieve or my conscience assail me.
Perhaps it comes down to the definition of punishment. Some people, no doubt, require the threat of physical punishment to suppress their iniquity. For me, my own conscience would be punishment enough. Take away that... and who knows what I could do.
Does that answer your question fairly? I haven't intentionally dodged anything, so point to any omissions and I will make good.
-
- Posts: 19
- Joined: January 28th, 2011, 11:32 pm
Re: An eye for an eye
"Inspired Writing" usually crumbles like a sand castle when subjected to the discipline of Philosophy. And that's why Socrates was imprisoned for 'Destroying the gods'. He was, in truth, doing just that with his razor-sharp logical debating. But it's really like mixing oil with water. "Inspired Writing", like much of the Bible, usually contains contradictions and bad logic perhaps because the writer is so damn inspired he can't be bothered with slowing down and making sure all his assertions are self-consistent. Paul's writing is rife with messy contradictions.
Another problem is, which many have pointed out, Gibran isn't all that talented at his chosen (Or, rather, I guess he was Chosen by the Deity ) occupation--that of Prophet or "Inspired Word of (Place Preferred Deities' Name Here )". His metaphors are vague and/or prosaic and, clearly, he's no Second Coming of Jesus. Jesus was at the very least a genius (At the very most the Son of God). His parables are infinitely revealing and rather complicated as well. I once Googled the "Parable of the Unjust Steward" for interpretation and meaning. I read five different tags written by both scholars and ministers; each tag had a completely different interpretation! That's because Jesus was a genius, who employed metaphor, allegory, and parable at an exceedingly high level. While Gibran is, at best, mediocre.
- Valentine-turjery
- Posts: 57
- Joined: January 13th, 2014, 11:18 am
Re: An eye for an eye
Oooh. I was with you right up until this last sentence! But perhaps we could do Jesus in a later topic? Your assessment of Gibran was nicely put.hat's because Jesus was a genius, who employed metaphor, allegory, and parable at an exceedingly high level. While Gibran is, at best, mediocre.
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am
Re: An eye for an eye
- Valentine-turjery
- Posts: 57
- Joined: January 13th, 2014, 11:18 am
Re: An eye for an eye
The context you speak of does not exist. We are all reading from the same passage. The difference is that I don't deny what you see in it can be found there (except in the case of Londoner's basic syntactic misunderstanding). My conclusions follow directly from the text just as much as yours, but you deny mine because you don't like them.Thanks, Londoner, it is indeed refreshing to see that someone can read Gibran in context.
When you say the text implies this or that, I haven't denied it; what I have done, is to show that it can equally (and, I argue, more believably) mean things that you don't want it to mean. It is not precise language. And the 'philosophy' underlying it is weak, incomplete and misguided.
Yes, I've heard some people find it comforting to be a part of a mass movement. For me, a thoroughly considered position, even if it is unpopular, is my lot.Suffice to say Gibran has always had a following in the millions so I guess one or two people arent going to make much of an impression.
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: July 24th, 2013, 6:20 am
Re: An eye for an eye
- Valentine-turjery
- Posts: 57
- Joined: January 13th, 2014, 11:18 am
Re: An eye for an eye
I guess it depends. Someone who likes watching Manchester United, but takes no part or pleasure in the wider sodality of supportership, wouldn't be part of a mass movement, no. Alternatively, of a supporter who reveled in the camaraderie and social identity of fandom, I suppose it could possibly be said that they were a part of a mass culture.I guess manchester united fans arent part of a mass movement either?
Of course, that's not quite what we're talking about here. A direct analogy with your comment would be someone claiming that Manchester United was the best footballing side in the world because of the number of fans they had. Ignoring the way they played, ignoring the results and trophies: the thing that vouches for them is how many people support them.
Personally I'm not of this bent. The crowd is at least as often wrong as it is right.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm
Re: An eye for an eye
No, you are saying that. It isn't in the poem.I'm afraid not. Faster: explains why they are further ahead. Surer of foot: explains why they didn't stumble themselves. He is saying that these people had the chance to modify the landscape, because they got there ahead of the others,...
Let's do some proper Lit Crit and look at the lines in context.
The poet writes first of human nature:
Even like the sun is your god-self; It knows not the ways of the mole nor seeks it the holes of the serpent.
But your god-self does not dwell alone in your being.
Much in you is still man, and much in you is not yet man, but a shapeless pigmy that walks asleep in the mist searching for its own awakening.
And of the man in you would I now speak.
For it is he and not your god-self nor the pigmy in the mist, that knows crime and the punishment of crime.
So he who knows crime is this 'man within us'. This is emphasised by the next lines:
Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world.
But I say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you, So the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also.
This notion of 'falling' is then taken up in the metaphor of the yellowing leaf. Before extending it into the metaphor of the stumbling runner, he explains the idea of movement also contained in that metaphor.
Like a procession you walk together towards your god-self.
You are the way and the wayfarers.
So we are both the runners and the road. The stumbling blocks aren't something we can remove - they are within us.
The other Lit Crit approach is to put the work in its cultural context. Start with the fact that others have pointed out - that Gibran is a Christian. Consider how Jesus advised us to respond to sinners. Nobody who has read the NT can fail to see the origins of these later lines in the same poem:Because it seems so clear to me, which tells me that I haven't the capacity to see as others see, and I'd like to learn.
If any of you would bring judgment the unfaithful wife, Let him also weight the heart of her husband in scales, and measure his soul with measurements.
And let him who would lash the offender look unto the spirit of the offended.
And you judges who would be just, What judgment pronounce you upon him who though honest in the flesh yet is a thief in spirit?
This is how I approach the poem and why I interpret it in the way I do. Can we leave it at that?
So for you, conscience is enough 'punishment' to prevent you from committing crimes. In which case, this discussion is not about you but about those 'some people'.In that case, in order to find effective ways to 'suppress their iniquity', we need to understand how they think, not how we think.Perhaps it comes down to the definition of punishment. Some people, no doubt, require the threat of physical punishment to suppress their iniquity. For me, my own conscience would be punishment enough. Take away that... and who knows what I could do.
If we are already full of guilt, then we will see punishment as punishment - we may even welcome it as a way of expiating our internal feelings of shame and guilt. But if we don't feel guilty, then we will not experience punishment as such - it will instead be an unjustified assault - something that makes us want to get our own back. I would suggest that the phrase 'hardened criminal' is a description of somebody locked into a cycle of 'eye for an eye' retribution against society.
So I see this as a purely practical matter. Few people think of themselves as bad - they would say they act the ways they do because they think they have no choice, or because life is like that. Until we can get them to think differently, then we cannot 'punish' them, only attack them. (And if we can get them to think differently, then there will be no need to punish them.)
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023