LuckyR wrote:Hhmmm... I meant a pacifist personality type. What were you thinking I meant? Might say a lot...
I was wondering if you were referring to the Enneagram or Jung typology, perhaps.
I am happy to hear you agree with defense, I assume just about everyone outside of a Buddhist monk would. But this isn't the defense thread. "Underhanded"? We are talking about the dirt-bag who cold-cocked your kid in the face!!
Yes, but as I said before, is there any need to stoop to his level?
You are, of course entitled to your opinion. I respect that. As I mentioned before starting this part of the thread, we two have very different life experiences.
May I ask if you have any particular "life experiences" which you believe have influenced you take this standpoint?
Your red statement is in my opinion, a perfectly fine community based code. But we are talking family, which in my case trumps the community. I have a higher obligation. As to child rearing, you are technically correct that no single episode will dictate how your kid will turn out. Though I will caution you that children (and dogs, BTW) are very attuned to patterns of behavior and if this episode is one of many don't be surprised if they mimic the pattern that their parents have taught them.
Why is it only a good community
-based code? Why cannot it apply to family? I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
And, as I'd try to act in the best, most moral way possible, surely it wouldn't be such a bad thing if my children followed that pattern?
This brings up a subtopic that has been discussed before, I'd like to get your take on it: Say person X wrongs Y in a moderately significant way. This is unwitnessed and there is no legal or community based recourse available to Y. In broad terms, Y has by my analysis four options: 1) They can respond in kind, either immediately or at a later time, 2) they can retaliate in a different way, say a social or administrative sabotage in response to an initial physical episode, 3) they can "learn" from the episode and initiate nothing but treat the person very differently at the next interaction or 4) they can literally do nothing and act identically to X as if the episode had never happened. Two questions: first, what is your personal preference and which of the four would you label as vengeance (what would the labels of 1-3 be if not vengeance)?
My personal course of action would be to follow number three. 4 is obviously nothing, 1 and 2 would be vengeance, and 3...I guess it depends how exactly X is treated when they next meet. I don't know what I'd label it, really. You're bound to treat someone you don't like a different way from someone you do, and it would be even more marked if, say, Y had liked X before the issue occured.
Laozytzu wrote:Hello fellow philosophers!
I've read through a good deal of the posts, but not all, and I hadn't seen this piece of writing here. It's one of Francis Bacons works from "The Essays" called On Revenge. It doesn't express my personal views all that accurately, but I believe its something to be read and considered. Keep in mind this was written 1597. At the very least, it's a well written essay.
Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man's nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out. For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong putteth the law out of office. Certainly, in taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior; for it is a prince's part to pardon. And Solomon, I am sure, saith, "It is the glory of a man to pass by an offence." That which is past is gone, and irrevocable; and wise men have enough to do with things present and to come; therefore they do but trifle with themselves, that labor in past matters. There is no man doth a wrong for the wrong's sake; but thereby to purchase himself profit, or pleasure, or honor, or the like.
Therefore why should I be angry with a man for loving himself better than me? And if any man should do wrong merely out of ill-nature, why, yet it is but like the thorn or briar, which prick and scratch, because they can do no other. The most tolerable sort of revenge is for those wrongs which there is no law to remedy; but then let a man take heed the revenge be such as there is no law to punish; else a man's enemy is still before hand, and it is two for one.
Some, when they take revenge, are desirous the party should know whence it cometh. This is the more generous. For the delight seemeth to be not so much in doing the hurt as in making the party repent. But base and crafty cowards are like the arrow that flieth in the dark. Cosmus, duke of Florence, had a desperate saying against perfidious or neglecting friends, as if those wrongs were unpardonable; "You shall read (saith he) that we are commanded to forgive our enemies; but you never read that we are commanded to forgive our friends." But yet the spirit of Job was in a better tune: "Shall we (saith he) take good at God's hands, and not be content to take evil also?" And so of friends in a proportion. This is certain, that a man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well. Public revenges are for the most part fortunate; as that for the death of Caesar; for the death of Pertinax; for the death of Henry the Third of France; and many more. But in private revenges it is not so. Nay rather, vindictive persons live the life of witches; who, as they are mischievous, so end they infortunate
Welcome to the topic, and thank you for your post!
The part I've highlighted in bold expresses well one of the points I was trying to make.