|
Post by ZeroSaidSadly on Feb 15, 2005 17:46:57 GMT -5
Im doin my big research paper on nonviolence, and i kinda already knew some about it, because my debate case was nonviolence this year, but im really glad i chose it as my topic because ive learned so much, and although, im not totally there yet, it has changed my some of my opinions, and actions, and I hope to commit to it totally one day. I thought this could spark some good debate, knowing all of you pessimistic argumentative types that seem to flock here, kidding.. but to all those of you with an open mind, please look into it, you wont be wasting your time. To give my brief interpretation of the philosophy of nonviolence, it works to seek out the anger and hate and remove every trace of it from our hearts. It recognizes the irrationality in violence and embraces all of humanity with love. It doesnt distinguish between friend or enemy, because we're all brothers and sisters and belong to one family. if you harm another, you will be in turn harming yourself. Love is a cornerstone of nonviolence and it is used as an agent of peace, that is very real and powerful and effective. (65% of humanity has been affected by nonviolent successes) History has proven again again its effectiveness and it has a way of disarming hate and dominating war. Theres alot to be said, but it is about hope, faith in the human spirit and love for absolutley everyone. (and to clear this up, i found that the greek language seems to aid me better than the english language in speaking about love. in the greek language, there are three different words for three different types of love. There is the word eros, that is associated with a romantic love, phillia, which is desire and intimacy, and agape, which is the love im talking about. agape is love that embraces every human spirit and is genuine, sincere care and concern for all life really, agape recognizes that all life is intertwined and related. so just that you know im not talking about romantically loving your enemies.) Nonviolence, is also not pacifism, or nonresistance to evil, but rather nonviolent resistance to evil, and it requires just as much bravery and power to resist with love rather than with hate. so really, ive come the conclusion that nonviolence is the answer to societys culture of hate and suffering and violence. not the only answer to everything, but a very effective and powerful one.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2005 19:57:52 GMT -5
But...I like to hit people...
In reality though, I admire a non-violent approach to solving problems. Maybe you should forward your report to the white house and let those guys have a looksie.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroSaidSadly on Feb 15, 2005 20:56:04 GMT -5
But...I like to hit people... In reality though, I admire a non-violent approach to solving problems. Maybe you should forward your report to the white house and let those guys have a looksie. I can see president bush's face now. --> im sure it'd be a revolution
|
|
|
Post by Knight0440 on Feb 15, 2005 23:15:03 GMT -5
What are you reading (sources)? I am curious.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroSaidSadly on Feb 18, 2005 11:36:51 GMT -5
Reinhold Neibuhr has some good essays on nonviolence, the one i used, was "the preservation of moral values in politics", anything I found from Martin Luther King or Gandhi, I read the "peaceable revolution" by betty shechter, that book more follows the lives of Gandhi, Thoreau and Dr. King and how nonviolence progressed as a movement rather than some of the actual in depth philosophys of it, but its still a very good read, and also, if you want to delve into everything about nonviolence, theres a wonderfulll book, thats a compilation of letters, essays and experiences all about nonviolence and the philosophy of nonviolence. I highly suggest reading the book, Nonviolence in America: A Documentary History, it was wonderful. and, a guy name staughton lynd edited that one, if it makes it any easier to find...
|
|
|
Post by Knight0440 on Feb 18, 2005 12:39:22 GMT -5
Lynd is awesome!
|
|
|
Post by ZeroSaidSadly on Feb 20, 2005 10:33:25 GMT -5
yeh that was his only book ive read but i know hes big into peace and civil rights, so he seems like a cool guy
|
|
|
Post by Knight0440 on Feb 20, 2005 17:49:03 GMT -5
Is there a time for violence? And how do you define violence? For instance, is property damage to trans-national corporations considered violence?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Lies on Feb 21, 2005 19:19:27 GMT -5
according to dictionary.com, yes.
vi·o·lence
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing.
but sometimes, i think violence is neccessary. i don't think it's possible to say, change the way a corrupt government runs a country without "physical force".
|
|
|
Post by Knight0440 on Feb 22, 2005 0:43:40 GMT -5
Define "physical force" in your opinion. Are you talking about armed insurrection? Or something else? Are you willing to lay down your life for something better? Is that too much like patriotism?
On a different note, is direct action violence?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Lies on Feb 22, 2005 15:51:43 GMT -5
violence or armed insurrection, what have you, non-violence isn't going to solve a situation on that large a scale.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroSaidSadly on Feb 23, 2005 19:11:07 GMT -5
Define "physical force" in your opinion. Are you talking about armed insurrection? Or something else? Are you willing to lay down your life for something better? Is that too much like patriotism? On a different note, is direct action violence? well it all depends on how you use the term "physical force", there are better words for explaining what you mean besides physical force that would provide a clearer look at what your talking about. i dont consider nonviolence to be mainly "physical", but it depends on how you are protesting. the philosophy of nonviolence uses our ability to absorb pain and hate yet reflect love and patience. so therefore yes, if you lived nonviolence in the same respect that king and gandhi lived it, you would be willing to lay down your own wellbeing to prevent violence and conflict. gandhi even used the example of brothers quarrelling once to demonstrate what one committed to nonviolence should be willing to do to prevent this conflict. he said that you must lay down all you have, including your life to prevent such conflicts from taking place and inflicting harm. i hope to someday be selfless enouph to grasp what it means to sacrifice your own life for the hope of something better. as for now, i use my best judgement to decide when and where i need to put myself between conflict. If you mean patriotism as in loyalty to a cause, then what nonviolence requires from someone ARE acts of patriotism. if you mean patriotism as in blind faith in an unwavering idea or leader, then no, nonviolence is nothing like it. nonviolence demands that you do not have certain golden standards that allow you to judge before you think. it demands that you always think through the situation first, and when you are always required to think with truth and love you are never blinding yourself so that you could become misled. also, no i dont consider direct action necessarily violence. of course, there is violent direct action and nonviolent direct action. nonviolent direct action could be considered protesting, campaigning for change. a good example of indirect action would be when Gandhi fasted, almost to his death, until his people stopped the violence. (this was very successful by the way)
|
|
|
Post by ZeroSaidSadly on Feb 23, 2005 19:28:19 GMT -5
violence or armed insurrection, what have you, non-violence isn't going to solve a situation on that large a scale. not true at alllll in the case of peacekeeping, for a good example, its been found that nonviolent resistance defuses the violence. Its not going to be explained in technical military terms, but thats what it does. Nagler has written alot on that subject, ill try to get the full cite for you. nonviolence actually works BETTER than military solutions, because its using something alot more powerful than guns. where nonviolent peacekeeping forces have been dispatched, (many in torn countrys in africa) you see this philosophy sweep thru regions, and of course its more effective. people welcome this means of change. no one welcomes pain and violence, but peace and love on the otherhand are the dreams of those people who have to live in hate and suffering every day of their lives. of course nonviolence will solve for violence and armed insurrection, it destroys the momentum and appeal behind these things thru a peaceful and loving alternative. Its the global ideal in action.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Lies on Feb 24, 2005 22:33:12 GMT -5
i'm quite interested in reading some of your matierals, and about the countries where campaigns like this, hurry and post.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroSaidSadly on Feb 25, 2005 19:15:06 GMT -5
Nagler was a main cite for our debate case for nonviolent peacekeeping, and he's a very credible, well educated man who has written alot on the subject of peace and nonviolence. As of now, many of the nonviolent peacekeeping forces in existence today have been made up of voluntary troops that have been run by non-governmental organizations, (NGOs). Nagler supports more action through the UN and also unilateral action that uses unarmed peacekeeping forces instead of troops with guns and weapons, as nonviolent methods have been very effective in places like South Africa, Guatemala, and Sri Lanka. I found an article of his that i highly suggest reading: www.gmu.edu/academic/pcs/nagler.htmland another good one is www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=618ill try to look for some other good stuff
|
|