| BookTalk.org News |
| Have you ordered your copy of our next books? |
| Amazon Honor System |
|
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Robert Tulip 2
Eligible to vote!
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 13
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
[quote="Dissident Heart"]
| Quote: |
| Welcome back Robert Tulip 2. To clarify, my point was to describe how might equals right understands suffering: which is always, in that context, better to give than to receive. Against that framework (which seems to be the norm in world and interpersonal affairs), willingly accepting suffering for something that cannot be expressed as force or dominance, is ridiculous: i.e., why suffer for another (or a principle and ideal) if suffering won't lend itself to greater power and more dominance? If might equals right, then what equals wrong? In the context of sheer power, its increase and expansion, legitimacy is determined by what best increases and expands power. Furthermore, this legitimacy is hardly a topic for Socratic discussion or seminar debate: it is imposed and forced. Counter-points and objections are sometimes entertained, but only as tools to highlight weaknesses and faultlines in the greater press for dominance. But there is little room for objections that play upon moral sensitivities or deeper, sustainable human values: these stings of conscience are simply ploys by the weaker to strike back and demoralize the stronger with guilt and shame. And upon closer inspection, these deeper, sustainable human values are actually yet another attempt to force behavior and dominate persons into submission. There simply is no pure moral ground from which one is above the fray of dominance and submission: in reality, morality is the rules one imposes upon oneself to maintain a little self-respect and dignity along the way. But choosing the suffer, as though suffering is a solution in itself, a kind of magic or medicine: is ludicrous. Suffering is inavoidable and omnipresent. Eichmann was hardly the first and certainly not the last spoke in the wheel of power that has smashed its way through history since (to utilize a mythic phrase) the expulsion from Eden. Those who offer an alternative to this wheel are pushing against enormous evidence and odds. Those who push hardest get crushed. Actually, all get crushed. |
There is a distinction here between legal and moral legitimacy. The doctrine of “might is right” is emblazoned on the Coat of Arms of the British Empire in the twin Latin mottos “Dieu et mon droit” (God and my right arm) and “Honi Soit que mal y pense” (It’s only evil in the eye of the beholder: ie – ‘stuff you’). The crown had legal legitimacy, even in its land grabbing doctrines of terra nullius and “they made many promises but only kept one…” However, it lacked moral legitimacy. This factor was a major cause of the unsustainability of the Empire – a house built on sand will not weather a storm.
It is rather like Augustine’s critique that the Gods of the Roman Empire were not real, and therefore any de jure legitimacy they may have provided for the imperial monolith was founded on a lie, whereas the moral justice of the story of Christ was grounded in a long term vision of reality. The Juggernaut of Empire, the crushing wheel of Karma, is stopped by a ridiculous idea, that the meek shall inherit the earth. And the guy who said that got resurrected.
The nice thing about Christianity, as compared to Buddhism, is that Christianity says we can remove suffering, whereas Buddha said we can’t remove suffering so should avoid it to become enlightened. Christ held that confronting the powers and working through the resulting suffering is the only way to save the world. Buddha’s Eight Fold Noble Path (Use these steps and leave everything mara causes) is fatalistic about the prospects for the world, whereas Jesus promised a new heaven and a new earth for those who would follow him on the path of the cross. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dissident Heart 
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1529
Gender:
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| RT2: The crown had legal legitimacy, even in its land grabbing doctrines of terra nullius and “they made many promises but only kept one…” However, it lacked moral legitimacy. This factor was a major cause of the unsustainability of the Empire – a house built on sand will not weather a storm. |
If the crown makes the law, this would be a huge step in providing legal legitimacy for what the crown chooses to do: it's good to be the king , as Mel Brooks' King Louis IVX likes to say. The crown argued it had a divine right to rule: a god given jurisdiction that delivered an absolute legitimacy. The Kings of France or Britain were hardly the first to claim this kind of power...in various shades and colors it goes clear back, and beyond, to Egypt with the Pharaohs and their incarnational dominion along the ancient Nile. It seems Empire is the normal course of events when civilization gets its wheels in motion. What the Empire wants is right, and what is right is what the Empire wants: why? Because the gods say so...and if you disagree, be prepared to suffer the consequences of your dissent. Perhaps all Empires are built on sand: the delusion of godlike power and the hubris of imperial destiny?
| Quote: |
| RT2: It is rather like Augustine’s critique that the Gods of the Roman Empire were not real, and therefore any de jure legitimacy they may have provided for the imperial monolith was founded on a lie, whereas the moral justice of the story of Christ was grounded in a long term vision of reality. |
This would be Augustine participating in a very old and ancient Jewish tradition: the Prophet challenging the idolatries of imperial rule. Rarely do Bishops play such a role (unlike Bishop Romero in El Salvador who was murdered for his impertenence). Amos, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Micah were some of those ancient dissidents who exposed how piety could be manipulated to support royal injustice and exploit the poor. They also described a God who would not endure such perversity for long: first, by confronting the Jewish leaders who submitted to Imperial decree, and then by challenging the Jewish people who submitted to these corrupt leaders...and ultimately, God would shape the destiny of this people and the surrounding Empires: in ways few anticipated. And, it was also within this Jewish Prophetic tradition that Jesus proclaims the Kingdom of God- in direct contradiction to the Empire of Rome. Where Rome declared justice through victory- Jesus declared justice through shalom. Shalom, it seems to me, is the long term moral vision you refer to.
| Quote: |
| RT2: The Juggernaut of Empire, the crushing wheel of Karma, is stopped by a ridiculous idea, that the meek shall inherit the earth. And the guy who said that got resurrected. |
Arendt, I think, is rejecting the Juggernaut of Empire and the crushing wheel of Karma (or Samsara), and offering instead the Democratic Republic founded upon Constitutional Law. What ties individuals to this imperfect political vision is an internal compass of moral decency: a type of self respect that seeks virtue and is repulsed by vice. Could meek be another term for self-respecting?
Jesus' resurrection, I think, should never be too far from his cross: it protects the Gospel from airy, fairy, simply metaphysical notions of spirituality divorced from the flesh and blood conflicts that torture bodies and destroy lives.
| Quote: |
| RT2: The nice thing about Christianity, as compared to Buddhism, is that Christianity says we can remove suffering, whereas Buddha said we can’t remove suffering so should avoid it to become enlightened. Christ held that confronting the powers and working through the resulting suffering is the only way to save the world. Buddha’s Eight Fold Noble Path (Use these steps and leave everything mara causes) is fatalistic about the prospects for the world, whereas Jesus promised a new heaven and a new earth for those who would follow him on the path of the cross. |
This should probably be the subject of a new thread, and probably more appropriately placed in the Philosophy, Religion, Beliefs category- in that it really goes beyond the scope of the Arendt discussion. If you would like to continue this there, I'd be willing to participate. Because, I think I disagree with how you describe both Christianity and Buddhism's relation to suffering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Tulip 2
Eligible to vote!
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 13
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Is it better to suffer than to do wrong? In this form the options are far too broad, and are not directly comparable. Arendt sees rejection of complicity with Nazism as the prime example of when people suffer by refusal to do wrong, but this example is not sufficient to justify the general principle. Suffering can be meaningful or meaningless. Meaningless suffering such as natural evil (disaster, disease, etc) and suffering inflicted for no reason are not relevant alternatives to wrongdoing. Meaningful suffering includes the path of the cross, where the sufferer has a moral vision which they take to be more important than the harm they will suffer in promoting it. In this category Jesus is of course the exemplar, but national liberation movements, where a people suffer rather than submit, can also be in this category. George Orwell commented that losing a war is an easy way to bring peace, indicating that suffering through sacrifice is preferable to dishonor. There is also a grey area, especially with terrorism, where a person thinks wrongly that their suffering is meaningful, and so both suffers and does wrong. Suffering as just punishment for crime is another distinct example, which seems bad for a prisoner but good for society in terms of protection and example. Even here the alternative is not clear, as society would say it were better the evil deed were never done. A further ambiguity rests in the meaning of ‘better’. It seemed ‘better’ for the Roman Empire that they plundered the possessions of conquered nations to live in selfish opulence, but clearly, the long term consequences for the planet were worse – ‘they made a desert and called it peace’. In this context of moral philosophy, ‘better’ should be defined as ‘having better overall consequences’. Otherwise the sentence lacks traction, as it seems better for me, selfishly speaking, to get away with wrong which benefits me than to suffer. Arendt’s point is to ask how a wrongdoer can live with their conscience. I think this is a big issue. For example the karma of wrongdoing, eg slavery and conquest, is a subtle cultural pathology which distorts national mentalities of people who are in denial, often imposing as much psychic harm on the victor as on the vanquished.
Further on the ‘might is right’ theme, I do think sustainability is important for legitimacy, as things which are not sustainable stop. I support the old Chinese political philosophy of the mandate of heaven as conferring moral legitimacy on a ruler, with dynastic change indicating a fall from cosmic grace. My previous comments on the British imperial motto of Honi Soit, which could be translated even less charitably as F*** You, illustrate, notably in the case of Gandhi, how the power of tao is greater than the gun. We are seeing this now in the example of climate change, which cannot be slowed by any number of inter continental ballistic missiles, which are being cuckolded by Gaia.
On Buddhism, I just googled the four noble truths at http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html, which looks a good summary. I think it is enlightening to consider these ideas, for example about attachment, in the light of Arendt’s vision of personhood and the question of this thread on suffering and wrongdoing. Arendt seems to be asking how an authentic and accountable person relates to the totality of truth. To this end, she engages the Christian faith tradition with its transformative focus on will as the master of desire. An important moral issue at stake here is whether the self is real (Arendt says yes, Buddha says no).
Saint Paul said in Romans 5:3 that we rejoice in our sufferings as they produce endurance, character and hope. There is something in this, in that imperial persecution bonded the early church in its vision of salvation, but Roman Catholicism has perverted it, for example in penance through mortification. I don’t think suffering is ever a good in itself, only as a means to a good end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
