 |
 |
|
|
 |
Thoughts
|
(written April 22, 2002 ) Sometimes, it really bothers me, when I see how obliviously we seem to accept what we are told - or what we are not told. Of course, we all need to choose how we spend our time as to what we accept based on faith and what we need to question further. But certainly if I am asked to call someone my evil enemy we need to kill, I choose questioning. Even though - as a military reserve officer - I recognize the right and unfortunate need for self-defense, I guess that I cannot put aside my education in a post-war Germany and the many times I've been asked "How could all of that 3rd Reich stuff happen over there?" when I travel abroad. Well, sometimes, the answers we seek can be closer than we think - uncomfortably close. We tend to justify our actions with their good intent, but as intentions invariably differ from individual from individual, I believe the only way we ever can judge another - if at all - is to see whether one's methods correlate to one's intentions (as arguing about different intentions is just arguing that we are indeed different). Before we then draw any conclusions out of that, we must apply the same standards for ourselves. And we must indeed apply an even higher standard for ourselves, when we seek to convince someone else to follow our intentions. Otherwise, we are simply self-serving and losing the claim to do any good, I believe. Before you try to put me in one of your standard categories for comfort, please note that my statements here do not seek to address any particular group - let that be a nation, religion, political conviction or party, race, gender, belief or otherwise - but every individual, including myself1. Whenever I'd try to identify myself with any movement, there usually is a lot of nonsense that goes along with it, which I don't accept; it also too often leads to discuss associations of a particular category rather than the issue at hand - I consider that unproductive. I like individuality and I dislike violence (let it be against me or in my name); this is as far I will go with categorization. Unfortunately, I find it hard to follow one's convictions free of conflict - never ever to be in danger to be called a hypocrite for anything. Actually, I find it impossible. In some ways, I believe, we cannot escape certain contradictions when we seek any consent with others, as compromising is an inherent property of consent ( given different individual points of view); that's just part of life. But that is no excuse to ever provoke unnecessary conflict, and to keep trying for the better (and certainly no reason whatsoever to break with some principal categorizations we like to see ourselves in). Why do I find this so hard? Well, let's try an arguably controversial example (and before you now presume even more, please be sure to read this footnote2):
OK, so now you can (rightfully) call me a hypocrite, as the above will arguably qualify for provoking conflict rather than seeking consent - granted. I admit, that sometimes, I choose to use provocation to break the ignorance, when other forms of hypocrisy (that I consider far worse) become unbearable. It really becomes a question of how far we can strain our sense of tolerance when we feel injustice, and it eventually becomes a conflict - inevitably (which was my point earlier). To document that point further, I would argue that a hypothetical quest for tolerance (actually I'd hope this would be real than hypothetical in most cases) will eventually have to defeat even the concept of self-defense (let's assume we were to tolerate a direct attack on our life), which can hardly be called life-sustaining.3 It is all based on the assumption that, given more than one individual entity, there is no such thing as one single shared truth among the individual perceptions. So, a perfect method this is not (meaning the provocation of conflict to break the ignorance towards another conflict), but the intent is to avoid another (subjectively greater) conflict; a conflict that in fact uses open violence in its method. This is how I would want to justify the above provocation (as to why we should seek to educate ourselves and engage in dialog): to allow us to uncover the potentially much greater contradictions in what we would otherwise keep doing. This would be true in particular, if what one aims to resolve goes against far more premises that we may want to set for ourselves (such as the quest for peace, freedom and liberty - other than merely the evasion of verbal conflict). But then again, I still contradict myself with the above paragraph in regards to another statement earlier (that we can only judge others when or methods match or intent) - again: conflict (though here you may argue that it is self-inflicted by an unnecessary high standard I placed in the first place4). So, in essence, I cannot presume moral superiority to anyone else in any way, given the contradictions I placed myself in; I actually think that is true - not just for myself, I should add, though. This, however, leaves us with very little - arguably nothing - if we are to make decisions in our daily lives, where even the absence of a decision from our side will lead to some action by others, which may hardly be any better. I call that quite a dilemma. But essentially (as we are alive and thus have to deal with that very responsibility), I choose to seek the smallest evil of what I can comprehend. The only way that I see to avoid too many mistakes is to further seek education and understanding of other people's beliefs. I hope it becomes clear, though, that given my own inherent compromising of my own beliefs I cannot really call anyone else evil other than myself (as only I can only truly judge my own intents). This I will apply to other individuals as well, i.e. I do not conform to the notion of having anyone calling anyone evil other than yourself. You may call someone wrong or misguided, as seen from your position, but I don't think you can call someone objectively evil. Of course, that by itself is seen from my perspective and as such subjective.5 Given all the confusion6, it seems wrong to me to use violence to enforce my (or anyone's) opinions on somebody else (by anyone). My objection becomes only stronger when it comes to deadly force. The quest has to be that for consent and understanding (even though never conflict free), and not for violent force. This I even want to maintain when confronted with violence against oneself.
Having said that, I choose to deliberately accept the conflict of provoking a verbal conflict aimed to end a violent conflict. I will grant, however, that (as I tried to establish above) whenever we choose to do anything, we are walking a fine line between all of our opinions through lots of shades of gray. This - if nothing else - ought to remind us of the importance of tolerance versus enforcing our convictions over others by force, I'd hope. Then again, one might say: who really cares what one does or not, and how it will effect the world; any given individual cannot change anything anyway, right? Well, here, I choose to think of it more like along the lines of how Gandhi (again) expressed it (who said it far better than I ever could):
Here I will end my rambling, as it has little significance, anyway - for now7.
Some other thoughts from individuals I consider to be inspiring these days:
Footnotes1. Me probably more than anyone else; you know, sometimes I tend to be quite a self-centered person, I'm afraid. How else would you explain such a wasteful website - mainly just about myself? 2. Please note, that I do not try to suggest any particular truth aiming to incriminate anyone here, as I personally cannot validate, nor control any of the given information in the contents I link to. I further find it important to note, that by linking to the given information, this does not mean that I consent with that information. The point made here (arguably in a provoking way - but with the sole aim to encourage dialog, where dialog is an essential property of a democratic society) , is merely that I object to engage in any acts of violence in my (or anyone's) name, if the facts at hand (or lack thereof) do not conclusively support a change for the better for me or others - which by all means explicitly include every American in this case. In no way do I intend to undermine any country - here in particular the USA. In my view, the answers to any questions I may raise as a result of this writing (whatever these answers that I don't know may be) can only serve to strengthen a country that believes in Freedom and Liberty, and I consider the USA to be such a country. 3. This is actually not a proof of the thesis yet, as tolerance to the level of defying self-defense for one-self is still quite thinkable - the story of Jesus Christ would actually be be a good example, but I really don't intend to give this a religious touch. I chose the example of self-defense vs. tolerance merely to find a strong enough point without getting too hypothetical. I maintain the notion of inevitable conflict in life given more than one individual. 4. But it gets quite interesting if we have to assume that - in order to avoid inherent conflict - we have to denounce our moral obligation we commit to ourselves. Practically, this would end up in not being able to maintain any moral obligations for anyone for a conflict-free life. I'm not sure whether I'd like that idea, given that we do live a life with others and not isolated for ourselves - usually. 5. Well, I will maintain my individual right for freedom of speech here and there when I call companies like Microsoft (or the alike ;-) evil, but in principle, this is wrong (yet another conflict - bummer) . 6. I have arguably only demonstrated my own confusions here, but I will gladly take on anyone else, who claims that he or she is free of their own conflicts, and consequently confusions. Essentially, I find even terms like 'peace' and 'tolerance' contradicting - once applied to more than just yourself. 7. Not referring to the possibility of this humble verbiage here to ever gain significance, but the frightening thought that I may extend this rambling at some point in the future.
| |||||||
|
© Holger Antelmann 1997-2005
|
