“The Philosophy of Non-Violence: Adoption of a Doctrine of Peace - Huffingtonpost.com” plus 1 more |
| The Philosophy of Non-Violence: Adoption of a Doctrine of Peace - Huffingtonpost.com Posted: 18 Jan 2011 02:42 PM PST Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge,aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. At the time of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, it's appropriate to examine his theme of non-violence in the context of today's world. Non-violence was a major proponent of his message to America. King called it a philosophy a principle that needs to be taught. He even offered classes in non-violence for his potential marches. The idea of non-violence as a principle that needs to be taught is an interesting concept. In other words, non-violence is not intuitive to our human nature. Therefore maybe here in America we need some classes. Maybe we need to be taught the principles of non-violence? Maybe that is what is wrong here? Because something is desperately wrong. In our country, violence is an epidemic. We hear about the violent shootings of masses of people, like the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona, and everyone seems upset for a moment and then that is it; it's back to business as usual. Even momentary talk of gun control, of helping the mentally ill; but soon enough it's forgotten. Most epidemics require an immediate response. At the even mention of a flu epidemic or a virus epidemic, the top specialists are called into action. Money is spent on research, vaccines are created; and general panic takes over in our efforts to curb the epidemic. In this epidemic of violence however, we are silent; and tacitly condoning. The Bureau of Statics show that although the amount of violent crimes has decreased somewhat since King's day, it is still astronomical, and worse, the statistics which show that 60 percent of the crimes committed are committed with fire arms. This is clearly evidence of an epidemic. Using my previous analogy, if this were a flu epidemic of sickness in which 60 percent of the sickness was caused by a flu, the country would be in a state of alarm and panic. But we are not. It is almost as if we have been brainwashed. Brainwashed by the NRA, (National Rifle Association) and by our unnatural enraptured love with the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the right to bear arms. Here are more statistics evidencing the extent of the effects of gun violence: Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms. But even in light of these statistics, the reticence to do something about the guns which cause our epidemic illness is astounding. The recent slaughter in Tucson, which caused a Congresswoman of the United States to be shot in the head; and the death of a nine year old child is not enough to makes us even take a second look at the epidemic of violence. So maybe we do need training as King said. Maybe we do need classes. Maybe we classes in public debate that does not require the use of violent metaphors or vitriolic language. Maybe we need classes in talking to one another. Maybe we need classes in the 2nd Amendment it's history and purpose? Maybe we need all of these classes to adopt the philosophy of non-violence espoused by Dr. King. Maybe a series of town hall meetings on fighting the epidemic of violence which were both educational and thoughtful. Perhaps, on line computer training on the philosophy of non-violence; or a news series featuring the MSM, main stream media for educational purposes. We can likely come up with creative ways of implementation of teaching non-violence; the question is though, what will be the catalyst to make this a reality?
This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Times Writers Group: 'Me Philosophy' goes against human nature - St. Cloud Times Posted: 18 Jan 2011 01:38 PM PST It is difficult to write a piece that does not reference the horror of the shootings in Arizona, the disrespect shown people who commented on the violent rhetoric common in our social environment, and a few attempts to turn us away from blame and backbiting, redirecting us to civility and respect. The tragic events in Arizona and the vicious verbal attacks that ensued pointing fingers of blame are all-too-common aspects of the dominance of the "Me Philosophy," which has gripped our society for more than 40 years. Referred to by some as "Post Modernity" or "Post Modernism," the "Me Philosophy" centers on the individual who makes a decision as to what is truth and what is best for oneself before and at times to the exclusion of what is best for others. 'Me Philosophy' I recently had the opportunity to read "Faith in a Secular Age," a work in progress by the Rev. Tony Oelrich. It is quite a remarkable piece focusing on "faith in Someone not something" and demonstrating the difficulty for a person living in the Western world where the individual reigns supreme to truly recognize the authority of a supreme being through faith. If the individual reigns supreme and is the final arbiter of truth, there is little room for faith. There is little room for recognition of a higher authority. In pursuit of the "Me Philosophy," if the individual is the final arbiter of truth, society is secondary and conflicts of opinion of what is truth are resolved by the individual without the benefit of a higher authority. In action it is apparent, I believe, that we are social creatures. Social creatures require relationships. Through relationships with others we come to know others. If the relationship is meaningful, the knowledge must be more than superficial. In building relationships with others, I have found it necessary and best to respect the other person. That requires an openness to a difference of opinion and attempting to locate common ground, upon which a foundation for the relationship can be built. (2 of 2) In like fashion, in the building of a successful relationship, there must be a willingness to expose oneself to the other person. Failure to expose oneself to the other person or failure to respect the uniqueness of the other person may well prove fatal to a successful relationship. However taking the risk of being vulnerable in exposing one's being to another and respecting the other person's personal characteristics allows us to truly know the truth about each other in the development of a meaningful relationship. In that process, trust can develop and interdependence can occur. There is little place for the rigid protection of the individual in the successful construction of a meaningful relationship. Rigid adherence to the "Me Philosophy," where the individual reigns supreme and is the only arbiter of truth, impedes the successful development of relationships. It therefore seems that if by nature we are social creatures, Post Modernism is at odds with or contradictory to our very nature. I do not believe that Post Modernism and the dominance and self-reliance on the individual is totally without merit. To question truth and to question what we believe as well as developing strength in self-reliance has great value. To elevate the focus on the individual to the exclusion of a higher authority however seems to dictate folly. Being 'porous' Oelrich's writing refers to Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age," which states "the porous person is open to forces and influences outside himself and has interdependent relationships with others, the world and God. The buffered person is self contained, in control of what influences him, and is largely isolated from external realities." He describes current human experience as buffered, focusing on the "internal and immediate explanation … (coming from) within the person's own experience and not something outside." It is the "porous person" who is capable of successful relationship-building, being open to the other and interdependent with others. It is the "buffered person" who, in his self-reliance, isolates himself and renders himself incapable of successful relationship building with others. We do not stand alone. We do not survive alone. We live in an interdependent relationship with others. That is our reality. The greatest value in life is to be of service to others. All major religious beliefs focus on the value of service. Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford's aide who denied his action as heroic aptly demonstrates the conduct of a porous person, not a buffered man. This is the opinion of Peter Donohue, who has been involved in the arts in Central Minnesota for more than 35 years. His column is published the third Tuesday of the month. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Philosophy - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment